How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Decent points, aren’t there still tons of contractors in Iraq that help the Iraqi military? And while yes, contractors are different, I’m unsure what the public response would be towards a repair depot being struck by Russian missiles containing American citizens doing maintenance on Abrams. 

huh, while looking into Iraq and how it deals with logistics, apparently the U.S suspended contractors for repairing the tanks after several fell into Iranian militants hands and Iraq failed to get them back. This was in 2018, I can’t find info stating whether this repair center ever came back into service, or how Iraq deals with their inventory of tanks now, whether it can keep them in service or not. Something to keep in mind, Iraq started purchasing tanks from Russia again and continues to do so.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02/u-s-made-tanks-that-fell-into-militia-hands-in-iraq-sparks-assistance-standoff/

 

 

The problems in Iraq all come down to the Iraqi army, as currently constructed, not being remotely willing to fight for the Iraqi government, as currently constructed. Ukraine has proven beyond any conceivable doubt that they don't have the same problem. The fact the Iraqi's have a bunch of Abram's sitting around rotting when Ukraine needs them desperately does make me more than a little crazy though...

[Lethaface]

3 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yeah, but given the volative situation at the frontlines complacency is way more dangerous than overreaction. Pressure must be constantly being put on German leaders not to lag behind by external and domestic public, no time for niceties and paper-chewing. Rememeber, hundreds of people are getting smashed to bits daily. Clearly Kremlin is preparing something big this year, more than just defence of captured territories. They are seem very confident they will win this, or drag enough to wear down the West.

That is most concening thought regarding today's situation- not the material part alone, but Putin's reading of it.

On the other side, Tellin declaration is a sign of firm support- we invested in Ukrainian cause too much to let it go by now.

From the comfort of my war-free chair I prefer to separate the subjects of what's happening at the front and other/political stuff, in this moment, Ramstein. They are different perspectives. From the front the question has been and will always be, 'give weapons'. Even if Leo2s are given a green checkmark tomorrow, there won't be an armored fist crushing through the Russian lines into the rear the day after.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

From the comfort of my war-free chair I prefer to separate the subjects of what's happening at the front and other/political stuff, in this moment, Ramstein. They are different perspectives. From the front the question has been and will always be, 'give weapons'. Even if Leo2s are given a green checkmark tomorrow, there won't be an armored fist crushing through the Russian lines into the rear the day after.

Well that is true, but it is also simply absolute proof this decision should have been made and acted upon six months ago. And then a a fully worked up brigade or two WOULD be smashing the Russians into the Sea Of Azov just east of Mariupol as we speak. Instead we are still arguing about it. 

[Lethaface]

And obviously what should to be done is that the 'coalition of the willing' of countries which support Ukraine select a package of stuff which to support Ukraine with. Move from the dozen type of IFVs send to one type, preferably a modular platform. The same idea goes for all capabilities, make it as easy as possible for Ukraine to integrate send stuff into their forces. 'We' can organize that in theory.
This was probably already stated in this thread 1939 pages ago and many times since. Unfortunately that doesn't help it become real.

[FancyCat]

6 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The problems in Iraq all come down to the Iraqi army, as currently constructed, not being remotely willing to fight for the Iraqi government, as currently constructed. Ukraine has proven beyond any conceivable doubt that they don't have the same problem. The fact the Iraqi's have a bunch of Abram's sitting around rotting when Ukraine needs them desperately does make me more than a little crazy though...

More referring to the difficulty of maintaining Abrams and the fact a lot of maintenance is done by foreign contractors, the use of any western personnel in Ukraine probably will not happen, and Ukraine is already burdened with a wide variety of equipment to maintain. 

[Lethaface]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Well that is true, but it is also simply absolute proof this decision should have been made and acted upon six months ago. And then a a fully worked up brigade or two WOULD be smashing the Russians into the Sea Of Azov just east of Mariupol as we speak. Instead we are still arguing about it. 

Because we don't have the 'send tanks button' we can argue about it until we are stiff and cold but that won't bring any tanks/whatever to Ukraine.

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Well that is true, but it is also simply absolute proof this decision should have been made and acted upon six months ago. And then a a fully worked up brigade or two WOULD be smashing the Russians into the Sea Of Azov just east of Mariupol as we speak. Instead we are still arguing about it. 

EXACTLY, the whole point.  If we never start we never get there.  And now UKR is looking at how to breach RU defenses w MRAPS & HUMMVs.  Not fun.  There's going to be a lot of old fashioned fighting to take back the landbridge & hopefully Starobilsk.  The artillery & fancy stuff will shape the battlefield but sadly UKR will still need to take ground w boots and those boots will need armored support.  That armored support can be better or it can be worse.

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

EXACTLY, the whole point.  If we never start we never get there.  And now UKR is looking at how to breach RU defenses w MRAPS & HUMMVs.  Not fun.  There's going to be a lot of old fashioned fighting to take back the landbridge & hopefully Starobilsk.  The artillery & fancy stuff will shape the battlefield but sadly UKR will still need to take ground w boots and those boots will need armored support.  That armored support can be better or it can be worse.

It's not like Ukraine doesn't have tanks.

[Der Zeitgeist]

[delete]

Edited January 20, 2023 by Der Zeitgeist

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

It's not like Ukraine doesn't have tanks.

Do we actually know the total stock of tanks Ukraine currently possesses? 

[Beleg85]

15 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

From the comfort of my war-free chair I prefer to separate the subjects of what's happening at the front and other/political stuff, in this moment, Ramstein. They are different perspectives. From the front the question has been and will always be, 'give weapons'. Even if Leo2s are given a green checkmark tomorrow, there won't be an armored fist crushing through the Russian lines into the rear the day after.

That's probably obvious to anyone here. The problem is we are already way behind the schedule if those heavies should be provided and Ukrainians manning them have some at least half-decent training on time. Also we have luxury of separating military and political situation here, but I am 100% sure Putin does not. There are probably already optimistic reports lying on his desk (ofc. properly "upgraded" by his minions) that are building narratives on current disagreements between western powers. I can bet his KGB-trained mind already sees light at the end of the tunnel.

Btw. it was our western, logical understanding that things should stay separated (business and strategy, military and politics etc.) that largely led to this conflict and misuderstanding of Kremlin's intensions. This is cultural issue.

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Do we actually know the total stock of tanks Ukraine currently possesses? 

I don't but others here will. IIRC 500+, closer to 1000.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Do we actually know the total stock of tanks Ukraine currently possesses? 

Nope, and we also don't know how many they have in reserves.  I keep meaning to ask if anybody has seen any of the Polish PT-91?  Supposedly Ukraine has several hundred.  We know the Slovene tanks haven't been committed yet.

Steve

[MSBoxer]

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

EXACTLY, the whole point.  If we never start we never get there.  And now UKR is looking at how to breach RU defenses w MRAPS & HUMMVs.  Not fun.  There's going to be a lot of old fashioned fighting to take back the landbridge & hopefully Starobilsk.  The artillery & fancy stuff will shape the battlefield but sadly UKR will still need to take ground w boots and those boots will need armored support.  That armored support can be better or it can be worse.

25 years ago, when we moved into our home, I told my wife we should plant strawberries because she absolutely loves them.  She told me not to bother because it will be 3 years before we get any good fruit.

How many strawberries would we have harvested in the last 22 years?

Putting things off because it takes time, just does not make sense sometimes.

[Lethaface]

11 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

That's probably obvious to anyone here. The problem is we are already way behind the schedule if those heavies should be provided and Ukrainians manning them have some at least half-decent training on time. Also we have luxury of separating military and political situation here, but I am 100% sure Putin does not. There are probably already optimistic reports lying on his desk (ofc. properly "upgraded" by his minions) that are building narratives on current disagreements between western powers. I can bet his KGB-trained mind already sees light at the end of the tunnel.

Btw. it was our western, logical understanding that things should stay separated (business and strategy, military and politics etc.) that largely led to this conflict and misuderstanding of Kremlin's intensions. This is cultural issue.

I can recommend some books by Adam Tooze about this subject ('crashed'), so I agree that economy, military and political stuff are intertwined. But in this case one subject is geopolitics/macro-economics and national pollitics, the other are the reality of war/the operational/tactical situation at the front. It would indeed be great if the former would cater to the latter, but that's not how it works. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Lethaface

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which illustrates my point about bad leadership very well.  You have never defended Scholz, but have instead tried to explain the logic of why he is doing what he is doing, then defending the logic. I think of that as very different and VERY useful.  You have also reacted against emotional statements made against Germany and Scholz from the frustration that comes from all of this.  Very good of you to do both of these things.  I know I'm not the only one that appreciates it (comment above proves that!).  Thank you!

For sure the US has very solidly stated that it doesn't want to escalate this war and has pursued a very deliberate policy of withholding things from Ukraine, at least for a period of time.  However, the US has acted with other nations in unison for the most part.  More importantly, it seems the withholding of certain things has been done strategically and with the intention of eventually delivering them to Ukraine when conditions are deemed favorable.  We may not agree with the details of what the US is doing, but I think most of us agree it is generally the correct approach.

In the end the US policy is the same as the stated policy of Scholz, which is to avoid escalating the war.  The difference is that the US policy is flexible in terms of assessing that risk, Scholz's is... well... hard to pin down because it is not consistently stated or followed even when statements are made.

To sum up, I think the US and Germany have consistent stated policies about avoiding escalation with the transfer of new capabilities to Ukraine.  No double standard.  The criticism of Scholz is how he's implementing the shared strategic vision to the point that people are rightly wondering if Scholz really believes what he is saying.

Steve

Oh hey look, I almost missed German bashing day.  Frankly this all looks and feels like internal Euro politics.  No countries are lining up to push hundreds of tanks into Ukraine with the notable exception of Poland, which kinda makes sense.  And these were all tanks that Ukraine was already set up to support.  Beyond that we have some sort of drug-deal between Germany Czech, Slovenia and the Netherlands again T72s, the French Light tanks and the very recent UK company's worth of Challengers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=124 million kn (€16.5,Croatia by 13 August 2022.

In fact the list of German aid is not small.  They are number 4 overall, and although their per GDP is a little bit tepid, you then get into internal politics resting on economic pressures.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVvJ-eE-irSZCq06UxjoLkqWvc1xQgIgZurr6Wc5jXKHYdoebsJl6s8aAr6fEALw_wcB

So "tanks" are the only metric of effective donations now?  Well neither the US or Canada have gone this way either but I am not seeing the fervor over that here.  Germany only has 350 Leo2s in its entire fleet, which does not point to a massive surplus.  Hell, Canada has over 100 Leo2s and our land threat consist of badly behaving American tourists and bears.  And yet everyone is yelling at Germany like they skipped out on the check?  Is there some sort of military alliance obligation I missed?

To me, a simple "colonial", this appears more an excuse for Europeans to yell at each other than actually fight and win the war, of which I have stressed at length that tanks are a secondary priority right now.  In fact if you dig into the actual list of German contribution there is 'minor' stuff; like spare parts, engineering equipment, radars, boatloads of ammunition and winter clothing...but hey if it isn't a freakin Leo 2...well "that just sux!!"

Oh and then there is the 12.5B Euros in humanitarian aid, the stuff that keeps people fed and some sort of medical system in motion.

Finally on escalation.  A tricky beast at the best of times but the standard thinking is to 1) be deliberate, 2) communicate effectively with your opponent, and 3) leave yourself somewhere to go.  If the west dumps a traffic jam of tanks onto Ukraine...and they don't work, well that limits the escalation room in the conventional sphere pretty dramatically.  So I can see why western powers are holding back some - they might need the threat later, cos' Russia.  Now the narrative is clearly getting lost in Germany's case but I am pretty sure these are not the first politicians to fart in church, and they wont be the last.

  

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by The_Capt

[Zeleban]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nope, and we also don't know how many they have in reserves.  I keep meaning to ask if anybody has seen any of the Polish PT-91?  Supposedly Ukraine has several hundred.  We know the Slovene tanks haven't been committed yet.

Steve

We hardly have them. I think that all reports about the delivery of these tanks to Ukraine are just rumors. Otherwise, we would have seen them for sure.

[Der Zeitgeist]

Reposting this here from "that other place" I frequent...

What I find interesting is that if you leave out all the theatrics and simply look at the packages that were announced at each Ramstein meeting, you get very distinct phases of weapons shipments that were highly coordinated across NATO and partner nations:

• Handheld AT weapons/ATGMs/MANPADS
• Ex-Soviet MBTs & IFVs
• Artillery (tube and rocket, self propelled as well as field-artillery)
• APCs & MRAPs (M113, Dingo, etc.)
• Western medium-range SAMs (NASAMs, IRIS-T, SAMP/T)
• Western IFVs  <---We are here

This poses the question if the entire thing is actually more coordinated than it might seem and how much of the public hysterics about the "next step" of weapons shipments is simply a useful theater play to make the West look weak and fragmented, possibly to manage escalation risks vs. Russia. Some article I read recently called it "boiling the frog". You gradually heat the water, just like you gradually escalate weapons shipments, instead of sending everything at once and risk Putin doing crazy things.

[Lethaface]

8 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Reposting this here from "that other place" I frequent...

What I find interesting is that if you leave out all the theatrics and simply look at the packages that were announced at each Ramstein meeting, you get very distinct phases of weapons shipments that were highly coordinated across NATO and partner nations:

• Handheld AT weapons/ATGMs/MANPADS
• Ex-Soviet MBTs & IFVs
• Artillery (tube and rocket, self propelled as well as field-artillery)
• APCs & MRAPs (M113, Dingo, etc.)
• Western medium-range SAMs (NASAMs, IRIS-T, SAMP/T)
• Western IFVs  <---We are here

This poses the question if the entire thing is actually more coordinated than it might seem and how much of the public hysterics about the "next step" of weapons shipments is simply a useful theater play to make the West look weak and fragmented, possibly to manage escalation risks vs. Russia. Some article I read recently called it "boiling the frog". You gradually heat the water, just like you gradually escalate weapons shipments, instead of sending everything at once and risk Putin doing crazy things.

Liked. We're also at the Patriot stage, which I'd consider as premium Western AA. Let's see whether fighter aircraft will be added to the mix.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Lethaface

[chrisl]

9 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Reposting this here from "that other place" I frequent...

What I find interesting is that if you leave out all the theatrics and simply look at the packages that were announced at each Ramstein meeting, you get very distinct phases of weapons shipments that were highly coordinated across NATO and partner nations:

• Handheld AT weapons/ATGMs/MANPADS
• Ex-Soviet MBTs & IFVs
• Artillery (tube and rocket, self propelled as well as field-artillery)
• APCs & MRAPs (M113, Dingo, etc.)
• Western medium-range SAMs (NASAMs, IRIS-T, SAMP/T)
• Western IFVs  <---We are here

This poses the question if the entire thing is actually more coordinated than it might seem and how much of the public hysterics about the "next step" of weapons shipments is simply a useful theater play to make the West look weak and fragmented, possibly to manage escalation risks vs. Russia. Some article I read recently called it "boiling the frog". You gradually heat the water, just like you gradually escalate weapons shipments, instead of sending everything at once and risk Putin doing crazy things.

It’s in NATO’s interest to look a little conflicted among members publicly while being unified in the back rooms.  It helps avoid looking like it’s RU against NATO and giving support to Putin’s propaganda.  It also helps to be arguing about tanks publicly while quietly shipping trainloads of long range rockets.

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh hey look, I almost missed German bashing day.  Frankly this all looks and feels like internal Euro politics.  No countries are lining up to push hundreds of tanks into Ukraine with the notable exception of Poland, which kinda makes sense.  And these were all tanks that Ukraine was already set up to support.  Beyond that we have some sort of drug-deal between Germany Czech, Slovenia and the Netherlands again T72s, the French Light tanks and the very recent UK company's worth of Challengers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=124 million kn (€16.5,Croatia by 13 August 2022.

In fact the list of German aid is not small.  They are number 4 overall, and although their per GDP is a little bit tepid, you then get into internal politics resting on economic pressures.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVvJ-eE-irSZCq06UxjoLkqWvc1xQgIgZurr6Wc5jXKHYdoebsJl6s8aAr6fEALw_wcB

So "tanks" are the only metric of effective donations now?  Well neither the US or Canada have gone this way either but I am not seeing the fervor over that here.  Germany only has 350 Leo2s in its entire fleet, which does not point to a massive surplus.  Hell, Canada has over 100 Leo2s and our land threat consist of badly behaving American tourists and bears.  And yet everyone is yelling at Germany like they skipped out on the check?  Is there some sort of military alliance obligation I missed?

To me, a simple "colonial", this appears more an excuse for Europeans to yell at each other than actually fight and win the war, of which I have stressed at length that tanks are a secondary priority right now.  In fact if you dig into the actual list of German contribution there is 'minor' stuff; like spare parts, engineering equipment, radars, boatloads of ammunition and winter clothing...but hey if it isn't a freakin Leo 2...well "that just sux!!"

Oh and then there is the 12.5B Euros in humanitarian aid, the stuff that keeps people fed and some sort of medical system in motion.

Finally on escalation.  A tricky beast at the best of times but the standard thinking is to 1) be deliberate, 2) communicate effectively with your opponent, and 3) leave yourself somewhere to go.  If the west dumps a traffic jam of tanks onto Ukraine...and they don't work, well that limits the escalation room in the conventional sphere pretty dramatically.  So I can see why western powers are holding back some - they might need the threat later, cos' Russia.  Now the narrative is clearly getting lost in Germany's case but I am pretty sure these are not the first politicians to fart in church, and they wont be the last.

  

 

All good points but I don't feel like we really have a handle on why this is so difficult for Scholtz. As you note, Germany's already strongly into the war in a lot of ways and there's not much upside to refusing Leo's. 

[Butschi]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh hey look, I almost missed German bashing day.

Given the actual circumstances most of the crowd (and of the Krauts) have kept things remarkably civil. Thanks, everyone, much appreciated.

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

In fact the list of German aid is not small.  They are number 4 overall, and although their per GDP is a little bit tepid, you then get into internal politics resting on economic pressures.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVvJ-eE-irSZCq06UxjoLkqWvc1xQgIgZurr6Wc5jXKHYdoebsJl6s8aAr6fEALw_wcB

So "tanks" are the only metric of effective donations now?  Well neither the US or Canada have gone this way either but I am not seeing the fervor over that here.  Germany only has 350 Leo2s in its entire fleet, which does not point to a massive surplus.  Hell, Canada has over 100 Leo2s and our land threat consist of badly behaving American tourists and bears.  And yet everyone is yelling at Germany like they skipped out on the check?  Is there some sort of military alliance obligation I missed?

To me, a simple "colonial", this appears more an excuse for Europeans to yell at each other than actually fight and win the war, of which I have stressed at length that tanks are a secondary priority right now.  In fact if you dig into the actual list of German contribution there is 'minor' stuff; like spare parts, engineering equipment, radars, boatloads of ammunition and winter clothing...but hey if it isn't a freakin Leo 2...well "that just sux!!"

Oh and then there is the 12.5B Euros in humanitarian aid, the stuff that keeps people fed and some sort of medical system in motion.

I guess that quite a few western leaders make silent prayers for Scholz' health. Even some of the vocal pro-tank faction. If Scholz didn't... well scholz, i.e. playing the role of the Scapegoat to perfection, many of them would face having to take responsibility themselves. If he simply said "Yes, by all means, go ahead!", everyone would then have to commit. And if he said, "Nope, no way!", everyone would then have to decide if they are as ballsy as the Polish (claim to be ), if they have Leopards, or send their own tanks of which they claimed they are much less suited than Leopards.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Butschi

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So "tanks" are the only metric of effective donations now? 

Not quite   As I pointed out, this is just the latest issue for Germany.  Previous to the Leo issue we had problems with Marders (still do, in fact), Gepards, Dingos, and the one that perplexed everybody... former DDR BMP-1.  I'm no doubt missing something that Scholz has screwed up messaging on.

At each point Germany says "we can't send it for X reason", the reason shifts several times, and then it comes back to "we don't want to escalate the war".  The most humorous was when he said they didn't have anything to send and defense industry said "oh. we got plenty of 'em sitting in warehousee".

One of the more embarrassing failures was the Ringausch (ring exchange) with Greece.  The deal that eventually happened was Germany sent Greece 40 Marders and Greece sent Ukraine 40 BMP-1.  This took FOUR MONTHS to happen.  A length of time that would be sufficient to have donated a complex vehicle AND trained crews.  The reason cited for the long delay is that Germany didn't want to do a 1:1 exchange of Marder for BMP-1.  Vehicles it has sitting around doing nothing but costing the German government money.  Four months.

All of this background has ebbed away the slack being cut for Scholz.  If he had been a better partner on previous weapons systems, not dithering, delaying, and even opposing getting things done, then he'd be in a stronger position right now.

As for tanks themselves, I'm in your camp on this one.  As long as Ukraine has sufficient numbers of tanks, I don't think it really matters what they have.  Which is why I've been advocating for Leo 1 as it seems to be a better fit for Ukraine and it gives Scholz room to say it's not escalatory.

Steve

[Der Zeitgeist]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Not quite   As I pointed out, this is just the latest issue for Germany.  Previous to the Leo issue we had problems with Marders (still do, in fact), Gepards, Dingos, and the one that perplexed everybody... former DDR BMP-1.  I'm no doubt missing something that Scholz has screwed up messaging on.

Helmets! Don't forget the helmets! 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Given the actual circumstances most of the crowd (and of the Krauts) have kept things remarkably civil. Thanks, everyone, much appreciated.

I guess that quite a few western leaders make silent prayers for Scholz' health. Even some of the vocal pro-tank faction. If Scholz didn't... well scholz, i.e. playing the role of the Scapegoat to perfection, many of them would face having to take responsibility themselves. If he simply said "Yes, by all means, go ahead!", everyone would then have to commit. And if he said, "Nope, no way!", everyone would then have to decide if they are as ballsy as the Polish (claim to be ), if they have Leopards, or send their own tanks of which they claimed they are much less suited than Leopards.

Reminds me of various movies where a military leader requests volunteers, the whole line makes a motion as if to step forward, but only one fool actually does.  Or the opposite, where the whole line takes a step backwards leaving one fool "standing forward".

For sure you are correct that Scholz is providing cover for other leaders that are similarly motivated to squash the transfer of MBTs for whatever reason.  Could be as simple as the expense to the national budget, as in most cases replacements need to come from somewhere.

Steve