How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

3 hours ago, womble said:

The "reluctance" about which I remain the most puzzled is the continued prohibition of the sale of Rheinmetall corporate assets (Marder) to an export customer (Ukraine).

I've said it several times, but I will repeat it as often as necessary: this is all about domestic policy. There is a strong group of 'weapon exports are bad always no matter what' in the party of the chancellor. He's not doing that well in the polls, so he won't aggravate this group - unless someone else exports modern, heavy tanks first OR it is done in a group thing (EU or NATO).

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

As dan/California stated, why is a PzH 2000 fine but not a Leopard to Russia?

A PzH is not at the front. Low chance of being destroyed or, worse, being captured. The Russians would loooove to parade a German tank over the Red Square. That would 24/7 in Russian TV. Not a win for a German politician.

Also, a PzH is not a tank... yeah.

[holoween]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

Except for the people demanding exactly that, sure.

Ive only seen them ask for actual tanks.

 

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm no soldier but it sounds wayyy more complex and time consuming that that, to slot Leo2s into Ukrainian mech forces...

That depends entirely on circumstances.
ex adding a pzgren platoon to our company tooka a day of ncos and officers talking out what they each could do and it worked ok from that.

Slotting a leo2 company in place of a t72 company should equally be fairly easy especially if a depleted company goes for refit so command structure remains largely intact and just new equipment and its capabilities have to be trained on (this is what happened with western arty btw.)
If you take 150 civilians and have to train them into a tank company youre obviously taking far more time.

[sburke]

Igor Strelkov vs. Vladimir Solovyov: Russian Infighting Peaks With Hilarious Public Meltdown (thedailybeast.com)

Quote

 

It wasn’t too long ago that the Kremlin declared 2022 a “year of unity” in the country, a sentiment that quickly fell apart as Vladimir Putin’s closest allies created their own circular firing squad over the country’s handling of the war against Ukraine.

Now, that infighting has peaked in spectacular and hilarious fashion, as one of the Kremlin’s most rabid mouthpieces has been challenged to a duel by one of the Kremlin’s most notorious accused terrorists.

The duel, of course, will not involve a sword or pistol as in olden times, but if Igor Strelkov has his way, a public debate.

Strelkov, the former self-proclaimed “defense minister” of the equally self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic in Ukraine, took to Telegram on Wednesday to throw down with none other than top Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov.

The beef? Solovyov used his television program on Tuesday to publicly mock Strelkov for his “pseudo-patriotic” attempt to re-join the war in Ukraine and subsequent failure to make it to the frontline.

Strelkov had set off to join Russia’s ranks in eastern Ukraine in October and spent nearly two months there before revealing he was back in Moscow after his attempts “did not end in success.” As one of the most high-profile Russians involved in Putin’s first stage of the war against Ukraine in 2014 and an outspoken critic of current military strategy (not to mention his involvement in the downing of flight MH17), Strelkov was widely jeered for returning with his tail between his legs.

“This one went off to fight, crapped himself and came back,” Solovyov said of the one-time Russian commander. “If you really wanted to fight, then join Wagner. Strelkov left with such pretentiousness, now it turns out he wasn’t allowed on the frontline. Well you should’ve signed up for Wagner and shown what you’re really worth,” Solovyov said, referring to the private army the Kremlin has used to bolster troops with the help of prison inmates.

“And now he is an anti-patriotic blogger who tells the high command how to fight. Why didn’t you show it yourself? Why did you **** yourself?” Solovyov raged.

Strelkov responded to the TV presenter’s diss Wednesday, challenging the “cowardly and flat-out phony creature” to a live debate.

“I am ready for any public debate with him held on any neutral platform (that is, not edited by him or his sponsors). On any subject that he wants to bring up … The only condition on my part is that the debates must be broadcast live and additionally recorded by ‘neutral’ operators,” Strelkov wrote.

He said he doesn’t expect Solovyov to risk his “reputation” by agreeing to the debate, but suggested the Kremlin cheerleader might just be so sure of himself he’ll agree to it in the hopes of “crushing” his opponent on live TV.

There was no immediate response from Solovyov, and it was not immediately clear when or where the debate might be held if the challenge is accepted.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I think you're nitpicking here. Any mechanical/digital system can be circumvented given time and/or money, so of course any security measures could, eventually with great cost, be nullified. The technical ability of Ukrainian engineers and scientists is well documented and accepted, they're clever and resourceful gits so I'm certain they could have done something eventually.

That wasn't the issue, it was the nasty warhead material itself. Ukraine had specialists sure, but it didn't have the comprehensive and integrated industrial, research and development architecture to maintain the warheads it had, keep their own country safe from accidents or make new ones, or store/get rid of the old material. Dismantling the damn things is insanely risky as it is.

Plus Chernobyl gave everyone the willies and if I remember correctly from my reading ( a long time ago), the fact of already having one nuclear accident to clean up helped with the argument against holding onto a decaying stockpile of actual warheads. Plus, lets face it - the corruption at the time was nutso, so holding onto extremely dangerous weapons-grade material was just inviting trouble down the line.

Let's not forget Ukraine wasn't the only post Soviet state that gave up nukes.  Belarus gave up there's as well as stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.  Kazakhstan had the 4th largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on its territory after the US, China, and Russia.  It gave up all of that as well.

I don't even know how we got down this unproductive road of talking about Ukraine's previous stockpiles of nukes.  They knew they were useless to them, so they gave them up.  Retaining them was never a viable option.  Though, obviously, if they had somehow managed to have kept them Russia would have to take that into consideration.  Which wouldn't necessarily be to Ukraine's benefit.

So can we put this discussion to bed now?  It's up past its bedtime.

Steve

[Kraft]

Supposedly here in Marinka, hell on earth or Russian world?

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

Igor Strelkov vs. Vladimir Solovyov: Russian Infighting Peaks With Hilarious Public Meltdown (thedailybeast.com)

 

Oh, I would so much like to see one of the world's foremost no-nothing propagandists vs. one of the top Fascist commanders.  I'd get a bunch of popcorn and sit there glued to my computer.  Hell, I'd watch the debate even if there was no English translation!  Just watching their faces would be entertainment enough!

Steve

[danfrodo]

16 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Of course we could have started nine months ago, or eight years and nine months ago.

EXACTLY.  If we never begin to build an improved UKR force, say w leo2s, then it will always 'take too long'.  If this war is still hot for summer season we'll all be wishing UKR had the increased lethality and survivability of leos2.  And marders would be nice also.  If it takes 6 months that puts us right into the summer campaign season.  So let's get a move on, shall we?  Start building the leo2 cadres in Europe somewhere, meanwhile get the tanks cleaned up & oiled & ready to ship. 

It will be a UKR-style brigade w better tanks.  Maybe the heavy maintenence is in Poland or elsewhere but in 6 months they couldn't have fighting & maintenence crews trained? 

[kevinkin]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's not forget Ukraine wasn't the only post Soviet state that gave up nukes.

South Africa too in 1989. Small but real program. If I recall they may have worked with the IDF on the first and only test.

As an aside, I was working on a project at Los Alamos in the early 90s when a group of Russian speaking people sat down next to my team in the cafeteria. Our host said don't worry they are from Ukraine. 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Funnily enough that would have gotten them into Europe thirty years sooner, and with a fraction of the damage the Russians are doing now. We really should start a pool about which of the major asian nations announces first. Indonesia might be a sleeper in the race. I need to look up more about their nuclear power program.

Quite the opposite. The Russians would have done the fighting then with more relative capability than they have now and everyone would have acquiesced to some sort of protectorate status to Russia to set the example to other CSTO states who thought about keeping their nukes. 

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Quite the opposite. The Russians would have done the fighting then with more relative capability than they have now and everyone would have acquiesced to some sort of protectorate status to Russia to set the example to other CSTO states who thought about keeping their nukes. 

 

That is, Western countries would agree with the correctness of the attack of one nuclear country on another in the very center of Europe, and Russia would attack Ukraine with the 4th most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world without any problems, do I understand you correctly?

[Zeleban]

 

It's just that, in my opinion, the policy of Western countries in a hypothetical 2014 would be fundamentally different from the real policy of Western countries in 2014.

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

That is, Western countries would agree with the correctness of the attack of one nuclear country on another in the very center of Europe, and Russia would attack Ukraine with the 4th most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world without any problems, do I understand you correctly?

That Ukrainian government would have been sanctioned, pressured and likely forced out. And the 4th most powerful nuclear arsenal isn't when you don't have the launch codes and half of your military won't want to fight the Russians. To hold onto the weapons would have been messy and complicated for everyone but it was simply not going to be allowed to happen unless Ukraine was going to try for the Albanian/North Korean option. Which, just as it exited the USSR would have been seen as an absurd proposition by virtually everyone. 

So no, you don't understand me correctly because your original premise is flawed.

[JonS]

Please, for the love of god, do not embed reddit links

[Zeleban]

Hey, hey, we decided earlier that this was a completely doable task. But explain to me why it would be necessary for Western countries to impose sanctions on Ukraine, which was attacked, what is the logic in this?

And why did you decide that the Ukrainian military does not want to fight the Russians, because reality directly contradicts this

[FancyCat]

The wheels of arms procurement cycle onward. Likely a 3rd party purchased it for Ukraine according to follow-up tweets.

 

[FancyCat]

In the past, Russia has leveraged itself to sabotage both Iran and the West in diplomacy, and related. This is looking to be buried dirt amid deepening cooperation between the two countries. Russia looks slated to provide AD systems, fighters and helicopters to Iran in return for drones and maybe even ballistic missiles including creation of domestic production lines for drones in Russia. With domestic protests in Iran essentially sinking the Iran nuclear deal as viable in the west, it seems likely Iran will continue to cooperate with Russia.

Question I wonder is how long before Israel gets involved since Iran is benefitting from Su-35s, foreign currency influx from Russia, potentially transfer of the S-400 tech and systems, etc.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-russia-iran-moving-full-defense-partnership-94874612

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by FancyCat

[womble]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

I've said it several times, but I will repeat it as often as necessary: this is all about domestic policy. There is a strong group of 'weapon exports are bad always no matter what' in the party of the chancellor. He's not doing that well in the polls, so he won't aggravate this group - unless someone else exports modern, heavy tanks first OR it is done in a group thing (EU or NATO).

So what's the point of Rheinmetall then? Germany barely has an army, and if they're not allowed to sell out-country, they've no market at all.

And I wasn't talking about modern heavy tanks, I was talking about first-generation (bis) IFVs. BMP-2-ish?

[Haiduk]

@sburke

Major Artyom Kokorev, Rosgvardiya. Was killed on 10th of July

Major Maksim Apletalin, company commander, 25th Spetsnaz regiment, Southern military district, was killed on 27th of November in Luhansk oblast

  

Major Yevgeniy Navliutov, pilot of Tu-22M3, was killed on 5th of Dec during UKR srtrike at Diagilevo airfield

Lt.colonel Gadzhikurgan Magomedov, chief of staff, 227th artillery brigade, 49th CAA, Southern military district. Was killed on 13th September in Nova Kakhovka - a missile hit his command vehicle.

Lt.colonel Aleksey Smirnov, chief of comms, HQ of 98th VDV division. Was killed on 13th of April in Kharkiv oblast

3rd rank captain (=major in Rus navy), retired. Enlisted as volunteer probably in BARS-13 battalion. Was killed on 5th of October in Lyman area.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

With domestic protests in Iran essentially sinking the Iran nuclear deal as viable in the west, it seems likely Iran will continue to cooperate with Russia.

The previous US administration unilaterally abrogated the nuclear treaty.  A stable genius move, I have been led to believe.  I do wonder what our relations w Iran would look like if we hadn't done that -- I am NOT saying they would be better, but I do wonder because Iran gov't was furious over this.

Of course, if all our holiday  wishes come true the clerics running Iran will enjoy the new year swinging from lampposts.  The young people in Iran (hugely young populace) absolutely hate them and this kind of demographic has historically often led to regime change -- especially when those youngsters have this level of hate and a very clear target.  And then hopefully they'll stop sending stuff to RU.

[Battlefront.com]

44 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Hey, hey, we decided earlier that this was a completely doable task. But explain to me why it would be necessary for Western countries to impose sanctions on Ukraine, which was attacked, what is the logic in this?

And why did you decide that the Ukrainian military does not want to fight the Russians, because reality directly contradicts this

I think we're veering way, way, off course.  You're talking about a scenario (Ukraine keeping nukes) that didn't happen and likely would never have been feasible.  So why build hypothetical on an unstable hypothetical premise?  It's like someone asking what Europe would be like in 2022 if Nazi Germany wasn't defeated in 1945.  It's an endless and rather pointless discussion because almost any opinion is valid, even when options are completely opposite of each other.

Steve

[Grossman]

In the relative lull, it's worth considering how the Ukrainian fight is destroying the myth of invincibility of the "Red Army"; the Kremlin has ruled by coercion since 1945 and this is now being broken. It is an epic existential conflict for many countries, for Ukraine, the Baltic States, Slovakia, Georgia and all European states bordering on Russia and even for states within the Russian Federation. A truce or frozen conflict is not possible for many reasons just as it would have been impossible to do deal with Hitler, there are too many atrocities, deaths, crimes against humanity, and Putin is judged by many to be insane. The Ukrainian would never accept the occupation of their lands, as we have see what happens. And if there was a truce and a frozen conflict, it would give Putin and the Russians time to re-arm for the next round of the conflict.  No, the Russians have to be defeated, driven back behind their borders, and one would expect an internal reckoning within Russia.  But tyranny like hell is not easily conquered as Tom Paine wrote in a drumhead by a camp fire in 1776.. 

[poesel]

40 minutes ago, womble said:

So what's the point of Rheinmetall then? Germany barely has an army, and if they're not allowed to sell out-country, they've no market at all.

And I wasn't talking about modern heavy tanks, I was talking about first-generation (bis) IFVs. BMP-2-ish?

Rheinmetall is doing quite well, and of course they can sell out-country. They just need a permit. But the wellbeing of Rheinmetall is not an important issue for the chancellor - weapons make only a tiny percentage of our exports.

What the fuss is about the Marders and Leo1s I don't understand. It's 70s tech and could be rebranded as 'old' or 'light tank by current standards' (in the case of the Leo1). But they don't want to.

Ukraine should really rather spend their energy on pestering the UK or France for a handful of halfway modern tanks. If they get delivered or even promised, it would be very, very, very hard for the chancellor to paddle back behind his 'the others don't, why should we?' posture.

IMHO the Leo1 would make much more sense for the UA. A lighter tank on par in weight with the T-72. Older but simpler for maintenance. Less armor, yes, but haven't we just learned that armor doesn't help much currently anyway?
We have some in stock, and Greece even has more in use. They would part with them happily for Leo2s. Would also send a nice sign to Turkey. Win-win.

[billbindc]

Of more immediate use than tanks:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/14/ukraine-smart-bomb-jdams/

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, poesel said:

Less armor, yes, but haven't we just learned that armor doesn't help much currently anyway?

We sure have!  As expected, anything in the Soviet class of tanks can't shrug off a direct AP hit from another tank and any modern ATGM.  Armor probably still plays a role against light AT weapons, such as RPGs, but if you're in range of those things you're already doing something wrong.  We've even seen evidence that auto cannons, such as BTR-4, are able to defeat and of course drone bombers are a menace.

Really, it's all about fire control.  If the Leo1s have good fire control systems, then they'll do just fine on this battlefield.

Steve

[paxromana]

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/polish-parliament-recognizes-russia-as-sponsor-of-terrorism-says-kremlin-responsible-for-ex-presidents-death

Poles are ahead of the US/GER/FRA pack again ... declare Russia a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Alos revise previous statements that the Russians WERE responsible for the plane crash that killed their President (the Wikipedia article previously cited as proof they didn't will probably need to be revised).