How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, poesel said:

It does not hurt in 'all sections of the electorate'. If it would, he would behave different. There is a lot of internal pressure on him to send tanks. But it is not huge, and _his_ electorate is mostly for NOT sending tanks.

Also, he is not spineless. Quite the opposite. Without a spine, he would have caved in long ago.

why did they send howitzers? After all, howitzers are much more deadly than tanks. This is too strange a decision to be viewed through the prism of pacifism.

[Kraft]

13 minutes ago, poesel said:

It does not hurt in 'all sections of the electorate'. If it would, he would behave different. There is a lot of internal pressure on him to send tanks. But it is not huge, and _his_ electorate is mostly for NOT sending tanks.

Also, he is not spineless. Quite the opposite. Without a spine, he would have caved in long ago.

I'd argue it takes a spine to stand up against your electorate/rotten party to do what must be done. Unless he too thinks that way, then we are back at the intentional, malicious actions stopping support.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kraft

[Butschi]

55 minutes ago, Huba said:

It looks like Austin - Pistorius meeting was not successful in breaking the stalemate too:

And how should it have? I Pistorius for are v isn't the one who gets to decide this and I doubt Austin could pledge or deny M1s on his own, either.

[Taranis]

24 minutes ago, Huba said:

Reportedly the French parliament is at this very moment debating sending Leclercs to Ukraine - not if they should do it, but how to solve the logistical challenges. @Taranis care to comment/ confirm that?

 

Sorry, guys I have very big family and personal problems right now and I'm a little less connected to the news (even if I continue to follow the forum and the events). I risk being less present and responsive and I apologize for that.

At present, the television news is omnibilized on the big strikes which take place (reform of the pensions). Very little information on the tanks therefore goes back.

The delivery of tanks is still currently a hypothesis and subject to debate by the Senate. The objective of the delivery would be mainly symbolic in order to push our German friends to deliver their tanks (as the AMX-10RC raised the question)

[Der Zeitgeist]

59 minutes ago, Huba said:

BTW, in one hour Polish MoD will hold a press conference and announce the next military package from PL, rumored to be the biggest one yet. Fingers crossed for MiGs.

Do you know if Poland has already formally requested German permission to export Leopard 2 to Ukraine?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, JonS said:

I think this is right, but the thing is that this really isn't physically sustainable for very long. Soldiers could keep up that for maybe 96 hours before they just, well, stopped.

Funny... I woke up thinking about this very thing!  I agree, and the solution is different states where a section of front can be shifted from static to dynamic depending on circumstances.  Even this is sustainable for only so long, which means unit rotations become more of a need for sections that aren't necessarily actively engaged in combat, but are actively under threat of it.

4 hours ago, JonS said:

I think it's likely that forces will draw back from each other in order to give themselves enough time to OODA. So, no-mans land becomes something like 100km deep. Maybe some snake eaters are wandering around in there, but they'll be moving very slowly since there'll be so much EM radiation being dumped into that space that an overly dramatic eyeroll would be noticed. At 100km, practically all barrel artillery is out of range and all ATGMs are out of range. The only things with sufficient legs are stuff like hearty missile systems such as ATACMS, and air power, and the breadth of no-mans land provides enough time to sense and engage those before they get anywhere interesting. That way the human stuff can occur - eating, planning, sleeping, rehearsing, resupply, maintenance, and such like - with reasonable safety and security.

The obvious problem then becomes, well, ok, how do I as an attacker cross 100km of sensor-dense no-mans land and then break into and through the enemies defended zone? How do I achieve surprise? How do I concentrate? How do I feint?

Steve's 'bobbing and weaving' is part of the answer, but I believe you'll also need to break open some good, recent WWI histories and see how they overcame essentially the same problem 100 years ago. Then update and apply their answers in a modern context.

The distances that have to be covered are already vast (historically) and seem to be getting even longer over time.  However, there is the funnel effect.  Units far to the rear occupy a much larger space, which means detection is less efficient.  Especially when considering that sensors at 100km need to deal with civilian "false alarms" far more than they do at 1km. 

Next, at 1km there's a huge array of weaponry that can be used, much of it older and cheaper technology.  The further you go towards that 100km mark, the fewer systems are capable of hitting anything that is identified.  These systems are also always going to be amongst the most expensive, so the ability to react to good ISR is further compounded by a shortage of whatever capable systems exist.

Lastly, the relative safety of distance means that reusable defenses can be layered to help shield deeper spaces from detection and/or interdiction.  Layering at 1km is not impossible, but it is more difficult and has less room for error than trying to layer over 10s of KMs.

Therefore, I think the biggest thing going for a long distance starting point is that it's physically harder for the enemy to spot and track you, not to mention engage.  The further out from the front, the more likely the enemy will need to concentrate on high value targets such as HQs.

Steve

[Huba]

The press conference of our MoD is on. For now:

- German bashing
- Russia bashing
- confirmed work on creating Leo2 coalition
- and that's it. Kinda weird, it was being spun as something important. Disappointing.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[Lethaface]

38 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I'd argue it takes a spine to stand up against your electorate/rotten party to do what must be done. 

I agree, but that's exactly the problem with our democracies. The last few decades the politicans/parties which have implemented 'what must be done' always got punished by the voters, which is coupled with the rise of populism / extreme wing parties. 
So, not saying that's the case in this instance, doing the 'just' thing might lead to the next party in power undoing all of that and much more. Plus politicians and political parties don't like losing votes, which has unfortunately become the largest influence on policy (risk avoidance).

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

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.

 

This is the first time I've seen someone reading into Sholtz's dithering as being caused by a lack of faith in the alliance.  I think that's utter BS.  Germany is the one that is showing weakness in the alliance as almost everybody else is contributing to the cause.  This is like someone in a busy restaurant, full of people getting served food, saying "I'm not going to order dinner because I have no faith in the service here".  I don't buy it for a second.

Further, the risk of nuclear war with Russia is also BS.  If Russia thinks heavy, modern AFVs are a redline that can not be crossed, then Germany is obviously rather full of itself if it thinks only German AFVs count.  Put another way, if the guys in the castle says "we're going to burn all of your fields if you besiege us" and 9 out of 10 villages attack the castle, does the 10th one staying out of it change the calculations of the guys in the castle?  I don't think so.

There's something going on within the German government, but I don't think we've yet figured out exactly what it is.  Most likely it is a combination, however there must be a unifying political reason for constantly saying one thing and doing the opposite.  Scholz's actions are maddening and counter productive, but they are consistent which means there is logic behind what he is doing.

Steve

[Beleg85]

22 minutes ago, Huba said:

The press conference of our MoD is on. For now:

- German bashing
- Russia bashing
- confirmed work on creating Leo2 coalition
- and that's it. Kinda weird, it was being spun as something important. Disappointing.

They are still negotiating it seems. Too many expectations from Błaszczak's conference today.

Btw. there are several planes, including Sweden and Canada, that landing today at Rzeszów airport...C-130, so probably lighter goodies.

These CV90 are on one side excellent news...but on the other hand it's difficult not to question logic behind all this. I silently expected more forward-thinking on NATO part as in regard to UA logistical chains. Probably political concerns prevailed.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Beleg85

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Holien said:

This is one of the best posts I have read in trying to get to the bottom of what is working.
 

Thanks!

1 hour ago, Holien said:

Should be included in a military training manual for future wars...

I think that is what we are all working on here in this thread.  Well, when we aren't forced to deal with Scholz's behavior yet again

Steve

[Huba]

51 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Do you know if Poland has already formally requested German permission to export Leopard 2 to Ukraine?

I have no idea, for sure it wasn't advertised by our gov. I guess the discussion is being waged through media at this point, and making formal request will happen only when understanding is reached. Filing formal request might very well mean that it is formally denied, an outcome nobody would really want.

Also sorry for spamming memes, but this debacle results in a lot of hilarity popping up:

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[Der Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Scholz's actions are maddening and counter productive, but they are consistent which means there is logic behind what he is doing.

Scholz's impulse is supporting Ukraine only to the level where they can barely hold and not outright lose the war. Everything else, like actually providing Ukraine with the means to go back to pre-2014 frontlines, is completely out of his comfort zone.

It's the classic post-90s German mindset, where military power is a means to "protect" and "stabilize", but not something to achieve anything that could be seen as a military victory.

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Calling a politician a idiot is spewing hatred?

In isolation? Maybe not. But look through your last x posts and be honest to yourself how many of them were actually meaningful contributions to discuss and understand what is going on and which were mostly venting frustration and name-calling.

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

I think calling him an idiot is still a nice evaluation, because it assumes no malicious intent. Considering his party's obvious love for Putin, I'd call him something different.

At this point he is doing more damage than Orban to the EU and Nato.

See, and this is why I made such a post. Scholz' way of communicating is far below optimal and there a quite a few things where we could have an interesting discussion about what he decided and what he didn't decide. I would very much like to do that.

Except we actually can't because some people here instantly go into rant mode and that precludes any fruitful discussion. As I said several times already, criticize Scholz as much as you like, there are enough reasons to do that. What annoys me, though, is double standards, dishonesty and this whole "everyone who doesn't share my opinion is in league with Putin!"-business.

I'm okay with calling a politician spineless. What you guys actually mean, though, is, he doesn't decide the way I want. The SPD (and I didn't vote for them) is clearly not a bunch of Putin friends. They happen to believe in different things than you do. And before you answer: "but Schroeder!" He is just one guy. And no, deciding against giving tanks to Ukraine is not hurting NATO. It may hurt Ukraine (I say "may" because the discussion here in this forum is still ongoing). But, and sorry if that doesn't sit well with everyone here, NATO is an alliance for mutual defense not for arms delivery. The NATO treaty does not say that if one country or several send weapons to some country then others have to follow. And neither do any EU treaties. It hurts relations between some of the member nations, true, but that is not the same thing. If you have a different opinion - see "double standards" above. You could as well accuse the Polish government of hurting NATO for going ahead without getting an ok beforehand. You could, I don't.

Lastly, you should consider this: I don't know what the decision will be in the end. But Scholz, for all his failings, is still the democratically elected leader of the German government. I may not be ok with what he decides but that's democracy. If he decides to not give tanks to Ukraine, he is well within his rights to do so. That is his call to make, not Selensky's, not Duda's and not Biden's. Please respect that. We can, of course, discuss whether that would be a good decision.

The part of this conflict that is about national sovereignty and democracy would be completely meaningless if we can't respect the decisions of democratically elected governments of sovereign nations.

[Der Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

I have no idea, for sure it wasn't advertised by our gov. I guess the discussion is being waged through media at this point, and making formal request will happen only when understanding is reached. Filing formal request might very well mean that it is formally denied, an outcome nobody would really want.

Also sorry for spamming memes, but this debacle results in a lot of hilarity popping up:

Thanks!

I think my favourite ones so far were these two: 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm okay with calling a politician spineless. What you guys actually mean, though, is, he doesn't decide the way I want.

This is emphatically not the case. The problem which people have with him is that he first says no, then is shamed and dragged kicking and screaming to say yes, which he finally does, and then tries to weasel out of it. Ref. PzHaubitze, ref. Marders.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Reportedly the French parliament is at this very moment debating sending Leclercs to Ukraine - not if they should do it, but how to solve the logistical challenges. @Taranis care to comment/ confirm that?

 

Well, maybe it is not such a big deal to have different equipment as long as they are at least in their own brigades? (in war time)

Clearly if this would be a major issue we would see that reflected in the aid decisions? 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I do not think he is an idiot. Neither is he just looking after a pacifist section of his electorate - the ugly indecision and backtracking, the obvious lack of spine and manly parts is likely to hurt him and his party in all sections of the electorate, he must see that. Therefore there must be something more behind this.
 

Heh.  Just read this after making my post above.  I'm not surprised to see others looking at this in the same way.

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

My pet conspiracy theory is that he is scared stiff of some heavy-duty Russian kompromat against people high up in SPD, which could undermine that party for years to come. Like e.g. proof that Schroeder was a Russian asset not only after he left his office, but also when he was the Chancellor. Obviously, that is just a conjecture, but those things always are.

I have been trying SO HARD to not blame kompromat, however I'm reluctantly also finding my mind "going there".

There are two three things we see in the Scholz position:

1. consistency of desired outcome - limit on heavy AFVs to Ukraine
2. consistency in inconsistent justifications - not once has Scholz made a coherent, logical explanation for Germany's foot dragging and now blatant opposition to arming Ukraine with modern weaponry
3. consistency in being "odd man out" - Scholz sticks to his position even though the actions of others render his position irrelevant

In this we see carefully calculated consistency, yet Scholz hasn't stated a reason for it that holds water.  Sure, if he really thinks Article 4 and 5 are no longer reliable, that would be dangerous for the alliance and, therefore, a self fulfilling prophecy.  But that position is totally illogical, to an extreme when you think of what information he is privy to.  Whatever we see NATO countries doing, we're only seeing the tip of it and we can tell how committed and unified the response to Russia is.  There can be only more evidence of this internally.

So it is likely something other than what Scholz is saying publicly or even implying.  And that leaves the door wide open for kompromat.

For Scholz to be doing something on this grand a scale for blackmail, it must be pretty big and very extensive.  Not just him, but a large amount of his party is caught up in it.  Considering Russian corruption and the decades of Germany profiting from deals with Russia, it is CERTAIN that there are many embarrassing and probably illegal things Russia has fully documented.  Payments, whore houses, using FSB resources against political rivals, gaining intel on foreign private industry, etc.  Hell, there could be even a small number of VERY bad things, such as Germany providing some form of material assistance to Russia for assassinations or other moves against dissidents within Europe.  Who knows, but it is all consistent with how Russia operates, that's for sure.

To some up... Scholz's position is consistent, but seemingly illogical and stressing its relationship with NATO countries.  And yet he is still doing it with the seeming full support of his party.  I don't think their worries about opinion polls has much to do with it either.

Something is going on, of that I have no doubt.

Steve

[Huba]

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Well, maybe it is not such a big deal to have different equipment as long as they are at least in their own brigades? (in war time)

Clearly if this would be a major issue we would see that reflected in the aid decisions? 

In this particular context the whole supply part of the equation is on the side of country providing the vehicles and their own supply chains and stocks. I'd think that getting the stuff from Rzeszów to the unit fighting in Ukraine is rather easy compared to that.
 

[Beleg85]

25 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Lastly, you should consider this: I don't know what the decision will be in the end. But Scholz, for all his failings, is still the democratically elected leader of the German government. I may not be ok with what he decides but that's democracy. If he decides to not give tanks to Ukraine, he is well within his rights to do so. That is his call to make, not Selensky's, not Duda's and not Biden's. Please respect that. We can, of course, discuss whether that would be a good decision.

The part of this conflict that is about national sovereignty and democracy would be completely meaningless if we can't respect the decisions of democratically elected governments of sovereign nations.

I envy such optimism in "democracy" of chencellor's decisions, while probably it has more to do with internal dinosaur mentallity of his political formation + neo-DDR electorate expectations + interests of business tycoons sprinkled with this hidden attitude that current conflict is an anomaly, will go away and there will be business as usual with Russia sooner or later. It wont't. But old habits die hard, unfortunatelly.

But agree we should keep discussions civil.

I am most afraid of strategic level of all this- tanks sooner or later will come, but German government stance reaffirms Putin that West is weak and divided and in consequence, he has chances to win if only endure long enough. Mind- Putin only intimatelly known Western culture and society through Germany from his young years.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Beleg85

[Kinophile]

6 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

There is going to be a series standoff with these Leopards and the H-hour is tomorrow in Rammstein meeting. Poland PM hinting that we will do what has to be done, no matter the German export permissions. 

Germany painted itself to a corner with the US M1 Abrams demand. I think there was absolute no plans for doing this anytime soon, for multiple good reasons. Only compromise I can think of is US making a sale of M1 Abrams with a far off delivery date.

 

 

Called it. 

Once that stupid legality delay is broken, expect a domino effect. 

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Heh.  Just read this after making my post above.  I'm not surprised to see others looking at this in the same way.

I have been trying SO HARD to not blame kompromat, however I'm reluctantly also finding my mind "going there".

There are two three things we see in the Scholz position:

1. consistency of desired outcome - limit on heavy AFVs to Ukraine
2. consistency in inconsistent justifications - not once has Scholz made a coherent, logical explanation for Germany's foot dragging and now blatant opposition to arming Ukraine with modern weaponry
3. consistency in being "odd man out" - Scholz sticks to his position even though the actions of others render his position irrelevant

In this we see carefully calculated consistency, yet Scholz hasn't stated a reason for it that holds water.  Sure, if he really thinks Article 4 and 5 are no longer reliable, that would be dangerous for the alliance and, therefore, a self fulfilling prophecy.  But that position is totally illogical, to an extreme when you think of what information he is privy to.  Whatever we see NATO countries doing, we're only seeing the tip of it and we can tell how committed and unified the response to Russia is.  There can be only more evidence of this internally.

So it is likely something other than what Scholz is saying publicly or even implying.  And that leaves the door wide open for kompromat.

For Scholz to be doing something on this grand a scale for blackmail, it must be pretty big and very extensive.  Not just him, but a large amount of his party is caught up in it.  Considering Russian corruption and the decades of Germany profiting from deals with Russia, it is CERTAIN that there are many embarrassing and probably illegal things Russia has fully documented.  Payments, whore houses, using FSB resources against political rivals, gaining intel on foreign private industry, etc.  Hell, there could be even a small number of VERY bad things, such as Germany providing some form of material assistance to Russia for assassinations or other moves against dissidents within Europe.  Who knows, but it is all consistent with how Russia operates, that's for sure.

To some up... Scholz's position is consistent, but seemingly illogical and stressing its relationship with NATO countries.  And yet he is still doing it with the seeming full support of his party.  I don't think their worries about opinion polls has much to do with it either.

Something is going on, of that I have no doubt.

Steve

Thanks formulating things in a way that allows to actually discuss them.

My feelingb is that theory is a bit far  fetched but not entirely unlikely. I really don't think that the SPD has much love left for Putin, he burned those bridges. But of course still many people in power in that party are those who came to power in Schroeder's wake, including Scholz. And compromising stuff Putin might hold didn't wouldn't even necessarily be illegal, it might just be inofficial extras to dinner contact that seem inappropriate in the current situation. Quite possible.

Still, I'm leaning towards more profane explanations: At least in Germany there v is always the next election in some federal state looming ahead. The SPD doesn't look good in the polls and we know that only a minority of the voters is actually in favour of giving any heavy weapons to Ukraine. Sadly, what strikes many here as inconsistent behaviour is precisely v what Scholz was elected for: I already explained this at some point, Scholz' whole election campaign revolved around him being Merkel 2.0. And it was one of Merkels hallmarks to listen to polls, telling people what they want to hear, make some token efforts to make it look like she is actually doing it and than (for examples at the EU level) doing the exact opposite. Merkel was just better at hiding it.

To conclude, maybe you are right but going by Occam's razor the simple explanation is often the correct one.

[Kinophile]

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

In isolation? Maybe not. But look through your last x posts and be honest to yourself how many of them were actually meaningful contributions to discuss and understand what is going on and which were mostly venting frustration and name-calling.

See, and this is why I made such a post. Scholz' way of communicating is far below optimal and there a quite a few things where we could have an interesting discussion about what he decided and what he didn't decide. I would very much like to do that.

Except we actually can't because some people here instantly go into rant mode and that precludes any fruitful discussion. As I said several times already, criticize Scholz as much as you like, there are enough reasons to do that. What annoys me, though, is double standards, dishonesty and this whole "everyone who doesn't share my opinion is in league with Putin!"-business.

I'm okay with calling a politician spineless. What you guys actually mean, though, is, he doesn't decide the way I want. The SPD (and I didn't vote for them) is clearly not a bunch of Putin friends. They happen to believe in different things than you do. And before you answer: "but Schroeder!" He is just one guy. And no, deciding against giving tanks to Ukraine is not hurting NATO. It may hurt Ukraine (I say "may" because the discussion here in this forum is still ongoing). But, and sorry if that doesn't sit well with everyone here, NATO is an alliance for mutual defense not for arms delivery. The NATO treaty does not say that if one country or several send weapons to some country then others have to follow. And neither do any EU treaties. It hurts relations between some of the member nations, true, but that is not the same thing. If you have a different opinion - see "double standards" above. You could as well accuse the Polish government of hurting NATO for going ahead without getting an ok beforehand. You could, I don't.

Lastly, you should consider this: I don't know what the decision will be in the end. But Scholz, for all his failings, is still the democratically elected leader of the German government. I may not be ok with what he decides but that's democracy. If he decides to not give tanks to Ukraine, he is well within his rights to do so. That is his call to make, not Selensky's, not Duda's and not Biden's. Please respect that. We can, of course, discuss whether that would be a good decision.

The part of this conflict that is about national sovereignty and democracy would be completely meaningless if we can't respect the decisions of democratically elected governments of sovereign nations.

You're articulation of the above is very well made, and I do thank you for your input.  It is appreciated. Otherwise, we'd have a Butschi-shaped hole in our understanding of the German political status, and that would be to our great communal loss. 

But I do have one point, or question really:

Chamberlain was the democratically elected Head of a government in a free and fair process. He made some good decisions then made some very bad ones. No one gives him a free pass,  and while many did at the time, many did not and made it very clear what he was doing was wrong on many,  many levels (not just ethical). 

Are you saying once Scholz finds his true Munich moment that we should just accept it, as a decision by an elected representative? Im deliberately mentioning Munich as it seems Rammstein, if Scholz begs off, will be viewed as such by CEE. 

Just because he won a political election and has the legal right to decide on national courses of action doesn't mean we can't pour vituperation on a those decisions. If anything, a democratic society expects us to voice opinion, no?

I guess that's two questions

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kinophile

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

I envy such optimism in "democracy" of chencellor's decisions, while probably it has more to do with internal dinosaur mentallity of his political formation + neo-DDR electorate expectations + interests of business tycoons sprinkled with this hidden attitude that current conflict is an anomaly, will go away and there will be business as usual with Russia sooner or later. It wont't. But old habits die hard, unfortunatelly.

Well, yes, you have a point there, obviously. And I admit that, while not being an overly optimistic, I'm an idealist (that may be worse). But, what you say is true for every other democratic leader too (details differ, of course). Most of the pro MBT faction are unlikely to act just because it is "The Right Thing To Do." (tm).

[Huba]

19 CAESARs that were scheduled to be delivered to Denmark in upcoming months will be diverted to Ukraine.

And more Brimistones from the UK:

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba