FancyCat

Breaking contracts is overrated, at risk of sounding insensitive, Poland is not acting alone, the UK is sending tanks, if it can convince another state to join in, it would effectively challenge Germany's stated reasons for not providing tanks. One, risk of NATO Russia conflict, Germany must either clearly challenge the tank shipments on the basis of causing greater conflict, two, Germany has asserted concerted movement of NATO, both are severely challenged by this move. Once you send the tanks, you invalidate the reasons given by Germany, now Poland and co can say, "the risks did not pan out" and if Germany tries to withhold ammo or training or parts, it becomes a question, why do you want to not support Ukraine?

Interesting reminder that U.S aid is not infinite in this article noting that Congress will have trouble passing further aid for Ukraine. It's important for Scholz to realize the U.S may not be in a position to take the lead and that Europe will have to lead without the U.S in some respects.

I quite like how they structure their videos, a run down of the course of the battle of Kyiv.

Calling a politician a idiot is spewing hatred?

In insisting on "NATO unity" and "lockstep" (ignoring he's basically telling all of Europe they don't matter vs the U.S), and insisting on American tanks alongside German tanks, he's devaluing Article 5. Also if he was truly worried of escalation, wouldn't he be saying no NATO state should be providing tanks? Not asking for the U.S to provide it first? So instead he's seeking a insurance policy against Russian retaliation, implying Article 5 isn't worth jack ****. What a idiot. Sorry, the logic just simply does not calculate. He's breaking NATO unity, not preserving it.

Either escalation is actually a worry on Scholz's part, or this is a weak attempt at slowing aid to Ukraine. As the below shows, he risks damaging NATO and trust in Germany.

The UK announced tanks for Ukraine on Monday. Has anyone asked Scholz how he feels about the UK risking war between NATO and Russia?

As Putin doubles down on a prolonged conflict, the NYT has some reporting that the U.S has conceded that Ukraine needs more aid, more advanced and sustained over time in order to push Russia to the negotiating table, and therefore threaten the preinvasion occupying territory. Despite the fact these terror attacks aren't targeting Ukrainian military infrastructure directly (seemingly), the reporting here backs up that Russia hopes to drive Ukraine to forced terms by ruining any chance of a recovery. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/us/politics/ukraine-crimea-military.html

The most distressing thing is that this comes as Russia bombs apartment buildings filled with civilians with from what I can see news wise, as no regard for even manufactured excuses anymore. The idea of mollifying the West is just carelessly dropped. And what about European collective defense? Common security policy? I called Germany a vassal state of the U.S in jest. I surely figured that France and Germany, which alike have had the same rhetoric on Ukraine and Russia that at times was harshly criticized, would surely lockstep provide tanks, a symbol of continued French-German alliance that has underpinned European interests and nay, instead he’s waiting for Biden, making all of Europe look idiotic. quote from WSJ: ““One can’t differentiate between direct exports (of German-made tanks) and exports by third countries,” a senior German official said Wednesday.” this statement by Scholz is just incoherent: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday that Germany was “strategically interlocked” with friends and partners when it came to making decisions on how to support Ukraine, including with tanks. “Yet Mr. Scholz remains cautious. Asked on Wednesday why he was hesitating to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv, Mr. Scholz told the World Economic Forum that he was concerned about the Ukraine conflict becoming a global conflagration. “The Ukrainians can rely on our support in their courageous fight but it is also clear that we want to avoid this becoming a war between Russia and NATO,” Mr. Scholz said.” where is the strategic interlocking? You have France, the UK providing tanks, and you’re still “making decisions”. What happened to the common lockstep? Gah. look, yes, no Abrams, it’s unfair to force Europe to burden the hassle of providing tanks, but not really? Strikers, longer range precise bombs, Bradleys, come on, France is providing tanks, this is just incoherent. If truly lockstep, why not talk and hash out a plan with Leopard owning states to pressure the U.S? I will point to Germany as a example of the state influencing the military industrial complex from accommodating orders. Bulgaria could have easily failed to provide the legal provision to allow exports.

I mean if we want to pressure the U.S into ensuring a proper Ukrainian unit is outfitted fully, isn’t the way to go for Germany and other Leo using nations to get together, pledge what they can and state it’s not enough, and ask the U.S for more tanks? If the U.S is being unreasonable, this makes it clear who is unreasonable.

Just a firing ring of rumors back and forth. What seems to be true is Germany wants the U.S to send tanks before allowing any Leopards to be sent. Look, I understand that Germany wants to not go alone, except you aren't!! Come on goddamn it.

I'm leaning that the U.S has pledged tanks and it's moot. Just disappointing rhetoric does not match action. Acting like a vassal state of the U.S. not even like joint Franco-German action.

Interesting. Not sure if possible or true but someone should crack open those tanks. Maybe some psyops but I know nothing about this opposition paper.

I don't assign "spine" with a boolean value, especially not to politicians, which are universally defined as loose, shifting slime.

The worse part of Scholz in my opinion, is that these are self-inflicted wounds. End of the day, Germany is providing what Ukraine needs. Germany, Scholz has not indicated he's supportive of Russia in speech or actions. It's just announcing support for Ukraine in a very weak mannered manner. Just do what Macron and "go first". It's not even first, if truly NATO has been prepping for a unified tank deployment to Ukraine. Just be first to the microphone. Christ. It's not hard. What sort of domestic blowback could possibly result from announcing something like a week before if the intent was present for it in the first place?!

Doing the right thing morally is supporting Ukraine. Of course if someone supports Russia, I would condemn it. (In general) I'm not Dan/california but of course I want Scholz to have a spine cause if he doesn't want to send tanks and stated it with spine and refused to back down, he would be bombarded domestically and internationally, none the least for the falseness of his words supporting Ukraine mismatching with his actions. Fact of the matter is history has shown Scholz's denials of aid to Ukraine is not meshed in any real inability to proceed, just inability to step forward alone. Which just makes him look weak. Of course anyone wants him to gain a spine, cause every decision made already has fallen on Ukraine's side in the end.

Wow, despite 70 percent of the country polled as worried and wishing to not supply Ukraine, the Bulgarian government in power in the early part of the war provided essential aid to Ukraine and was voted out of power partly due to that. Note, despite their fall, Bulgaria's parliament voted to allow exports of military aid to Ukraine. I'm not bashing anyone, but I'm just pointing out that they placed Ukraine ahead of domestic concerns. Of course U.S and British money is a powerful factor, but note that Russian money exists too and was not enough to keep Bulgaria from supplying Ukraine luckily. Reprisals from Russia:

If I were Ukraine, I cannot assume Western support will last or extend years. Every piece of equipment that reaches Ukraine is something the West can't get cold feet on. (Sorry, western track records on supporting is not great, it's just natural for Ukraine to ask for whatever it can immediately) Also, personally I remain cautious of Russia being close to collapse. Sure, if Ukraine had the means to exploit a near collapse to rout the Russians, but they don't.

The initial question was if I'm recalling correctly, what could be considered victory outcomes for either Ukraine or Russia. My point was to underline that unless Ukraine is able to as you put it, "win the peace", diminishing Russian power does not result in a Western or Ukrainian win without unlikely possibilities occurring and without a Ukrainian victory, it is unlikely to win in peacetime, Russia still sorta gets a win or draw and definitely a draw or win for Russia damages the West severely. A apt thread below, a scenario where the West is unable to expand the benefits of closeness to Western values and countries, will only strengthen those who seek it's decline. Allowing Ukraine to fail will signify our continued decline. Millions of Ukrainians have left Ukraine, and as I outlined earlier, they will not return unless Ukraine is victorious.

Would the U.S be fine with that? Would NATO be? Shoot, consider the Russian position, say the tripwire forces are placed, and Ukraine can safely rearm and prep for a invasion of the Donbas, with the tripwire forces making it very risky for Russia to preemptively attack, or even defend. Purely from a Russian paranoid perception, allowing the West to walk into Ukraine would render it completely out of their grasp and set it up for the loss of the Donbas and Crimea, (assuming the West can get Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and withdrawal to pre-invasion lines), Russian forces would need to be clearly losing and in potential of losing the Donbas and/or Crimea to agree to this, except by then its exceedingly likely Ukraine would be in a position to ignore the West and push. Consider Putin deciding to abandon on his own without Ukrainian pressure to pre-invasion lines to ensure a good defense, except that is politically unacceptable. Abandon Mariupol? Melitopol? the "Russian" Sea of Azov and land corridor? Severodonetsk? Consider giving Russia its current or any sort of post-invasion territories, any sort of concession of territory past the invasion point, i absolutely doubt no amount of EU or NATO membership dangling could convince the Ukrainian public to not string up Zelensky. Not to mention all rhetoric focused on warding off China and others on territorial integrity crumbles to dust. We know this, its worth restating the reason for full scale invasion being so outlandish, it severely limits the ability of all parties to make agreements, negotiate peace, and the West didn't think Putin would be so inflexible and demented to box himself into such a situation. Then after the initial invasion failed, the expectation that Putin might be flexible, withdraw, maybe get some concessions offered (recall the Ukrainian attempts at peace negotiations in Turkey) not double down and keep invading has not come to pass (in the process hardening Ukrainian resistance), probably a reason why Western aid is only ramping after letting Putin decide to keep going.

We should also ponder the viability of drones dominating the battlefield with ISR and in offensive actions since drones must be cheap and plentiful because both Ukraine and Russia report that they drop like flies meaning they are able to be defeated.