How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 minutes ago, poesel said:

f the 6 parties, 3 are for sending tanks (Greens, FDP, CDU), 3 against (SPD, Left, AfD). The 'for' fraction in the parliament would have a majority.

You might have noticed, that this issue splits the government AND the parliament in half. This is one reason, why there is no articulated policy regarding this issue.

Haaang on....why is this at all relevant? Both partners in Scholz's coalition are pro-tank exports. There is no risk that if Scholz agrees to send Leos to the Ukraine, the Greens or FDP will leave. And leave to do what, an anti-tank coalition with AFD and die Linke? Not really.

The proportional representation/multiparty issue seems a red herring. The only party which is now in power and may have a problem with tanks is SPD. Is Scholz incapable of controlling his own MPs? I am doubtful...

 

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, poesel said:

Adding to what others already said, I guess I'll have to explain some stuff especially for you US types...

Currently, the German parliament has six (6) parties. 3 of them form the government (SPD, Greens, FDP(*)). Since the SPD is the biggest, it gets the chancellor. SPD cannot form the government alone, it needs partners. For political reasons, the coalition can only be these three.

Of the 6 parties, 3 are for sending tanks (Greens, FDP, CDU), 3 against (SPD, Left, AfD). The 'for' fraction in the parliament would have a majority.

You might have noticed, that this issue splits the government AND the parliament in half. This is one reason, why there is no articulated policy regarding this issue. Since the population is also split in half on this issue, we actually have quite a good representation. But unfortunately, that is not very helpful at all.

 

(*) Should you stumble over the description of the FDP as 'liberals' - that means nearly the exact opposite of the US meaning in Germany. This is a pro-market, pro-freedom party.

One might add that, while I totally share Steves point about clear statements and standing by them, in Germany politicians often get punished for that. The less you commit to something, the less you can be held accountable for it. Many Germans complain that politicians never make clear statements but when they do, those same Germans complain even more. Somehow being vague and non-committal is viewed by many as statesman-like. I'll say it again, Scholz was elected for being Merkel 2.0 and she was the master of being non-committal. Germans liked her for that trait.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi

[Huba]

In other news, reportedly France is training Ukrainian JTACs - the French "Air and Cosmos" reports this as a fact. They also suggest that there might be pilot training going on in France. 
What it means is that there's a coordinated, NATO-wide effort to provide Ukrainians with Air Force, and it is quite comprehensive - not only directed at plugging the gaps, but being a new across-the-board new capability.

 

[Kraft]

Some interesting things being tested 

[Mm1ut1]

Skynet is here….

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

I generally agree with that sentiment. And really, I'm not arguing against giving Leos to Ukraine. My point is that this worthiness is totally subjective. Should then everyone decide for himself when this subjective threshold is reached? I mean, sorry, 14 tanks won't decide this war, one way or another. It is a symbol.

Yes, but symbols win wars, no? 

As a form Of communication of intent, symbols of whatever scale, usefulness and physical effects can have impact far removed from the "real life"  utility. It's a sliding scale of symbolic impact, of course and completely subjective to the moment. 

Zelensky in combat fatigues, in front line positions, walking the streets of Kyiv are all symbols.  By themselves they don't do anything but as a message they are immensely powerful -  his symbolic actions indicate resolve. 

So sure,  14 tanks is symbolic,  but it's also indicative of clear intent. One way or another,  Ukraine is getting NATO tanks. 

Scholz's absence of symbolic support of this CoA is communication in itself.  It doesn't do anything but that reality of that lack of action is visually verifiable - there are no Leos in Ukraine.  That gaping hole in capability is indicative of Scholz's lack of resolve (or that his domestic concerns override everything, indicating a strong resolve to stay in power ). There's no symbolic action to point to,  which is symbolic in abd of itself. 

If Scholz digs his heels in today (and I don't see a change in the domestic political calculus) then this Rammstein will become enormously symbolic, and have real world impact. 

For the sake of completeness I hope he has his useless scrap of paper ready when he walks out, it would be so - 

 

- symbolic. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Kinophile

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Haaang on....why is this at all relevant? Both partners in Scholz's coalition are pro-tank exports. There is no risk that if Scholz agrees to send Leos to the Ukraine, the Greens or FDP will leave. And leave to do what, an anti-tank coalition with AFD and die Linke? Not really.

You got that the wrong way round. Greens & FDP are for sending tanks - if Scholz would send them, they would be very happy. Btw, they _could_ leave for the CDU, but this is highly unlikely.

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

The proportional representation/multiparty issue seems a red herring. The only party which is now in power and may have a problem with tanks is SPD. Is Scholz incapable of controlling his own MPs? I am doubtful...

The SPD is not the only party in power, it is part of a coalition led(!) by the SPD. The other members could leave (see above). And Scholz' own MPs (I guess 'members of parliament'?) are very much in agreement with him. No problem there.

[Butschi]

33 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Yes, but symbols win wars, no? 

As a form Of communication of intent, symbols of whatever scale, usefulness and physical effects can have impact far removed from the "real life"  utility. It's a sliding scale of symbolic impact, of course and completely subjective to the moment. 

Zelensky in combat fatigues, in front line positions, walking the streets of Kyiv are all symbols.  By themselves they don't do anything but as a message they are immensely powerful -  his symbolic actions indicate resolve. 

So sure,  14 tanks is symbolic,  but it's also indicative of clear intent. One way or another,  Ukraine is getting NATO tanks. 

Scholz's absence of symbolic support of this CoA is communication in itself.  It doesn't do anything but that reality of that lack of action is visually tangible - there are no Leos in Ukraine,the gaping hole is indicative of Scholz's lack of resolve (or that his domestic concerns override everything, indicating a strong resolve to stay in power ). 

If Scholz digs his heels in today (and I don't see a change in the domestic political calculus) then this Rammstein will become enormously symbolic, and have real world impact. 

Now you are picking that one last sentence and use it out of context. Sure, symbols help winning wars but they don't win wars by themselves. And so you have to think if making that symbolic act is worth the cost. I don't know if it is worth it or not. But Selensky's combat fatigues are a no-brainer, breaking a contract with one of your allies is not. It is a trade-off between what you want to achieve and what the collateral damage is.

Sure you can say that this contract is stupid and Poland will get US tanks anyway. If you think US export restrictions are any less strict... well, think twice. Every country that potentially sells arms will look at this and at least keep it in mind. Because they will never know what "the greater good" will be the next time.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 minutes ago, poesel said:

You got that the wrong way round. Greens & FDP are for sending tanks - if Scholz would send them, they would be very happy. Btw, they _could_ leave for the CDU, but this is highly unlikely.

I know, I am describing a counterfactual. Let's assume Scholz agrees to send tanks. Do other coalition members leave the coalition because of that? No, they will be happy. Therefore: is Scholz's coalition the problem? No. Therefore: Scholz is the problem, or his own party SPD is the problem. Do you see my reasoning now?

[poesel]

Just now, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I know, I am describing a counterfactual. Let's assume Scholz agrees to send tanks. Do other coalition members leave the coalition because of that? No, they will be happy. Therefore: is Scholz's coalition the problem? No. Therefore: Scholz is the problem, or his own party SPD is the problem. Do you see my reasoning now?

Yes, I do, and I agree. But that was not my argument. I was answering to the question 'why is there no coherent policy or message' from Scholz. Answer: because he is in a coalition which is divided on the subject. If the SPD was ruling alone, the message would have been clearly: 'we will never send tanks (or weapons at all in first place)'

[Beleg85]

32 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Yes, but symbols win wars, no? 

As a form Of communication of intent, symbols of whatever scale, usefulness and physical effects can have impact far removed from the "real life"  utility. It's a sliding scale of symbolic impact, of course and completely subjective to the moment. 

Zelensky in combat fatigues, in front line positions, walking the streets of Kyiv are all symbols.  By themselves they don't do anything but as a message they are immensely powerful -  his symbolic actions indicate resolve. 

So sure,  14 tanks is symbolic,  but it's also indicative of clear intent. One way or another,  Ukraine is getting NATO tanks. 

Scholz's absence of symbolic support of this CoA is communication in itself.  It doesn't do anything but that reality of that lack of action is visually verifiable - there are no Leos in Ukraine.  That gaping hole in capability is indicative of Scholz's lack of resolve (or that his domestic concerns override everything, indicating a strong resolve to stay in power ). There's no symbolic action to point to,  which is symbolic in abd of itself. 

If Scholz digs his heels in today (and I don't see a change in the domestic political calculus) then this Rammstein will become enormously symbolic, and have real world impact. 

For the sake of completeness I hope he has his useless scrap of paper ready when he walks out, it would be so - 

 

- symbolic. 

Yup. Worth to add two important factors here connetced to symbolism:

1. "Heavy chariots" may not win wars by themselves, but their presence is massively impactfull on Russian popular psyche. There was wide outcry of rage/disbelief/hopelessness on RusNet when deliveries were announced, it still is- thought that "We can't possibly win this" seem to be slowly knocking to some Russian heads. Elites at Kremlin should know it even better, albeit they keep silent.

2. Scholz' scholzing in turn is very direct signall for Putin personally that his ad hoc plan of wear down the West is somewhat working. Mind that we are talking about de facto dictator who ordered an invasion of 44mln country based on his own wrong preconceptions only.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Somehow being vague and non-committal is viewed by many as statesman-like.

Thank you for this. I thought the opposite, that lack of decisiveness would be disliked by the voters and lose him votes. I was under the impression that politicians looking weak is bad for them pretty much in all countries under the Sun. Apparently not. Very interesting.

[Kraft]

9 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Thank you for this. I thought the opposite, that lack of decisiveness would be disliked by the voters and lose him votes. I was under the impression that politicians looking weak is bad for them pretty much in all countries under the Sun. Apparently not. Very interesting.

Pretty sure that was actually the most common complaint about Merkel, that she just tries to sit situations out until they resolve themselves.

She stopped that behavior during the initial wave of refugees and I think that was viewed positively, atleast outside of Germany.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Kraft

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 minutes ago, poesel said:

Yes, I do, and I agree. But that was not my argument. I was answering to the question 'why is there no coherent policy or message' from Scholz. Answer: because he is in a coalition which is divided on the subject. If the SPD was ruling alone, the message would have been clearly: 'we will never send tanks (or weapons at all in first place)'

OK. I assumed  SPD is not so dead against because I saw polls which suggested that SPD itself (their voters) were more evenly divided on the subject, and even one poll which said that CDU/CSU voters were the most opposed to sending tanks to the UKR. I guess that is the risk of relying on the press & Internet to tell me about other country's politics. 

[Beleg85]

Interesting development from not long ago- there were rumours Russians were trying to attack on Zaporizhia front...well, what was the point? Perhaps some Russian officer read this forum and tried to experiment with "not-so-elite light infantry tactics" of the future, just calibrated to Muscovite possibilities?

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Beleg85

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Thank you for this. I thought the opposite, that lack of decisiveness would be disliked by the voters and lose him votes. I was under the impression that politicians looking weak is bad for them pretty much in all countries under the Sun. Apparently not. Very interesting.

It is really hard to convey the idea correctly. Looking weak is bad, of course. But by being vague you are perceived to be aloof of things. It is not like German voters don't like politicians talking... well, not like politicians. But. These politicians are, at the same time, suspicious of being populistic. And if they say anything wrong they will immediately be ripped to pieces by the media. Moreover, Germans don't want to be bothered with politics. They want politicians who say: "Don't worry, go back to sleep, nothing will change, everything will be fine." Merkel-style.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

2 minutes ago, Kraft said:

She stopped that during the initial wave of refugees and I think that was viewed positively, atleast outside of Germany..

Do you mean her welcoming speech ("We can do this" etc.)? It was not universally liked, I assure you. In our corner of the woods majority of public opinion was sceptical or opposed. I think majority of people were afraid it will undermine border controls and result in something like the border rushes from Belarus, which we eventually experienced in autumn 2021. The fact, that EU in 2021 supported Polish decision to close the borders was a pleasant surprise.

[Butschi]

Oh dear, 7 new Gepards, new Iris-T system, No decision about Leopards today. According to Pistorius many other countries are also sceptical about delivering tanks. Oh well, I think I will head for my fox hole now and take cover for the rest of the day. This forum will not be fun today.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Oh dear, 7 new Gepards, new Iris-T system, No decision about Leopards today. According to Pistorius many other countries are also sceptical about delivering tanks. Oh well, I think I will head for my fox hole now and take cover for the rest of the day. This forum will not be fun today.

That Pistorius fellow hasn't got a leg to stand on. Or maybe it was a different one?

(Sorry, I could not let this one go. Getting back to work now)

 

[Billy Ringo]

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." — Elie Wiesel

 

 

[Butschi]

One interesting thing to note: Pistorius doesn't seem to be happy about this. When asked about his opinion, he said the he thinks that tanks are needed. But he also said that this is not good call to make but the chancellor's.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi
auto-correction struck again

[Beleg85]

3 minutes ago, Butschi said:

One interesting thing to note: Pistorius doesn't seem to be happy about this. When asked about his opinion, he said the HR thinks that takes are needed. But he also said that this is not good call to make but the chancellor's.

Ok, so responsibility ping-pong in play as well ...

Fortunatelly, Chancellor is good at this:

[Sojourner]

Curious. Pistorius was asked today about sending Leos if US sends Abrams, his response was that was for Scholz to decide, not his decision, and that he hadn't spoken to Scholz about it. Really? What have he and Scholz been talking about all week? Or did he mean it was up to Scholz to make that announcement?

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

and that he hadn't spoken to Scholz about it

I think you misunderstood that. Would have to watch his press statement again, though. He said yesterday that he wasn't aware of such a precondition and I don't think he would have said that if he hadn't talked to Scholz about it. His comment about it being Scholz' decision was about delivering Leopard tanks.

[Bulletpoint]

What's the worst that could happen if other countries decide to send their Leopard tanks anyway, no matter what Germany says? That Scholz will write them a strongly worded letter?