This would probably not be possible. It would only work if the West was as united in their support of Ukraine as Russia thinks. In reality these are all democracies with complex internal political debates of their own. Putting it simply, if there was no open, public debate about giving tanks to Ukraine, it wouldn't have happened.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
This would probably not be possible. It would only work if the West was as united in their support of Ukraine as Russia thinks. In reality these are all democracies with complex internal political debates of their own. Putting it simply, if there was no open, public debate about giving tanks to Ukraine, it wouldn't have happened.
I'm not talking about the debate of giving those tanks, but simply to plan ahead and train troops for when the time comes. After one year of war, I'm pretty sure most of the older soviet ua tanks are destroyed or broken at this point. There have to be many tankers without a tank. So why not train them if they're currently out of work anyways instead of using them as infantry in trenches or let them sit at home and wait for armor deliveries.
It would definetly have been possible to train a couple of hundred tankers on our tanks without holding debates and press conferences. Or even better, while debating heavy armor deliveries, they could have been training them in silence and deceive Russia on the official schedule as a result. What would have been the worst outcome, to train a few hundred people for nothing? And the best outcome? Russia would have been caught with their pants down. I think, the upside is definetly worth it in such a scenario. In war there are always uncertainties and to train a couple hundred soldiers prospectively is definetly not a big problem.
It's the same about the F-16 debates now. Ukraine has 100% way more pilots right now than planes. Just train them on western jets and if the decision is made in the future to supply them hopefully, they will be instantly ready. The other way around would mean a one year delay or how long it takes to train pilots.
How do you know this isn't already happening?
I don't know it of course and I hope, they learned from it and do it now prospectively with the jets.
Ukraine withdrawing from Bakhmut (if that is indeed what is happening) makes sense from a military point of view. It's not great for the civilians still there though.
The overlord of whataboutism hipsters returns. Just need Roger Waters and Jimmy Dore for a proper panel discussion on international politics.
I agree; I don’t think the aim of Ukraine is to not ever cede an inch of ground (as Hitler did in the East). They should be proud of the defence of Bakhmut. I think the Russian attacks started in May of last year. 9 months to capture a small town with limited strategic value, is no kind of victory for the Russians, however they choose to portray it.
As for whether it makes sense for Ukraine to leave now, or to leave next month, we can’t conclude either way. They may calculate that Russia is losing 1-200 experienced troops a day, and that their own losses are a price worth paying to achieve that.
There are some rumors saying that UAF did not commit many of its armored vehicles to the defense of the city. Zelensky kept mentioning the city by name in many of his speeches and stated how they would fight to the end, etc.
It made me think (looking for the positive here) that UAF probably has some plan to trick the Russians with their offensive. It's not that their offensive is a secret plan, but the execution of it would be interesting.
Still reading this, but excellent so far. Thanks for sharing.
Ukraine should have masses of heavy equipment in reserve, everything we know they have and saw roll through Kharkiv, we just haven't seen it on the front lines for 5 months or so. They've been able to hold off Russia's biggest efforts around Bakhmut, Vuhledar, Kremina, etc with artillery, mortor, ATGM's and manpower. They've not needed to risk putting tank brigades in range of Russian artillery. If they really do want to hold Bakhmut no matter what, I suspect they have the ability, just depends on what they are willing to risk.
IF this is true, it's still unconfirmed, it's probably the biggest equipment loss for Russia since the sinking of Moskva. I believe Russia only have 7 of these planes and they are an extremly important asset for the airforces.
" AU forces, including but not limited to 17th Armored Brigade and the 3rd Assault Brigade (ex-Azov) lead a counterattack, with the main target appearing to be the garden shop region. Currently, the RUS attack from the north on Bakhmut not only collapsed, but the AU came to the rear of the Russian grouping.1/ "
"The situation is very dynamic and various information is coming. The Ukrainians also counterattack near the village of Krasne. Contrary to previous information, there is no retreat from eastern Bakhmut, only AU counterattack there. It's getting really interesting. Additional UA reserves are to enter the action."
"The situation is very dynamic and various information is coming. The Ukrainians also counterattack near the village of Krasne. Contrary to previous information, there is no retreat from eastern Bakhmut, only AU counterattack there. It's getting really interesting. Additional UA reserves are to enter the action."
Seeing a lot about this right now... if true that would be a massive success for Ukraine.
Yeah agreed. To be honest I feel like even if they withdrew now it’s been an absolute neat grinder for the Russians. They have endless untrained conscripts but they’re losing experienced soldiers and equipment, both of which will take considerable time to replace. And it’s taken them 9 fcuking months.
Yeah, I know the US has pushed South Korea, Taiwan, and others to refrain from developing nukes, but it's becoming more clear, particularly with the GOP as it is, that other countries can't depend on the US' arsenal for protection, which incentivizes proliferation. I think the Taiwanese could probably produce a bomb within 6-12 months if they wanted to. The biggest challenge would likely be doing it without China knowing and potentially testing one somewhere to ensure China knew once they had developed their own. I don't think they can go the Israel route of strategic ambiguity.
I tend to be more of a proliferation optimist, but proliferation always increases the risk that one will be used, even if only marginally.
Great thread on new Russian tactics. Ditching the BTG model for a smaller concept.
US Army veteran fighting in Ukraine has been KIA
@stefan92 is this as embarassing as it reads for us or is there something behind this demand by Scholz?
Scholz is just covering his own ass because he is a coward. He feared a direct russian answer on German Leopard deliveries, so he forced Biden to send his mbts too to be able to hide behind his back. Nothing more behind this in my opinion.
Nothing creates unity like running your mouth.
Trumpesque.
Trumpesque.
I don't think it's embarassing at all. Scholz wanted a unified NATO approach to providing (western) tanks and not stand alone in that regard. Some of those who apparently were ready to send numbers actually had to admit that they can't (Spain), those who actually have large usable fleets of Leopards spend more time threatening each other than caring about Ukraine (Greece, Turkey, regards to my very special Greek friend @frostbite ), so without the US there would have been very little "symbolic unity" in this question.
There also is a bit of industry politics here, if the US send their newly produced Abrams to Ukraine they can't replace the Leopard fleets of other European countries, those still have a reason to buy new Leopard tanks as the delivery timeline will be similar (like Norway just did).
And at last I think it is never embarassing if you can force the US to do something it doesn't want to.
I've heard this sound regularly in 1991 and now whenever they're testing the sirens and every time it sends shivers down my spine still.
Yeah, it is not the sound one wants to hear because it will evoke war.
Still, all Russian diplomats had to hear that sound so they understand a little about how it feels. I can't even imagine how people enduring that sound on a very regular basis must feel right now.
Oh absolutely, they should hear it every morning.
So should every person who's on the - Ukraine fascists are at fault for all this or America started the war and similar - stuff. I know a few and I'm avoiding meeting them or talking to them at every cost cause I would just get mad.
Surely this is an ‘end justifies the means’ scenario. And I wouldn’t be so sure that those Abrams are completely useless. They may not fight in the Donbas but having a few in position near Odessa, Transnistria, and the northern approaches to Kiev allows other tanks to move elsewhere. Also, it probably provides a good training opportunity for those Ukrainian troops on rotation from the front lines.
The problem is the timing, the Abrams won't arrive this year, the Leopards will.
Trump's emotionally scarred coke head son is upset the US is supporting the nation that wouldn't help his dad dig up dirt on his political opponent during the 2020 campaign.
Pretty sure Odesa won't need them since the Russians are already not making any progress on the actual battlefronts in the east. Therefore, the tanks will be best deployed there to help push them back.
"If you see the commander-in-chief, you just tell him one thing. Thank him for having the courage to start this war. It couldn't have been otherwise. We were right to start it."
We should always laugh at Russian state media, but Putin probably is very popular in Russia, even now. Not quite that popular, but popular.
It will depend on the Ukrainian battle plans to take Crimea back, but some of the tanks would be needed if part of that plan demands securing the coastal areas (of which Odesa is a part) as the UA advances.