How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

12 hours ago, dan/california said:

If we really are going to let Amnesty and related organizations scare us out of using cluster munitions there is a lot of utility going forward for a very fast firing 105mm SPG, and a self propelled medium mortar, preferably breach loading. With fully automatic gun laying and and loading they could pump out ten rounds in less than a minute in whatever pattern the was preselected, and be going somewhere else while the barrel cooled off to repeat the trick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS

Oh look, the Finns and Swedes have a system in service. Now that Finland is safely tucked under the U.S. Air-Force umbrella that comes with NATO membership they need to celebrate by getting several batteries worth worth of these off to Ukraine soonest.

 

18 minutes ago, Huba said:

Zelensky is visiting Warsaw today, and there was a new arms deal announced:
- PGZ will cooperate with UA Artem consortium in 125mm tank ammunition production
- UA will purchase additional 100 Piorun MANPADS
- the number of purchased Rosomaks is increased to 150 from the initial 100. It will include 3 Rak 120mm mortar companies, for a total of 24 plus support and command vehicles (that is assuming they will keep our TO&E).
- there was no information about the configuration of remaining Rosomaks, but the fact that the announcement was made with 2 Hitfist30P armed vehicles in the background, one can at least take it as a hint.

Below chart shows the organization of PL Rak company:`

Forgive me for quoting myself, but if my specific proposals for more support are going to receive this level of response, I should make more of them. .

GO POLAND! 

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Someone I recall saying Ukraine has time on their side, I disagree then and now. At the prior time, I argued that economic devastation of Ukraine multiplies as time goes on. Now, I want to mention international outcomes, as the war drags on, the calculus for intervention in support of Russia increases favorable for Russia. Take for example, the notion that NATO is seeking to sap Russian strength via Ukraine, and that idea that is best achievable over a drawn out slugfight. I've already pointed out how this does not help the West as much as one might first see, but I want to emphasize now the danger of a prolonged fight with a economically damaged Ukraine being supported by the West.

One, the longer the conflict lasts, the more Ukraine must rely on the West for economic, military support, at some point we will hit the cold war stock limit and like Russia, hunt around, and use new equipment for Ukraine. Same applies economically, Russia has economic levers, and the recent Saudi-Iranian detente, OPEC+ cuts illustrate that whatever our levers for the Middle East, our allies there have no reason to accommodate the West economically.

China is keen to stay on the sidelines lest it is given major blowback for supporting the loser in the war, but if Russia shows ability to stalemate, Chinese support can and I believe will increase, especially if the West decides on prolonging the conflict thru not trying to achieve a knock out blow.

Chinese industrial power has not been activated to support Russia and to be frank, I don't want China wondering if they want to test out mass vs precision via Russia as a useful proxy.

Better to give Ukraine what it needs to achieve decisive results. Whether it's fear of being too bold in supporting Ukraine, or keen not to "escalate", if Putin is intent on winning a long term fight, like the short term fight, the West must show Putin he cannot win. Instead of conceding defeat and coming to the peace table, Putin doubled down.

The small amount of tanks, IFVs, sure....Ukraine isn't ready to man more tanks....mehhh, im not going to pretend Ukrainians aren't familiar with Western equipment or ignore supply issues or whatnot but I think a significant political factor influences Western aid to Ukraine, and to suggest that this small number of tanks, IFVs, is enough or a full provision of the potential of the West, nah.

Oh sure Gulf War, precision over mass, etc, etc, the Coalition amassed a massive military force to not just equal the Iraqi military, but amassed a numerical advantage.

And of course valid reasons for restraint exist, including not spooking Putin but still, western support is way under what it could be.

We should not be under illusions that Western aid is at even moderate limits reached. This concern for results for more aid as if the West has given it's all and is overburdened and not a smattering of the left overs is entirely political and not a reflection of western capability or potential.

Ok to summarize:

- Ukrainian economy

- Russian Support kicking in (namely from China)

- Western support running out - materially, and glancing off of will.

Ergo - west is not providing enough support, should accelerate/double down in order to end this war before Ukraine runs out of time.  I think I got it all but jump in if I missed something.

Well first off it fails to recognize Russian trajectories, which are not pretty either militarily or economically.  Ukraine is not seeing shipments of M60s and Leo 1s, but Russia is shipping T62s.  This is evidence that as it relates to material Russia is running out of runway while there is no evidence the Western cupboard is bare.  

We do know there are production concerns as western inventories of forward edge munitions are starting to strain.  However, let’s keep a level head here on this.  I had a chance to virtually attend a RUSI conference last week on air power and let me say that military industry has seen the wind and is really leaning into it.  It is in their interests to accentuate production shortfalls and issues as in this environment they will equate directly to deep long term investment in their industry.  So the “truth” is likely somewhere in between.  We are seeing shortfalls in some areas because we were set up for short wars, but we also have some pretty deep war stocks.  I have seen no evidence that we are really anywhere near the bottom of the barrel, we will need to accept risk but welcome to warfare.

Ukrainian economy - well by this logic (ie saving the Ukrainian economy) then Ukraine should have likely sued for peace last Nov.  The economic return on the land they take back from here is not likely to pay for the costs of taking it back at this point.  Frankly if the West does not follow up this war with the largest reconstruction effort since the Second World War then we may as well pull out now - and the grown ups know this.  So listing this one as a forcing function doesn’t really line up because we are talking decades of investment if this thing ended today regardless.

So we are really down to western Will on one side.  Russian Will and Material on the other.  

Russian Material is a significant problem for them.  China would have to seriously invest, likely more than the entire western effort for Ukraine right now, to stop the current RA trajectory.  Will China go that far?  We do not know, but we are not seeing evidence that China is preparing to jump into this thing with both feet.  It is a single powerful nation with a lot of regional defence and security bills to pay, hemorrhaging that into Russia is a questionable strategy but we will see.  Russian Will appears startlingly robust, at least on the surface the signs of strain are there.  But I am betting it is also not infinite.

Time = Western Will, there is your forcing function.

[Haiduk]

Units of UKR 25th airborne brigade repelled Russian armored attack somewhere on Svatove direction. -3 armor. 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Haiduk

[akd]

AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in Ukrainian hands, showing some aspects of the system I was not aware of:

 

[Beleg85]

Somebody said something about drones flying through windows of VIP's...something is smoking in Russian MoD building.

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

FV103 Spartan

Heh.  We went over this already.  The vehicle in the video has a ramp, the FV103 has a door:

So it is not a Spartan.  It also doesn't look like a M113, therefore it is by default a Dutch YPR-765 as there are no other tracked vehicles with ramps in Ukraine's inventory.

Steve

[Haiduk]

8 hours ago, Grigb said:

I don't have much time, but I noticed something interesting - I'm not sure if you discussed it, but there are rumors that UKR successfully pushed back RU at Avdiivka and Maryinka in the last few days. Furthermore, the RU is said to have did a tactical withdrawal at Vuhledar (retreated to better defensive positions). The claim is that this is not the offensive, but rather an improvement of local situation before the offensive elsewhere. 

It is extremely unreliable, but Girkin today declared that At Avdiivka, our offensive choked [suddenly stopped with negative connotation].

Let's monitor the situation closely. 

LostArmor talks about lossing positions near Avdiivka (indeed this is some further to north near Novoselivka village) - he says units of DPR's 11th brigade "Vostok" were substituted by mobiks on this direction and this caused lossing of some positions. There was a video two days ago how 71st jager brigade assaults a trench - this is that. 

Interesting, Khodakovskiy told, 11th motor-rifle brigade "Vostok", which in DPR belongs not to army, but to internal troops, now will be re-formed into special brigade of Rosgvardiya and Khodakovskiy also will receive a duty in security structures of "libereated Donetsk oblast"

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, akd said:

AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in Ukrainian hands, showing some aspects of the system I was not aware of:

 

Cool!  I didn't know it could be fired remotely like that.   Makes sense when used in a fixed position.

Steve

[Haiduk]

On LostArmor somebody writes he spotted first BTR-50s near frontline. Despite old age, Russians in whole say this vehicle is better that MTLB, because can embark more people.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Haiduk

[sburke]

US, Britain walk out at UN on Russian wanted for war crimes (yahoo.com)

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States, Britain, Albania and Malta walked out on Russia's envoy for children's rights - whom the International Criminal Court wants to arrest on war crimes charges - as she spoke by video to U.N. Security Council members on Wednesday.

Britain and the United States blocked the informal meeting on Ukraine, convened by Russia to focus on "evacuating children from conflict zones," from being webcast by the United Nations.

The diplomats left the U.N. conference room where the discussion was being held as Russian Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova spoke.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told reporters that the United States joined Britain in blocking the webcast so Lvova-Belova did not have "an international podium to spread disinformation and to try to defend her horrible actions that are taking place in Ukraine."

The International Criminal Court last month issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Lvova-Belova, accusing them of illegally deporting children from Ukraine and the unlawful transfer of people to Russia from Ukraine since Russia invaded on Feb. 24, 2022.

 

[Haiduk]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Heh.  We went over this already.  The vehicle in the video has a ramp, the FV103 has a door:

So it is not a Spartan.  It also doesn't look like a M113, therefore it is by default a Dutch YPR-765 as there are no other tracked vehicles with ramps in Ukraine's inventory.

Steve

FV430/432? First mentions were in January, but about their arrival became knowingly in the mid of February.  

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Here is video "T-shape. AAR", where tank commander tells why he was forced to crash Russians in the trench and some datails, which weren't seen on teh video (ENG subs can be turned on):  

 

In short - turned out Russians had 28 men in the trench instead 10 estimated. Tank wasted 21 shells of 22 onboard, when commander have seen, that Russians "don't running out". Tankers had an order completely supress enemy in order to do not allow direct engaging of UKR infantry with Russian entranched infantry, so he received an order from operation commander to crash the enemy by tracks. 

Also Russians set minefield on the roat behind own position and had 3 Fagot ATGMs, two of which were hit for 30 minutes before operation, but one, which remained fired at BMP (missed), which harrased Russian trench.  

UKR infantry to dig out Russian mercenery since 20 hours as it was burried. Probably he had access to air and didn't suffocate, so when he came to his senses, he has moaned and was heared by UKR soldiers.

That's a lot of good extra information.  The most interesting thing for me was the very end when they showed what weapons were in the trench.  They had at least one RPG-7 and a half dozen disposible RPGs plus one Fagot ATGM.  And yet they appear to have only shot the ATGM one time, nothing else.  Trenches are only good if they are defended, weapons are only good if used.

My criticism of the attack still remains, though.  The BMP should have closed while the tank was engaging.  Clearly the tank had shell shocked them probably 10 rounds into the 21 fired.  Infantry should have been able to mop them up quickly without taking casualties.  That would have avoided risking the tank and wasting 122mm rounds.

That said, it seems they were quite confident that there was no other Russian unit covering this position.  So the risk of driving the tank in the trench was probably only that one of the defenders would use one of the many RPGs to take out the tank at very close range.  If the Russians had the equivalent of "Predator" that is exactly what would have happened.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

FV430/432? First mentions were in January, but about their arrival became knowingly in the mid of February.  

Maybe?  My guess is the British AFV/IFVs, as well as all the other new armor (Strykers, Bradleys, Marders, Leos, etc), are in the rear with the forces reserved for the big offensive.  That was the practice last year.

Steve

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

FV430/432? First mentions were in January, but about their arrival became knowingly in the mid of February.  

Just googled FV430/432. They all have a side hinged backdoor. That IFV in the flic has a M113 style ramp opening. 

[DesertFox]

Lets see where this ends...Visegrad, so don't miss your grain of salt...

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Someone I recall saying Ukraine has time on their side, I disagree then and now. At the prior time, I argued that economic devastation of Ukraine multiplies as time goes on.

Right, but there are two countries at war here; Ukraine and Russia.  It isn't productive to look at each out of context with the other or to treat either one as if the other doesn't exist.

When examining the concept of time, whatever aspect is examined must be applied to both countries within the same analysis.  Otherwise context is lost and therefore meaning.

Earlier when arguing this with LLF I used the analogy of two people who fell out of a boat in the middle of the ocean.  Time is an enemy to both of them as there's only so long they can swim or hold onto something before dying from any number of causes.  So in that sense time is on neither side.  I'll go a bit further...

Let's say that there is a boat there, but it has an evil crew that for entertainment reasons is only going to rescue one of the two.  They put wages or each man and wait for one to drown, then pick up the survivor.  In this sense it doesn't matter that time is on neither side, what matters is that one side survives longer than the other.

At the moment it appears that Ukraine has all the advantages that will allow it to stay in this fight longer than Russia.  Therefore, time is more on Ukraine's side than Russia's.

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

w, I want to mention international outcomes, as the war drags on, the calculus for intervention in support of Russia increases favorable for Russia. Take for example, the notion that NATO is seeking to sap Russian strength via Ukraine, and that idea that is best achievable over a drawn out slugfight. I've already pointed out how this does not help the West as much as one might first see, but I want to emphasize now the danger of a prolonged fight with a economically damaged Ukraine being supported by the West.

One, the longer the conflict lasts, the more Ukraine must rely on the West for economic, military support, at some point we will hit the cold war stock limit and like Russia, hunt around, and use new equipment for Ukraine. Same applies economically, Russia has economic levers, and the recent Saudi-Iranian detente, OPEC+ cuts illustrate that whatever our levers for the Middle East, our allies there have no reason to accommodate the West economically.

China is keen to stay on the sidelines lest it is given major blowback for supporting the loser in the war, but if Russia shows ability to stalemate, Chinese support can and I believe will increase, especially if the West decides on prolonging the conflict thru not trying to achieve a knock out blow.

Chinese industrial power has not been activated to support Russia and to be frank, I don't want China wondering if they want to test out mass vs precision via Russia as a useful proxy.

All potentially true, but it's all a serious stretch because it presumes a lot of things that do not appear to be very likely.  Your thinking also buys into the long held fallacy that Russia has the capability and capacity to remain in this war as long as it likes no matter what.  It does not.  Whether it can last long enough is, however, unknown.  The longer the war goes on the greater the chance we'll find out that Russia doesn't have what it takes to keep fighting.

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Better to give Ukraine what it needs to achieve decisive results. Whether it's fear of being too bold in supporting Ukraine, or keen not to "escalate", if Putin is intent on winning a long term fight, like the short term fight, the West must show Putin he cannot win. Instead of conceding defeat and coming to the peace table, Putin doubled down.

On this point we agree, mostly because the quicker this war is over the better for everybody.  This war dragging out benefits nobody.

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

The small amount of tanks, IFVs, sure....Ukraine isn't ready to man more tanks....mehhh, im not going to pretend Ukrainians aren't familiar with Western equipment or ignore supply issues or whatnot but I think a significant political factor influences Western aid to Ukraine, and to suggest that this small number of tanks, IFVs, is enough or a full provision of the potential of the West, nah.

Oh sure Gulf War, precision over mass, etc, etc, the Coalition amassed a massive military force to not just equal the Iraqi military, but amassed a numerical advantage.

And of course valid reasons for restraint exist, including not spooking Putin but still, western support is way under what it could be.

We should not be under illusions that Western aid is at even moderate limits reached. This concern for results for more aid as if the West has given it's all and is overburdened and not a smattering of the left overs is entirely political and not a reflection of western capability or potential.

You are significantly under estimating the strain on Western resources.  The West can, and will, dig deeper... but in some categories it is already coming at the cost of readiness of Western forces to carry out their own missions.  Remember, if the US suddenly goes to war with China, even it's pre-2022 stockpiles may have been been inadequate.  If that is the case, then everything sent to Ukraine theoretically reduces the ability for the US to respond to China.

My personal belief is the US has time to replenish its stocks if it starts ramping up production now.  Which it is doing, so I think drawing down more to aid Ukraine is an acceptable risk for helping secure Russia's defeat.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Long post of some Russian anti-drone operator, which was directed to Vuhledar.

There is no sense to make full translation, just most inetersting details:

On his opinion, UKR success on this direction based on such things:

- exellent observation of battalefield from two areas - from 9-storey buildings of Vuhledar and from the tall headframe of 1st South-Ukrainian mine north from Mykilske. He believs, Russian can win only if flatten all tall houses in the town and headframe. He is perplexed, why Russin command doesn't see such clear things

- UKR have full control over battlefield with daylight, NV and thermal observation devices

- Total superiority in drones. UKR drones in swarms continuously in the air, espacially over dachas. UKR could manage clear scheme of launching and returing of drones with exhausting batteries.

- UKR use simultainously many types of drones for different purposes, which work in variuos frequency ranges (many of which beyond the opportunities of anti-drone rifles and "trench EW") and support each other. This was making alsmost useless his anti-drone rifle. Because as soon as he tried to jam one drone, his position almost immediately was spotted by several other drones and he was forcing to retreat.

- He was overhelmed how quickly UKR drone operators spot their positions and how short time passes from spotting to opening fire. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Haiduk

[Seminole]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:11 PM, The_Capt said:

You doing that thing again where you dance on the edge of the argument that this war was somehow a discretionary strategic diversion that we could have avoided.  Further glancing off the idea that this war is also somehow the West/US fault because it got involved in containing an obvious genocidal dictator. 

I don't think the neocons looks upon their efforts as a diversion, but US involvement is truly discretionary.  We're bringing the eggs to this breakfast, Ukraine is the one bringing the bacon.

You already agreed that Germany and France opposed Ukraine's NATO ascension because they accurately perceived the risk of war it generated.  There wasn't any other reason.  You lambasted them for wanting 'cheap gas', but ignore that they accurately recognized the threat to their 'cheap gas' was provoking a war.

On 4/4/2023 at 2:11 PM, The_Capt said:

It is the part where you conflate isolationist foreign policy advocates with the whole US, as though support of US involvement in the broader planet - one which is largely engineered the global order thereof - and pays for their lifestyles, is itself "Anti-American".

I don't think even the uber-protectionist, Buchananite wing of paleo-conservatives wants 'isolationism' as the interventionists like to frame it.

The non-interventionists are happy to follow Washington's parting advice:  'The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.'

To be truly accurate, it's the interventionists who are always trying to cut our trade and interaction with this or that corner of the globe.

'Involvement in the broader planet' isn't what the non-interventionist oppose.  You're being coy, and it's illuminating that you feel the need.

Non-interventionists concur with what John Quincy Adams observed, "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."

To me, this is the face of neocon policy:

When I look in their wake, at their results, I wonder, what is there to boast about?

Edited April 5, 2023 by Seminole

[Tux]

11 minutes ago, Seminole said:

You already agreed that Germany and France opposed Ukraine's NATO ascension because they accurately perceived the risk of war it generated.  There wasn't any other reason.  You lambasted them for wanting 'cheap gas', but ignore that they accurately recognized the threat to their 'cheap gas' was provoking a war.

Can I just check the logic here, because I don’t think I’m understanding you:  no war has ever started because anyone joined NATO. However Ukraine *in fact* didn’t join NATO and *in fact* was subsequently subjected to a war of aggression. So surely the French/German perception was wholly inaccurate?  What did they prevent by opposing Ukrainian membership of NATO?

[akd]

Well, that went poorly:

 

[Battlefront.com]

53 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I don't think the neocons looks upon their efforts as a diversion, but US involvement is truly discretionary.  We're bringing the eggs to this breakfast, Ukraine is the one bringing the bacon.

You speak English, but what you just said is gibberish.  Care to use practical language and say what it is you have to say instead of beating around the bush?  Remember also that there are many readers here that do not speak English as their first or even second language.  Trying to be cute and clever with your wording isn't helpful.

53 minutes ago, Seminole said:

You already agreed that Germany and France opposed Ukraine's NATO ascension because they accurately perceived the risk of war it generated.  There wasn't any other reason. 

Really?  You don't think that the long history of governments taking shortcuts and its leadership opening their pockets to financial benefits applies here?  Interesting.

53 minutes ago, Seminole said:

You lambasted them for wanting 'cheap gas', but ignore that they accurately recognized the threat to their 'cheap gas' was provoking a war.

Yeah, except it was all BS at the time and it is now proven BS.  There's probably a few hundred posts in this massive thread debunking this sort of flawed logic.  In fact, the US warned Germany back in the 1950s or 1960s that becoming reliant upon Soviet Union petroleum products would put them at risk of having to choose economic self interests over the good of Europe, and that was exactly what happened. 

Using your terminology, their insistence on appeasement and self interests is what "provoked" this war into happening.  If Europe, as a whole, had stood up to Russian aggression in 2008-2014 instead of giving into economic blackmail and financial payoffs this war would not have likely happened.

Appeasement has never worked and this war is exact evidence of it.

53 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I don't think even the uber-protectionist, Buchananite wing of paleo-conservatives wants 'isolationism' as the interventionists like to frame it.

More gibber jabber.  Drop the pseudo intellectual claptrap phrasing and use English for as a means of communication instead of trying to sound smart.

53 minutes ago, Seminole said:

The non-interventionists are happy to follow Washington's parting advice:  'The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.'

To be truly accurate, it's the interventionists who are always trying to cut our trade and interaction with this or that corner of the globe.

'Involvement in the broader planet' isn't what the non-interventionist oppose.  You're being coy, and it's illuminating that you feel the need.

Non-interventionists concur with what John Quincy Adams observed, "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."

To me, this is the face of neocon policy:

When I look in their wake, at their results, I wonder, what is there to boast about?

My goodness.  What does ANY of this have to do with the war being fought right here and right now?

Look, if you're going to dodge answering simple questions, please just dodge.  Typing up a dozen paragraphs of political jargon and quotes from long dead people isn't helpful to anybody but yourself.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

29 minutes ago, Tux said:

Can I just check the logic here, because I don’t think I’m understanding you:  no war has ever started because anyone joined NATO. However Ukraine *in fact* didn’t join NATO and *in fact* was subsequently subjected to a war of aggression. So surely the French/German perception was wholly inaccurate?  

Yup.

29 minutes ago, Tux said:

What did they prevent by opposing Ukrainian membership of NATO?

What they prevented was a means of avoiding this war.  That's the biggest lesson this war has to offer the world.  And by that I mean 2014, not 2022.  Took 8 years for the lesson to finally sink into countries like Germany and France, but it seems (hopefully) it finally has.  Certainly Finland and Sweden have taken something from this war, which is that neutrality isn't in their national best interests.  Either that or we'll the day before they announced the desire to join NATO that Hillary Clinton visited and convinced them to they should be neocon pawns.

Steve

[Phil003]

On 4/4/2023 at 10:40 PM, TheVulture said:

Sweden is a bit more tricky though because they've managed to piss off Turkey (criticism of Erdogan's human rights record and support for Kurds) and Hungary (criticism of Orban). Nothing that other NATO countries haven't also said, but here they are in a position to demand concessions in exchange for not vetoing Sweden.

Sweden and Turkey had an agreement on what Sweden needed to do before Turkey would allow it in, but Turkey is saying that Sweden hasn't fulfilled its obligations yet (notably extradition of some Kurdish organizers from Sweden, which were blocked by Swedish courts). The Turkish parliament has approved Swedish entry to NATO, but I gather it's not up to them, but to the Erdogan administration.

So Sweden is unlikely to get approval from Turkey before the Turkish elections in May.

Hungary is expected to give in if/when Turkey does, but that's not certain either.

This is my first post here, so before I start, let me thank you all for the enormous amount of info and analysis found in this thread, I've read hundreds of pages of this discussion and I really learnt a lot.

So, finally a topic where perhaps I can contribute a tiny bit! Being 'lucky' to be a citizen of Hungary, I would say it's quite likely that Hungary will approve the NATO membership of Sweden as soon as Erdogan decides to do the same.
Quite interestingly, it seems that in addition to the usual stuff behind Orban's 'trouble making' in connection to the war in Ukraine (showing loyalty to Putin, trying to look internally as if Orban/Hungary would be a significant player in the EU, portraying Orban as a "rebel" against the west, etc.) there is some kind of 'Turkish connection' behind delaying the approval of the Finnish and Swedish NATO membership.
So even though for 8 months Hungary delayed the approvals with the exact same excuses for both countries, pretty much immediately after Erdogan announced publicly his support for the Finnish membership, the leader of the Fidesz (Orban's party) faction in the parliament announced that they will support the NATO membership of Finland during the vote in the parliament, and suddenly the schedule of the vote was moved to an earlier date than originally planned (which might happened to make sure that the actual formal voting would happen sooner than in Turkey, thereby avoiding the situation where Hungary approves formally as the last one among the NATO members). The announcement was made by the faction leader, because the latest excuse was that even though Orban and his cabinet supports the memberships of both countries, there is some disagreement (LOL) among the members of the the Fidesz faction because of some disrespectful statements from Finnish and Swedish politicians regarding Hungary in the past, and you know, in a democracy members of the parliament are free to vote according to their best judgement (LOL) and they need some additional time to carefully consider the situation to make the best decision possible...
Regarding Sweden the excuse remained the same, without any sort of clear expectations about what they should do to change our mind. Also there was no real explanation why the wise members of the Fidesz faction suddenly forgave the similar statements from the Finnish politicians.
As an interesting additional detail (even though obviously it is not possible to tell if there is a causal relationhip between the two topics) Erdogan announced around the same time that using the TANAP pipeline Turkey will do everything to help the gas import to Hungary.
I guess if Erdogan will lose the election in May without approving the membership of Sweden previously, the situation will probably change

[poesel]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Took 8 years for the lesson to finally sink into countries like Germany and France, but it seems (hopefully) it finally has.

It didn't take 8 years. It took three days in Feb '22. In the 8 years before, nobody relevant thought one tiny bit about it (at least in Germany, and that includes myself ).

[poesel]

A question about the argument: sending arms to Ukraine diminishes the ability of the US to fight China in Taiwan.

Given that a fight for Taiwan would mostly be a Navy & Air force thing (for the US) and the stuff sent to Ukraine is mostly for Army use - how is the above an argument? (that is really a question, not a backhand argument in itself ).