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 March 03 2023 18:21 Ardias wrote: Video of Ukraine forces training on Challengers
4:05 - "Most of them haven't seen a tank". I guess they don't send a lot of previously trained crews on Challys, wonder how it would be with other types.
As far as experience goes, I think only the commander benefits hugely. The loader position doesn't exist in Russian tanks (and is relatively simple), the western tanks have significantly better optics, and the computers do a lot of the aiming so the gunner position is easier.
The drivers can likely get more miles in a week of training between simulator and testing grounds than they would during the rest of the war. With the fully automatic transmissions, and fully stabilized guns, as long as the driver doesn't do anything stupid they should be fine.
It's interesting that they mention weight/acceleration though. Only the Challenger 2 is notably more sluggish than the Russian tanks. The M1 and Leopard 2 might be heavier, but they have larger engines for a comparable power/weight.
Without air superiority you can't seriosuly expect western tanks to make any strategic difference, latest Ramstein promised 74 main battle tanks and Ukraine already lost 78 in 2023
Oh, yes you can. Let's see how it goes once the T64's are replaced by L2A6's.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated on March 2 that Germany is negotiating with allies about providing security guarantees to Ukraine but provided no further details on these proposed guarantees.[...] Scholz’s statements are consistent with reports of a proposed Ukraine-NATO defense pact that would provide enough arms to Ukraine to force Russia to the negotiation table, but would not offer Article V protection or obligate NATO states to deploy forces to Ukraine. ISW has recently assessed that such an agreement appears to reflect a desire to pressure Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on unfavorable terms, especially as Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently unlikely to compromise on his maximalist goals of demilitarization and de facto regime change in Ukraine.[22]
The idea of arming Ukraine instead of providing guarantees is being mentioned more often by the west lately.
That is probably the only realistic solution in the near future since nobody is willing to go to war with russia over ukraine. Just looking at how difficult the pretty safe Nato membership of sweden (and by proxy finland) are, or how long and difficult the process for EU membership are even without political motivated resistance.
Both Nato and EU membership for ukraine is probably only realistic after it got so armed up that nobody thinks russia can invade them, and that status remaining in place for long enough to make everyone at ease. And even then you probably still have to worry about some separatist movements 'coincidentally' springing up all of a sudden and jeopardizing the process.
By now Ukraine couldn't even support the army that they used to have at the start of this war. It's hard to imagine NATO finding even more weaponry that it can part-with but didn't delivery already, do so in time before Russia recovers and then make it affordable to use for now-impoverished country.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated on March 2 that Germany is negotiating with allies about providing security guarantees to Ukraine but provided no further details on these proposed guarantees.[...] Scholz’s statements are consistent with reports of a proposed Ukraine-NATO defense pact that would provide enough arms to Ukraine to force Russia to the negotiation table, but would not offer Article V protection or obligate NATO states to deploy forces to Ukraine. ISW has recently assessed that such an agreement appears to reflect a desire to pressure Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on unfavorable terms, especially as Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently unlikely to compromise on his maximalist goals of demilitarization and de facto regime change in Ukraine.[22]
The idea of arming Ukraine instead of providing guarantees is being mentioned more often by the west lately.
That is probably the only realistic solution in the near future since nobody is willing to go to war with russia over ukraine. Just looking at how difficult the pretty safe Nato membership of sweden (and by proxy finland) are, or how long and difficult the process for EU membership are even without political motivated resistance.
Both Nato and EU membership for ukraine is probably only realistic after it got so armed up that nobody thinks russia can invade them, and that status remaining in place for long enough to make everyone at ease. And even then you probably still have to worry about some separatist movements 'coincidentally' springing up all of a sudden and jeopardizing the process.
By now Ukraine couldn't even support the army that they used to have at the start of this war. It's hard to imagine NATO finding even more weaponry that it can part-with but didn't delivery already, do so in time before Russia recovers and then make it affordable to use for now-impoverished country.
No nation can afford their wartime armies in the long term I think, which is why you usually maintain mechanisms that maintain a well trained core and allow you to rapidly expand your military if needed. My post was aimed at some point in the future, where the war has ended and ukraine has prevailed in some form. Here, the west can provide ukraine with financial aid in some form, to enable them to support their defence more. This already effectively happened after 2014, ukraine received a lot of western help to build out their total defence concept and improve their military.
I believe that as long as ukraine is perceived to be at high risk of being invaded by russia, they won't be able to get into either EU or Nato, even if there were no political agendas at play. And even if they would overcome the security concerns, they would probably face politically motivated resistance. So if we want to ensure ukraines security, while also being unwilling to go to war for them, paying to enable someone else to do so seems the only way. Because even if ukraine kicks russia completely out of their territory, the threat of russia rebuilding their military and trying again would still loom in peoples minds.
It would depend on whatever the peace deal looks like in the end. Russia will need to "Promise" not to invade Ukraine again at the very least. Meanwhile, the EU will want to be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine and integrate it into the EU, doing that means EU membership. Ukraine brings a ton of potential for growth and resources to the table and can be an outlet for the dollars stuck at the fed every day. It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
NATO membership is a different story but you don't need NATO membership to have NATO memberstate troops in your country. I don't belive Poland will let another war in the east happen without them.
On March 03 2023 23:59 Sermokala wrote: It would depend on whatever the peace deal looks like in the end. Russia will need to "Promise" not to invade Ukraine again at the very least. Meanwhile, the EU will want to be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine and integrate it into the EU, doing that means EU membership. Ukraine brings a ton of potential for growth and resources to the table and can be an outlet for the dollars stuck at the fed every day. It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
NATO membership is a different story but you don't need NATO membership to have NATO memberstate troops in your country. I don't belive Poland will let another war in the east happen without them.
If Ukraine joins the EU within 10 years of the war ending, it'll be an insane surprise. Evenless than 15 years would be crazy fast.
From my understanding corruption is much closer to Russian levels than that of EU standards, and the economy in general is somewhat oligarch-dominated.
Even when these are solved and the necessary legal/political/economic reforms are implemented, current EU members will likely not be screaming in joy about entrance of a large net recipient of EU funds. Current recipients will see smaller share of the funds, and current net payers are going to face a bigger bill.
Finally there will be all other politics. Someone will use their vote to twist arms on unrelated issues, similar to what happened with NATO and North Macedonia, or currently with Finland and Sweden.
On March 03 2023 23:59 Sermokala wrote: It would depend on whatever the peace deal looks like in the end. Russia will need to "Promise" not to invade Ukraine again at the very least. Meanwhile, the EU will want to be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine and integrate it into the EU, doing that means EU membership. Ukraine brings a ton of potential for growth and resources to the table and can be an outlet for the dollars stuck at the fed every day. It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
NATO membership is a different story but you don't need NATO membership to have NATO memberstate troops in your country. I don't belive Poland will let another war in the east happen without them.
If Ukraine joins the EU within 10 years of the war ending, it'll be an insane surprise. Evenless than 15 years would be crazy fast.
From my understanding corruption is much closer to Russian levels than that of EU standards, and the economy in general is somewhat oligarch-dominated.
Not just corruption, even "just" the matter of adapting processes, regulations, and laws to EU standards is something that can only be done slowly over time.
On March 03 2023 23:59 Sermokala wrote: It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
As far as I understand it, ukrainian refugee status is not much of a problem aside from public opinion, but my prediction is that the people concerned with ukrainian refugees would be even more concerned with ukraine covered by schengen... romania is currently struggling to get into schengen for example
While corruption is bound to be an issue in any former Soviet territory due to the lack of a historical tradition of legalism I doubt that there has been a better moment to build cultural intolerance of corruption. I expect corruption to be depicted as something Russian and misuse of funds allocated for rebuilding after this war to be depicted as a crime against the nation and people.
Taking a little off the side in peacetime is one thing but taking a little off the side of funds allocated for schools for the war orphan children of heroes who died for national liberation is a little less justifiable.
I am hopeful that Zelenskyy, or his postwar successor, can manage that messaging.
On March 03 2023 18:21 Ardias wrote: Video of Ukraine forces training on Challengers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cu3N0y7Sf8 4:05 - "Most of them haven't seen a tank". I guess they don't send a lot of previously trained crews on Challys, wonder how it would be with other types.
Nice misinformation through half quoting, let me help. "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank"
Which says absolutely nothing. The one Ukrainian that gets interviewed clearly has experience.
On March 03 2023 18:21 Ardias wrote: Video of Ukraine forces training on Challengers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cu3N0y7Sf8 4:05 - "Most of them haven't seen a tank". I guess they don't send a lot of previously trained crews on Challys, wonder how it would be with other types.
Nice misinformation through half quoting, let me help. "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank"
Which says absolutely nothing. The one Ukrainian that gets interviewed clearly has experience.
There is 0 difference between what Ardias says here and what you say... The video makes it seem like most of the ukrainians that got trained on the challengers are new to tanking. And like Gorsameth said, it makes perfect sense to train fresh people on the new tanks when you got enough of your regular tanks to equip all your already experienced crews if you need to expand your tank force and not just upgrade them.
On March 03 2023 23:59 Sermokala wrote: It would depend on whatever the peace deal looks like in the end. Russia will need to "Promise" not to invade Ukraine again at the very least. Meanwhile, the EU will want to be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine and integrate it into the EU, doing that means EU membership. Ukraine brings a ton of potential for growth and resources to the table and can be an outlet for the dollars stuck at the fed every day. It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
NATO membership is a different story but you don't need NATO membership to have NATO memberstate troops in your country. I don't belive Poland will let another war in the east happen without them.
If Ukraine joins the EU within 10 years of the war ending, it'll be an insane surprise. Evenless than 15 years would be crazy fast.
From my understanding corruption is much closer to Russian levels than that of EU standards, and the economy in general is somewhat oligarch-dominated.
Not just corruption, even "just" the matter of adapting processes, regulations, and laws to EU standards is something that can only be done slowly over time.
I think there is a far bigger issue with any plan for Ukrainian EU membership, namely the defense pact. If Ukraine could be invaded to stop it from joining NATO then it can be invaded to stop it joining EU. EU might be short on tactical nukes but Ukraine joining it would mean beginning of the end of Russian influence there.
On March 03 2023 23:59 Sermokala wrote: It would depend on whatever the peace deal looks like in the end. Russia will need to "Promise" not to invade Ukraine again at the very least. Meanwhile, the EU will want to be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine and integrate it into the EU, doing that means EU membership. Ukraine brings a ton of potential for growth and resources to the table and can be an outlet for the dollars stuck at the fed every day. It would also end the refugee situation for Ukrainians by making them free moving residents of the Schengen.
NATO membership is a different story but you don't need NATO membership to have NATO memberstate troops in your country. I don't belive Poland will let another war in the east happen without them.
If Ukraine joins the EU within 10 years of the war ending, it'll be an insane surprise. Evenless than 15 years would be crazy fast.
From my understanding corruption is much closer to Russian levels than that of EU standards, and the economy in general is somewhat oligarch-dominated.
Not just corruption, even "just" the matter of adapting processes, regulations, and laws to EU standards is something that can only be done slowly over time.
I think there is a far bigger issue with any plan for Ukrainian EU membership, namely the defense pact. If Ukraine could be invaded to stop it from joining NATO then it can be invaded to stop it joining EU. EU might be short on tactical nukes but Ukraine joining it would mean beginning of the end of Russian influence there.
I agree, the only realistic direction for ukraine getting into the EU would be if they get into nato first, because joining the EU is a similar threat to russian influence and would probably also make a nato membership only a question of time. And as long as it is perceived as a threat to russian influence, you would have to expect the same resistance from russia to it.
EDIT: I feel like this at least for the foreseeable future.
On March 03 2023 18:21 Ardias wrote: Video of Ukraine forces training on Challengers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cu3N0y7Sf8 4:05 - "Most of them haven't seen a tank". I guess they don't send a lot of previously trained crews on Challys, wonder how it would be with other types.
Nice misinformation through half quoting, let me help. "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank"
Which says absolutely nothing. The one Ukrainian that gets interviewed clearly has experience.
There is 0 difference between what Ardias says here and what you say... The video makes it seem like most of the ukrainians that got trained on the challengers are new to tanking. And like Gorsameth said, it makes perfect sense to train fresh people on the new tanks when you got enough of your regular tanks to equip all your already experienced crews if you need to expand your tank force and not just upgrade them.
Sure, thanks for equating me to St Petersburg troll factory propaganda...
My post makes no statement on the subject and purely corrects a half quote. The other post is intentionally leaving out half a quote to push a narrative. You cannot be so stupid to not see the difference.
On March 03 2023 18:21 Ardias wrote: Video of Ukraine forces training on Challengers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cu3N0y7Sf8 4:05 - "Most of them haven't seen a tank". I guess they don't send a lot of previously trained crews on Challys, wonder how it would be with other types.
Nice misinformation through half quoting, let me help. "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank"
Which says absolutely nothing. The one Ukrainian that gets interviewed clearly has experience.
There is 0 difference between what Ardias says here and what you say... The video makes it seem like most of the ukrainians that got trained on the challengers are new to tanking. And like Gorsameth said, it makes perfect sense to train fresh people on the new tanks when you got enough of your regular tanks to equip all your already experienced crews if you need to expand your tank force and not just upgrade them.
Sure, thanks for equating me to St Petersburg troll factory propaganda...
My post makes no statement on the subject and purely corrects a half quote. The other post is intentionally leaving out half a quote to push a narrative. You cannot be so stupid to not see the difference.
Ardias has so far never intentionally spread any sort of misinformation or propaganda, and that comment was no exception. He has gotten things wrong before, as is simply human nature, and it would make sense to say he shouldn't have cut the quote the way he did. But your criticism is a step too far.
Perhaps he assumed that people in this thread already know that it makes perfect sense to train fresh soldiers on a different tank model. Firstly it allows trained tank crews to keep fighting actively, and secondly training them on a different model means they'd have to unlearn some of their motor skills and other habits which can cause them problems during battle.
Actually overanalysing it for fun, there is a slight narrative change by Ardias post. The video states "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank" which taking literally implies to me that out of all of the urkainian forces, only a few have seen a tank. This seems like an obvious blunder on the soldiers part though, he must have meant "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces we train here have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank". Or the video itself omitted a previous sentence that would have clarified what he is talking about. Ardias post 'spins' the 'narrative' in a way that makes it seem like the quote only applies to the troops send there for training, and thus, bringing it more in line with what I think the intended message was.
I think I am convinced now, Ardias is a russian troll. I have no idea why putin pays him to improve statements to the benefit of ukraine/their supporters, but maybe I am a little bit stupid. After all, russia has often played both sides, so maybe they just also apply that tactic to themselves.
On March 04 2023 19:23 Artesimo wrote: Actually overanalysing it for fun, there is a slight narrative change by Ardias post. The video states "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank" which taking literally implies to me that out of all of the urkainian forces, only a few have seen a tank. This seems like an obvious blunder on the soldiers part though, he must have meant "Some of the Ukrainian armed forces we train here have operated tanks before, but most of them have not seen a tank". Or the video itself omitted a previous sentence that would have clarified what he is talking about. Ardias post 'spins' the 'narrative' in a way that makes it seem like the quote only applies to the troops send there for training, and thus, bringing it more in line with what I think the intended message was.
I think I am convinced now, Ardias is a russian troll. I have no idea why putin pays him to improve statements to the benefit of ukraine/their supporters, but maybe I am a little bit stupid. After all, russia has often played both sides, so maybe they just also apply that tactic to themselves.
I understood it as never seen the insides of a tank.
Ardias is just little bit too zealous about weapon talks. But it's nice to have someone not automatically agreeing about things that seems so obvious to the rest of us.
Rheinmetall now publicly said that they are in advanced talks with Ukraine about a tank factory in Ukraine, producing the KF51 Panther. They claim a potential of 400 tanks/year. Costs are to be estimated at 200 million €. They are very confident they could protect it against aerial threats...
This has a insane amount of question marks. Then again, this ain't some Twitter news, but indeed Rheinmetall announcing that themselves...
So: - such an enormous factory for only 200m€ investment? That's like 5 jets equivalent. - 400 tanks a year? When Rheinmetall is struggling to repair double-digit numbers of tanks here in Germany, where half their production is? - confidence in making it air-safe? Sure, you can make it so no Shahed is touching you. But even if Russia is only producing a Kinshal every 2 months... Can you really defend a few of them or their other more advanced stuff incoming? This target would certainly be worth it. - the KF51 Panther so far only has a mock prototype... there are no orders at all so far, earliest service date was estimated 2030+ In their statement they said they would do that investment in the expectation of this war running for a while, but also (unlike e.g. some of the jet discussions) they are claiming that this would be a necessary contribution for an Ukrainian victory, so not just some post war replenishment
On March 04 2023 23:04 mahrgell wrote: Rheinmetall now publicly said that they are in advanced talks with Ukraine about a tank factory in Ukraine, producing the KF51 Panther. They claim a potential of 400 tanks/year. Costs are to be estimated at 200 million €. They are very confident they could protect it against aerial threats...
This has a insane amount of question marks. Then again, this ain't some Twitter news, but indeed Rheinmetall announcing that themselves...
So: - such an enormous factory for only 200m€ investment? That's like 5 jets equivalent. - 400 tanks a year? When Rheinmetall is struggling to repair double-digit numbers of tanks here in Germany, where half their production is? - confidence in making it air-safe? Sure, you can make it so no Shahed is touching you. But even if Russia is only producing a Kinshal every 2 months... Can you really defend a few of them or their other more advanced stuff incoming? This target would certainly be worth it. - the KF51 Panther so far only has a mock prototype... there are no orders at all so far, earliest service date was estimated 2030+ In their statement they said they would do that investment in the expectation of this war running for a while, but also (unlike e.g. some of the jet discussions) they are claiming that this would be a necessary contribution for an Ukrainian victory, so not just some post war replenishment
This smells like some PR stunt on their part, or it is a very abbreviated summary. Like "This factory could produce [up to] 400 tanks a year [under ideal conditions, after we trained and expanded the work force significantly over the course of a couple of years]. Rheinmetall had also claimed in the past that their vehicles in storage are ready to be shipped to ukraine, and then when that option finally was explored, it turned out they were not. I am insanely sceptical of their claims, especially given that the KF51 is like you said only a prototype at the moment that doesn't have any buyers as far as I am aware.
Sounds like the Russians are increasing human wave attacks to try and deplete the ammunition of Ukraine.
A Ukrainian commander said the situation in Bakhmut, a city in eastern Ukraine, is "critical" and that there are more Russian troops surrounding the city than there is ammunition to kill them all.
Volodymyr Nazarenko, a deputy commander in the National Guard of Ukraine, told Ukrainian NV Radio that the fighting is currently going on "round the clock" as Russians relentlessly push to capture the city, according to a translation from Reuters.
"They take no account of their losses in trying to take the city by assault," Nazarenko said, adding that Ukrainian troops are trying to "inflict as many losses on the enemy as possible."
But it may not be enough. Reuters reported that Nazarenko told the radio station that Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut have less ammo than there are Russian troops attacking the city.
"We need as much ammunition as possible," he said, according to Reuters' translation. "There are many more Russians here than we have ammunition to destroy them."
On Friday morning, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, a Russian mercenary organization, appeared in a video telling Kyiv that Bakhmut was "basically surrounded," the Wall Street Journal reported.
"The pincers are tightening," Prigozhin said, urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to pull his forces from the area.
There's currently only one road left out of the city, CNN reported, and the Russian bombing of a vital supply bridge to Bakhmut has cut Ukrainian forces from critical resources.
The Wagner Group pushed much of the offensive into Bakhmut this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Bakhmut has been the site of some of the deadliest combat in the war, with Ukraine and Russia experiencing high losses.