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 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.
"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.
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.
The WSJ article says Germany won't allow allies to send so the criticism is justified imo. The UK is already sending tanks as well so the argument that this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia is bs.
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.
"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.
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'm criticizing Scholz, not Germany. I was also among the people to point out that the leadership in Germany isn't the only one that could do more for Ukraine. I pointed in particular to France/Macron. And I also pointed out that Germany was in fact doing its fair share relatively speaking, well at least at the time. This isn't about singling out Germany, it's about Scholz specifically being an obstructive burden to Ukraine's war efforts. Zelensky was always right about him, he knew what's up. Maybe he has a better bullshit detector than I do.
The US is now talking about sending even longer range missiles/missile systems to Ukraine. Not yet the longest range they have, but a fair bit of an upgrade. We'll see if this materializes.
On January 19 2023 06:13 RvB wrote: The WSJ article says Germany won't allow allies to send so the criticism is justified imo. The UK is already sending tanks as well so the argument that this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia is bs.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
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.
"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.
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.
german tanks running. So much for your theory that there aren't any working tanks in the bundeswehr. The tanks talked about that need 1 year of maintenance are the ones that are in possession of Rheinmetall. Not the ones that are in use by the Bundeswehr, or the ones that are owned by the Bundeswehr but currently undergoing maintenance at the manufacturer.
Though now I am even more confused... If I understand your theory correctly, the reluctance of germany to supply ukraine with tanks is because it is physically impossible. Sounds to me like germany is off the hook from your perspective. If the entire Bundeswehr is really in that bad of shape, then I don't think there would be a way to resolve that in a year, at least in peacetime(peacetime of the country that would have to implement the required changes. Legal frameworks do not care about a war going on that you are not part of)... So they can't deliver and there is no way that they could even if they wanted to 10months ago. As a reminder, Scholz is at the head of the current government, which is a coalition government that includes the FDP, a party that has some very strong stances on state finances. I trust you understand german, so it should be easy for you to look up some of the issues around the 20 million additional funds - which as been discussed before is not even enough to make up for the years of underfunding the Bundeswehr (which the SPD shares some blame for, but not Scholz directly). At the moment it seems to me that you somehow manage to vastly exaggerate the already poor condition of the Bundeswehr, but also criticise a single person for not fixing something that even without your exaggeration of the problem is not fixable in this timeframe... The Chancellor does not have these kind of powers, he can't just increase military spending because he wants to...
Another thought I had was you might be confusing the leopards with our recent Puma debacle? (Puma is an IFV, is not a tank, and I don't think was ever in serious consideration for delivery. It is true that it seems like a total catastrophe atm though). I also could be wrong here, but I don't remember an instance of the german government claiming that there are tanks ready for delivery in the industry. I have only seen industry statements that implied such, which at the time I believed and was very much in favour off. If you were criticising the german government for not going ahead and telling the industry to get those leopard 1 and 2 up and running 10month ago, I would be with you in so far that I would support the effort, though I would not criticise the german government much for not doing so as the war was in a much different state.
I am gonna be blunt here: At this point I think you are mostly just angry about the shitty situation and you want to point fingers because what you say makes less and less sense to me the more you elaborate. Or I am completely failing to follow your logic. Its really bizarre because Scholz/the german government has shown enough instances where you can criticise them, either for indecisiveness or poor execution(failing to make sure there will be enough spare parts for the delivered PzH2000 when they obviously would have to fire more shots than for the regular maintenance window) but instead we keep going back to the stupid tank thing and unrealistic could have/would haves. And now apparently also some wild theories that can be disproven by a quick google on exercises involving german tanks. I believe you understand german, so its even easier for you to figure out that we got at least some tanks in running condition(see the vid, there also was a Nato exercise last year that had 28 german leopard 2, even if that would have been the only ones that we got that are still running...).
On January 19 2023 06:13 RvB wrote: The WSJ article says Germany won't allow allies to send so the criticism is justified imo. The UK is already sending tanks as well so the argument that this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia is bs.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
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.
"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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hyW4AGASFE german tanks running. So much for your theory that there aren't any working tanks in the bundeswehr. The tanks talked about that need 1 year of maintenance are the ones that are in possession of Rheinmetall. Not the ones that are in use by the Bundeswehr, or the ones that are owned by the Bundeswehr but currently undergoing maintenance at the manufacturer.
Though now I am even more confused... If I understand your theory correctly, the reluctance of germany to supply ukraine with tanks is because it is physically impossible. Sounds to me like germany is off the hook from your perspective. If the entire Bundeswehr is really in that bad of shape, then I don't think there would be a way to resolve that in a year, at least in peacetime(peacetime of the country that would have to implement the required changes. Legal frameworks do not care about a war going on that you are not part of)... So they can't deliver and there is no way that they could even if they wanted to 10months ago. As a reminder, Scholz is at the head of the current government, which is a coalition government that includes the FDP, a party that has some very strong stances on state finances. I trust you understand german, so it should be easy for you to look up some of the issues around the 20 million additional funds - which as been discussed before is not even enough to make up for the years of underfunding the Bundeswehr (which the SPD shares some blame for, but not Scholz directly). At the moment it seems to me that you somehow manage to vastly exaggerate the already poor condition of the Bundeswehr, but also criticise a single person for not fixing something that even without your exaggeration of the problem is not fixable in this timeframe... The Chancellor does not have these kind of powers, he can't just increase military spending because he wants to...
Another thought I had was you might be confusing the leopards with our recent Puma debacle? (Puma is an IFV, is not a tank, and I don't think was ever in serious consideration for delivery. It is true that it seems like a total catastrophe atm though). I also could be wrong here, but I don't remember an instance of the german government claiming that there are tanks ready for delivery in the industry. I have only seen industry statements that implied such, which at the time I believed and was very much in favour off. If you were criticising the german government for not going ahead and telling the industry to get those leopard 1 and 2 up and running 10month ago, I would be with you in so far that I would support the effort, though I would not criticise the german government much for not doing so as the war was in a much different state.
I am gonna be blunt here: At this point I think you are mostly just angry about the shitty situation and you want to point fingers because what you say makes less and less sense to me the more you elaborate. Or I am completely failing to follow your logic. Its really bizarre because Scholz/the german government has shown enough instances where you can criticise them, either for indecisiveness or poor execution(failing to make sure there will be enough spare parts for the delivered PzH2000 when they obviously would have to fire more shots than for the regular maintenance window) but instead we keep going back to the stupid tank thing and unrealistic could have/would haves. And now apparently also some wild theories that can be disproven by a quick google on exercises involving german tanks. I believe you understand german, so its even easier for you to figure out that we got at least some tanks in running condition(see the vid, there also was a Nato exercise last year that had 28 german leopard 2, even if that would have been the only ones that we got that are still running...).
Again, something's lost in translation. If the tanks are not in disrepair, then Germany can and should send some of them. There's no reason not to. Of course this can take time, it doesn't have to happen immediately, but it should be done, and that needs to be planned in advance. Either way it doesn't matter. The tanks can either be sent or they cannot. In both cases Scholz is lying and obstructing German assistance to Ukraine.
Well, it's revealed something that was already suspected. Previous government was hard to form, it was a mixture of mutually exclusive parties, some pro-Moscow and some pro-west. The pro-Moscow ones didn't want Bulgaria to send any weapons to Ukraine. So what did the pro-west part of coalition do? They sold weapons to western allies (e.g. UK and US) which in return sold weapons to Ukraine. A bit covert, but it's private sector. If it pisses Russia off, then that's a bonus. :D
Bulgaria, one of the poorest EU members and long perceived as pro-Moscow, helped Ukraine survive Russia’s early onslaught by secretly supplying it with large amounts of desperately needed diesel and ammunition, the politicians responsible have said.
The former Bulgarian prime minister Kiril Petkov and finance minister Assen Vassilev said their country provided 30% of the Soviet-calibre ammunition Ukraine’s army needed during a crucial three-month period last spring, and at times 40% of the diesel.
The men, who are now in opposition, have described along with the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, the remarkable operation mounted by the small Balkan state, which officially was refusing all requests to arm Ukraine, in interviews with Die Welt.
“Kiril Petkov has shown his integrity, and I will always be grateful to him for using all his political skill to find a solution,” Kuleba told the German newspaper, adding that the Bulgarian leader “decided to be on the right side of history, and help us defend ourselves against a much stronger enemy”.
Petkov had to act covertly because of the overtly pro-Kremlin sympathies among many in Bulgaria’s political class, including his Socialist coalition partners. Days after Russia’s so-called special operation in Ukraine began on 24 February, he fired his defence minister, who was refusing to call the invasion an act of war. ...
On January 19 2023 06:13 RvB wrote: The WSJ article says Germany won't allow allies to send so the criticism is justified imo. The UK is already sending tanks as well so the argument that this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia is bs.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
On January 19 2023 05:35 Magic Powers wrote:
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.
"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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hyW4AGASFE german tanks running. So much for your theory that there aren't any working tanks in the bundeswehr. The tanks talked about that need 1 year of maintenance are the ones that are in possession of Rheinmetall. Not the ones that are in use by the Bundeswehr, or the ones that are owned by the Bundeswehr but currently undergoing maintenance at the manufacturer.
Though now I am even more confused... If I understand your theory correctly, the reluctance of germany to supply ukraine with tanks is because it is physically impossible. Sounds to me like germany is off the hook from your perspective. If the entire Bundeswehr is really in that bad of shape, then I don't think there would be a way to resolve that in a year, at least in peacetime(peacetime of the country that would have to implement the required changes. Legal frameworks do not care about a war going on that you are not part of)... So they can't deliver and there is no way that they could even if they wanted to 10months ago. As a reminder, Scholz is at the head of the current government, which is a coalition government that includes the FDP, a party that has some very strong stances on state finances. I trust you understand german, so it should be easy for you to look up some of the issues around the 20 million additional funds - which as been discussed before is not even enough to make up for the years of underfunding the Bundeswehr (which the SPD shares some blame for, but not Scholz directly). At the moment it seems to me that you somehow manage to vastly exaggerate the already poor condition of the Bundeswehr, but also criticise a single person for not fixing something that even without your exaggeration of the problem is not fixable in this timeframe... The Chancellor does not have these kind of powers, he can't just increase military spending because he wants to...
Another thought I had was you might be confusing the leopards with our recent Puma debacle? (Puma is an IFV, is not a tank, and I don't think was ever in serious consideration for delivery. It is true that it seems like a total catastrophe atm though). I also could be wrong here, but I don't remember an instance of the german government claiming that there are tanks ready for delivery in the industry. I have only seen industry statements that implied such, which at the time I believed and was very much in favour off. If you were criticising the german government for not going ahead and telling the industry to get those leopard 1 and 2 up and running 10month ago, I would be with you in so far that I would support the effort, though I would not criticise the german government much for not doing so as the war was in a much different state.
I am gonna be blunt here: At this point I think you are mostly just angry about the shitty situation and you want to point fingers because what you say makes less and less sense to me the more you elaborate. Or I am completely failing to follow your logic. Its really bizarre because Scholz/the german government has shown enough instances where you can criticise them, either for indecisiveness or poor execution(failing to make sure there will be enough spare parts for the delivered PzH2000 when they obviously would have to fire more shots than for the regular maintenance window) but instead we keep going back to the stupid tank thing and unrealistic could have/would haves. And now apparently also some wild theories that can be disproven by a quick google on exercises involving german tanks. I believe you understand german, so its even easier for you to figure out that we got at least some tanks in running condition(see the vid, there also was a Nato exercise last year that had 28 german leopard 2, even if that would have been the only ones that we got that are still running...).
Again, something's lost in translation. If the tanks are not in disrepair, then Germany can and should send some of them. There's no reason not to. Of course this can take time, it doesn't have to happen immediately, but it should be done, and that needs to be planned in advance. Either way it doesn't matter. The tanks can either be sent or they cannot. In both cases Scholz is lying and obstructing German assistance to Ukraine.
You're not getting the point, are you?
So if there are any working tanks in Germany, they must be sent to Ukraine, and if they are not sent there are either no working tanks or Scholz is evil...
Great point you have there. Now please apply to it all the other countries...
On January 19 2023 06:13 RvB wrote: The WSJ article says Germany won't allow allies to send so the criticism is justified imo. The UK is already sending tanks as well so the argument that this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia is bs.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
On January 19 2023 05:35 Magic Powers wrote:
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.
"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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hyW4AGASFE german tanks running. So much for your theory that there aren't any working tanks in the bundeswehr. The tanks talked about that need 1 year of maintenance are the ones that are in possession of Rheinmetall. Not the ones that are in use by the Bundeswehr, or the ones that are owned by the Bundeswehr but currently undergoing maintenance at the manufacturer.
Though now I am even more confused... If I understand your theory correctly, the reluctance of germany to supply ukraine with tanks is because it is physically impossible. Sounds to me like germany is off the hook from your perspective. If the entire Bundeswehr is really in that bad of shape, then I don't think there would be a way to resolve that in a year, at least in peacetime(peacetime of the country that would have to implement the required changes. Legal frameworks do not care about a war going on that you are not part of)... So they can't deliver and there is no way that they could even if they wanted to 10months ago. As a reminder, Scholz is at the head of the current government, which is a coalition government that includes the FDP, a party that has some very strong stances on state finances. I trust you understand german, so it should be easy for you to look up some of the issues around the 20 million additional funds - which as been discussed before is not even enough to make up for the years of underfunding the Bundeswehr (which the SPD shares some blame for, but not Scholz directly). At the moment it seems to me that you somehow manage to vastly exaggerate the already poor condition of the Bundeswehr, but also criticise a single person for not fixing something that even without your exaggeration of the problem is not fixable in this timeframe... The Chancellor does not have these kind of powers, he can't just increase military spending because he wants to...
Another thought I had was you might be confusing the leopards with our recent Puma debacle? (Puma is an IFV, is not a tank, and I don't think was ever in serious consideration for delivery. It is true that it seems like a total catastrophe atm though). I also could be wrong here, but I don't remember an instance of the german government claiming that there are tanks ready for delivery in the industry. I have only seen industry statements that implied such, which at the time I believed and was very much in favour off. If you were criticising the german government for not going ahead and telling the industry to get those leopard 1 and 2 up and running 10month ago, I would be with you in so far that I would support the effort, though I would not criticise the german government much for not doing so as the war was in a much different state.
I am gonna be blunt here: At this point I think you are mostly just angry about the shitty situation and you want to point fingers because what you say makes less and less sense to me the more you elaborate. Or I am completely failing to follow your logic. Its really bizarre because Scholz/the german government has shown enough instances where you can criticise them, either for indecisiveness or poor execution(failing to make sure there will be enough spare parts for the delivered PzH2000 when they obviously would have to fire more shots than for the regular maintenance window) but instead we keep going back to the stupid tank thing and unrealistic could have/would haves. And now apparently also some wild theories that can be disproven by a quick google on exercises involving german tanks. I believe you understand german, so its even easier for you to figure out that we got at least some tanks in running condition(see the vid, there also was a Nato exercise last year that had 28 german leopard 2, even if that would have been the only ones that we got that are still running...).
Again, something's lost in translation. If the tanks are not in disrepair, then Germany can and should send some of them. There's no reason not to. Of course this can take time, it doesn't have to happen immediately, but it should be done, and that needs to be planned in advance. Either way it doesn't matter. The tanks can either be sent or they cannot. In both cases Scholz is lying and obstructing German assistance to Ukraine.
You're not getting the point, are you?
So if there are any working tanks in Germany, they must be sent to Ukraine, and if they are not sent there are either no working tanks or Scholz is evil...
Great point you have there. Now please apply to it all the other countries...
I'm relying on articles from official news sources like The Guardian. If they're wrong, please feel free to show us your insights.
Yes, we should apply the same point to all the other countries, too. Did you think I'm focusing only on Scholz? I've critized Macron as well, and also my fellow countrymen for being undecided on how much support Austria should send to Ukraine. Is Scholz evil or is he just thinking too much about his own career? I don't know, and I don't care.
Canada is donating 200 Canadian-made armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine, Defence Minister Anita Anand announced on Wednesday while visiting Kyiv, Ukraine.
"Today, I am glad to confirm our next package of military aid," Anand said while sitting alongside Ukraine's Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov.
"The vehicles offer state-of-the-art, best-in-class technology and weapons can easily be mounted on them," she said. "These vehicles also allow for the safe transportation of personnel and equipment."
Anand said the Senator APCs are being purchased from Roshel, a Canadian company based in Mississauga, Ont., at a cost of $90 million.
In May of last year, Canada delivered eight commercial pattern armoured vehicles and Senator APCs purchased from Roshel to Ukraine.
"I have heard repeatedly that Ukrainian troops appreciate their manoeuverability and their adaptability," Anand said.
"They are equipped with smart tech and that helps soldiers to detect threats early. The armour will also help shield troops when they're unable to avoid danger."
Last week, Canada announced it would spend $406 million to purchase a National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System from the United States to donate to Ukraine. Wednesday's armoured vehicle announcement combined with the promised air defences make up the $500 million in military aid Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in the fall.
Reznikov said the combined military aid package will be crucial in helping defend soldiers and civilians in his war-torn country.
"I would like to express the biggest gratitude to the people of Canada, to the government of Canada and directly Ms. Anand because this package of assistance, which was already proclaimed, it is extremely important for us," Reznikov said Wednesday in Kyiv.
The last paragraph is the most important: "And now I will tell you one thing in secret. No matter how hard they break their teeth, the bastards who pretend to participate, but in fact, interfere with us in the special operation, who wear Russian flags on May 9, but place relatives abroad and go to Dubai to play golf, in the near future YouTube will be closed. And those who actively use YouTube, in turn, will be identified and will suffer a well-deserved punishment after it is banned.”
It's a direct spit in the face of Shoigu, since it's his daughter who was playing golf in Dubai a week ago, and her husband is some Youtube blogger. So the rivalry between Wagner and MoD seems to heat up.
On January 19 2023 15:46 Ardias wrote: It's a direct spit in the face of Shoigu, since it's his daughter who was playing golf in Dubai a week ago, and her husband is some Youtube blogger. So the rivalry between Wagner and MoD seems to heat up.
Thanks, super interesting tidbit and the kind of stuff outsiders can't catch.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
No it is not the same as he said she said. Anonymous sources get used all the time in all sorts of news articles and this is the WSJ not Fox News. That the source can lie for his/her own benefit is true for basically every news article in existence. Using that logic you can not trust any source anonymous or not. Unless you have any evidence of the contrary or that the WSJ has a poor record on German news I am going to take their word over yours.
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
No it is not the same as he said she said. Anonymous sources get used all the time in all sorts of news articles and this is the WSJ not Fox News. That the source can lie for his/her own benefit is true for basically every news article in existence. Using that logic you can not trust any source anonymous or not. Unless you have any evidence of the contrary or that the WSJ has a poor record on German news I am going to take their word over yours.
Read the article again then. The article does not claim this is fact, the article claims an unnamed source claims that. It literally is what I said it is - someone said something with the WSJ not making any claims on it being true or not. You can chose to believe it and frame it as me trying to shout fake news - which I am not. I am just not taking hearsay for fact until it becomes a bit more substantiated(like having multiple independent anonymous sources stating the same, or have a single credible named one come forth), just because it helps my point. They simply report that it was being said without claiming that it is true because you can't if he said she said is all you got. I am not questioning the WSJ reporting, they have done nothing wrong with the article, I am questioning your media literacy.
So idk what word of mine you want to take over the WSJ article since there is no disagreement between what I said and the article...
Prigozhin also claims that Wagner fully captured Klischiivka, a fortified village south of Bakhmut, though fighting around it continues. https://t.me/concordgroup_official/293
No, the article says an unnamed source claims that germany won't allow allies to send tanks unless america also supplies tanks. Which is basically political he said she said vs. the official statement of 'nobody has officially requested it yet'. So its still just speculation as the only thing you can be sure of is that a german senior official has said it. That guy might as well have lied to the WSJ because he wants to increase pressure on the government to lend more support.
So far all reports that I have seen on this topic seem to reference the same source/the WSJ article.
No it is not the same as he said she said. Anonymous sources get used all the time in all sorts of news articles and this is the WSJ not Fox News. That the source can lie for his/her own benefit is true for basically every news article in existence. Using that logic you can not trust any source anonymous or not. Unless you have any evidence of the contrary or that the WSJ has a poor record on German news I am going to take their word over yours.
Read the article again then. The article does not claim this is fact, the article claims an unnamed source claims that. It literally is what I said it is - someone said something with the WSJ not making any claims on it being true or not. You can chose to believe it and frame it as me trying to shout fake news - which I am not. I am just not taking hearsay for fact until it becomes a bit more substantiated(like having multiple independent anonymous sources stating the same, or have a single credible named one come forth), just because it helps my point. They simply report that it was being said without claiming that it is true because you can't if he said she said is all you got. I am not questioning the WSJ reporting, they have done nothing wrong with the article, I am questioning your media literacy.
So idk what word of mine you want to take over the WSJ article since there is no disagreement between what I said and the article...
Artesimo is indeed right regarding this point. Although the WSJ article doesn't make this clear at all, so the confusion is perfectly understandable. Yahoo somehow manages to outperform WSJ by mentioning the anonymous source.
"German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has stressed the stipulation several times in recent days behind closed doors, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
Personally I don't think it matters. It was claimed to be said in secrecy so it may not have been said at all, and if it was indeed said then the US government may not even be aware of it except for such news reports.
Disregarding all that, Germany can send some battle tanks regardless of what was or wasn't said. There are no future conditions that would help them make the decision to send them, and the conditions required can be met by Germany. If they were to take this step, it would put other countries under greater pressure to live up to the German standard of support. That's how it should ideally be done.
Reputable journalists will only quote, and reputable news organizations will only publish, anonymous sources if they have reasons to believe the source is credible and if they have reasons to believe the source has first-person access to what is being said. Reporting it is in itself assuming a position that what's being said is credible. In this case, given the reporting, it looks like it's a claim from an anonymous source within the German government.
The following reply from the US seems to point in the same direction: 'When asked about Germany’s stance, U.S. President Joe Biden’s spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said: “The president believes that each country should make their own sovereign decisions on what steps of security assistance and what kinds of equipment they are able to provide Ukraine.”'
On January 19 2023 18:33 Ardias wrote: Prigozhin also claims that Wagner fully captured Klischiivka, a fortified village south of Bakhmut, though fighting around it continues. https://t.me/concordgroup_official/293
If true, Bakhmut is half-surrounded.
Prigozhin usually waits a day or two for something to be 100% safe before he says anything about taking a settlement. It was probably cleared 2 days ago when news from reliable sources that it fell started comming though.
There are now reports comming in that Krasnoe (Ivanovskoye) is being pushed hard by Wagner which would make sense if Klischeevka collapsed days ago. If they manage to establish control over the settlement thats basically it in regards to an organised retreat of Kiev forces from the city.
I checked where Klischiivka is on the map, and assuming the Russians are in Soledar in the north, in what planet does that make Bakhmut "half-surrounded"?
Meanwhile, in Leopard 2 news, Polish PM says Poland might go forward even without Germany's consent:
The polish statement is some strong man posturing for internal politics I think since poland has not made an official request as of yet.
Regarding the half surrounded: draw a line from the western outskirts of Soledar to the western outskirts of Klischiivka. I think in a military sense that could count as 'half surrounded'. I don't know how much that actually matters though, since it does not automatically cut off the 2 main roads going into Bakhmut.
On January 19 2023 23:38 warding wrote: I checked where Klischiivka is on the map, and assuming the Russians are in Soledar in the north, in what planet does that make Bakhmut "half-surrounded"?
Meanwhile, in Leopard 2 news, Polish PM says Poland might go forward even without Germany's consent:
There are 3 roads leading to Bakhmut from the west - from Slovyansk, Kostyantinivka and Chasiv Yar. The former two are now either under direct fire or soon to be under it (in the north of Bakhmut Wagner is fighting for Krasna Gora). Which leaves only one clear way in or out of Bakhmut, which poses a problem with bottleneck due to the huge number of AFU units in the city.
EPT
.
