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.
Portugal has 37 2A6s. 12 are operational. It was announced somewhere we'd be sending 4, but an hour ago our defense minister said we're still assessing exactly how many we'd be offering. If we can afford to have 25 of the 37 in storage gathering dust, I don't get why we wouldn't be fixing them and shipping them. We can keep 12 just in case Spain gets frisky one day.
So far NATO members have announced new shipments every month. It's reasonable to expect a crescendo in this respect.
On January 26 2023 03:50 warding wrote: Portugal has 37 2A6s. 12 are operational. It was announced somewhere we'd be sending 4, but an hour ago our defense minister said we're still assessing exactly how many we'd be offering. If we can afford to have 25 of the 37 in storage gathering dust, I don't get why we wouldn't be fixing them and shipping them. We can keep 12 just in case Spain gets frisky one day.
So far NATO members have announced new shipments every month. It's reasonable to expect a crescendo in this respect.
Because fixing them takes time and they might want to send something now while also working to fix the rest?
And as always, money and availability of parts and the limited amount of engineers with the expertise to fix them will play a role.
I think this summarizes the tank delivery status as of right now:
There's a decent mix of modern and 90s era tanks. It'd be nice for Ukraine to be able to standardize on the Leopard 2 eventually, but they don't have quite enough of them coming. Three main families, M1, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 (2 variants) makes logistics a lot harder, especially the Challenger 2 which doesn't use NATO standard ammo.
Edit:: For perspective, the first article I found says:
The U.S. Army is believed to have 2,509 Abrams in various versions, with an additional 3,700 in storage.
If the logistics train could be figured out, the USA could replace every tank lost in Ukraine, by both sides with M1s, without digging into active inventory. The problem is in getting Ukraine to the point where it can use the M1, not in providing them.
Nice work Scholz! Not only are we sending some Leo 2A6 of our own but he kept baiting other countries (like US) and now they can't back out. Btw where is France? Can we do some France bashing for a change?
On January 26 2023 04:32 Harris1st wrote: Nice work Scholz! Not only are we sending some Leo 2A6 of our own but he kept baiting other countries (like US) and now they can't back out. Btw where is France? Can we do some France bashing for a change?
France promised AMX-10RCs, unknown number. It's designated as a light tank, so techincally they are in. Their gun isn't that powerful as regular MBT. Would still work on side armor and lighter vehicles/infantry/buildings of course.
Governor of Russia-controlled Zhaporozhie region informs that there are 40 thousand AFU soldiers in Ukraine-controlled Zhaporozhie region, and they are preparing for counteroffensive. https://t.me/rt_russian/144115
On January 25 2023 06:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now the only question is who/when does the training go ahead...
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/01/ukrainian-troops-could-fight-with-leopard-2s-by-early-spring-experts/ Article about training time. 4 to 6 weeks sounds highly optimistic though, and I bet it includes only basic crew training, not the battalion/brigade-wide combat alignment. I bet on 3-4 months the least if it to be done properly. Preparation of western-armed AFU units for Kherson and Balakleya offensives was in range of 1,5-3 months, but those units were comprised of mostly Soviet-made heavy equipment from former Eastern Bloc countries, not including light vehicles.
They are probably pulling experienced crews off T72s so that helps. Easier to retrain and its what they did with artillery. Also probably faster to train completly new crews on older tanks in Ukraine.
Training is going to be an issue on both sides regardless when you add so many tanks.
I wonder what version of the M1's are being sent. I do hope it's more up to date than the M1A1, though I don't expect M1A2 SEP v3 or SEP v4's as I mentioned previously. My guess is the standard M1A2's or even M1A1's collecting dust somewhere in storage. Though personally I hope Ukraine gets M1A2 SEP v3 or v4's, send them some of the best stuff we got currently to help improve their chances of success.
What'd be neat and totally unfeasible would be sending the technology demonstrator AbramsX by GDLS out to Ukraine just to test it's performance in real world conditions, but there's no way that's happening.
On January 23 2023 22:23 Magic Powers wrote: Regarding support in % of GDP Estonia (very similar to Latvia), when compared to Germany, spends a whopping 17 times more in % of its GDP on military support to Ukraine, while spending 87 times less (total) on its own military. (Edit: please ignore the 87 figure, that seems irrelevant. The key number is the % of GDP sent to Ukraine). How is that even possible? These countries shouldn't even be able to compete in that regard.
When you say "neither great nor terrible", I'd say that's an understatement. And terrible? That would be France for example. They have the means to militarily support Ukraine a lot more and just aren't doing it. They're a lot worse than even Germany. I would criticize them if they weren't so obviously disengaged for everyone to see.
We are better than france, so not terrible. And worse then estonia so not great. Seems like you fully agree with my assessment, thanks for sorting that out. Weirdly it sounded like you would disagree, but that must have been lost in translation again. Sure germany could do more, but my entire point was that it does more than enough to make accusations of trying to appease russia look silly. There could be more said here about % GDP, but that would be just straying away from my point: Do you think that germany being the third biggest contributor in total amount when it comes to military contributions appeases russia? (That dataset is outdated by now btw, but since we heard the same crap back then its still applies). That together with being 4th in financial commitments in total (reminder that these are of similar importance to military aid as the west is what enables ukraine currently to pay their military and keep the country running). No matter how you try to strecht the GDP part asnd draw conclusions on the level of commitment, you can not relativise the fact that when it comes to how much impact aid has, the total amount of it is key. Not how much commitment you show, but how much you put out. So I have difficulty seeing this alleged appeasing of russia from warding's post. German aid is not what we would like, but it is still a substantial contribution that should be enough to dispel these theories. There can be no restarting of german-russian relations before the war has ended, and by now it is almost certain that ukraine can at least make it a protracted war.
What I don't agree with is wild conspiracy theories. This was not about 'what about [country x], but having to deal with the same whacky theories every time germany does something people don't like in this war. Also your take on being safe from russia for the US/UK: that applies to all of nato, thanks to nato. Some of the eastern european countries might be a little bit more anxious, but overall I think they have trust in nato.
You keep going back to technicalities over how much and whatnot. I think you're still missing the big picture. And even if we look at numbers, the amount of aid is still minuscule compared to how much Germany was stuck spending in purchasing natural gas from Russia in 2022.
Even ignoring the massive historical debt Germany owes to Ukrainians, Germany's foreign policy towards Russia in the past 20 years has been disastrous, along with a Russian infiltration of its political elite. Any detail like muddling the conversation over the Leos demanding the US to go first, or the fact that the previous defense minister blocked doing any inventory of Leos in order "not to put pressure on Scholz", or the fact that Scholz makes up this retarded story about a polish jogger thanking him for being cautious about the Leos, or when Scholz personally blocked Rheinmetal from supplying Marders to Ukraine back in May, are all seen in this global light. The optics are horrible.
Europe needs leadership, and while the EU institutions themselves have been fantastic, they don't have the tools for defense/foreign policy. So we're stuck looking at the big EU countries and they are absent in terms of leadership. So, again, we are stuck looking at the US, and everyone hates Germany now. Deservedly.
Anyone in Europe mentioning a historical debt to anyone else can fuck right off. Sorry to be this crass, but former colonial powers have no business telling other nations what they owe. If you want to open that can of worms, boy do I have a history on Portugal to sell to you. Drawing arbitrary historical lines is completely ridiculous. And giving Germany shit for not being the most eager nation to provide military hardware into an active war is also completely tone-deaf and is a clear sign of a lack of understanding the context. You are saying that a pretty hardcore pacifist nation deserves all the shit flung at them for only being the nation with the third most military aid to Ukraine. Russian infiltration of German political elite... Get out.
Regarding military support to Ukraine as % of GDP, Germany ranks 17th out of 29. Germany spends 1.4% of GDP on the military, so saying they're in third place is missing the point that they could easily be sending several times more military aid. Germany doesn't rank high on any metric as % of GDP. They're not compensating for a lack of military support by otherwise ranking much higher. They're indeed not doing anywhere near as much as they could.
It's time to ask why so many European countries are dragging their feet in this war. I'm honestly baffled that Ukraine is still more or less standing intact considering how little they've received. Russia should've truly swept the floor with Ukraine.
Well, to be fair, people often overlook other aspects of Western military aid, beside the big toys. Leopards this, F-16 that, but the more important things, that kept Ukraine alive, rarely are accounted for.
1. Communication and Reconnaissance - probably the most important aspect, in which Ukraine has distinct advantage over Russia. All Western military as well as a lot of civilian satellites are working to provide data for Ukraine. Black sea, Moldovian and Belarussian border are constantly patrolled by US recon aircraft and UAVs. Smaller UAVs are delivered en masse in organized fashion, while Russian soldiers get them through volunteers only (I mean ones like Mavic, Orlan and Orion are of course bought by MoD). AFU also operates Starlink as well as many other means of digital communication, Russia also struggles behind in this department.
2. Artillery - this war is war of artillery, and if not for Western supplies of artillery pieces, and even more importantly, shells, hundreds of thousands, if not millions by this point, Ukraine would simply run out of ammo without it. Even now West has to scramble munitions from all over the world, Israel, South Korea, even Africa to provide something to Ukraine. Plus the huge number of long-range artillery pieces and guided munitions help Ukraine to sustain artillery war while being heavily outgunned. By this point most of the UA artillery you see on camera are Western, and for a good reason, since Ukraine (and even neighbouring countries with Soviet equipment) almost run out of 122/152-mm shells.
3. Infantry gear - Ukraine mobilized somewhat around a million men by this point. They alone simply wouldn't have enough gear and weapons to provide for such a large force. West supplied hundreds of thousands of uniforms, body armor, helmets, med kits, sleeping bags, assault rifles, tens of thousands of machineguns, anti-tank weapons and MANPADs. Tens of millions of ammunition rounds.
4. Transport and maintenance - this giant army has to move, deliver supplies, wounded, scramble and repair equipment etc. Thousands of non-combat trucks, cars, ambulances, evacuation vehicles, bridging equipment made this million-sized army able to actually operate around.
5. Misc - a million of items not falling into any particular category, like medical equipment, generators, MREs, canned food, spare parts for everything, firefighting gear, binos, tents, water purification equipment, demolition charges, mines, hospital beds etc. etc. etc.
So even if Ukraine was capable to withstand initial Russian assault by themselves, it would unlikely fare as it is now doing without all this being supplied. And even if we talk about heavy vehicle stuff - it's mostly Polish/Chezh tanks and IFVs as well as other Western APCs, MRAPs and HMMWVs (as well as aforementioned Western artillery) that formed units conducting both Kherson and Balakleya offensives.
Well that isn't good... though I don't see Turkey triggering anything except more material and financial support for Ukraine.
Video posted on social media shows flames racing through the superstructure of a 3,943 dwt, 1980-built general cargo ship, the Tuzla, yesterday, after a Russian attack on the Ukrainian port of Kherson. The Vanuatu-flagged ship is owned by Istanbul-based Cayeli Shipping Ltd and, according to Turkey’s Veryanssin TV, is one of two Turkish-owned merchant ships hit in the Russian attack.
The 1995-built 4,750 dwt Ferahnaz , which is also Vanuatu-flagged, was damaged by shrapnel in the same attack, Veryannsin reports Hüseyin Cebi, an official with vessel’s manager, Istanbul-based Cakiroglu Deniz Tasima Ltd, as saying.
That ship was reportedly less severely damaged than the Tuzla.
Kherson is not one of the ports covered by the Black Sea Grain Initiative and reports differ on whether the ships were struck by a bomb, a missile or artillery shelling.
According to regional officials, the Russian army shelled Kherson 12 times yesterday, hitting the maternity hospital, school, polyclinic, seaport and residential buildings.
This has a precedent for shutting down the Bosporus straight to any use by russia if they were really turkish flagged. That article says that they were actually vanuatu flagged and only turkish owned. Being at Kherson, where the front lines are, also credits a legitimate accident or misfire instead of a conscious attack on a NATO nation.
Yeah, the fact that they were in a port that would not be considered 'safe' and was probably accidently hit is an important part of how it will be treated.
its very different from attacking a Turkish ship at sea for example.
On January 23 2023 22:23 Magic Powers wrote: Regarding support in % of GDP Estonia (very similar to Latvia), when compared to Germany, spends a whopping 17 times more in % of its GDP on military support to Ukraine, while spending 87 times less (total) on its own military. (Edit: please ignore the 87 figure, that seems irrelevant. The key number is the % of GDP sent to Ukraine). How is that even possible? These countries shouldn't even be able to compete in that regard.
When you say "neither great nor terrible", I'd say that's an understatement. And terrible? That would be France for example. They have the means to militarily support Ukraine a lot more and just aren't doing it. They're a lot worse than even Germany. I would criticize them if they weren't so obviously disengaged for everyone to see.
We are better than france, so not terrible. And worse then estonia so not great. Seems like you fully agree with my assessment, thanks for sorting that out. Weirdly it sounded like you would disagree, but that must have been lost in translation again. Sure germany could do more, but my entire point was that it does more than enough to make accusations of trying to appease russia look silly. There could be more said here about % GDP, but that would be just straying away from my point: Do you think that germany being the third biggest contributor in total amount when it comes to military contributions appeases russia? (That dataset is outdated by now btw, but since we heard the same crap back then its still applies). That together with being 4th in financial commitments in total (reminder that these are of similar importance to military aid as the west is what enables ukraine currently to pay their military and keep the country running). No matter how you try to strecht the GDP part asnd draw conclusions on the level of commitment, you can not relativise the fact that when it comes to how much impact aid has, the total amount of it is key. Not how much commitment you show, but how much you put out. So I have difficulty seeing this alleged appeasing of russia from warding's post. German aid is not what we would like, but it is still a substantial contribution that should be enough to dispel these theories. There can be no restarting of german-russian relations before the war has ended, and by now it is almost certain that ukraine can at least make it a protracted war.
What I don't agree with is wild conspiracy theories. This was not about 'what about [country x], but having to deal with the same whacky theories every time germany does something people don't like in this war. Also your take on being safe from russia for the US/UK: that applies to all of nato, thanks to nato. Some of the eastern european countries might be a little bit more anxious, but overall I think they have trust in nato.
You keep going back to technicalities over how much and whatnot. I think you're still missing the big picture. And even if we look at numbers, the amount of aid is still minuscule compared to how much Germany was stuck spending in purchasing natural gas from Russia in 2022.
Even ignoring the massive historical debt Germany owes to Ukrainians, Germany's foreign policy towards Russia in the past 20 years has been disastrous, along with a Russian infiltration of its political elite. Any detail like muddling the conversation over the Leos demanding the US to go first, or the fact that the previous defense minister blocked doing any inventory of Leos in order "not to put pressure on Scholz", or the fact that Scholz makes up this retarded story about a polish jogger thanking him for being cautious about the Leos, or when Scholz personally blocked Rheinmetal from supplying Marders to Ukraine back in May, are all seen in this global light. The optics are horrible.
Europe needs leadership, and while the EU institutions themselves have been fantastic, they don't have the tools for defense/foreign policy. So we're stuck looking at the big EU countries and they are absent in terms of leadership. So, again, we are stuck looking at the US, and everyone hates Germany now. Deservedly.
Anyone in Europe mentioning a historical debt to anyone else can fuck right off. Sorry to be this crass, but former colonial powers have no business telling other nations what they owe. If you want to open that can of worms, boy do I have a history on Portugal to sell to you. Drawing arbitrary historical lines is completely ridiculous. And giving Germany shit for not being the most eager nation to provide military hardware into an active war is also completely tone-deaf and is a clear sign of a lack of understanding the context. You are saying that a pretty hardcore pacifist nation deserves all the shit flung at them for only being the nation with the third most military aid to Ukraine. Russian infiltration of German political elite... Get out.
Regarding military support to Ukraine as % of GDP, Germany ranks 17th out of 29. Germany spends 1.4% of GDP on the military, so saying they're in third place is missing the point that they could easily be sending several times more military aid. Germany doesn't rank high on any metric as % of GDP. They're not compensating for a lack of military support by otherwise ranking much higher. They're indeed not doing anywhere near as much as they could.
It's time to ask why so many European countries are dragging their feet in this war. I'm honestly baffled that Ukraine is still more or less standing intact considering how little they've received. Russia should've truly swept the floor with Ukraine.
Well, to be fair, people often overlook other aspects of Western military aid, beside the big toys. Leopards this, F-16 that, but the more important things, that kept Ukraine alive, rarely are accounted for.
1. Communication and Reconnaissance - probably the most important aspect, in which Ukraine has distinct advantage over Russia. All Western military as well as a lot of civilian satellites are working to provide data for Ukraine. Black sea, Moldovian and Belarussian border are constantly patrolled by US recon aircraft and UAVs. Smaller UAVs are delivered en masse in organized fashion, while Russian soldiers get them through volunteers only (I mean ones like Mavic, Orlan and Orion are of course bought by MoD). AFU also operates Starlink as well as many other means of digital communication, Russia also struggles behind in this department.
2. Artillery - this war is war of artillery, and if not for Western supplies of artillery pieces, and even more importantly, shells, hundreds of thousands, if not millions by this point, Ukraine would simply run out of ammo without it. Even now West has to scramble munitions from all over the world, Israel, South Korea, even Africa to provide something to Ukraine. Plus the huge number of long-range artillery pieces and guided munitions help Ukraine to sustain artillery war while being heavily outgunned. By this point most of the UA artillery you see on camera are Western, and for a good reason, since Ukraine (and even neighbouring countries with Soviet equipment) almost run out of 122/152-mm shells.
3. Infantry gear - Ukraine mobilized somewhat around a million men by this point. They alone simply wouldn't have enough gear and weapons to provide for such a large force. West supplied hundreds of thousands of uniforms, body armor, helmets, med kits, sleeping bags, assault rifles, tens of thousands of machineguns, anti-tank weapons and MANPADs. Tens of millions of ammunition rounds.
4. Transport and maintenance - this giant army has to move, deliver supplies, wounded, scramble and repair equipment etc. Thousands of non-combat trucks, cars, ambulances, evacuation vehicles, bridging equipment made this million-sized army able to actually operate around.
5. Misc - a million of items not falling into any particular category, like medical equipment, generators, MREs, canned food, spare parts for everything, firefighting gear, binos, tents, water purification equipment, demolition charges, mines, hospital beds etc. etc. etc.
So even if Ukraine was capable to withstand initial Russian assault by themselves, it would unlikely fare as it is now doing without all this being supplied. And even if we talk about heavy vehicle stuff - it's mostly Polish/Chezh tanks and IFVs as well as other Western APCs, MRAPs and HMMWVs (as well as aforementioned Western artillery) that formed units conducting both Kherson and Balakleya offensives.
Fair points. The modernization of Ukraine's military while at war can't be expected to happen too fast.
Regarding tank deliveries, it looks like Germany is planning to prepare two tank battalliones (44 each). Am I seeing this right that this would be the largest share of battle tanks being sent?
On January 23 2023 22:23 Magic Powers wrote: Regarding support in % of GDP Estonia (very similar to Latvia), when compared to Germany, spends a whopping 17 times more in % of its GDP on military support to Ukraine, while spending 87 times less (total) on its own military. (Edit: please ignore the 87 figure, that seems irrelevant. The key number is the % of GDP sent to Ukraine). How is that even possible? These countries shouldn't even be able to compete in that regard.
When you say "neither great nor terrible", I'd say that's an understatement. And terrible? That would be France for example. They have the means to militarily support Ukraine a lot more and just aren't doing it. They're a lot worse than even Germany. I would criticize them if they weren't so obviously disengaged for everyone to see.
We are better than france, so not terrible. And worse then estonia so not great. Seems like you fully agree with my assessment, thanks for sorting that out. Weirdly it sounded like you would disagree, but that must have been lost in translation again. Sure germany could do more, but my entire point was that it does more than enough to make accusations of trying to appease russia look silly. There could be more said here about % GDP, but that would be just straying away from my point: Do you think that germany being the third biggest contributor in total amount when it comes to military contributions appeases russia? (That dataset is outdated by now btw, but since we heard the same crap back then its still applies). That together with being 4th in financial commitments in total (reminder that these are of similar importance to military aid as the west is what enables ukraine currently to pay their military and keep the country running). No matter how you try to strecht the GDP part asnd draw conclusions on the level of commitment, you can not relativise the fact that when it comes to how much impact aid has, the total amount of it is key. Not how much commitment you show, but how much you put out. So I have difficulty seeing this alleged appeasing of russia from warding's post. German aid is not what we would like, but it is still a substantial contribution that should be enough to dispel these theories. There can be no restarting of german-russian relations before the war has ended, and by now it is almost certain that ukraine can at least make it a protracted war.
What I don't agree with is wild conspiracy theories. This was not about 'what about [country x], but having to deal with the same whacky theories every time germany does something people don't like in this war. Also your take on being safe from russia for the US/UK: that applies to all of nato, thanks to nato. Some of the eastern european countries might be a little bit more anxious, but overall I think they have trust in nato.
You keep going back to technicalities over how much and whatnot. I think you're still missing the big picture. And even if we look at numbers, the amount of aid is still minuscule compared to how much Germany was stuck spending in purchasing natural gas from Russia in 2022.
Even ignoring the massive historical debt Germany owes to Ukrainians, Germany's foreign policy towards Russia in the past 20 years has been disastrous, along with a Russian infiltration of its political elite. Any detail like muddling the conversation over the Leos demanding the US to go first, or the fact that the previous defense minister blocked doing any inventory of Leos in order "not to put pressure on Scholz", or the fact that Scholz makes up this retarded story about a polish jogger thanking him for being cautious about the Leos, or when Scholz personally blocked Rheinmetal from supplying Marders to Ukraine back in May, are all seen in this global light. The optics are horrible.
Europe needs leadership, and while the EU institutions themselves have been fantastic, they don't have the tools for defense/foreign policy. So we're stuck looking at the big EU countries and they are absent in terms of leadership. So, again, we are stuck looking at the US, and everyone hates Germany now. Deservedly.
Anyone in Europe mentioning a historical debt to anyone else can fuck right off. Sorry to be this crass, but former colonial powers have no business telling other nations what they owe. If you want to open that can of worms, boy do I have a history on Portugal to sell to you. Drawing arbitrary historical lines is completely ridiculous. And giving Germany shit for not being the most eager nation to provide military hardware into an active war is also completely tone-deaf and is a clear sign of a lack of understanding the context. You are saying that a pretty hardcore pacifist nation deserves all the shit flung at them for only being the nation with the third most military aid to Ukraine. Russian infiltration of German political elite... Get out.
Regarding military support to Ukraine as % of GDP, Germany ranks 17th out of 29. Germany spends 1.4% of GDP on the military, so saying they're in third place is missing the point that they could easily be sending several times more military aid. Germany doesn't rank high on any metric as % of GDP. They're not compensating for a lack of military support by otherwise ranking much higher. They're indeed not doing anywhere near as much as they could.
It's time to ask why so many European countries are dragging their feet in this war. I'm honestly baffled that Ukraine is still more or less standing intact considering how little they've received. Russia should've truly swept the floor with Ukraine.
Well, to be fair, people often overlook other aspects of Western military aid, beside the big toys. Leopards this, F-16 that, but the more important things, that kept Ukraine alive, rarely are accounted for.
1. Communication and Reconnaissance - probably the most important aspect, in which Ukraine has distinct advantage over Russia. All Western military as well as a lot of civilian satellites are working to provide data for Ukraine. Black sea, Moldovian and Belarussian border are constantly patrolled by US recon aircraft and UAVs. Smaller UAVs are delivered en masse in organized fashion, while Russian soldiers get them through volunteers only (I mean ones like Mavic, Orlan and Orion are of course bought by MoD). AFU also operates Starlink as well as many other means of digital communication, Russia also struggles behind in this department.
2. Artillery - this war is war of artillery, and if not for Western supplies of artillery pieces, and even more importantly, shells, hundreds of thousands, if not millions by this point, Ukraine would simply run out of ammo without it. Even now West has to scramble munitions from all over the world, Israel, South Korea, even Africa to provide something to Ukraine. Plus the huge number of long-range artillery pieces and guided munitions help Ukraine to sustain artillery war while being heavily outgunned. By this point most of the UA artillery you see on camera are Western, and for a good reason, since Ukraine (and even neighbouring countries with Soviet equipment) almost run out of 122/152-mm shells.
3. Infantry gear - Ukraine mobilized somewhat around a million men by this point. They alone simply wouldn't have enough gear and weapons to provide for such a large force. West supplied hundreds of thousands of uniforms, body armor, helmets, med kits, sleeping bags, assault rifles, tens of thousands of machineguns, anti-tank weapons and MANPADs. Tens of millions of ammunition rounds.
4. Transport and maintenance - this giant army has to move, deliver supplies, wounded, scramble and repair equipment etc. Thousands of non-combat trucks, cars, ambulances, evacuation vehicles, bridging equipment made this million-sized army able to actually operate around.
5. Misc - a million of items not falling into any particular category, like medical equipment, generators, MREs, canned food, spare parts for everything, firefighting gear, binos, tents, water purification equipment, demolition charges, mines, hospital beds etc. etc. etc.
So even if Ukraine was capable to withstand initial Russian assault by themselves, it would unlikely fare as it is now doing without all this being supplied. And even if we talk about heavy vehicle stuff - it's mostly Polish/Chezh tanks and IFVs as well as other Western APCs, MRAPs and HMMWVs (as well as aforementioned Western artillery) that formed units conducting both Kherson and Balakleya offensives.
Fair points. The modernization of Ukraine's military while at war can't be expected to happen too fast.
Regarding tank deliveries, it looks like Germany is planning to prepare two tank battalliones (44 each). Am I seeing this right that this would be the largest share of battle tanks being sent?
Germany is sending 14, and wants to put together 2 battalions together with other European partners, so they would come from a variety of different countries.
On January 23 2023 22:23 Magic Powers wrote: Regarding support in % of GDP Estonia (very similar to Latvia), when compared to Germany, spends a whopping 17 times more in % of its GDP on military support to Ukraine, while spending 87 times less (total) on its own military. (Edit: please ignore the 87 figure, that seems irrelevant. The key number is the % of GDP sent to Ukraine). How is that even possible? These countries shouldn't even be able to compete in that regard.
When you say "neither great nor terrible", I'd say that's an understatement. And terrible? That would be France for example. They have the means to militarily support Ukraine a lot more and just aren't doing it. They're a lot worse than even Germany. I would criticize them if they weren't so obviously disengaged for everyone to see.
We are better than france, so not terrible. And worse then estonia so not great. Seems like you fully agree with my assessment, thanks for sorting that out. Weirdly it sounded like you would disagree, but that must have been lost in translation again. Sure germany could do more, but my entire point was that it does more than enough to make accusations of trying to appease russia look silly. There could be more said here about % GDP, but that would be just straying away from my point: Do you think that germany being the third biggest contributor in total amount when it comes to military contributions appeases russia? (That dataset is outdated by now btw, but since we heard the same crap back then its still applies). That together with being 4th in financial commitments in total (reminder that these are of similar importance to military aid as the west is what enables ukraine currently to pay their military and keep the country running). No matter how you try to strecht the GDP part asnd draw conclusions on the level of commitment, you can not relativise the fact that when it comes to how much impact aid has, the total amount of it is key. Not how much commitment you show, but how much you put out. So I have difficulty seeing this alleged appeasing of russia from warding's post. German aid is not what we would like, but it is still a substantial contribution that should be enough to dispel these theories. There can be no restarting of german-russian relations before the war has ended, and by now it is almost certain that ukraine can at least make it a protracted war.
What I don't agree with is wild conspiracy theories. This was not about 'what about [country x], but having to deal with the same whacky theories every time germany does something people don't like in this war. Also your take on being safe from russia for the US/UK: that applies to all of nato, thanks to nato. Some of the eastern european countries might be a little bit more anxious, but overall I think they have trust in nato.
You keep going back to technicalities over how much and whatnot. I think you're still missing the big picture. And even if we look at numbers, the amount of aid is still minuscule compared to how much Germany was stuck spending in purchasing natural gas from Russia in 2022.
Even ignoring the massive historical debt Germany owes to Ukrainians, Germany's foreign policy towards Russia in the past 20 years has been disastrous, along with a Russian infiltration of its political elite. Any detail like muddling the conversation over the Leos demanding the US to go first, or the fact that the previous defense minister blocked doing any inventory of Leos in order "not to put pressure on Scholz", or the fact that Scholz makes up this retarded story about a polish jogger thanking him for being cautious about the Leos, or when Scholz personally blocked Rheinmetal from supplying Marders to Ukraine back in May, are all seen in this global light. The optics are horrible.
Europe needs leadership, and while the EU institutions themselves have been fantastic, they don't have the tools for defense/foreign policy. So we're stuck looking at the big EU countries and they are absent in terms of leadership. So, again, we are stuck looking at the US, and everyone hates Germany now. Deservedly.
Anyone in Europe mentioning a historical debt to anyone else can fuck right off. Sorry to be this crass, but former colonial powers have no business telling other nations what they owe. If you want to open that can of worms, boy do I have a history on Portugal to sell to you. Drawing arbitrary historical lines is completely ridiculous. And giving Germany shit for not being the most eager nation to provide military hardware into an active war is also completely tone-deaf and is a clear sign of a lack of understanding the context. You are saying that a pretty hardcore pacifist nation deserves all the shit flung at them for only being the nation with the third most military aid to Ukraine. Russian infiltration of German political elite... Get out.
Regarding military support to Ukraine as % of GDP, Germany ranks 17th out of 29. Germany spends 1.4% of GDP on the military, so saying they're in third place is missing the point that they could easily be sending several times more military aid. Germany doesn't rank high on any metric as % of GDP. They're not compensating for a lack of military support by otherwise ranking much higher. They're indeed not doing anywhere near as much as they could.
It's time to ask why so many European countries are dragging their feet in this war. I'm honestly baffled that Ukraine is still more or less standing intact considering how little they've received. Russia should've truly swept the floor with Ukraine.
Well, to be fair, people often overlook other aspects of Western military aid, beside the big toys. Leopards this, F-16 that, but the more important things, that kept Ukraine alive, rarely are accounted for.
1. Communication and Reconnaissance - probably the most important aspect, in which Ukraine has distinct advantage over Russia. All Western military as well as a lot of civilian satellites are working to provide data for Ukraine. Black sea, Moldovian and Belarussian border are constantly patrolled by US recon aircraft and UAVs. Smaller UAVs are delivered en masse in organized fashion, while Russian soldiers get them through volunteers only (I mean ones like Mavic, Orlan and Orion are of course bought by MoD). AFU also operates Starlink as well as many other means of digital communication, Russia also struggles behind in this department.
2. Artillery - this war is war of artillery, and if not for Western supplies of artillery pieces, and even more importantly, shells, hundreds of thousands, if not millions by this point, Ukraine would simply run out of ammo without it. Even now West has to scramble munitions from all over the world, Israel, South Korea, even Africa to provide something to Ukraine. Plus the huge number of long-range artillery pieces and guided munitions help Ukraine to sustain artillery war while being heavily outgunned. By this point most of the UA artillery you see on camera are Western, and for a good reason, since Ukraine (and even neighbouring countries with Soviet equipment) almost run out of 122/152-mm shells.
3. Infantry gear - Ukraine mobilized somewhat around a million men by this point. They alone simply wouldn't have enough gear and weapons to provide for such a large force. West supplied hundreds of thousands of uniforms, body armor, helmets, med kits, sleeping bags, assault rifles, tens of thousands of machineguns, anti-tank weapons and MANPADs. Tens of millions of ammunition rounds.
4. Transport and maintenance - this giant army has to move, deliver supplies, wounded, scramble and repair equipment etc. Thousands of non-combat trucks, cars, ambulances, evacuation vehicles, bridging equipment made this million-sized army able to actually operate around.
5. Misc - a million of items not falling into any particular category, like medical equipment, generators, MREs, canned food, spare parts for everything, firefighting gear, binos, tents, water purification equipment, demolition charges, mines, hospital beds etc. etc. etc.
So even if Ukraine was capable to withstand initial Russian assault by themselves, it would unlikely fare as it is now doing without all this being supplied. And even if we talk about heavy vehicle stuff - it's mostly Polish/Chezh tanks and IFVs as well as other Western APCs, MRAPs and HMMWVs (as well as aforementioned Western artillery) that formed units conducting both Kherson and Balakleya offensives.
Fair points. The modernization of Ukraine's military while at war can't be expected to happen too fast.
Regarding tank deliveries, it looks like Germany is planning to prepare two tank battalliones (44 each). Am I seeing this right that this would be the largest share of battle tanks being sent?
France continues to study the possibility of sending its heavy Leclerc tanks to Ukraine, Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne said on Wednesday.
The French tanks are comparable to the German-made Leopards, which Berlin agreed to send to Kyiv on Wednesday, but are available in far smaller numbers and would pose different maintenance and logistical challenges.
"Regarding the Leclerc tanks, we are continuing our analysis with the armed forces ministry," Borne told parliament when asked on Wednesday. "The issue of assistance for Ukraine is not limited to this or that weapon."
France has provided its state-of-the-art Caesar artillery system, Crotale air defence system and most recently pledged its highly mobile AMX-10 RC light tank among other weapons.
With Germany now providing Leopards to Ukraine and the US set to send its Abrams, attention is expected to turn to whether France will authorise the deployment of Leclercs.
Senior French defence officials have questioned whether the tank would be helpful at a time when Ukrainian forces are having to train on a wide variety of complex Western weapons.
"There's no political objection," a French defence ministry source told AFP on condition of anonymity. "We are just wondering whether the Leclerc would be a poisoned chalice. The aim is to be useful and effective."
France has around 200 Leclercs, which were manufactured by the Nexter System defence group.
- Nothing 'excluded' -
They have similar capabilities as the Leopard 2 -- a 120 mm canon capable of hitting targets up to four kilometres (2.5 miles) away -- but no other European army uses them.
"Ukraine is not looking for Leclercs in particular, but rather Caesars and Crotales," the French defence source added.
French President Emmanuel Macron laid out the terms for providing heavy tanks to Ukraine at the weekend, saying Sunday that nothing was "excluded" for the moment.
He said that any decision to provide them should not be "escalatory", should offer "real and effective" benefits to Ukraine, and should not undermine French defence capabilities.
Paris hailed Germany's decision to provide its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine on Wednesday.
"France welcomes the German decision which extends and amplifies the support that we provided with the delivery of the AMX-10 RC," a presidential spokeswoman said.
Paris is still in discussions with Italy about providing the MAMBA air defence system to Ukraine and is looking to provide more Crotale missiles, defence sources told AFP.
It is set to hand over the first 14 AMX-10 RCs to Ukraine at the end of February, with around 40 expected to be transferred in total.
Hm... Two Germans, an American, a Frenchman, and a Briton have been captured fighting for Wagner in Ukraine... if it is true as the one describing the situation is a German volunteer fighting for Ukraine at Bakhmut.
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-szcye2zgx6/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/5734/1206637/e4ea270aadec781bd09294d9124bcfafee2315dc22166d2ff0b09f7711bb5957__41304.1653500680.jpg?c=2)
