How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

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)

 

That Pistorius fellow at first is deemed to do whatever the chancellor tells him to and secondly might very well have some old sympathies from being a member of the Schroeder established russia-connection...However we should judge him and Scholz for what they are actually doing and not for what they are telling the public. In case of Scholz we have a very clear track record over the last 11 months which paint a picture. In case of Pistorius we will learn in the next months.

Pistorius: Wie nahe steht unser neuer Verteidigungsminister Russland wirklich? - FOCUS online

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by DesertFox

[Kraft]

7 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

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?

I cant speak for Scholz, but Putin will consider Nuclear annihilation, because the Leo2s arent accompanied by US Abram M1s in the same arms package(Sorry)

[Butschi]

30 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

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?

Your guess is as good as mine. I only know a bit about export controls in the private sector and the usual warning that you should make damn sure not only to stick to German export restrictions but also to US export restrictions if you don't want your company to end up on some blacklist or to get sued in the US (both bad if you plan on making money in the US ever again). That clearly doesn't apply here. Maybe something is possible on EU level and of course Germany could ban Poland from receiving arms exports in the future. But I guess the real consequence is further damage to German-Polish relations and, as I said earlier, possibly consequences in the future as other arms exporting countries may come to the conclusion that Poland cannot be trusted to not give weapons to countries you don't want to have them.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi

[Butschi]

---

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi
removed, double post

[Der Zeitgeist]

It seems quite fitting how we're on page 1938 of this thread.

[Vanir Ausf B]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

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?

I suppose there is a concern that in the future countries may be reluctant to sell weapons to other countries that have demonstrated a willingness to ignore re-export agreements.

But the more immediate problem may be with sustainment. So Poland sends Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Okay. Can Poland produce all the ammunition and spare parts for those Leopards?

 

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I suppose there is a concern that in the future countries may be reluctant to sell weapons to other countries that have demonstrated a willingness to ignore re-export agreements.

I think this might be one of those cases where if enough important customers are willing to unite and flaunt the rules at the same time, they will just get a few angry words now and then after a couple of years, there will be a common understanding that these were exceptional circumstances and let bygones be bygones.

 

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

But the more immediate problem may be with sustainment. So Poland sends Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Okay. Can Poland produce all the ammunition and spare parts for those Leopards?

 

Maybe not, but maybe a pragmatic solution will be found, once the first big symbolic step will already have been taken.

[Butschi]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this might be one of those cases where if enough important customers are willing to unite and flaunt the rules at the same time, they will just get a few angry words now and then after a couple of years, there will be a common understanding that these were exceptional circumstances and let bygones be bygones.

Possibly true. But one point we haven't really discussed here: There is a very loud and vocal pro-delivery faction. Pistorius hinted in his press statement, that many countries are actually sceptical. I don't know if that is true or just a deflection of blame. But I do wonder, how many actually don't want tanks to be delivered and how many are quietly happy that Scholz receives all the blame. I mean, even the US were reluctant to give Bradleys to Ukraine and I don't really buy the point about M1s being too complicated.

[Zeleban]

 

[Lethaface]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Picture 12 of these driving around all day and night without firing from the same place twice.  Imagine a drone being used to determine what to fire and where.  How the Hell can you defend against something like this?  Even if you have hunter/killer drones flying around looking for them, it is a needle in a haystack even if there is air parity or better for the side trying to kill these things. 

Steve

This is what I've been thinking about for a bit, but then in an automated distributed system. X number of drones keep scanning for targets and reporting them to the 'system'. The target is automatically 'appointed' to a gun (or several) which are in range. That gun fires of a (salvo of) round at the target and moves again.

One could have a human in the mix approving identified potential targets or just have it autonomous.
You can make it more complex by adding a BDA 'service' which uses a drone from the pool to assess whether the target has received 'sufficient' rounds. Or adding various type of artillery systems/munitions in the mix and have another service/system component match the target to the type of munition/system. But that's 'extra'.

If a drone or howitzer becomes unavailable, one can just 'plug in' a replacement as long as they are in stock.

And voila: you have an 'self repairing' automated distributed artillery carousel on a continuous attrition mission. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Lethaface

[FancyCat]

 

[danfrodo]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

Dunno, there are other security risks to consider:

 

I was just thinking maybe this is actually to deter internal strike.  Like some RU actor trying to take out Putin who has control of some missile or air force assets.

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

Dunno, there are other security risks to consider:

 

I laughed so hard my wife yelled at me (loud and unexpected sounds do that!), then she saw this, then she laughed

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Butschi said:

I agree with what you said, except this point. You know better than that. Or else I should definitely make more of the CM code that I paid for.

It's in the contract what you get for your money or else I could freely distribute my copies of CM, try to crack the encryption of those btt files, etc. Everyone who buys military equipment knows that there are restrictions to what you can do with that equipment, Poland knew, too.

All here who think breaking contracts to do what is currently perceived as "the right thing" should think about double standards and about the fact that this can backfire. At the very least that is a slippery slope. This sets a precedent and soon everyone might break contracts because of [enter favorite lofty goal here] and poof goes part of our rule based order.

Oh, you just "went there" with that analogy?  Big mistake, buddy

There is nothing in CM's license that says you can't transfer the game to another computer or gift it to someone else.  From our perspective, you bought a license and it is yours.  We, Battlefront, have no right to interfere with what you do with it provided you do not duplicate it because now you've taken what you purchased and making into something you didn't purchase (i.e. a second or more copy).  So, if you want to give your copy of Black Sea to a Ukrainian, who are we to stand in your way?

Now, the broader point about sticking to contracts because that's what contracts are for is, of course, valid.  However, I wonder what the transfer permission language in that contract is.  Very often there is ambiguous language such as "the right to transfer can not be unreasonably withheld" or hinges on some condition like "can not transfer to a nation that is currently in conflict with any NATO state or otherwise prohibited by international law".  Language like this is standard in order to get the customer to agree to it.  Make the restriction to tight and the customer says "I'll take my business elsewhere" or "I want a discount for giving up freedom of action".  Which is exactly why we do NOT have this stuff in Combat Mission EULA

All of that said, people and entities break contracts all the time when they think the clause is not legally or morally defensible.  They rely on actual courts or the "court of public opinion" to back their decision to break the contract.  This is how precedents are set.  At one time software licenses DID try to control the second hand market for games when people and companies (shops) deliberately disregarded the license and doing what they felt was right, and the courts sided with them as well as public opinion.  This is what Poland is contemplating doing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

 

I do admire Pistorius' courage.  He took this job knowing that his first week on it was going to SUCK really badly for him.

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

The US has a comedian, Jeff Foxworthy, who made his name by making jokes that went something like this:

"You know you're not very popular when when your name becomes used as a verb to represent bad decision making".

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

51 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Possibly true. But one point we haven't really discussed here: There is a very loud and vocal pro-delivery faction. Pistorius hinted in his press statement, that many countries are actually sceptical. I don't know if that is true or just a deflection of blame. But I do wonder, how many actually don't want tanks to be delivered and how many are quietly happy that Scholz receives all the blame. I mean, even the US were reluctant to give Bradleys to Ukraine and I don't really buy the point about M1s being too complicated.

I don't buy that excuse either. All tanks are complicated machines that need a lot of spare parts and specially trained people to operate and fix them. If the US sent Abrams, they could also send whatever necessary to keep them running.

[kevinkin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/19/inside-urgent-push-arm-ukraine-spring-offensive/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

Outside the paywall Post article dated today. No too much other that this:

“The impetus for the Patriots . . . a lot of that was driven by current events,” the defense official said, as was “the impetus on getting a lot more infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, whatever capability could enable the Ukrainians to break the World War I, trench-warfare dynamic going on right now and enable them to claw back.”

Austin’s goal, reflecting the long months of Pentagon study that now had increasing urgency, was to train entire battalions of Ukrainian troops in “combined arms maneuver”— battle tactics that utilize coordinated advances of armored vehicles, artillery and infantry.

The need for that type of maneuver — emphasizing smart tactics and quality of weaponry over quantity — led to what Kahl called the “shift” in approach. Although U.S. and European militaries had long been training Ukrainian soldiers in small batches on how to operate some air defenses and artillery, by December the Pentagon had become convinced that to keep the Russians from advancing, and for Kyiv to mount new offensive operations, the Ukrainians needed to learn how to maneuver in large, combined units.

The tactics were tailor-made for the expansive, Kansas-like plains and farmland spread across Donbas.

But there was little point in the expanded combat training without providing the weapons — especially tanks and armored vehicles — that the Pentagon’s own study said were necessary for success on the battlefield. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was hearing the same thing from his Ukrainian counterpart, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny. So was Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, from Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff.

The plan for training and new armored vehicles moved into high gear.

Here come the shirts from the main office with their way of conducting things. Is this a complete move away from light infantry formations something the UA knows well? Can't train without the weapons and can't have the weapons without the training - just the situation to cause traditional delays in the DoD. Meanwhile Ukraine bleeds and can't strike in ways to cause the Russian people a world of hurt. 

 

 

 

 

[Butschi]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is nothing in CM's license that says you can't transfer the game to another computer or gift it to someone else.  From our perspective, you bought a license and it is yours.  We, Battlefront, have no right to interfere with what you do with it provided you do not duplicate it because now you've taken what you purchased and making into something you didn't purchase (i.e. a second or more copy).  So, if you want to give your copy of Black Sea to a Ukrainian, who are we to stand in your way?

I am aware of how software licenses work (damn, worth a try ) and the analogy is obviously flawed. My point was more generally that in many cases where you paid for something you are still restricted in what you are allowed to do with it.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I am aware ofvhow software licenses work (damn, worth a try ) and the analogy is obviously flawed. My point was more generally that in many cases where you paid for something you are still restricted in what you are allowed to do with it.

Yup, and that's why the second half of my post treated your analogy for what it was intended to illustrate

People agree to contracts with objectionable language all the time because they feel the chances it will matter are less than the benefits they think they'll get from signing.  The more unreasonable the clause or the more unreasonable its enforcement, the more likely someone is going to challenge it.  Usually by ignoring it, but sometimes taking the seller to court or trying to embarrass them publicly.  The seller then has a choice to make about enforcement, with public relations and financial costs of defending the right taken into account.

This is where Scholz is doing real harm to Germany as a nation and as a weapons supplier.  It is very clear that the decisions by Scholz are not popular with many of its customers.  Certainly not popular with Ukraine, and Ukraine right now is one of the most popular nations on the world's stage.  Yet Scholz is not taking decisive action to stop the transfers, but instead delaying and then eventually giving in.  That's the worst possible thing to do IMHO.  Say no and stick to it despite the anger, or say yes and get the benefits of doing what is perceived to be "the right thing".

Germany, under better leadership (I'd argue Scholz is not a good leader of Germany, but maybe a good leader of the SDP) would see this conflict as inevitable and would have planned on a compromise behind closed doors earlier on.  Specifically, Germany won't send its heavy stuff but will not prevent others from doing so.  This goes beyond Leopards, BTW.  We had very early on Germany objecting to the transfer of older DDR equipment, and it had to suffer some well deserved bruises before it relented.

And there it is in a nutshell.  Germany has opposed pretty much ALL heavy weapons transfers to Ukraine, even though much of the stuff was terribly outdated and providing Ukraine with no NEW capabilities (e.g. BMP-1 from Greece).  This despite the fact that other nations were already sending more capable equipment at the same time.  Not only did Scholz get out of step with others on these issues, but it took MONTHS (4 in the case of the Greek BMPs) to straighten out in favor of the transfers.

This is bad, really bad, leadership at best.  At worst it is something nefarious.

Steve

[DesertFox]

And some good news here:

 

 

 

[FancyCat]

Breaking contracts is overrated, at risk of sounding insensitive, Poland is not acting alone, the UK is sending tanks, if it can convince another state to join in, it would effectively challenge Germany's stated reasons for not providing tanks. One, risk of NATO Russia conflict, Germany must either clearly challenge the tank shipments on the basis of causing greater conflict, two, Germany has asserted concerted movement of NATO, both are severely challenged by this move.

Once you send the tanks, you invalidate the reasons given by Germany, now Poland and co can say, "the risks did not pan out" and if Germany tries to withhold ammo or training or parts, it becomes a question, why do you want to not support Ukraine?

[danfrodo]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All of that said, people and entities break contracts all the time when they think the clause is not legally or morally defensible.

This is certainly not the time to break a contract, heaven forbid!!  Just because innocent civilians are murdered every day and a hundred soldiers are dying every while actually fighting for freedom.  Certainly not the time to breach a contract to stop the murderfest sooner, certainly does not justify breaching a clause in a contract.

The customer in this case is in the right and Germany simply needs to say OK.  It's not like the checks for the tanks bounced.  

[DesertFox]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is bad, really bad, leadership at best.  At worst it is something nefarious.

It indeed is.

[kevinkin]

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-secret-attack-plan-ukrainian-094858834.html

Will Russian feel compelled to attack before all the new NATO equipment and training are in place? Once in place, would the UA be better off remaining defensive and waiting to counterattack using interior lines? Who needs to attack more? Who is better off on the defensive? Right now, Russian needs to attack from a political POV more than Ukraine. But with their ill trained army, they are better off staying on the defensive. I guess this is good for Ukraine. NATO can't let shear numbers win and up the ante on Russian logistics while they train and equip. 

 

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, and that's why the second half of my post treated your analogy for what it was intended to illustrate

People agree to contracts with objectionable language all the time because they feel the chances it will matter are less than the benefits they think they'll get from signing.  The more unreasonable the clause or the more unreasonable its enforcement, the more likely someone is going to challenge it.  Usually by ignoring it, but sometimes taking the seller to court or trying to embarrass them publicly.  The seller then has a choice to make about enforcement, with public relations and financial costs of defending the right taken into account.

This is where Scholz is doing real harm to Germany as a nation and as a weapons supplier.  It is very clear that the decisions by Scholz are not popular with many of its customers.  Certainly not popular with Ukraine, and Ukraine right now is one of the most popular nations on the world's stage.  Yet Scholz is not taking decisive action to stop the transfers, but instead delaying and then eventually giving in.  That's the worst possible thing to do IMHO.  Say no and stick to it despite the anger, or say yes and get the benefits of doing what is perceived to be "the right thing".

Germany, under better leadership (I'd argue Scholz is not a good leader of Germany, but maybe a good leader of the SDP) would see this conflict as inevitable and would have planned on a compromise behind closed doors earlier on.  Specifically, Germany won't send its heavy stuff but will not prevent others from doing so.  This goes beyond Leopards, BTW.  We had very early on Germany objecting to the transfer of older DDR equipment, and it had to suffer some well deserved bruises before it relented.

And there it is in a nutshell.  Germany has opposed pretty much ALL heavy weapons transfers to Ukraine, even though much of the stuff was terribly outdated and providing Ukraine with no NEW capabilities (e.g. BMP-1 from Greece).  This despite the fact that other nations were already sending more capable equipment at the same time.  Not only did Scholz get out of step with others on these issues, but it took MONTHS (4 in the case of the Greek BMPs) to straighten out in favor of the transfers.

This is bad, really bad, leadership at best.  At worst it is something nefarious.

Steve

I won't defend Scholz, I'm done with that, I was very much expecting him to give us a clear yes or no today. So there is not much to argue with what you say.

Just this one point: I highly doubt that US arms deliveries have even a tiny bit more favorable clauses attached. Hypothetically, if Poland had announced they would give M1s to Ukraine without the explicit ok from the US government there would have been hell to pay. Let's not apply double standards here.