|
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 21 2023 01:10 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2023 00:19 Silvanel wrote:
I see that our newest police fuckup has reached English-speaking world. Be assured it is not the first time they did something like that. Our police is now the punchline of every joke.
We laugh because it is better than crying. Our special services (Stanisław Żaryn) claim there was no danger and they have "full knowledge" of the situation. I read that the police was told to let those guys go and whatever happened there was either secretely monitored or allowed by our specials services.
It sounds like pretty standard peace time espionage/covert ops stuff. They haven't committed any crime yet and you don't need an international incident. So you let them go and tell them to leave the country within X hours.
|
On January 20 2023 22:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 21:04 Magic Powers wrote:On January 20 2023 19:51 warding wrote:
While it's true that Germany has contributed a lot to Ukraine, it seems that since the beginning its political messaging and posture often comes across as disingenuous and at times trying to appease Russia. Often when discussing this issue with Germans technicalities are often brought up (ie. the official request hasn't been made yet) and the need to understand internal German politics before judging.
I think Germans are generally missing the major political blunder and damage to its image and standing in the world that Scholz's government is responsible for. The rest of the world is judging Germany on this issue with the backdrop of seemingly extensive Russian corruption of Germany's political elites, decades of political appeasement of Russia and the Nordstream debacle.
What the rest of Europe is thinking at the moment is:
1 - It's a great thing the US has been on our side this time, but with Trumpism this is far from guaranteed;
2 - We can't count on Germany+France to lead us, and we don't have the moral clarity of the UK on these types of issues with us in the EU anymore.
3 - This is a matter of survival, in particular for Eastern Europeans, so a new axis of power needs to be formed within the EU. Among other things. this means that "we" can't count on Germany's military industry (not to mention the Swiss). Well said. Regarding point 1: Republican support for Ukraine is indeed declining, mainly among the voters (they're basically split now) but also in the house. We don't need to be worried quite yet, but down the line it could become an issue. It shows that the chest beating after 9/11 was drenched in patriotism by Republicans. Defending Ukrainian citizens from getting terrorized for a whole year is apparently not a worthy cause in their minds, but invading another country after a single terrorist strike is just another Tuesday. To this day a majority of Republicans support the invasion of Iraq, and that includes a large minority of moderate/liberal Republicans. But sending military aid to Ukraine is apparently not justified in their eyes. This can become very important. American patriots are disinterested in Ukraine, and Republicans (especially the conservative ones) are drenched in patriotism to this day. Its sadly a lot less complicated than that. Republicans support the Iraq war because a Republican president started it and librals hated it. They dislike this one because a Dem president supports it as do most moderates. Reps should support this based on the last 50 years but they need to be opposite the dems. Trump also oved Putin and the Russian interfearence was spun to some as Republican support. The good news is if a Rep got in as pres they could flip flop and the voters likely would too. Which seems likely given the sway all the arms makers have, not to mention domestic oil production. There will be a lot more grandstanding, but l strongly suspect support will continue.
I think both is true. Some people tend to support a policy because their favorite party supports it. Other people lend their support to a policy on a case-by-case basis. Party bias as well as patriotism drives Republicans. Currently Republican voters are mixed on support for Ukraine while house Republicans tend to support Ukraine. Only 57 Republicans voted 'no' on more military aid to Ukraine.
|
On January 21 2023 00:37 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 22:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Why does NATO being divided on sending Leo's matter? The tanks are themselves are not that important. It's just that they have become the most visible symbol of western willingness to escalate in response to Russia. Without breaking barriers like that Ukraine can't last in a longer war.
Exactly. Ukraine needs not only tanks, but eventually also various aircraft. If battle tank donations face so much internal resistance, then bombers could be blocked even harder. It's a bad sign of things to come.
There's little room for hesitation, and while it's good to consider several angles, the tank debate should've concluded months ago. It appears to be very much a drawn-out game of optics, and that's not gonna help Ukraine.
|
On January 20 2023 23:39 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 21:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
In the end Ukraine is not in the EU or NATO. Germany/France wil react differently with EU/NATO countries so not sure your point 2/3 are really valid.
Is Ukraine the only scenario where European defense needs to be mobilized without Article 5? What if Belarus has its own Euromaidan revolution and Russia invades Belarus? What if this war ends with a rotten peace deal and the issue lingers further? What if we need to be discussing building up a more serious nuclear deterrent within the EU? @Artesimo I understand that the subject is complex. My main point is that Germany should be seizing the initiative on communication, especially on the Leo 2 subject. In comparison to Merkel, and now we know about the massive blunder that was Germany's foreign policy regarding Russia even in those times, she had the merit of positioning Germany as a reliable international leader within the EU. Something was being done right by Germany that isn't being done right now. The only land threat to European nations is Russia. We have 2000+ Leopard 2s, there's no reason why we shouldn't be donating 500 to Ukraine ASAP. Portugal has 37, we should be donating at least 20 IMO.
I think the problem is the wide distribution and bad condition of the Leos. Most countries that field Leo 2s are not really in a position to give them away and those willing are only able to give a few. In Europe, the biggest fleets of Leo 2 are Turkey, Greece, Spain, Germany and Poland. I don't think Turkey and Greece are willing to weaken their military, Spain already said that their over 300 (!!!) tanks are not operable and then you are left with nations that will be able to give at most a few dozen each - 500 is simply not feasible. I agree, coordination and communication should be handled way better by Germany but I don't think things are as simple as you claim.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
Russian forces started a probing offensive towards Zhaporozhie
https://t.me/rybar/42855
Continuation of a story with those two artillery battalions sent to infantry
https://t.me/sashakots/38170
Note: in Russian "division" and "divisia" are different things. "Division" in RU is a battalion for artillery/missile forces. "Divisia" - it's a "division" in English definition of it.
|
Germany to start training Ukrainian crews on the Leopard 2.
|
Apparently Ukrainians made a big push near Svatove. Cleared one settlement and turned another into a grey zone. Putting pressure on Svatove might mean that some reserves will have to be deployed there instead of the Bakhmut area.
|
One has to wonder the amount of damage Germany's reluctance is doing not only to domestic industries and their future when it comes to selling armaments, but the EU as a whole when it comes to relying on anything that Germany says or does. At least EU power shifting from Western Europe to Poland, and the Baltic states. Scholz is acting like a deer in the headlights.
Germany dashed Ukrainian hopes that Berlin would finally decide on Friday to send modern battle tanks to Kyiv’s forces, with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius arguing there was no international agreement yet on the topic.
Speaking outside a meeting of defense ministers at the U.S. Ramstein military base in Germany, Pistorius said his government had still not agreed to a Ukrainian request for German’s Leopard 2 tanks to aid an expected spring offensive.
“We all cannot say today when a decision [on potentially sending Leopard tanks] will come and what it will look like,” he told reporters.
Instead, Pistorius said, he has instructed the German army to “review” how many and which Leopards it could send, so the government can “act quickly” once a final decision comes.
Several European allies have publicly asked Germany to at least grant permission for other countries to donate their own Leopard tanks — a necessary step because of export restrictions on the German-made vehicles.
Pistorius said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz still needed to make a decision on these requests.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reiterated his call for tanks just hours before Pistorius spoke.
“We have to speed up,” he implored officials gathered in Ramstein. Friday was the moment, he insisted, not to debate details but to confirm one key principle: Kyiv’s partners will provide their modern tanks.
“It is in your power,” he said.
The continued delay in a decision comes after days of bewildering signals from German officials about whether they would allow the Leopard 2 tanks to go to Ukraine.
Allies have been imploring Germany to dispatch a fleet of Europe’s Leopard tanks to Kyiv’s forces. Berlin holds the key, given that it both manages its own cache of Leopards and must approve other countries’ donations of the German-made vehicle.
But Scholz has been reluctant to make a move, signaling both publicly and privately that he wants the U.S. to move first and ship its own tanks to Ukraine.
U.S. officials have balked at the request, noting their M1 Abrams tanks would be more difficult for the Ukrainians to operate and maintain. Instead, the U.S. is sending 100 other armored combat vehicles as part of a massive $2.5 billion aid package.
Pistorius argued it was “wrong” to say Germany is isolated on the issue, insisting there is no “united coalition” of other countries pushing for Leopard tanks, while Germany stands “in the way.” Instead, he said, there were many countries “very carefully” weighing the pros and cons of such deliveries.
Ukraine insists it needs these battle tanks to help resist Russia’s expected spring offensive. The war is entering a new phase, with the Russians digging trenches and laying mines throughout the winter — a development officials say necessitates more armored vehicles and tanks for Ukrainian forces hoping to break through.
“This is a crucial moment,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said when opening the Ramstein session on Friday morning. “Russia is regrouping, recruiting and trying to re-equip,” he warned, adding: “this is not a moment to slow down — it’s a time to dig deeper.”
Several European allies have replied to the call. The U.K. is sending its Challenger 2 tanks and the French are considering sending their Leclerc tanks. Meanwhile, scores of other European countries have also indicated they would join a broad coalition to send Leopards — if Germany gives its consent. Poland has even signaled it could act alone.
Experts say an effort to donate Leopards from across Europe would be useful logistically, given that the maintenance, training and supply lines could be arranged jointly.
“Poland is ready to donate a company of Leopard 2 tanks with 1000 pieces of ammunition,” said a statement signed by nine NATO allies and released on Thursday. “Pending this, a wider coalition of Leopard 2 tanks donors will be established.”
Germany has remained reticent in the face of such mounting pressure. While some senior officials hinted at a willingness to at least allow allies to donate their Leopards, Scholz has been stoical, nodding to his desire to wait for the U.S.
“We are never doing something just by ourselves, but together with others, especially the United States,” the chancellor said earlier this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Source
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
On January 21 2023 10:35 Manit0u wrote:
Apparently Ukrainians made a big push near Svatove. Cleared one settlement and turned another into a grey zone. Putting pressure on Svatove might mean that some reserves will have to be deployed there instead of the Bakhmut area.
A word about that from Russian drone operator.
https://t.me/karkuschaZ/300
"Brigade, that had given up Novosyolovkoye 2,5 months ago, did so again in spectacular fashion. 100% of Novosyolovskoye territory is under AFU control. Almost without a combat they had given up what was being captured for two months. But hey, they make good combat clips. Only that all assault actions shown in them are stolen from the telegram channel of a Spetsnaz brigade, that actually filmed them. But these are such a minor details..."
Brigade in question is 27th Motor Rifle brigade, based near Moscow. Once again it's shown that Russian units, that are supposed to be elite, with the best equipment and all, are generally a screw-ups. Whole 1st Guards Tank Army shown it's complete incompetence, screwing up again and again and being outclassed by rear-area units from Siberia on old T-72B and BMP-2 (like 90th Tank Division). Though at least judging by distribution of T-90Ms around the front (which appear everywhere, from Orekhove to Svatovo), this issue is at least somewhat acknowledged (perviously 1st GTA was receiving all the best toys from the start).
As for the whole lend-lease issue - it's still gives a bad taste in my mouth, whatever reasons there are, which could be many.
1. Fear of further escalation could be understandable at the start of the war, but now, after thousands of vehicles and millions of shells supplied it doesn't hold up.
2. Training? First of all, one could argue that operating western self-propelled guns like Krab and M109, as well as MLRS such as M270 and HIMARS isn't much easier than operating a tank. You need to drive it, maintain it, supply it, communicate from it and fire from it, same as with M1 or Leo 2, just further from the front. And AFU was supplied with more than a hundred and fifty foreign self-propelled artillery/MLRS pieces by now.
Second - if you could train Iraqis and Saudis on M1s, why much more qualified AFU soldiers are a concern?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators
According to Wiki, Iraqis started training their crews in 2008, and by 2011 recieved 321 M1 tank. But they were not at state at war, and US forces were directly providing Iraq's security. I'm sure that could be dont in a much more rapid pace, if necessary. I'm sure Ukraine wouldn't refuse 300 M1s right now, even the ones from 1980s.
3. Difficulty of maintenance? Well, yes, you need to give proper tools for that as well. Spare parts, evacuation vehicles, fuel and munitions, as well as trained technichians and crews. Yes, you need to train a lot of them and in advance, as well as provide all the equipment stated above. But at least for US the problem is only a price tag, US Army and Navy easily have a capacity to deliver M1s and Bradleys by hundreds into Poland, if necessary. Even if other NATO countries wouldn't want to participate in delieveries and training, you could simply require a participation paycheck from them to reduce costs for US itself.
4. Difficulty of operation? Ukraine in majority is steppe/urban terrain, with some forests, especially in current area of conflict. It's not Belarus with it's swamps, and throughout Cold War western tanks were supposed to fight over Germany which isn't that different to modern Ukraine (albeit Ukrainian road network would still be worse in comparison).
Even trains shouldn't be much of an issue. At least Russian trains operate with platforms able to load 90+ tons (though majority would be 64-66 tons, which would be borderline for western tanks). But if UK providing UA with Challengers now, it seems that they believe UA can resolve the issue.
5. "We should do it all together" is kinda silly argument. At least US and UK were previously entering the whole wars without support of other NATO countries (Vietnam, Falklands, Iraqi Freedom). In terms of supplies to Ukraine Poland and Baltics were giving up tons of their stuff without asking for explicit consent from someone else.
If there were any other official reasons not to deliver heavier vehicles en masse, please pont them out.
So I would be voicing more unpopular possible takes on the reasons not to provide more weaponry, though which one or how many of them are important in the matter I wouldn't know of course.
1. Low state of readiness. Question could be raised, how well other armies of NATO treat and maintain their equipment? Or test it in the field? There were tons of jokes in this thread about corrupted and incompetent Russians stealing fuel and ERA from tanks, but what about this?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-says-its-mothballed-german-made-tanks-no-fit-state-send-ukraine-2022-08-02/
Or this?
https://www.politico.eu/article/tanks-kaput-germany-military-defense-minister-christine-lambrecht/
Wouldn't it raise a question of transparency and competence of Western military and how are they different from "corrupted and incompetent Russians" in that regard?
Also, if we could argue that European countries reduced their military capabilities, since they are in alliance with US, why US isn't taking the leading role in supplying heavy equipment? It has thousands being mothballed, as it was discussed just couple of pages ago, their military budget dwarfs Russian one, surely they could be able to provide tons of equipment, right?
2. Unwillingness to pay the price. Even if we assume readiness issues with European militaries, US could throw in heavy stuff in numbers, equipping brigade after brigade. Yes, at cost, yes, maybe by stripping National Guard reserves for example, but if you support a war against one of your 3 main geopolitical enemies (that being China, Russia and Iran), why wouldn't you put maximum effort to tear one down?
Also up to this point, most of the equipment given wasn't a new one. Yes, Soviet one was easier to adapt and all, but still, most of the supplies up to this point (I'm not including January 2023), save for part of artilley, were storage cleaning. New stuff NATO (at least European allies) would have to pull from active duty or produce. Which raises even more questions about thousands mothballed vehilces in US. This would be perfect way to utilize them for strategic benefit, yet they are unwilling to do so just yet.
3. PR issues. Up to this point a common trope was "Western armament superior, Soviet junk go booom". Losses of M1s and Leo2s on Middle East are generally overseen ("Arabs, sir"), as well as losses of western artillery systems in Ukraine (since their numbers are still much lower than Soviet-made).
But what if western-made weaponry operated by European and western-trained army, which is often said, much more superior to incompetent Russian orcs would start to be exploded by said Russian orcs in dozens and hundreds? How that would affect the image of superior Western equipment?
4. Time article said it:
"Putin Must Not Win, But Zelensky Must Not Win Too Much"
https://time.com/6237910/putin-zelensky-ukraine-war-escalation/
That interests of Western countries may not actually include complete Ukrainian control of their territory or even more, dismantling the Russian state or attack Russian territory as some of UA officials proclaim.
https://ukranews.com/en/news/898989-danilov-said-that-russia-must-be-destroyed-so-that-it-ceases-to-exist-within-its-current-borders
https://www.unian.net/war/danilov-mi-ni-v-kogo-ne-pitatimemo-kudi-i-de-zavdavati-udariv-po-rosiyskomu-agresoru-12074193.html
Even if there is no agreement on sending actual tanks and IFVs at the moment(I'm leaving aside helos/fighting jets since these are more complicated matter, and Russian air defence could prevent their effective use in low numbers anyway), you could have started training on them still, so Ukraine would have some pool of crews and technicians able to work as instructors. But I didn't heard anything about that until above post by StealthBlue.
|
I think that it's less of a question of corruption (not saying it's not present) but more of a lack of preparedness and lax maintenance. Most of the EU countries kinda moved past waging war against each other, even if they have some long standing grievances and had a long time of peace. This doesn't incentivize them much to keep a large standing army on active duty at all times. Mostly just stuff required for training or foreign missions which doesn't require mobilization of larger amounts of personnel or vehicles. So, my assumption is that a lot of heavy equipment has been put in storage and mostly forgotten about since maintaining and operating it from time to time requires money, fuel etc. and we all know that unused equipment breaks down.
It's embarrassing but that's what it is. NATO relied too much on the warmongering USA to do most of the heavy lifting and got caught with their pants down when shit hit the fan.
I just hope they learn from this mistake and introduce procedures to avoid such embarrassments in the future.
|
Regarding the same point Manit0u made, I wouldn't be so fast to rule out corruption in Spain. Maybe not as unabashedly and on the same scale as in the Russian army, but I don't think anybody here would be too surprised if an investigation showed that "maintenance of tank fleet" appeared on the official defense budget, but then quietly disappeared and was spent on other things. Best case: on buying/maintaining other equipment that the army felt was more urgent for day-to-day operations but wasn't budgeted properly. Worst case: sprucing up some officers' residences, maybe some politicians as well.
Either way, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. Spain does have operational Leopard tanks. But the ones they wanted to send last summer were the older ones. Those are not supposed to be in active duty, and we're apparently not maintained at all (no clue on whether they were supposed to be). Spain has 239 Leopard 2E in active duty which it could send, but is sitting on the fence.
https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2023/01/20/estas-son-las-condiciones-de-espana-para-apoyar-el-envio-de-leopard-a-ucrania-cadena-ser/ (Spanish)
|
On January 21 2023 14:36 Acrofales wrote:Regarding the same point Manit0u made, I wouldn't be so fast to rule out corruption in Spain. Maybe not as unabashedly and on the same scale as in the Russian army, but I don't think anybody here would be too surprised if an investigation showed that "maintenance of tank fleet" appeared on the official defense budget, but then quietly disappeared and was spent on other things. Best case: on buying/maintaining other equipment that the army felt was more urgent for day-to-day operations but wasn't budgeted properly. Worst case: sprucing up some officers' residences, maybe some politicians as well. Either way, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. Spain does have operational Leopard tanks. But the ones they wanted to send last summer were the older ones. Those are not supposed to be in active duty, and we're apparently not maintained at all (no clue on whether they were supposed to be). Spain has 239 Leopard 2E in active duty which it could send, but is sitting on the fence. https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2023/01/20/estas-son-las-condiciones-de-espana-para-apoyar-el-envio-de-leopard-a-ucrania-cadena-ser/ (Spanish)
I'm no expert on military equipment but I've seen some info somewhere that for vehicles (be it a tank or a simple truck) you need to run them at least once a month or so. Otherwise they deteriorate, parts get stuck or corroded etc. (why so many Russian vehicles blew tires for example). You still need to change the oil and make sure everything is working once in a while. If it's been neglected then there's high chance most of the stuff that was in storage and untouched requires some serious maintenance before it gets operational again.
|
On January 21 2023 11:25 Ardias wrote:...1. Low state of readiness. Question could be raised, how well other armies of NATO treat and maintain their equipment? Or test it in the field? There were tons of jokes in this thread about corrupted and incompetent Russians stealing fuel and ERA from tanks, but what about this? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-says-its-mothballed-german-made-tanks-no-fit-state-send-ukraine-2022-08-02/Or this? https://www.politico.eu/article/tanks-kaput-germany-military-defense-minister-christine-lambrecht/Wouldn't it raise a question of transparency and competence of Western military and how are they different from "corrupted and incompetent Russians" in that regard? Also, if we could argue that European countries reduced their military capabilities, since they are in alliance with US, why US isn't taking the leading role in supplying heavy equipment? It has thousands being mothballed, as it was discussed just couple of pages ago, their military budget dwarfs Russian one, surely they could be able to provide tons of equipment, right? 2. Unwillingness to pay the price. Even if we assume readiness issues with European militaries, US could throw in heavy stuff in numbers, equipping brigade after brigade. Yes, at cost, yes, maybe by stripping National Guard reserves for example, but if you support a war against one of your 3 main geopolitical enemies (that being China, Russia and Iran), why wouldn't you put maximum effort to tear one down? Also up to this point, most of the equipment given wasn't a new one. Yes, Soviet one was easier to adapt and all, but still, most of the supplies up to this point (I'm not including January 2023), save for part of artilley, were storage cleaning. New stuff NATO (at least European allies) would have to pull from active duty or produce. Which raises even more questions about thousands mothballed vehilces in US. This would be perfect way to utilize them for strategic benefit, yet they are unwilling to do so just yet.
It's also worth considering that the US military recently failed an audit where they could only account for 39% of their assets. They have even less of an idea where the stuff sent to Ukraine ends up+ Show Spoiler +April 2022: “We have fidelity for a short time, but when it enters the fog of war, we have almost zero,” said one source briefed on US intelligence. “It drops into a big black hole, and you have almost no sense of it at all after a short period of time.”
In making the decision to send billions of dollars of weapons and equipment into Ukraine, the Biden administration factored in the risk that some of the shipments may ultimately end up in unexpected places, a defense official said.
But right now, the official said, the administration views a failure to adequately arm Ukraine as a greater risk. www.cnn.com
So the US probably has it's fair share of ostensibly operational equipment that doesn't exist and/or can't be readily deployed (particularly considering the 39% they could account for includes stuff like the buildings on military bases).
|
On January 21 2023 10:35 Manit0u wrote:
Apparently Ukrainians made a big push near Svatove. Cleared one settlement and turned another into a grey zone. Putting pressure on Svatove might mean that some reserves will have to be deployed there instead of the Bakhmut area.
I think both sides have had the best units they can spare in that area for a while. I think I read that the airborne troops that salvaged Kherson for Russia (twice, both at absorbing the initial assault and holding during the withdrawal) are there. Lots of units with "Guards" in the name according to maps, usually is supposed to mean elite.
I think it was a BARS unit that held Kreminna initially, those guys seem pretty effective to if they are still there.
It's more likely the increased activity in Bakhmut area would have been to take heat of Svatove than the other way around. Both Svatove and Kreminna are much more important.
|
On January 22 2023 04:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2023 10:35 Manit0u wrote:
Apparently Ukrainians made a big push near Svatove. Cleared one settlement and turned another into a grey zone. Putting pressure on Svatove might mean that some reserves will have to be deployed there instead of the Bakhmut area. I think both sides have had the best units they can spare in that area for a while. I think I read that the airborne troops that salvaged Kherson for Russia (twice, both at absorbing the initial assault and holding during the withdrawal) are there. Lots of units with "Guards" in the name according to maps, usually is supposed to mean elite. I think it was a BARS unit that held Kreminna initially, those guys seem pretty effective to if they are still there. It's more likely the increased activity in Bakhmut area would have been to take heat of Svatove than the other way around. Both Svatove and Kreminna are much more important.
There have been reports in the past few days that Russia is now actively shelling inside the city of Kreminna.
|
Looks like the Netherlands has the greenlight to donate F-16's to Ukraine...
|
So they can get f16s before heavy tanks. it doesn't make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, from an intelligence point of view, f16s are old tech, whereas Leopard 2Es, while not exactly new, are still the most modern variant of heavy tank produced in Europe, and older versions of the Leopard are mostly scrap metal by now. Leaving Russia to capture a Leopard 2E is probably more problematic than leaving Russia to capture an F16 (well, the wreckage of one).
|
The US also supports sending tanks right? They just don't want to send their own.
Ukraine did not request any f16 and Hoekstra only said we'd be open to it not that we'd definitely send them. So it is not very relevant at the moment.
|
It's good to see the mention of aircraft now, the sooner the better. I'm sure there are many young Ukrainian pilots eager to get practice.
|
On January 23 2023 01:15 RvB wrote:
The US also supports sending tanks right? They just don't want to send their own.
Ukraine did not request any f16 and Hoekstra only said we'd be open to it not that we'd definitely send them. So it is not very relevant at the moment.
The US has no say in whether anybody can or cannot send Leopard tanks, and nobody in Europe has Abrams tanks, so the US "supporting sending tanks" is meaningless. Meanwhile there are a lot of F16s in Europe.
I guess the US "supporting sending tanks" would have some minor impact if Poland sent their brand new fleet of Abrams straight through to Ukraine, but that seems unlikely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
