How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Chibot Mk IX]

2 hours 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?

 

wow, things move fast. 

 

Couple days ago I was thinking France may come up a more cunning plan. Sell Leclercs to Greece, buy back the Leo2 based one to one ratio. Then send those Leo2 to Ukraine.  In this case France may occupy a great share of the market previously owned by Germany. 

[Huba]

More pledges:

Latvia:
- 2 Mi-17 choppers
- 10 Stinger launchers and missiles
- small arms
- will train 2000 soldiers

Lithuania:
- also 2 Mi-17
-"dozens" Bofors L70 guns

 

[Kinophile]

32 minutes ago, Butschi said:

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.

Elections and polls are my bet too. Kompromat is dramatic and exciting, but elections are the true fear of every politician. It takes a lot to beat that fear and take a chance with your political career. 

People have done it and succeeded, yet the fear is always an anchor around their necks. 

But sometimes you just should. 

[Butschi]

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

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. 

Why, thanks, good thing noone can see me blush. And now I can't get this cartoon-like Butschi-shaped hole out of my head.

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

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

That's a good point and I wish I had a very good answer. Let's put it the other way round: Would the British people have accepted if other leaders had presumed to make that discussion for Chamberlain? I mean, at that time. Of course it was the prime ministers call to make, not the french president's or anyone else's. That doesn't mean it was a good decision although this is easy to say in hindsight. And I think I did say that we can discuss whether Scholz' decision, whatever it will be is a good decision. My point is: It is the right of any people to make that decision for themselves, especially when it may be a question of life and death (which it was much more in Chamberlain's case than it is probably in Scholz', in all likelihood.)

Goes without saying that it doesn't hurt to listen to people's advice.

[Lethaface]

1 hour 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:

 I have to admit it's a good one.

[Der Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Elections and polls are my bet too. Kompromat is dramatic and exciting, but elections are the true fear of every politician. It takes a lot to beat that fear and take a chance with your political career. 

People have done it and succeeded, yet the fear is always an anchor around their necks. 

But sometimes you just should. 

The big fallacy in these discussions is the assumption that German behavior on the issue of weapons shipments for Ukraine is somehow strange or unusual.

It's not. Reluctance and restraint in military matters has been the single constant in German foreign policy for both CDU and SPS-led governments essentially since our current version of the country existed.

[billbindc]

1 hour 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

The obvious argument against kompromat is that it's never that simple and that in the policy sphere nobody almost ever finds a conspiracy driving events/decisions after the fact. 

The less obvious argument is that if the Russians have kompromat on German politicians, the US...which has pretty thoroughly turned Putin's inner circle inside out...already knows what it is and could use it just as easily. 

It's too easy an answer and so, suspect. 

[billbindc]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I wonder what incompetent drunk civilian contractor they're going to get to command the Russian side of the exercise?  I mean, they are trying to make this realistic, right?

Steve

Any Starbucks in Rosslyn has 10 to choose from.

[billbindc]

10 hours ago, dan/california said:

Unfortunately not even the Russians are likely to fall for another information op like the one that preceded the Kharkiv offensive. Specifically the mournful declaration that there could not possibly be a Kharkiv offensive with Kherson underway.

Why do you imagine it would be just one offensive? 

[Kraft]

Girkin snippet about Wagner successes.

Quote

It is reported that after fierce fighting, the Wagner managed to storm and clear Kleshcheevka southwest of Bakhmut. This means a real threat of interception of the main communication line of the garrison of the city - the Konstantinovka-Bakhmut highway and the actual semi-encirclement of the city, bypassed from the north in the area west of Soledar. So far, however, there is no encirclement (even operational) as such, but the threat to the garrison is quite real.

 

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Why, thanks, good thing noone can see me blush. And now I can't get this cartoon-like Butschi-shaped hole out of my head.

That's a good point and I wish I had a very good answer. Let's put it the other way round: Would the British people have accepted if other leaders had presumed to make that discussion for Chamberlain? I mean, at that time. Of course it was the prime ministers call to make, not the french president's or anyone else's. That doesn't mean it was a good decision although this is easy to say in hindsight. And I think I did say that we can discuss whether Scholz' decision, whatever it will be is a good decision. My point is: It is the right of any people to make that decision for themselves, especially when it may be a question of life and death (which it was much more in Chamberlain's case than it is probably in Scholz', in all likelihood.)

Goes without saying that it doesn't hurt to listen to people's advice.

“I don’t think the Germans have any intention of attacking us. Do you?”

- Neville Chamberlain

This was at an inspection of the BEF in France in December, 1939. 

[FancyCat]

 

[A Canadian Cat]

20 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Not sure if possible or true but someone should crack open those tanks.

Those tanks are not suited to shipping people. At. All. If you think it would be dangerous to cram a bunch of people into the back of a semi trailer and drive them anywhere the this is about 10 times worse.

So, we can conclude that soldiers are not being shipped in tank cars.

It is, hypothetically, possible to modify troop transports and disguise them as tanks. Who has the resources to do that? Who thinks it would actually work? Hundreds of soldiers who need to eat, piss and **** cannot stay inside the disguised tank 24 7 without significant support.

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

“I don’t think the Germans have any intention of attacking us. Do you?”

- Neville Chamberlain

This was at an inspection of the BEF in France in December, 1939. 

Bad example because that was actually true! Hitler really thought France and UK would not go to war for Poland and he absolutely wanted  to avoid a war with UK because they were Aryans, too, or some such. 

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Bad example because that was actually true! Hitler really thought France and UK would not go to war for Poland and he absolutely wanted  to avoid a war with UK because they were Aryans, too, or some such. 

Hitler certainly intended on attacking. Just on his own timetable...which is what happened at the end of the Phony War.

[Lethaface]

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Elections and polls are my bet too. Kompromat is dramatic and exciting, but elections are the true fear of every politician. It takes a lot to beat that fear and take a chance with your political career. 

People have done it and succeeded, yet the fear is always an anchor around their necks. 

But sometimes you just should. 

Fear of losing their power / position. 

The more and closer I've worked with ministries, the more it has become clear that their usual modus operandi is 'protect the minister from falling'. At least the higher ups. Because of this Ministries are by definition the most untrustworthy organizations that exist.
If the political reality changes, they will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought.
Anything which could result in uncomfortable questions in parliament are addressed in such a way that, should a parliamentary inquiry ever be held, the responsible minister/secretaries can't be blamed for something they did (wrong).
So instead of actually deciding or doing something about a problem, they instigate 'investigative enquiries' to shine more light on the matter (i.e. send money to the consulting firms). Which take ages and then lead to new discussions and the process repeats itself. 'Business case', 'quickscan' , memo's and whatever vehicle they can imagine will be put in front of this cart.

These political games are very hard to identify / cut through from outside. The only thing which works to stop this risk management fiasco of 'getting nothing done' is ensuring that the risk of doing nothing become greater than doing something. That's often easier said then done and can obviously backfire in another direction.

So without being on the privy side of what's happening inside the German goverment, this smells like the usual suspect imo.

[Butschi]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

Hitler certainly intended on attacking. Just on his own timetable...which is what happened at the end of the Phony War.

France, yes, UK, no. Topic for another thread, though.

[Huba]

Poland will send... modernized S-60 guns and ammunition  Hopefully there will be more, but you never know.

In a confidence-inspiring move, Russians are mounting Pantsirs on Moscow apartment blocks:

 

[dan/california]

27 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Why do you imagine it would be just one offensive? 

I don't, I was referring to all of the statements reporting they could only do one late last summer. There was a ton of stuff that said Ukraine couldn't do Kherson and something else at the same time. All evidence is that the Russians bought it, and Kharkiv was grossly undermanned and resourced when the Ukrainians took it back.

[Harmon Rabb]

US may help Ukraine strike Crimea - NYT report (The Jerusalem Post)

Not many details, just information from "Several anonymous US officials". Interesting anyway.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Beleg85]

Russians seem to place Pantsyr AA set on the top of its capitals buildings... Somebody get scared of rumours about this secret Ukrainian long-range drones.

[sorry doubled with Huba, just saw it]

Edited January 19, 2023 by Beleg85

[Bulletpoint]

37 minutes ago, Huba said:

Poland will send... modernized S-60 guns and ammunition  Hopefully there will be more, but you never know.

In a confidence-inspiring move, Russians are mounting Pantsirs on Moscow apartment blocks:

 

Not seeing it on that video though? There's a crane hoisting something, but it's not visible.

[billbindc]

Dmitri Alperovitch with some clear eyed analysis.

[Beleg85]

16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not seeing it on that video though? There's a crane hoisting something, but it's not visible.

Nope, but Russian TG channels wrote about it. It was perhaps not the only one:

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Beleg85

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Nope, but Russian TG channels wrote about it. It was perhaps not the only one:

 

Seems like a stunt to make folks in RU think they are actually under threat by UKR, to make RU folks think this war is existential to RU survival.  How absurd.