|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Russian Federation617 Posts
|
Dem Bericht zufolge gibt es bisher allerdings Probleme bei der Beschaffung von Munition.
"According to the Report, there are problems with the supply of ammunition."
Please not again...
|
Germany intends to send 88.
But the export confirmed batch of mostly already fully overhauled Leo1 that are to be delivered now is only 29 tanks, which are owned by FFG (and overhauled in cooperation with Rheinmetall)
Obviously, they already signalled that the other tanks will also be allowed, when it is their time.
|
On February 03 2023 19:32 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 19:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Then you failed to make that clear, that's not my fault. All lost in translation 
Ok now that I think I understand your comment correctly, I want to make something clear. pmp10's conclusion does in fact make perfect sense. The way I see it the US has in fact been among the smaller contributors to Ukraine, militarily speaking, and they have a lot of incentive to end the war through peace negotiations if possible.
I can provide numbers to back this up.
The US has 4 times the population size of Germany and 5-6 times the GDP. Their military spending is 14 times greater. In other words they're spending an additional 155% of their GDP on the military compared to Germany.
Donations of military hardware to Ukraine as % of GDP is 80% greater from the US than from Germany (0.109% of GDP [Edited: I accidentally wrote 1.09] compared to 0.061%). That doesn't add up, where are the missing %? The US could be donating 155% more than Germany, and probably even more than that since their military sector is in really good shape.
The proof is in the pudding. By the by the US leadership cares about Ukraine quite minimally. They have even greater incentive than European leaders to play to their voterbase, and Republicans in particular are among the least likely to support Ukraine beyond humanitarian measures.
So it makes perfect sense to say that the US decided to only send Abrams after realizing how committed both Russia and Ukraine are to win the war. The fact that they've previously asked other countries to send more really means nothing - they'd only be looked at with suspicion if they didn't. The way I see it the US leadership is doing the bare minimum of what they're expected to do.
The US is only among the biggest donators because they have by far the largest military, otherwise they'd be considered a small fish.
The more numbers I crunch the more disappointment I get out of it. I really do think it's time that we understand that Ukraine is not in fact receiving all this amazing help from all these different countries. On paper it looks good until you realize how small the numbers truly are relative to what they could be.
The Baltic nations and Poland should be receiving all the praise right now. Not the US, not Germany, not the UK. That's why I'm so adamant about Scholz's feet-dragging. We have to start the criticism somewhere, so lets not defend the indefensible and instead encourage more criticism of more leaders.
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
Also I understand that this is just a coincidence, but it couldn't become more controversially ridiculous (I don't know how to perfectly put here my thoughts even in Russian, leave alone English).. but Germany is giving Ukraine 14 Leopard 2 and 88 Leopard 1.
Should have thrown couple more tanks in.
On February 03 2023 20:18 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +Dem Bericht zufolge gibt es bisher allerdings Probleme bei der Beschaffung von Munition. "According to the Report, there are problems with the supply of ammunition."Please not again...
Well, to be expected. NATO mainstay is 120mm, I wonder which Western countries have tanks with L7 variants in active service. US probably could help, they use something similar on Stryker MBS, and Italy, since they have Centauro with same caliber.
French have their own separate munitions, so won't be of help.
Oddly enough the most supply of 105-mm L7 shells are in... China. They adopted it on many vehicles while they were at odds with USSR.
|
On February 03 2023 21:27 Ardias wrote:
Also I understand that this is just a coincidence, but it couldn't become more controversially ridiculous (I don't know how to perfectly put here my thoughts even in Russian, leave alone English).. but Germany is giving Ukraine 14 Leopard 2 and 88 Leopard 1.
Should have thrown couple more tanks in.
I caught that as well and wondered if this will be turned into some propaganda memes.
Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 20:18 Artesimo wrote:Dem Bericht zufolge gibt es bisher allerdings Probleme bei der Beschaffung von Munition. "According to the Report, there are problems with the supply of ammunition."Please not again... Well, to be expected. NATO mainstay is 120mm, I wonder which Western countries have tanks with L7 variants in active service. US probably could help, they use something similar on Stryker MBS, and Italy, since they have Centauro with same caliber. French have their own separate munitions, so won't be of help. Oddly enough the most supply of 105-mm L7 shells are in... China. They adopted it on many vehicles while they were at odds with USSR.
Yeah I understand it, but that doesn't stop me from getting gepard flashbacks. And the potentially stupid accusations I will have to read.
|
There's still bad news coming out of Bakhmut, but good news in other places.
In Vuhledar, Russia kept throwing so many elite units at Ukrainian forces in frontal assaults that they got completely wiped out, to the point that Russia had to bring in police to stop the troops from rioting. The offensive has now been suspended.
Ukrainian reinforcements successfully made it to Bakhmut. On a personal note, I am skeptical of the claims of Wagner having only 10k mercs left in the area unless the Russian military units confirmed in the area (57th Motor Rifle Brigade, [LPR] 6th Cossack Motorized Rifle Regiment, Akhmat Battalion, and 106th Guards Airborne Division) are providing a ton of units, which I don't think they have the numbers for. Then again, there may have been more reinforcements brought in that haven't been geolocated yet.
Avdiivka is successfully defended at the moment.
|
I mean... it should be a warcrime to send your own troops in like that, but it can make tactical sense:
1. send undefended troops (troops without training, that are cheap to recruit. reports of Wagner using prisoners makes sense).
2. identify entrenched defenses and sniper locations.
3. eradicate defense with artillery from a distance.
4. repeat until the "test bunnies" stop dying.
5. advance with actual troops and fortify newly gained positions.
If step 3 isn't happening it's just free target practice for the Ukrainian defenses, but otherwise it's a brutal, inhumane, but tactically sound way of using untrained troops to advance in an area.
|
On February 03 2023 22:26 Acrofales wrote:I mean... it should be a warcrime to send your own troops in like that, but it can make tactical sense: 1. send undefended troops (troops without training, that are cheap to recruit. reports of Wagner using prisoners makes sense). 2. identify entrenched defenses and sniper locations. 3. eradicate defense with artillery from a distance. 4. repeat until the "test bunnies" stop dying. 5. advance with actual troops and fortify newly gained positions. If step 3 isn't happening it's just free target practice for the Ukrainian defenses, but otherwise it's a brutal, inhumane, but tactically sound way of using untrained troops to advance in an area.
Yeah that looks to be what Wagner's doing, but what baffles me is that it's also potentially what the actual Russian military is doing in Vuhledar. I would assume that not doing that is a perfect way to prove their superiority to Wagner's terrifying amount of losses, but I guess not.
|
Norway28735 Posts
Germany sending 88 tanks to help Ukraine sounds like something they can propagandize xD
|
I can't find a source in English at the moment but they already did.
|
Zurich15359 Posts
On February 03 2023 17:15 pmp10 wrote:
I don't think this was discussed yet:
If true Putin was offered the part of Ukraine he already holds in exchange for peace but he still intends to take more.
Ukraine wasn't on board with the plan anyway, chances are they were offered no protection for the future.
This is why decision to send Abrams was made, which in turn forced Scholtz to send Leopards.
Moscow and Washington call this report a hoax. Looks like a fuckup by the NZZ. They did update the article already with rejections of the story from US and German officials.
|
The US has benefitted and continues to benefit from this war in a multitude of ways. There's literally no reason why they'd want to see it end, certainly not with concessions given to Russia that might make it look like anything else than an abject failure. Of course there's the humanitarian angle, but let's not pretend that has ever influenced any high level policy.
|
|
|
United States43469 Posts
On February 04 2023 00:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 00:18 Salazarz wrote:
The US has benefitted and continues to benefit from this war in a multitude of ways. There's literally no reason why they'd want to see it end, certainly not with concessions given to Russia that might make it look like anything else than an abject failure. Of course there's the humanitarian angle, but let's not pretend that has ever influenced any high level policy. Everyone benefits more from peace and not Russia's version which involves building themselves and empire.
The US underwrites security and so an aggressive expansionist Russia requires US investment in defence. A Russia that self destructs requires significantly less. Though a Russia that could coexist with its neighbours would obviously be way better than either option.
Order of preference would be
1. Russia trades with everyone peacefully and everyone gets rich just like the EU has since WW2.
2-98. ?????
99. Russia insists on being an asshole but self destructs in Ukraine in a long attritional war.
100. Russia wins in Ukraine which causes “peace” until the next time and the next time probably require the US to fight.
|
Only the military sector of the US would benefit from a protracted war in Ukraine. The economic sector, which, in its totality, is far greater than the military sector, would lose out. Shell wanted to invest into Ukraine and pulled out because of the threat of an invasion by Russia. Such investments can only begin after the war has ended.
The US has absolutely no reason to prefer a continuation of the war.
|
On February 03 2023 23:51 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 17:15 pmp10 wrote:I don't think this was discussed yet: https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1621094751176118273If true Putin was offered the part of Ukraine he already holds in exchange for peace but he still intends to take more. Ukraine wasn't on board with the plan anyway, chances are they were offered no protection for the future. This is why decision to send Abrams was made, which in turn forced Scholtz to send Leopards. Moscow and Washington call this report a hoax. Looks like a fuckup by the NZZ. They did update the article already with rejections of the story from US and German officials.
Sure it could be all nonsense.
But let's be honest they wouldn't exactly admit it if these things were true either.
|
|
|
US to send another defense assistance package. Although the timeframe for the GLSDBs is ridiculous. Also Sweden and Germany are in talks about a new package as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
