|
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. |
Russian Federation610 Posts
On January 18 2023 00:29 warding wrote:
Looking at the long term, cash from oil and gas contributed 45% of the Russian government budget in 2021.
In Jan 2022 they sold at a price of 86 USD/bbl. Today they are selling at $52 USD/bbl. Breakeven price is between 30-40 USD/bbl, so their margins on oil have decreased nearly 70%. Revenue fall from approx. 4.5B to 1.5B USD per month. Meanwhile, natural gas exports have fallen off a cliff.
I don't see how they plan to sustain this for very long.
Quote from a similar discussion couple of months ago on one Russian forum from former Russian Federal Tax Service employee (with ruble numbers transfered to USD)
"Everyone who tries to count Russian income from oil and gas and tries to make prediction of its future either bright or dark should count in these factors.
1. Around 90% of oil-gas income goes into federal budget (tax on mining of fossils and minerals, export tariffs, excises). Only income tax is divided between federal and regional budget, and only tax on property of oil-gas companies goes into the regional ones.
2. So if we count in only federal budget - then yeah, since projected income from oil and gas in 2022 is around 135 billion USD if we go with 70 RUB per USD, and overall federal budget is around 360 billion USD, we get oil-gas revenues around 38% in overall revenue structure of the budget (it could be 2-3% more or less since numbers are a bit rough estimations)
3. But if we remember that in Russia the needs of the people overall are supported by consolidated budget of Russian Federation (which includes not only federal budgets, but the budgets of regions and municipalities (cities and villages)), which is estimated to be around 750 billion USD, plus the bunch of state non-budgetary funds, which are not a part of said consolidated budget, and whose revenue is estimated to be around 220 billion USD, then we'll get a much more different picture.
So, depending on the actual monetary result for the year we arrive at figure of oil-gas revenues similar to the part of oil-gas sector in Russian GDP, which is around 15-20%, give or take. Which is quite big, but much less, than in Gulf monarchies and even somewhat less than in Norway".
|
On January 18 2023 06:03 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2023 22:08 Magic Powers wrote:
You can't just "fall back". If you do that, you get hunted down and that means surrendering even more territory. How far back can you retreat until you run out of space - or worse, invite further offensives? Why retreat at all then? It must be more advantageous to you to surrender territory than it is for the enemy to claim it, otherwise you're just surrendering it for an insufficient reason.
Bakhmut is clearly one of the best positions to hold, as can be proven by the miniscule advances Russia has made in that region and the relative value of the region. It's a very important region to hold. Ukraine was forced to retreat from other positions in far worse scenarios.
Basically what you're saying is effectively the same as advising Ukraine to surrender and lay down their arms entirely. It makes no sense. But you can just fall back. The Russians pulled 20k troops and the vast majority of their combat equipment across the Dnieper after Kiev forces had destroyed key bridges and supply routes to Herson. The whole time they were under intense intelligence surveillance by NATO and Ukraine. Yet the Russians managed to repair damaged bridges while under fire, throw up pontoon bridges, and employ ferries to get their people and equipment out. Much harder to do than what I proposed above.Yes, they could have held onto Herson ad-infinitum but at what cost? With the manpower deficits at the other fronts it was never going to be worth it so they took the propaganda L and are now in a much better position and a lot of lives were saved in the long run. Being sensible and looking after your own people is paramount. I'm sure there is a Sun Tsu quote somewhere about losing a battle to win a war. Show nested quote +On January 17 2023 23:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Makes me wonder how many Serbs have died in Ukraine, especially if Serbia has to say this publicly. Remember Serbia is busy trying to provoke NATO/Kosovo at the same time.... Not that many died to be honest. I follow our military news Telegram channels and they usually have a write up when one of our citizens is killed. There were many many more Serbs fighting in 2014 during the start of the civil war than were there on Feb. 14th. A lot of reasons for that but the Russian army proper only recently let foreign volunteers in, and I think they are there more for propaganda and moral boosting purposes. At least from what I've seen/read most of the Serbs there are not on the front line. We had two or three of our skinhead neo-nazis die fighting for pro-Ukranian groups in the past few months and these ones are much more publicized though there are obviously much less of them. Wagner is a much different story, there have been Serbs in Wagner since it was founded. The 3000 - 15000USD paycheck is very, very tempting. The ideologs don't go to Wagner where you fight in anonymity. Apparently some US officials started being 'worried' about Wagner supposedly being invited to Serbia to open bases or something, which is pants-on-head stupid to even say out load. So our president feels the need to push out a statement like this to bring balance to the force and pray the Eye of Sauron doesn't turn towards us. I am the last person that will defend Vucic, the guy is a 'democratic' dictator and his entire party are a cult and stole the last few elections. We have absolutely nothing to gain from provoking anyone with the situation we are in and our foreign diplomacy in the last year has basically been trying (and failing) to stay out of the view of the people you don't want to be in the view of... and apparently we are more neutral than Switzerland now. Show nested quote +On January 17 2023 22:10 Gorsameth wrote:On January 17 2023 22:00 zeo wrote:On January 17 2023 20:11 Magic Powers wrote:On January 17 2023 17:09 zeo wrote:On January 17 2023 05:02 Erasme wrote:On January 17 2023 02:35 plasmidghost wrote:
Am I right in being concerned about the advances Russia keeps making? It keeps looking like despite immense losses, it's not stopping them from advancing and I don't know when or if it'll stop at this rate
They went from "Taking Kiev will be a glorious victory" to "Taking some village with 10k inhabitants is a glorious victory"... What was the population of Verdun in 1914? Months of reports comming out of the Bahmut/Soledar from pro-Kiev sources of up to 400 casualties a day obviously had merit in showing the true state at the front line. Months of being at a 7 to 1 disadvantage in heavy artillery is the reason why Soledar fell and Bahmut is on the brink of encirclement even though Kiev controlled forces had a 3 to 2 advantage in commited manpower to the area. What was the point of throwing away so many men holding onto cities of so-so strategic value? If we know only 3% of casualties in the conflict are from small arms close combat with the vast majority being from artillery was it really worth it to commit so many men to the defence at such a disatvantage? 20-25k casualties just in Soledar, which comes to around 6k dead (over the many months its been contested). Bahmut is stages worse and not yet over. It was never about taking a 10k town or even a square meter of land. It was about destroying as much of the Ukranian military as possible before the next offensive. How much the Kiev government can replase these losses with the 8th wave of mobilisation going on remains to be seen. Though that will be easier to replace than armor. You can't half-way a defense against such fierce attacks by a formidable enemy, either commit to it or you don't. Bakhmut is a very important region, although not the most important in Ukraine, still important enough to require a strong defense. Not committing more troops to it would've meant surrendering it. Yes, Bahmut was important as a second line of defence. But when they lost defensive positions on their flanks and were forced into a funnel like sitting ducks it should have been time to fall back to favorable positions. If their general staff knew it would be impossible to retake those key heights around the city because they were out heavy-gunned 7:1 then it borders on criminal to push even more troops to die in a lost city. Over 500 left to die inside Soledar, every day Wagner posts new piles of dead bodies from inside the town. Having 1k casualties and pulling out to better defencive positions with heavy weapons intact is better than having 25k casualties and pulling a broken army to better defencive positions when you are totally outgunned. And Bahmut has many more troops than Soledar ever did. Seversk is now in a very bad position without Soledar, its irrational to throw more troops in to defend those flanks and risk all those soldiers being encircled. Conscripts are not disposable, they have families and loved ones that will ask questions about why their husband/brother/father was sacrificed for a lost position so a politician could boast about 'not one step back' You keep throwing out Ukrainian casualty numbers who's only source as far as I can tell is Wagner itself. We have absolutely no reason to assume they are even remotely accurate and are in fact much much much more likely to be completely and utterly fake then even remotely in the correct ballpark. Your whole argument about Ukraine wasting lives seems to be based on a lie to begin with If you think anyone in Ukraine is going to risk going to jail by actually doing reporting... eh. Look what happened to Arestovich, and he was in the inner circle. Video evidence is all over Telegram and I'm not going to post piles of dead bodies here, a small scroll and you will find all of it. Again, the numbers coming out of Soledar are certainly not going to be confirmed by Kiev until after all of this is over... but whats interesting is that in this case Wagner seems to have just given one chance to the surrounded troops to surrender and then killed everyone that didn't give up immediately, no long drawn out negotiations like Mariupol. Also, no foreigner prisoners shown even though there were confirmed to be in Soledar before it was closed, because its been shown to be more humiliating to hand them back than keep them as evidence that foreigners are fighting for the Kiev government.
Russia lost a whole lot of equipment as well as manpower when they withdrew from Kharkiv and Kherson. Immediately after the Kherson offensive war analysts started talking about a potential future disaster if Ukrainian forces were to capture more territory in the North of Zaporizhzhia and point their missiles towards supply lines further back. The Russian generals knew this of course. This dilemma has now forced the Russian forces to build many additional defense lines there (we haven't been hearing much about it, but there's a whole lot of shelling going on in Zaporizhzhia), which presumably is part of the reason why so much Russian mobilization has been happening. They would've much preferred if they could've instead sat it out North of the Dnipro, but that would've been an even worse option. Their retreat came at a huge cost, but in that case it was necessary because the cost of holding out would've been even greater, as became obvious when Ukraine was beginning to encircle them. That's the moment the Russian forces pulled out, and no sooner than that.
That is not at all the same situation for Ukraine in Bakhmut. The potential cost of a retreat is as great or possibly much greater than that of holding out, because there's really not much to retreat towards that would be any better than Bakhmut. You have to get into a less unfavorable position after you retreat, otherwise it makes no sense to do so. The Ukrainian forces don't have such a position anywhere nearby. But also, the Russian forces are not currently threatening a major encirclement. The situation right now has been the same situation for many months.
|
Oh to be a fly on the wall during that call.
|
On January 18 2023 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Oh to be a fly on the wall during that call. Is this particular call that important? I'd guess there's at least a dozen of people behind each of these guys who calculates everything and make decisions, and these two are more like facades for these unseen dozens of experts.
I might be wrong but I can't imagine anything groundbreaking being discussed during such calls.
More like official statements, "we're working together".
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
|
On January 18 2023 17:20 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2023 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Oh to be a fly on the wall during that call. Is this particular call that important? I'd guess there's at least a dozen of people behind each of these guys who calculates everything and make decisions, and these two are more like facades for these unseen dozens of experts. I might be wrong but I can't imagine anything groundbreaking being discussed during such calls. More like official statements, "we're working together".
It could have been a rather important call. There's a meeting on friday at the US airbase in Rammstein of exacly those people, the decision makers headed by Scholz with US/NATO counterparts/military. If there's a decision for sending Leopards it might be finalised then and there, maybe it happened already. Let's be real, we won't send anything without the US giving their ok.
I'm optimistic for an announcement on the weekend about the tanks, the new minister coming in with a bang.
Edited+ Head of the SPD, Klingbeil said yesterday evening, a "major signal of support" will get sent after that meeting.
|
But Russia has already stated they at war with NATO in Ukraine... so his point make no sense.
|
Nato weapons have been killing Russians in Ukraine for like 11 months now. Adding another weapon to the list isn't going to change anything in the calculus.
|
I think Scholz is entirely driven by popular opinion, there's really no other explanation that I can see. It was the explanation for his behavior from the start, and it still seems to be true today. Polls suggest that there's no clear majority of Germans in support of sending Leopard 2 tanks. Make it a majority and Scholz will do a 180 real fast. The man must be lying.
|
On January 19 2023 02:58 Magic Powers wrote:
I think Scholz is entirely driven by popular opinion, there's really no other explanation that I can see. It was the explanation for his behavior from the start, and it still seems to be true today. Polls suggest that there's no clear majority of Germans in support of sending Leopard 2 tanks. Make it a majority and Scholz will do a 180 real fast. The man must be lying.
When it comes to delivering german tanks, as in germany directly delivering some, there are some very practical reasons: We can't without compromising the already problematic capabilities of the Bundeswehr. There was an interview recently with the head of Rheinmetall, where it was revealed that the industry can't supply them either. They got 22 Leopard 2 and 88 Leopard 1 tanks - which need around a year before they can be put into a state that is useable. Once again, just like with previous weapon systems, it turned out the industry was lying when claiming they could deliver weapons immediately or in a timely fashion.
It is true that he might bow down to public pressure, like with the PzH2000, but that does not change the fact that the Bundeswehr can't really afford to hand these over, just with the PzH. So in my opinion, it is wrong to claim that there is no reason for germany not to send tanks. You can disagree with those reasons, but that is purely a matter of opinion.
I have not found any proof that germany is blocking deliveries of leopard tanks by other nations, which would be a lot harder to justify. So far it seems like everyone is keen on claiming they would want to deliver, but not actually following through, though you can't rule out that they already asked unofficially and were told that it won't happen, so they don't even ask as to not stir up trouble.
EDIT: to clarify what "comprimising" the Bundeswehr capabilities means: This does not just mean its combat abilities, but also it ability to train its members, which is a continuous process and where the biggest danger lies as it erodes capabilities on a larger scale. Coming back to the PzH, there have been multiple former militaries that have more or less cautiously pointed out that this move might have serious consequences for the training of the artillery troops.
|
Stopping Russia right now in Ukraine seems far more important than keeping a few dozen battle tanks in Germany for training purposes. German tank production should have ramped up months ago to replace donated ones and training can restart in time. It should be apparent to everyone that Germany is not on the list of valid targets for any country on the planet, battle tanks or not. And those tanks are certainly not more useful in a potential conflict elsewhere in the world than in the real conflict in Ukraine right now.
tl;dr I'm not buying it. If Scholz isn't sending battle tanks, it can only be because the tanks themselves are in terrible shape, otherwise he's just appealing to public opinion.
Edit: I found this article from two days ago confirming that the battle tanks literally cannot be sent anytime soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/german-battle-tanks-for-ukraine-wont-be-ready-until-2024?ref=upstract.com
"Rheinmetall, which manufactures the battle vehicle’s gun, has 22 Leopard 2 and 88 older Leopard 1 tanks in its stocks. Getting the Leopard tanks ready for battle, however, would take several months and cost hundreds of millions of euros the company could not put up until the order was confirmed, Papperger said.
“The vehicles must be completely dismantled and rebuilt,” he added."
Scholz is lying then. Ok, maybe he believes he has a good enough reason to lie, but he's lying. If he were honest, he'd admit that it's not possible until a later date. That would then allow for a quicker repair job and transfer because all the relevant parties would be fully in the know of the plan.
|
Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description?
BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia.
Source
|
Can we start with a proper source of what he said first?
A jumbled tweet by the Kyiv Independent might be a bad starting point for another outrage wave.
At least what I have seen/read was that Scholz did actually ignore the Leopard topic entirely today, completely dodging any questions e.g. by generally talking about the "big contributions by Germany". And with the Friday Ramstein meetings coming up, those non-statements would fit his usual approach, regardless of what is planned there.
So if he supposedly openly refused those deliveries today, with the claimed reasoning above, I would really like to see it.
|
On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? Show nested quote +BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source
The Bradley was matched with the Marder... It's really not that hard to understand.
Btw: posting paywalled articles is semicool.
|
On January 19 2023 04:24 Magic Powers wrote:Stopping Russia right now in Ukraine seems far more important than keeping a few dozen battle tanks in Germany for training purposes. German tank production should have ramped up months ago to replace donated ones and training can restart in time. It should be apparent to everyone that Germany is not on the list of valid targets for any country on the planet, battle tanks or not. And those tanks are certainly not more useful in a potential conflict elsewhere in the world than in the real conflict in Ukraine right now. tl;dr I'm not buying it. If Scholz isn't sending battle tanks, it can only be because the tanks themselves are in terrible shape, otherwise he's just appealing to public opinion. Edit: I found this article from two days ago confirming that the battle tanks literally cannot be sent anytime soon. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/german-battle-tanks-for-ukraine-wont-be-ready-until-2024?ref=upstract.com"Rheinmetall, which manufactures the battle vehicle’s gun, has 22 Leopard 2 and 88 older Leopard 1 tanks in its stocks. Getting the Leopard tanks ready for battle, however, would take several months and cost hundreds of millions of euros the company could not put up until the order was confirmed, Papperger said. “The vehicles must be completely dismantled and rebuilt,” he added." Scholz is lying then. Ok, maybe he believes he has a good enough reason to lie, but he's lying. If he were honest, he'd admit that it's not possible until a later date. That would then allow for a quicker repair job and transfer because all the relevant parties would be fully in the know of the plan.
Should haves don't change the reality we are in right now, and definitely does not change the financial reality the Bundeswehr is living in. You can still be mad at Scholz if you want because you think he is not allowing tanks purely because of public reasons, but that once again does not change the fact that there are also factual reasons. I also seem to have not been clear enough when talking about compromising the Bundeswehr abilities. It is not just about the capability to fight in the near future, but about maintaining the required skills and training level, as you can't keep up the required exercise and training levels without enough useable equipment, which can deteriorate fighting force long term - which is very likely given the political and financial reality the Bundeswehr has to work in where any chance of replacement of equipment is slim to none. The extra budget that was supposed to help restore the Bundeswehr already was not enough to get it where its supposed to be, and continues to get smaller effectively (like expenditures that were already pretty much signed off on are now supposed to be funded from that pot, meaning it is being used on what was supposed to be regular expenditure).
I also like how this thread loves to flip flop between russia can't even compete with a fraction of nato's power and "russia needs to be stopped in ukraine"... This is not about protecting any nato state from russia, nato does that. Ukraine does not deserve support for our safety, but for their own. Otherwise we might as well stop as soon as russia is sufficiently set back and let the conspiracy people be right about this being about making russia bleed rather than helping ukraine...
As to your conspiracy theory: Of course Bundeswehr has tanks that work, just not enough to have any to spare, or to have all its units be able to take part in joint exercises without having to borrow from other units  .
I am also a little bit confused why you respond to my post with exactly what I was saying about the industry. What is Scholz supposed to have lied about in regards to the tanks from industry?
On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? Show nested quote +BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source
That depends entirely on the language and probably military definition of a countries perspective. German is a bit tricky here because we call IFVs 'Schützenpanzer' which has tank in the name. They do not have tank characteristics when it comes to protection though, and are not considered such in anything but common language. Bradley is an IFV in the eyes of the US, so there you have your answer. US and german military do not consider these tanks in the military sense of the word afaik.
|
On January 19 2023 04:49 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source The Bradley was matched with the Marder... It's really not that hard to understand. Btw: posting paywalled articles is semicool.
If you mean in terms of delivery, then yeah. I get the feeling that the french solo push was not much of a solo action and that there was at least some signalling to the other nations as everyone was very quick with following up with promises. Or they all had contingency plans for this, which I would find a bit strange / stupid / sad. Not sure what to exactly call it if everyone had a "oh we can deliver these to safe face if another nation steps up first" plan as backup...
In terms of capability, the Bradley is above marder in terms of protection and capabilities afaik, still very much short of being called a tank though.
The article is quoted below. Official position seems to be that nobody has official asked so far, so as I have said above, that does not rule out signalling germany won't allow it being enough to prevent requests.
+ Show Spoiler +BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American-made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of significant numbers of modern, Western-made tanks—something the U.S. and Ukraine’s European allies have long resisted—would mark a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has long been concerned that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday that Germany was “strategically interlocked” with friends and partners when it came to making decisions on how to support Ukraine, including with tanks.
Key supporters of Ukraine from 50 nations, known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, plan to meet at the U.S.’s Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday to agree on a substantial new package of military aid to Kyiv.
Diplomats from several NATO countries said that the issue of sending Leopards—including Germany’s approval for third-country exports to Ukraine—would be one of the key topics at the meeting.
Mr. Scholz’s government hasn’t received any such requests, several officials said, but when it does, it said it would respond swiftly. The interagency process of approval could take anything from a few days to a few weeks, officials said
Some European diplomats had hoped that Germany would signal at the Friday meeting that it would permit allies to send German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine. However a senior European official said that Germany was unlikely to make a decision on Friday and that it would likely take longer.
There are two main types of German main battle tanks: Leopard 1, designed in the 1960s, and the much-improved model Leopard 2. Germany itself has only about 15 Leopard 2 tanks it could ship to Ukraine at a short notice, officials said.
Mr. Scholz’s government is divided on the issue: his coalition partners, the Green Party and the Free Democrats favor sending tanks to Ukraine, while many in the chancellor’s left-leaning Social Democrats—including himself—have long been reluctant, especially as long as the U.S. refuses to send its own Abrams tanks.
In April, Mr. Scholz suggested sending any Western tanks to Ukraine would increase the risk of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia.
His concerns have since subsided, two aides said, also because a broad, global group of countries including allies to President Vladimir Putin such as Xi Jinping of China, condemned the threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Yet Mr. Scholz remains cautious. Asked on Wednsday why he was hesitating to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv on Wednesday, Mr. Scholz told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he was concerned about the Ukraine conflict becoming a global conflagration.
“The Ukrainians can rely on our support in their courageous fight but it is also clear that we want to avoid this becoming a war between Russia and NATO,” Mr. Scholz said.
Write to Bojan Pancevski at bojan.pancevski@wsj.com https://www.wsj.com/articles/berlin-wont-allow-exports-of-german-tanks-to-ukraine-unless-u-s-sends-own-tanks-officials-say-11674069352
|
On January 19 2023 05:04 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 04:49 mahrgell wrote:On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source The Bradley was matched with the Marder... It's really not that hard to understand. Btw: posting paywalled articles is semicool. If you mean in terms of delivery, then yeah. I get the feeling that the french solo push was not much of a solo action and that there was at least some signalling to the other nations as everyone was very quick with following up with promises. Or they all had contingency plans for this, which I would find a bit strange / stupid / sad. Not sure what to exactly call it if everyone had a "oh we can deliver these to safe face if another nation steps up first" plan as backup... In terms of capability, the Bradley is above marder in terms of protection and capabilities afaik, still very much short of being called a tank though. The article is quoted below. Official position seems to be that nobody has official asked so far, so as I have said above, that does not rule out signalling germany won't allow it being enough to prevent requests. + Show Spoiler +BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American-made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of significant numbers of modern, Western-made tanks—something the U.S. and Ukraine’s European allies have long resisted—would mark a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has long been concerned that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday that Germany was “strategically interlocked” with friends and partners when it came to making decisions on how to support Ukraine, including with tanks.
Key supporters of Ukraine from 50 nations, known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, plan to meet at the U.S.’s Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday to agree on a substantial new package of military aid to Kyiv.
Diplomats from several NATO countries said that the issue of sending Leopards—including Germany’s approval for third-country exports to Ukraine—would be one of the key topics at the meeting.
Mr. Scholz’s government hasn’t received any such requests, several officials said, but when it does, it said it would respond swiftly. The interagency process of approval could take anything from a few days to a few weeks, officials said
Some European diplomats had hoped that Germany would signal at the Friday meeting that it would permit allies to send German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine. However a senior European official said that Germany was unlikely to make a decision on Friday and that it would likely take longer.
There are two main types of German main battle tanks: Leopard 1, designed in the 1960s, and the much-improved model Leopard 2. Germany itself has only about 15 Leopard 2 tanks it could ship to Ukraine at a short notice, officials said.
Mr. Scholz’s government is divided on the issue: his coalition partners, the Green Party and the Free Democrats favor sending tanks to Ukraine, while many in the chancellor’s left-leaning Social Democrats—including himself—have long been reluctant, especially as long as the U.S. refuses to send its own Abrams tanks.
In April, Mr. Scholz suggested sending any Western tanks to Ukraine would increase the risk of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia.
His concerns have since subsided, two aides said, also because a broad, global group of countries including allies to President Vladimir Putin such as Xi Jinping of China, condemned the threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Yet Mr. Scholz remains cautious. Asked on Wednsday why he was hesitating to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv on Wednesday, Mr. Scholz told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he was concerned about the Ukraine conflict becoming a global conflagration.
“The Ukrainians can rely on our support in their courageous fight but it is also clear that we want to avoid this becoming a war between Russia and NATO,” Mr. Scholz said.
Write to Bojan Pancevski at bojan.pancevski@wsj.com https://www.wsj.com/articles/berlin-wont-allow-exports-of-german-tanks-to-ukraine-unless-u-s-sends-own-tanks-officials-say-11674069352
The Bradley and Marder are basically exactly the same type of vehicle and were designed for same role: 35t IFVs intended to fight any Russian light tanks of that era (pre-BMP3). Just that Bradley is 10 years younger, which leads to its slightly superior characteristics. (25mm instead of 20mm gun, TOW instead of Milan, better networking)
So when there is this "matching deliveries" policy, then there is no point in somehow trying to connect the Leopard with the Bradley.
And regarding how it went down with the AMX10. Yes, this was certainly staged. Macron could play his favorite role of the breakthrough guy (completely ignoring the abysmal support of France so far), and Scholz coordinated his action with Biden so he could make this happen without anyone being able to claim that he broke his word. Suddenly Germany wasn't the first "to escalate" and delivered in tight coordination with the US. It was basically a win for everyone involved.
And from everything we see right now, I would expect a similar staged action to make more deliveries happen. I have no doubt that the Leos will come to Ukraine, it is just a matter of when.
|
On January 19 2023 04:49 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 04:24 Magic Powers wrote:Stopping Russia right now in Ukraine seems far more important than keeping a few dozen battle tanks in Germany for training purposes. German tank production should have ramped up months ago to replace donated ones and training can restart in time. It should be apparent to everyone that Germany is not on the list of valid targets for any country on the planet, battle tanks or not. And those tanks are certainly not more useful in a potential conflict elsewhere in the world than in the real conflict in Ukraine right now. tl;dr I'm not buying it. If Scholz isn't sending battle tanks, it can only be because the tanks themselves are in terrible shape, otherwise he's just appealing to public opinion. Edit: I found this article from two days ago confirming that the battle tanks literally cannot be sent anytime soon. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/german-battle-tanks-for-ukraine-wont-be-ready-until-2024?ref=upstract.com"Rheinmetall, which manufactures the battle vehicle’s gun, has 22 Leopard 2 and 88 older Leopard 1 tanks in its stocks. Getting the Leopard tanks ready for battle, however, would take several months and cost hundreds of millions of euros the company could not put up until the order was confirmed, Papperger said. “The vehicles must be completely dismantled and rebuilt,” he added." Scholz is lying then. Ok, maybe he believes he has a good enough reason to lie, but he's lying. If he were honest, he'd admit that it's not possible until a later date. That would then allow for a quicker repair job and transfer because all the relevant parties would be fully in the know of the plan. Should haves don't change the reality we are in right now, and definitely does not change the financial reality the Bundeswehr is living in. You can still be mad at Scholz if you want because you think he is not allowing tanks purely because of public reasons, but that once again does not change the fact that there are also factual reasons. I also seem to have not been clear enough when talking about compromising the Bundeswehr abilities. It is not just about the capability to fight in the near future, but about maintaining the required skills and training level, as you can't keep up the required exercise and training levels without enough useable equipment, which can deteriorate fighting force long term - which is very likely given the political and financial reality the Bundeswehr has to work in where any chance of replacement of equipment is slim to none. The extra budget that was supposed to help restore the Bundeswehr already was not enough to get it where its supposed to be, and continues to get smaller effectively (like expenditures that were already pretty much signed off on are now supposed to be funded from that pot, meaning it is being used on what was supposed to be regular expenditure). I also like how this thread loves to flip flop between russia can't even compete with a fraction of nato's power and "russia needs to be stopped in ukraine"... This is not about protecting any nato state from russia, nato does that. Ukraine does not deserve support for our safety, but for their own. Otherwise we might as well stop as soon as russia is sufficiently set back and let the conspiracy people be right about this being about making russia bleed rather than helping ukraine... As to your conspiracy theory: Of course Bundeswehr has tanks that work, just not enough to have any to spare, or to have all its units be able to take part in joint exercises without having to borrow from other units . I am also a little bit confused why you respond to my post with exactly what I was saying about the industry. What is Scholz supposed to have lied about in regards to the tanks from industry? Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source That depends entirely on the language and probably military definition of a countries perspective. German is a bit tricky here because we call IFVs 'Schützenpanzer' which has tank in the name. They do not have tank characteristics when it comes to protection though, and are not considered such in anything but common language. Bradley is an IFV in the eyes of the US, so there you have your answer. US and german military do not consider these tanks in the military sense of the word afaik.
Something's lost in translation I think. The tanks are in disrepair, they can't be used. That means not for training either. We weren't told that, and Scholz knew it. Scholz isn't thinking of the poor German army being unable to train its soldiers on good armored vehicles. They have no working battle tanks to begin with. They need to repair them, and they need to build new ones. This whole theater was Scholz being embarassed and not wanting to admit the truth.
This isn't the time to mince words, Ukraine needs full support and not a weasel like Scholz in the farthest corner of the room twiddling his thumbs. I've rarely been so disappointed in a politician before other than perhaps Trump.
|
On January 19 2023 05:35 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 04:49 Artesimo wrote:On January 19 2023 04:24 Magic Powers wrote:Stopping Russia right now in Ukraine seems far more important than keeping a few dozen battle tanks in Germany for training purposes. German tank production should have ramped up months ago to replace donated ones and training can restart in time. It should be apparent to everyone that Germany is not on the list of valid targets for any country on the planet, battle tanks or not. And those tanks are certainly not more useful in a potential conflict elsewhere in the world than in the real conflict in Ukraine right now. tl;dr I'm not buying it. If Scholz isn't sending battle tanks, it can only be because the tanks themselves are in terrible shape, otherwise he's just appealing to public opinion. Edit: I found this article from two days ago confirming that the battle tanks literally cannot be sent anytime soon. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/german-battle-tanks-for-ukraine-wont-be-ready-until-2024?ref=upstract.com"Rheinmetall, which manufactures the battle vehicle’s gun, has 22 Leopard 2 and 88 older Leopard 1 tanks in its stocks. Getting the Leopard tanks ready for battle, however, would take several months and cost hundreds of millions of euros the company could not put up until the order was confirmed, Papperger said. “The vehicles must be completely dismantled and rebuilt,” he added." Scholz is lying then. Ok, maybe he believes he has a good enough reason to lie, but he's lying. If he were honest, he'd admit that it's not possible until a later date. That would then allow for a quicker repair job and transfer because all the relevant parties would be fully in the know of the plan. Should haves don't change the reality we are in right now, and definitely does not change the financial reality the Bundeswehr is living in. You can still be mad at Scholz if you want because you think he is not allowing tanks purely because of public reasons, but that once again does not change the fact that there are also factual reasons. I also seem to have not been clear enough when talking about compromising the Bundeswehr abilities. It is not just about the capability to fight in the near future, but about maintaining the required skills and training level, as you can't keep up the required exercise and training levels without enough useable equipment, which can deteriorate fighting force long term - which is very likely given the political and financial reality the Bundeswehr has to work in where any chance of replacement of equipment is slim to none. The extra budget that was supposed to help restore the Bundeswehr already was not enough to get it where its supposed to be, and continues to get smaller effectively (like expenditures that were already pretty much signed off on are now supposed to be funded from that pot, meaning it is being used on what was supposed to be regular expenditure). I also like how this thread loves to flip flop between russia can't even compete with a fraction of nato's power and "russia needs to be stopped in ukraine"... This is not about protecting any nato state from russia, nato does that. Ukraine does not deserve support for our safety, but for their own. Otherwise we might as well stop as soon as russia is sufficiently set back and let the conspiracy people be right about this being about making russia bleed rather than helping ukraine... As to your conspiracy theory: Of course Bundeswehr has tanks that work, just not enough to have any to spare, or to have all its units be able to take part in joint exercises without having to borrow from other units . I am also a little bit confused why you respond to my post with exactly what I was saying about the industry. What is Scholz supposed to have lied about in regards to the tanks from industry? On January 19 2023 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well we now have reached the point of what a battle Tank can be considered. Do Bradley's fit that description? BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Several European governments have said they are ready to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, including Poland, Finland and Denmark, if they get approval from Berlin, though none has made a formal request. Britain has said it would send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, an older equivalent to the Leopard.
The export of modern, Western-made tanks, something the U.S. and Ukraine’s supporters in Europe have long resisted, marks a notable escalation in Western support for Kyiv. Berlin has been concerned for some time that such a step could drag the country into a direct confrontation with Russia. Source That depends entirely on the language and probably military definition of a countries perspective. German is a bit tricky here because we call IFVs 'Schützenpanzer' which has tank in the name. They do not have tank characteristics when it comes to protection though, and are not considered such in anything but common language. Bradley is an IFV in the eyes of the US, so there you have your answer. US and german military do not consider these tanks in the military sense of the word afaik. Something's lost in translation I think. The tanks are in disrepair, they can't be used. That means not for training either. We weren't told that, and Scholz knew it. Scholz isn't thinking of the poor German army being unable to train its soldiers on good armored vehicles. They have no working battle tanks to begin with. They need to repair them, and they need to build new ones. This whole theater was Scholz being embarassed and not wanting to admit the truth. This isn't the time to mince words, Ukraine needs full support and not a weasel like Scholz in the farthest corner of the room twiddling his thumbs. I've rarely been so disappointed in a politician before other than perhaps Trump.
Why be disappointed with Trump? Be disappointed with the US electorate and US electoral system, but Trump himself was exactly as awful as anybody should have expected.
Also, Scholz seems pretty par for the course. I don't think it's fair to single out Germany here when they apparently don't **have** tanks to send (same problem Spain had when they first said "we'll send tanks", but then they all turned out to be scrap metal). There's only two countries that said they'll actually send Leopard tanks, and if neither have asked German permission to actually do so, Scholz doesn't have much to do. I really doubt he'll block Poland or Finland sending tanks.
|
I do wonder at times how different Germanies support and attitude towards weapon support for Ukraine would have been under Merkel.
While she was blasted a lot for supporting Russia trade so heavily in the past, everyone was pro-Russian trade at the time. She always seemed more of a leader and figurehead then Scholz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
