How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Seminole]

36 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Ah, the association game. How fun. 

I guess you're not going to acknowledge the neocons in Obama and Biden's administration.

36 minutes ago, billbindc said:

You should look up CNAS where Nuland was actually writing and working. Pretty much the opposite crowd. 

Sure thing, let's see what the press says about CNAS:

The Center for a New American Security has long pushed Democrats to embrace war and militarism—and it’s poised to play an influential role in a future Democratic administration.
BRANKO MARCETIC OCTOBER 7, 2019

If you liked Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, you can keep it. 

That’s the message many Democratic voters are receiving this election, as they prepare to pick a contender from the gradually winnowing field of candidates to take on Donald Trump in 2020. And the reason is the continuing influence of a think-tank called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

The influence of CNAS on the 2020 election, at this point, is being channeled through the campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who has drawn heavily from its ranks to fill her line-up of foreign policy advisors. But given its status as the go-to fountainhead of Democratic foreign policy ideas, there is every chance its alumni could be part of another future Democratic administration.

Founded on the eve of what was thought to almost certainly be a coming Clinton presidency over a decade ago, CNAS has left its fingerprints all over the past ten years of Democratic foreign policy. With its bipartisan make-up and centrist approach, the think tank has served as a crucial wellspring for conventional foreign policy thinking that has shaped the actions and ideas of both the Obama administration and Clinton’s 2016 run.

Even as the American public has slowly turned against endless war, CNAS’ prescriptions have stayed soothingly familiar: Stay the course in ongoing wars, step up efforts to counter Russia, China and other adversaries, and dig deeper into the conflicts the United States has so far only dipped a toe into.

So, can you point out how this rebranding effort distinguishes them from the neocons?  I'm having trouble finding it myself.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Seminole

[Kinophile]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

But with a logistical cost that Ukraine may have not been able to bear without damaging other aspects of its warfighting capability. Also...isn't this the forum that's been pretty clear on the idea that the tank is not what it was on the modern battlefield? And doesn't Ukraine have *more* tanks now of Russian vintage than it did at the start? Why the fetish for Leopards that won't materially change the war? What am I missing? 

Hey up, I'm not on Tank Is Dead bandwagon! Don't tar me with that cat hair covered brush! 

[Huba]

5 minutes ago, billbindc said:

But with a logistical cost that Ukraine may have not been able to bear without damaging other aspects of its warfighting capability. Also...isn't this the forum that's been pretty clear on the idea that the tank is not what it was on the modern battlefield? And doesn't Ukraine have *more* tanks now of Russian vintage than it did at the start? Why the fetish for Leopards that won't materially change the war? What am I missing? 

Ukrainians, including Zaluzhny quoted few posts above seem to have a rather different opinion about the need for more and better AFVs than this forum's consensus is. There's nothing I could reasonably add to that, someone has to be a tad in the wrong here.

[Kinophile]

1 minute ago, Seminole said:

I guess you're not going to acknowledge the neocons in Obama and Biden's administration.

Sure thing, let's see what the press says about CNAS:

The Center for a New American Security has long pushed Democrats to embrace war and militarism—and it’s poised to play an influential role in a future Democratic administration.
BRANKO MARCETIC OCTOBER 7, 2019

If you liked Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, you can keep it. 

That’s the message many Democratic voters are receiving this election, as they prepare to pick a contender from the gradually winnowing field of candidates to take on Donald Trump in 2020. And the reason is the continuing influence of a think-tank called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

The influence of CNAS on the 2020 election, at this point, is being channeled through the campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who has drawn heavily from its ranks to fill her line-up of foreign policy advisors. But given its status as the go-to fountainhead of Democratic foreign policy ideas, there is every chance its alumni could be part of another future Democratic administration.

Founded on the eve of what was thought to almost certainly be a coming Clinton presidency over a decade ago, CNAS has left its fingerprints all over the past ten years of Democratic foreign policy. With its bipartisan make-up and centrist approach, the think tank has served as a crucial wellspring for conventional foreign policy thinking that has shaped the actions and ideas of both the Obama administration and Clinton’s 2016 run.

Even as the American public has slowly turned against endless war, CNAS’ prescriptions have stayed soothingly familiar: Stay the course in ongoing wars, step up efforts to counter Russia, China and other adversaries, and dig deeper into the conflicts the United States has so far only dipped a toe into.

So, can you point out how this rebranding effort distinguishes them from the neocons?  I'm having trouble finding it myself.

Ths fighting over think tanks stuff isn't really helping... (says the guy who took far too long to shut up about Cixin v Iain M.  Banks). 

But still,  it's like arguing about particularly ugly dogs...

Republican Think Tanks etc:

VS Democrat:

[FancyCat]

15 minutes ago, billbindc said:

All good concerns which I think are pretty much state secrets at this point so I can't address them in detail.

In general, we should be providing Ukraine with what is most effective, most immediately in a military and logistical sense while keeping a wary eye on escalatory dangers. That's what we've been doing so far and....Ukraine is winning. Can or should we expand the range of systems we are giving them? Sure and we are and we will continue to. Have we been slow? Well, this war is less than 10 months old. By government standards, we've been moving at light speed.  

State secrets indeed. For all we know there's a bunch of Ukrainians in a German military barracks right now studying who knows what.

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

And doesn't Ukraine have *more* tanks now of Russian vintage than it did at the start? Why the fetish for Leopards that won't materially change the war? What am I missing? 

As you said it yourself, those are state secrets comrade.

All we can do is look at what Ukraine says it needs, and the statements from Zeluzhny are clear enough.

"We have enough people, and I can clearly see what I have. I have enough. I don’t need hundreds of thousands more.  We need tanks, we need APCs [armoured personnel carriers], infantry fighting vehicles. And we need ammunition. Please note, I’m not talking about F-16s right now."

"We use a lot fewer shells.  I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs, 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd. But I can’t do it with two brigades. I get what I get, but it is less than what I need. It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim appealed to Finnish soldiers. We can and should take a lot more territory."

He also says that Russia has learned to counter HIMARS and that mobilization has worked for Russia. We should remind ourselves that Ukraine will seek to show the best parts of themselves and to hide their issues but from what I'm guessing, Ukraine has such high demands for maintenance and repair that their Soviet stockpiles are running out, and if he's saying that missile strikes do successfully hit their targets, it's not unreasonable to think aside from impacting power and electricity for civilians, what industrial capability for the war like maintenance and repair is being impacted or seriously damaged.

Remember Ukraine has placed strict rules on giving out ISR of strikes, for all we know, the repair and maintenance and production facilities in Europe are essential as anything that is spotted by Russia in Ukraine gets missile striked or must be very small repairs and relocated for security reasons.

Edited December 15, 2022 by FancyCat

[Yet]

17 minutes ago, Huba said:

The rather infuriating thought is that IF we started in May or April, given 6-12 months minimum needed for new armored/mech unit to be actually useful, as outlined by The_Capt, we'd be almost there now. Reactive vs. proactive approach, with all the benefits of the latter.

It will be even more infuriating when we'll be repeating exactly the same regret 6 months from now.

So your idea is to take all capable tank drivers and maintainance and support crew out of the war for 9 months to get Leopard training?

best case you dont need them because the war is over.

I'm afraid you might need the crew then to liberate Poltava.

Worst case is always worse.

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

State secrets indeed. For all we know there's a bunch of Ukrainians in a German military barracks right now studying who knows what.

As you said it yourself, those are state secrets comrade.

All we can do is look at what Ukraine says it needs, and the statements from Zeluzhny are clear enough.

"We have enough people, and I can clearly see what I have. I have enough. I don’t need hundreds of thousands more.  We need tanks, we need APCs [armoured personnel carriers], infantry fighting vehicles. And we need ammunition. Please note, I’m not talking about F-16s right now."

"We use a lot fewer shells.  I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs, 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd. But I can’t do it with two brigades. I get what I get, but it is less than what I need. It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim appealed to Finnish soldiers. We can and should take a lot more territory."

He also says that Russia has learned to counter HIMARS and that mobilization has worked for Russia. We should remind ourselves that Ukraine will seek to show the best parts of themselves and to hide their issues but from what I'm guessing, Ukraine has such high demands for maintenance and repair that their Soviet stockpiles are running out, and if he's saying that missile strikes do successfully hit their targets, it's not unreasonable to think aside from impacting power and electricity for civilians, what industrial capability for the war like maintenance and repair is being impacted or seriously damaged.

Remember Ukraine has placed strict rules on giving out ISR of strikes, for all we know, the repair and maintenance and production facilities in Europe are essential as anything that is spotted by Russia in Ukraine gets missile striked or must be very small repairs and relocated for security reasons.

I'm not sure I would take everything Zelensky says entirely at face value. The tank issue is an excellent and politically efficient way to beat up Sholtz with an eye towards getting aid in general. The same could be said about much of the above. The President of Ukraine would be remiss as a leader if he said anything close to "thanks chaps, we have enough". Are they short of artillery rounds? Sure. Would they like better tanks? Why not? But a PR campaign is being played and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

[Beleg85]

...what I am just seeing on this board....unwahsed dogs?

 

Ok, back to business- a thread about Bakhmut significance, contra common knowledge. Again, just sharing it, not necessarly agreeing but guy has some good points.

8 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'm not sure I would take everything Zelensky says entirely at face value. The tank issue is an excellent and politically efficient way to beat up Sholtz with an eye towards getting aid in general. The same could be said about much of the above. The President of Ukraine would be remiss as a leader if he said anything close to "thanks chaps, we have enough". Are they short of artillery rounds? Sure. Would they like better tanks? Why not? But a PR campaign is being played and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

Note that in just last week we have inteviews with Zelenksy, Sirsky and Zaluzhny by top jouranlists, where at lenght they discuss future movements.

If somebody rememebrs time just before Kherson/Kharkiv offensives and officials in Ukraine and NATO countries doing roughly the same...

Edited December 15, 2022 by Beleg85

[Huba]

Just now, Yet said:

So your idea is to take all capable tank drivers and maintainance and support crew out of the war for 9 months to get Leopard training?

best case you dont need them because the war is over.

I'm afraid you might need the crew then to liberate Poltava.

Worst case is always worse.

Tried to write an answer to this, turning a blind eye on the strawman and hyperboles, but realized that there's no argument left, sorry.
 

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I guess you're not going to acknowledge the neocons in Obama and Biden's administration.

Sure thing, let's see what the press says about CNAS:

The Center for a New American Security has long pushed Democrats to embrace war and militarism—and it’s poised to play an influential role in a future Democratic administration.
BRANKO MARCETIC OCTOBER 7, 2019

If you liked Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, you can keep it. 

That’s the message many Democratic voters are receiving this election, as they prepare to pick a contender from the gradually winnowing field of candidates to take on Donald Trump in 2020. And the reason is the continuing influence of a think-tank called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

The influence of CNAS on the 2020 election, at this point, is being channeled through the campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who has drawn heavily from its ranks to fill her line-up of foreign policy advisors. But given its status as the go-to fountainhead of Democratic foreign policy ideas, there is every chance its alumni could be part of another future Democratic administration.

Founded on the eve of what was thought to almost certainly be a coming Clinton presidency over a decade ago, CNAS has left its fingerprints all over the past ten years of Democratic foreign policy. With its bipartisan make-up and centrist approach, the think tank has served as a crucial wellspring for conventional foreign policy thinking that has shaped the actions and ideas of both the Obama administration and Clinton’s 2016 run.

Even as the American public has slowly turned against endless war, CNAS’ prescriptions have stayed soothingly familiar: Stay the course in ongoing wars, step up efforts to counter Russia, China and other adversaries, and dig deeper into the conflicts the United States has so far only dipped a toe into.

So, can you point out how this rebranding effort distinguishes them from the neocons?  I'm having trouble finding it myself.

"the press" being Jacobin Mag. 

Looks like we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

 

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Huba said:

Tried to write an answer to this, turning a blind eye on the strawman and hyperboles, but realized that there's no argument left, sorry.
 

Yeah, this doesn't have to be an all or nothing game.  Could start small cadre to get going w new equipment, like marders and leo2s (leo1s), nothing that would disrupt the war.  Start working out the maintenence and logistical stuff, start putting some things in place.  Then get one unit of some level, company or battalion, trained up. 

This is one of those issues where both sides are right: right now need to keep feeding immediately usable gear into the pipeline.  And also need to start build a force based on better gear.  Not mutually exclusive, though the immediate needs would cause the future needs to be resourced at relatively low levels, causing longer lead time (since all the tankers are actually rather busy right now).

[The_Capt]

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's keep the tone respectful, eh?

The West owes it to the world to help clean up the mess it helped create through it's self serving support for the Putin regime.  The West has been loving all the illicit Russian money and influence peddling over the years, the cheap gas for industry and heating, and lucrative consumer markets.  Nations have grown fat on Russian money and have bent over backwards in the face of Russia's repeated acts of violence towards Western diplomats, assassinations on Western soil, ignoring international law, weaponizing energy, war crimes in Syria, kidnapping Western nationals, worsening Human Rights record at home, repeated threats to NATO airspace and shipping, undermining democratic institutions abroad, hacking, industrial espionage. and the list goes on and on and on.  Russia needed dealing with long before this war, but the money was just too good for it to rock the boat too much.  Thankfully, it seems Russia has finally crossed a line and the West is committed to taking Russia down.

Does the West owe something to Ukraine?  Morally, I think so.  More could have been done to head off this war before it started, but the West was too self absorbed and profit driven to do it.  However, ultimately Russia and Russia alone is responsible for this war.  It is not the West's fault.

Fortunately, I think the West is largely doing what it should be doing to help Ukraine.  It isn't everything that Ukraine asks for, but it for sure as Hell is way more than Russia can handle.  Ukraine will win this war and it will be a peaceful nation within the Western sphere.  It will not be easy and shortcuts are unlikely to wind up producing the best result.  This means Ukraine will continue to suffer until Russia collapses.  No amount of Leo2s or ATACMS will likely make it happen any quicker.

Steve

I want to build on this and hit a cancerous myth that is hijacking this board - the Ukrainian nuclear backstory myth.  Frankly it belongs to be in the outer darkness with the Bio Black Sites.  I also think it is dangerously skewing the views of some members and feeding into some really unhealthy narratives that are counter-productive and likely going to sour things going forward.

So looking this up the myth goes like this:

Back in the mid 90s Ukraine had a big suite of nuclear weapons it inherited from the break up of the Soviet Union.  Rather than hold onto them and being able to provide deterrence to Russian aggression almost 30 years later - Ukraine graciously decided to divest them back to Russia with the brotherly love of all mankind in their hearts.  The US and other nations then promised on a stack of Bibles and pictures of Baby Jesus that should any threat befall Ukraine, they would come riding over the hills like the Riders of Rohan and smote the threat with their mighty hands.  In 2014 - Russia did some shenanigan's in Donbas and Crimea, of which we all know and love, but the West yawned and went "well, are those really threats or is this kind of an internal issue?"  Poor Ukraine struggled on by itself to hold off the rabid Russian Bear until 2022 when it rolled its mangy a$$ over the border.  Ukraine is now calling in that nuclear favour...it is owed and "demands" the US and West honor its obligations and basically give Ukraine whatever it wants, whenever it wants because they gave up the nukes.  Further it is the US and West's fault for this war in the first place because we did not smite Russia back in 2014, so pay up and be quick about it. 

I get the impulse and given Ukraine's position it makes sense.  However, I would offer that "guilt, shame and demands" may not be the best way to go to guarantor the continued Western support Ukraine is going to need for about a decade after this war, let alone out the back end of next year.  But first lets beat up on that myth:

1.   Those nukes were nearly useless to Ukraine as deterrence towards Russia without significant cost and risks.  Yes there were a lot of nuclear weapons but they had never been given over to Ukrainian control, they were housed in Ukraine but Russian controlled the whole time.  Further, they were long range ballistic systems which were nearly useless at the tactical ranges Ukraine needed to deter Russian threats:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.  Ukraine was a fledging ex-Soviet state and was hardly rolling in cash, so the option to re-tool those weapons was severely limited by resources.  Finally, if Ukraine had said "screw you, we are keeping them and re-tooling them" they would have seen heavy sanctions and possible military action from Russia or the West because loose nukes makes everyone really nervous.

2.  Ukraine was paid to lose the nukes, and freely took the money.  Ukrainian parliament voted overwhelmingly "(301-8)" to take the payoff and get rid of the the things.  This was not arm twisting or coercion, it was opportunism: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/.  And smart opportunism for that matter because at the time they were more trouble than they were worth.

3.  The famous "security guarantees".  Promises of security for Ukraine.  Not even close.  These were assurances, which is diplomatic speak for "mayhaps", and Ukraine knew it.  The Budapest Memo is not a security guarantee or collective security agreement, not even close.  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/  It is a pretty vague agreement that the big powers would not pound on the small powers if they gave up their nukes.  Also the only security resolution mechanism was the UNSC, which of course was presided over by the big powers. Ukraine is a sovereign state and had its big boy pants on when it signed this thing and knew it was tying its security on the UN Charter - https://www.icanw.org/faq_on_ukraine_and_nuclear_weapons.  Which is great so long as a UNSC nation isn't the one to violate the freakin thing.

The US did promise to assist Ukraine should their sovereignty be threatened but the details of that assistance were never made concrete.  Frankly, given the assistance post-2014 and now I think the US is living up to its end of the agreement.

So as far as legal obligation, there is not one, never was. Ukraine took the money and avoided becoming a pariah by trying to become a nuclear power.  The US and West have actually delivered on assistance, to the point that Ukraine is winning this war.  Further there is absolutely zero obligation to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction after this war.  Here we are relying entirely on the good will and self-interests of the West, which is shaky ground on a good day.

What is true is the moral obligation.  How the EU got itself upside down on this whole Russian energy thing is beyond be, especially after 2014.  Hell Europe is still buying Russian oil: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europe-Is-Buying-All-The-Russian-Oil-It-Can-Before-Banning-It.html.  So ya, we definitely did not walk the walk on defending democracy or human rights in Ukraine against an obvious threat...we took the payoff.  But before anyone jumps on that one...big.boy.pants.time.  That is how the world works, as crappy and unfair as it is.  We have been doing business with dictators and autocrats all over the world - Saudi Arabia looking at you - and turned a lot of blind eyes in many countries.  Ukraine is getting the platinum response, it is about as good as it gets for an outside nation to be honest and if there is a shift in the political winds it could be cut off pretty quick.

So "DEMAND" all you like; however, you are not entitled beyond the good will of the West and a self-interest need to ensure the global order holds against Russian aggression. You want to come on this forum and conduct a regular routine of western bashing - Germany is literally on a weekly clock - just know you are doing service to Russian interests when you do.  You want to get emotional, totally understandable but 1) do not create or support mis/dis information in doing so, it is counter to everything we try to do here and 2) hold your own politicians to account when this is over, Ukraine has a obligation to itself and the decisions that led to this are not all on the West, and 3) remember that guilt and shame is not your best play here.

Let me finish by perhaps expanding on the Western point of view - well US/5EYES as I cannot say I am privy to the entire western bloc.  We are exhausted.  30 years of cat herding and dealing with everyone else's problems has not been rewarding.  Sure we got the power and money, but for the love of gawd the endless whining and biting has really taken a shine off the whole thing.  Terrorism, intra-state wars, insurgencies and now Russia is being a total dick and pushing us to the edge.  There is a sentiment in the western power bases that we are sick of the rest of the world and its bullsh#t.  Tired of spending endless streams of money and people on countries we wouldn't look for on a map, time zones away. 

Then there is the pandemic: the US lost nearly 1.1 million people, and with excess deaths that number could be over 2 million - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

And at the end of all that we get a global economic recession in the making.  So ya, snapping your fingers and waiving a Budapest Memo in our faces is likely to backfire really quickly.  The US is incredibly divided right now, and frankly so is Canada as a result of COVID impacts.  Good will for Ukraine is solid and damned well better hold; however, it is not guaranteed in the least.  So no, you need not grovel or "by your leave here" but maybe just try and remember who is on your side in this thing and sometimes we can disagree and even say "no" without going all millennial.

This thread stood up for reality when everyone thought we should get ready to bail and run on Ukraine -just this week I heard a retired Canadian 3-star say "there is no way Ukraine can secure victory in this conflict".  We stood against the crazy conspiracy theories on it all being Ukraine's fault.  We stood against mainstream "big money" analysist when they wrote the UA off.  And we should stand for the truth even when we don't like it.  If we can't do that then we should just close up this thread and we can all go to the Reddit threads of our choice and bask in those echo chambers of ignorance.

Edited December 15, 2022 by The_Capt

[FancyCat]

10 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'm not sure I would take everything Zelensky says entirely at face value. The tank issue is an excellent and politically efficient way to beat up Sholtz with an eye towards getting aid in general. The same could be said about much of the above. The President of Ukraine would be remiss as a leader if he said anything close to "thanks chaps, we have enough". Are they short of artillery rounds? Sure. Would they like better tanks? Why not? But a PR campaign is being played and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

Sure, but the same applies to Scholz and Biden, and the rest. As pointed out, the SPD holds significant elements who still wish to maintain some retainment of the Ostpolitik policy, and it’s way easier to maintain plausible deniability as a lock-step acting with NATO than Germany giving aid to Ukraine with gusto. Also, this is not Zelensky, this is Commander of the Ukrainian military, General Zeluzhny, there’s a difference, he’s a military man through and through. Was even kind enough to point out he’s not asking for F-16s. Recall the statements on 155mm ammunition, we know now once the danger passed, that it was getting extremely serious for Ukraine, including active inability to respond to Russian artillery fire due to lack of ammo that resulted in Ukrainian forces being damaged to very close breaking points and some units broke indeed.

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Gotta love how you are pulling numbers out of thin air without references or declaring your expertise.  I guess an internet connection is all anyone needs these days.

So you are talking about bringing up tank crews trained on the T-72s and converting them to the Leo 2 in a week?  And cold training new crews in 3 weeks for drivers and 3 months as gunner loaders?  So you came from a TDO position in an armored school? Which one?

Sure you could compress training on conversion but risks go up dramatically.  For example a driver with a weeks training is not going to have time to know how to handle mine ploughs and rollers, so first hillock taken to fast is going to knock out minefield breaching capability.  Then there is river crossing/snorkeling - that is a major hurdle and training bill not to get crews drowned...but there are no rivers in Ukraine...no problem.  As to your logistical plan of "send back to Poland", if the drivers and crew are lightly trained that is going to happen a lot more often because they will not know 1) how to avoid damaging the vehicle and 2) how to do first line repairs.  And then there is the "how do you train maintainers?" issue but why confuse the issue with facts?

The Pz2000 took about a solid month to get them out in ones and twos: https://eurasiantimes.com/german-monster-pzh-2000-breaking-down-in-fight-against-russia/  And of course we have reports of them breaking down along with a lot of the other western kit we sent in - not all of this is going to be crew training issues, as war is a contact sport, but it likely is not helping.  The Pz2000 and other artillery were critical system that were thrown into the fight over the spring and summer, not the formed formations one would need to turn western armour and IFVs into to really make a difference.

To take 100 Leo 2s and turn them into a coherent fighting force e.g. a Regiment or Battlegroup, that can do what everyone here wants them to do, from crew training, through troop and squadron, to combat team and battlegroup and finally in a formation context is going to take 6-12 months at best, if you do not want the thing flopping around the battlefield breaking itself.  OR, here is a crazy idea...we give the UA the equipment it is already trained on and organized to fight on as a priority.  We then pepper in critical systems that provide immediate payoff and can play to the ISR strengths we are also providing and give the critical range extensions - e.g. HIMARs.  We will take risks with some systems but wholesale re-tooling of the UA ground force while it is in contact in the middle of a war is a very dumb idea.

 

Excellent overview as always. The recent discussions on training times brought something that's been in the back of my head for a while into focus: the main reason Ukraine hasn't gotten Western fighter aircraft is probably that the Ukrainian Air Force can't afford to pull a bunch of pilots out of the fight in the middle of a war.

Achieving a meaningful operational capability would mean full squadron strength, so that would require at least close to 20 aircraft once some margin for error with a few spare airframes is built in. And it would also require a ratio at least close to two pilots per aircraft, so that would mean about 40 pilots...even if we're wildly optimistic and say conversation training could be done in a month, the shortfall in available strength in the interim would be too big. There might be a way to cycle pilots through conversion training in small groups, but that becomes a long process with a less satisfactory result and adds a longer workup period once the new fighters arrive in Ukraine.

Edited December 15, 2022 by G.I. Joe

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Sure, but the same applies to Scholz and Biden, and the rest. As pointed out, the SPD holds significant elements who still wish to maintain some retainment of the Ostpolitik policy, and it’s way easier to maintain plausible deniability as a lock-step acting with NATO than Germany giving aid to Ukraine with gusto. Also, this is not Zelensky, this is Commander of the Ukrainian military, General Zeluzhny, there’s a difference, he’s a military man through and through. Was even kind enough to point out he’s not asking for F-16s. Recall the statements on 155mm ammunition, we know now once the danger passed, that it was getting extremely serious for Ukraine, including active inability to respond to Russian artillery fire due to lack of ammo that resulted in Ukrainian forces being damaged to very close breaking points and some units broke indeed.

The ammo was an obvious issue we could see in OSINT heatmaps of artillery strikes, etc. Virtually everything else we are dependent on PR statements that may or may not directly reflect what Austin and Zeluzhny are saying in private. Given what we know about previous big wars, I think it's quite likely the picture has been artfully skewed. We'll find out in 10 years or so.

[Zeleban]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I want to build on this and hit a cancerous myth that is hijacking this board - the Ukrainian nuclear backstory myth.  Frankly it belongs to be in the outer darkness with the Bio Black Sites.  I also think it is dangerously skewing the views of some members and feeding into some really unhealthy narratives that are counter-productive and likely going to sour things going forward.

So looking this up the myth goes like this:

Back in the mid 90s Ukraine had a big suite of nuclear weapons it inherited from the break up of the Soviet Union.  Rather than hold onto them and being able to provide deterrence to Russian aggression almost 30 years later - Ukraine graciously decided to divest them back to Russia with the brotherly love of all mankind in their hearts.  The US and other nations then promised on a stack of Bibles and pictures of Baby Jesus that should any threat befall Ukraine, they would come riding over the hills like the Riders of Rohan and smote the threat with their mighty hands.  In 2014 - Russia did some shenanigan's in Donbas and Crimea, of which we all know and love, but the West yawned and went "well, are those really threats or is this kind of an internal issue?"  Poor Ukraine struggled on by itself to hold off the rabid Russian Bear until 2022 when it rolled its mangy a$$ over the border.  Ukraine is now calling in that nuclear favour...it is owed and "demands" the US and West honor its obligations and basically give Ukraine whatever it wants, whenever it want because they gave up the nukes.  Further it is the US and West's fault for this war in the first place because we did not smite Russia back in 2014, so pay up and be quick about it. 

I get the impulse and given Ukraine's position it makes sense.  However, I would offer that "guilt, shame and demands" may not be the best way to go to guarantor the continued Western support Ukraine is going to need for about a decade after this war, let alone out the back end of next year.  But first lets beat up on that myth:

1.   Those nukes were nearly useless to Ukraine as deterrence towards Russia without significant cost and risks.  Yes there were a lot of nuclear weapons but they had never been given over to Ukrainian control, they were housed in Ukraine but Russian controlled the whole time.  Further, they were long range ballistic systems which were nearly useless at the tactical ranges Ukraine needed to deter Russian threats:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.  Ukraine was a fledging ex-Soviet state and was hardly rolling in cash, so the option to re-tool those weapons was severely limited by resources.  Finally, if Ukraine had said "screw you, we are keeping them and re-tooling them" they would have seen heavy sanctions and possible military action from Russia or the West because loose nukes makes everyone really nervous.

2.  Ukraine was paid to lose the nukes, and freely took the money.  Ukrainian parliament voted overwhelmingly "(301-8)" to take the payoff and get rid of the the things.  This was not arm twisting or coercion, it was opportunism: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/.  And smart opportunism for that matter because at the time they were more trouble than they were worth.

3.  The famous "security guarantees".  Promises of security for Ukraine.  Not even close.  These were assurances, which is diplomatic speak for "mayhaps", and Ukraine knew it.  The Budapest Memo is not a security guarantee or collective security agreement, not even close.  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/  It is a pretty vague agreement that the big powers would not pound on the small powers if they gave up their nukes.  Also the only security resolution mechanism was the UNSC, which of course was presided over by the big powers. Ukraine is a sovereign state and had its big boy pants on when it signed this thing and knew it was tying its security on the UN Charter - https://www.icanw.org/faq_on_ukraine_and_nuclear_weapons.  Which is great so long as a UNSC nation isn't the one to violate the freakin thing.

The US did promise to assist Ukraine should their sovereignty be threatened but the details of that assistance were never made concrete.  Frankly, given the assistance post-2014 and now I think the US is living up to its end of the agreement.

So as far as legal obligation, there is not one, never was. Ukraine took the money and avoided becoming a pariah by trying to become a nuclear power.  The US and West have actually delivered on assistance, to the point that Ukraine is winning this war.  Further there is absolutely zero obligation to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction after this war.  Here we are relying entirely on the good will and self-interests of the West, which is shaky ground on a good day.

What is true is the moral obligation.  How the EU got itself upside down on this whole Russian energy thing is beyond be, especially after 2014.  Hell Europe is still buying Russian oil: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europe-Is-Buying-All-The-Russian-Oil-It-Can-Before-Banning-It.html.  So ya, we definitely did not walk the walk on defending democracy or human rights in Ukraine against an obvious threat...we took the payoff.  But before anyone jumps on that one...big.boy.pants.time.  That is how the world works, as crappy and unfair as it is.  We have been doing business with dictators and autocrats all over the world - Saudi Arabia looking at you - and turned a lot of blind eyes in many countries.  Ukraine is getting the platinum response, it is about as good as it gets for an outside nation to be honest and if there is a shift in the political winds it could be cut off pretty quick.

So "DEMAND" all you like; however, you are not entitled beyond the good will of the West and a self-interest need to ensure the global order holds against Russian aggression. You want to come on this forum and conduct a regular routine of western bashing - Germany is literally on a weekly clock - just know you are doing service to Russian interests when you do.  You want to get emotional, totally understandable but 1) do not create or support mis/dis information in doing so, it is counter to everything we try to do here and 2) hold your own politicians to account when this is over, Ukraine has a obligation to itself and the decisions that led to this are not all on the West, and 3) remember that guilt and shame is not your best play here.

Let me finish by perhaps expanding on the Western point of view - well US/5EYES as I cannot say I am privy to the entire western bloc.  We are exhausted.  30 years of cat herding and dealing with everyone else's problems has not been rewarding.  Sure we got the power and money, but for the love of gawd the endless whining and biting has really taken a shine off the whole thing.  Terrorism, intra-state wars, insurgencies and now Russia is being a total dick and pushing us to the edge.  There is a sentiment in the western power bases that we are sick of the rest of the world and its bullsh#t.  Tired of spending endless streams of money and people on countries we wouldn't look for on a map, time zones away. 

Then there is the pandemic: the US lost nearly 1.1 million people, and with excess deaths that number could be over 2 million - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

And at the end of all that we get a global economic recession in the making.  So ya, snapping your fingers and waiving a Budapest Memo in our faces is likely to backfire really quickly.  The US is incredibly divided right now, and frankly so is Canada as a result of COVID impacts.  Good will for Ukraine is solid and damned well better hold; however, it is not guaranteed in the least.  So no, you need not grovel or "by your leave here" but maybe just try and remember who is on your side in this thing and sometimes we can disagree and even say "no" without going all millennial.

This thread stood up for reality when everyone thought we should get ready to bail and run on Ukraine -just this week I heard a retired Canadian 3-star say "there is no way Ukraine can secure victory in this conflict".  We stood against the crazy conspiracy theories on it all being Ukraine's fault.  We stood against mainstream "big money" analysist when they wrote the UA off.  And we should stand for the truth even when we don't like it.  If we can't do that then we should just close up this thread and we can all go to the Reddit threads of our choice and bask in those echo chambers of ignorance.

Oh, I am a resident of a miserable corrupt country, so grateful to you for your explanation of my place in the universe. Now I finally understood all my mistakes written by me earlier. I repent for everything I said in your direction. After all, the future of my country depends only on you and your majestic opinion. And its pitiful eternally whining politicians. Please accept my apologies for them and I beg you not to stop the supply of weapons please, please, please!

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Oh, I am a resident of a miserable corrupt country, so grateful to you for your explanation of my place in the universe. Now I finally understood all my mistakes written by me earlier. I repent for everything I said in your direction. After all, the future of my country depends only on you and your majestic opinion. And its pitiful eternally whining politicians. Please accept my apologies for them and I beg you not to stop the supply of weapons please, please, please!

"Then came the majestic policy of the President and Congress of the United States in passing the Lease-Lend Bill, under which, in two successive enactments, about £3,000,000,000 was dedicated to the cause of world freedom, without -- mark this, because it is unique -- without the setting up of any account in money. Never again let us hear the taunt that money is the ruling power in the hearts and thoughts of the American democracy. The Lease-Lend Bill must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history."

Churchill put it better.

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Oh, I am a resident of a miserable corrupt country, so grateful to you for your explanation of my place in the universe. Now I finally understood all my mistakes written by me earlier. I repent for everything I said in your direction. After all, the future of my country depends only on you and your majestic opinion. And its pitiful eternally whining politicians. Please accept my apologies for them and I beg you not to stop the supply of weapons please, please, please!

Ukraine is in a fight for its survival.  If some western leaders are offended by the urgency in UKR requests, F THEM.  

I had a dream last night where russians invaded and took half of my town.  I was a civilian stuck behind RU lines but knew I was on borrowed time and had to get to friendly lines.  I figured there was one sector I might be able to sneak through but knew if spotted I'd be shot on sight.  It was flippin' terrifying.  And Zeleban et al are living it for real. 

[Seminole]

32 minutes ago, billbindc said:

"the press" being Jacobin Mag. 

Looks like we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Can you point me to a corner of the press you think is making your point about them being ‘opposite’ the neocons?

I check their site and the latest is pushing an editorial about the horrors of Bernie’s War Powers Resolution for Yemen.  Do I mean CNAS, or PNAC?

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Recall the statements on 155mm ammunition, we know now once the danger passed, that it was getting extremely serious for Ukraine, including active inability to respond to Russian artillery fire due to lack of ammo that resulted in Ukrainian forces being damaged to very close breaking points and some units broke indeed.

There are a lot of arguments about can be done, should be done, and so on. By far the strongest argument is to get Ukraine more 155 tubes, and pull our ammunition stocks as low as necessary  to get Ukraine through this war. 

 

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We are exhausted.  30 years of cat herding and dealing with everyone else's problems has not been rewarding. 

Since the west has ZERO desire to pick any new fights, and incidentally it looks like Soviet legacy air defenses are eminently beatable by the full U.S. SEAD package, the real strategic risks of disorganizing some portion of our artillery branch seems extremely low. It has been reliably stated that a third of the Ukrainian guns are out of action at a given time. This is just one of the cost of the war, figure it into the math. We need to see what the Russian army looks like when it is receiving an effectively equal volume of fire along the whole front. My guess is not so good. And note I said effectively, by all reports NATO guns get a  lot more done per shot fired. 

We have endlessly discussed the need for more industrial capacity in many aspects of the logistics system. Those cost create jobs, Congress/Parliament can figure that out.

 

Last but by no means least we should pull our heads out of our A&%% and start sending Ukraine the DPICM ammo we say we don't want anyway. If the Ukrainians would rather an incremental increase in their already enormous clean up problem in order to get rid of the Russians sooner that should be their call.

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Ukraine is in a fight for its survival.  If some western leaders are offended by the urgency in UKR requests, F THEM.  

I had a dream last night where russians invaded and took half of my town.  I was a civilian stuck behind RU lines but knew I was on borrowed time and had to get to friendly lines.  I figured there was one sector I might be able to sneak through but knew if spotted I'd be shot on sight.  It was flippin' terrifying.  And Zeleban et al are living it for real. 

I can say that in a nightmare you experience much worse than the same events, but in reality

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Ukraine is in a fight for its survival.  If some western leaders are offended by the urgency in UKR requests, F THEM.  

I had a dream last night where russians invaded and took half of my town.  I was a civilian stuck behind RU lines but knew I was on borrowed time and had to get to friendly lines.  I figured there was one sector I might be able to sneak through but knew if spotted I'd be shot on sight.  It was flippin' terrifying.  And Zeleban et al are living it for real. 

Western leaders aren't the issue. It's that Western leaders need to maintain political support for the policy. Yes, it's awful and yes I understand the bitterness but it's pointed in the wrong direction.

[Twisk]

I do want to remind everyone that opinions in this thread are not determining whether Ukraine gets more or less support. Unless half the forum members are actually prime ministers and presidents and have kept mum about that for all these years. The discussion about what countries are/are not doing should be a whole lot more detached for that reason. No one here is pulling any strings and regardless of what we say this forum isn't changing the facts on the ground.

So maybe we should all step back from this sniping and recalibrate the discussion.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I do want to remind everyone that opinions in this thread are not determining whether Ukraine gets more or less support. Unless half the forum members are actually prime ministers and presidents and have kept mum about that for all these years. The discussion about what countries are/are not doing should be a whole lot more detached for that reason. No one here is pulling any strings and regardless of what we say this forum isn't changing the facts on the ground.

So maybe we should all step back from this sniping and recalibrate the discussion.

It gets back to the lack news. The weather, and an information clampdown by both sides means there is just less new stuff to discuss, so we are going in circles. I am as guilty as anyone.

[Twisk]

True and I think some topic drift is fine but this isn't just topic drift. Its topic drift with a helping of petty sniping and people getting way too personal about this.

There is an interesting discussion about Leopard tanks but this isn't just a discussion about tanks but also an undercurrent that people here are somehow personally responsible for the actions of nation-states. User's aren't waving the Budapest memorandum in the faces of national leaders and users here aren't personally stopping Ukraine from taking control of a vast fleet of modern armor.