Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Chz]

Funny thing - Abrams will run on Chanel No5.

It'll just cost about £3million a go...

(Nicked off a reasonably reliable bloke off twitter - Nick Drummond. Ex Cav bloke, now works for KMW who make the leopard. Knows his tank shit.)

This is the thing. As a turbine, the M1 can run on pretty much anything that burns. As it happens, it runs particularly well on jet fuel and the USA already had an incredible amount of logistics invested in supplying huge amounts of jet fuel anywhere they needed to be. So it mostly burns jet fuel. It can totally run on diesel if that's all that's around, too (and meths, paint stripper, gasoline...). And maybe all that village vodka in the theatre can be put to good use other than blinding people.

 

[The39thStep]

Clarkson is the ultimate survivor drop him in the middle of the battle and he will walk out without a scratch whinging about it.

Now, that's a Top Gear Challenge I'd watch.... Clarkson, Hammond and May racing from London to Kyiv in a Challenger II, Abrams and Leopard II hoping to make it in one piece. Bring it on

I think we need to rack up audience engagement and the thrill factor and make it London to Bakhmut

 

[The39thStep]

It's going to be Brut 33 for all of them though, or perhaps Denim, isn't it.

No Hai Karate?

 

[Yossarian]

With the finite supply of Clarksons, it couldn't be a long-running show, but maybe teams of amateur tank operators could compete to hit him with a shell and win the £1 million prize on Tanks a Million.

They could revisit it every year on Tanks for the Memories.

 

[emanymton]

Is 100 tanks , whenever they arrive, going to make any substantial difference? From what I've read of analysts last 24 hours, no.
So comes back to the question of what is NATO doing here. The suggestion that it's military support is enough only for a stalemate that slowly drains Russia is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Its possible to see the NATO logic of this: an outright potentially successful push against Russian forces is much more likely to escalate the war beyond Ukraine and also go nuclear.
Not arming Ukraine at all will give Russia the green light and likely move on Kiev.
So this midway ground is a seemingly necessary compromise, and the hope is, slowly weakens Putin and Russias capabilities. Good outcome for NATO.

But it is also a betrayal and game playing with Ukraine. It drags the war on for years and sacrifices Ukrainian lives for no territorial gain. If they don't regain the occupied territories then better for Ukrainians to have peace talks, acknowledge the loss of territory, set up a protected border and stop the war. Instead NATO will dangle support like a carrot, seemingly indefinitely, knowing it is not actually sufficient.

That's how it looks to me anyhow. Anyone disagree?

I think it is a mistake to see NATO as a single entity with some kind of plan. There are a lot of countries in NATO with very different stances on the war. The likes of Turkey, Hungary and Poland having nothing like the same interests here.

Any apparent hesitation form NATO is more likely to keep the less enthusiastic members on board that because of some grand master plan.

It is possible that one of Putin's aims was to drive wedge in NATO. to the extent that there is any kind of single NATO goal it is probably just not to allow any public splits, and certainly not to have any countries leave.

 

[kebabking]

I suspect that the only reason they are getting any Abrams at all is to get Germany to allow the export of Leopards. The Americans have not be that shy with supplying arms to Ukraine (it could be more), but it sounds like they have quite serious logistical concerns about how they will be supported in terms of fuel and maintenance. But as always I'd be interested in kebabking's take on that.

I think it's going to be extremely difficult to shoehorn 3 different western MBT's and the IFV's into what is overwhelmingly Soviet Army - simply that nothing will fit. Fuel hose fittings, spanners, tow hitches, recovery gear - and the MBT's, SPG's, IFV's and all the bridging and recovery wagons are incredibly hard on the components (imagine the suspension on a 70 ton rally car...). The logistics train that goes with them is simply huge, and that's in a NATO Army where everything is already set up for them.

The Eastern states who joined NATO from WarPac have had a pig of a job integrating the two types of gear together, and they've done so in peacetime, with all the technical help and funding from NATO - for the Ukrainian army, to do it weeks, in war, is going to be exceptionally difficult, but they have sky high morale, have already proved incredibly inventive.

They've a lot on their plate. On the other other hand, it's a problem they'd rather have, than not have...

 

[The39thStep]

I think it is a mistake to see NATO as a single entity with some kind of plan. There are a lot of countries in NATO with very different stances on the war. The likes of Turkey, Hungary and Poland having nothing like the same interests here.

Any apparent hesitation form NATO is more likely to keep the less enthusiastic members on board that because of some grand master plan.

It is possible that one of Putin's aims was to drive wedge in NATO. to the extent that there is any kind of single NATO goal it is probably just not to allow any public splits, and certainly not to have any countries leave.

When you say 'less enthusiastic' what are these members less enthusiastic about? Also who are the most enthusiastic and what are they most enthusiastic about?

 

[TopCat]

I think we need to rack up audience engagement and the thrill factor and make it London to Bakhmut

One way

 

[kabbes]

Is 100 tanks , whenever they arrive, going to make any substantial difference? From what I've read of analysts last 24 hours, no.
So comes back to the question of what is NATO doing here. The suggestion that it's military support is enough only for a stalemate that slowly drains Russia is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Its possible to see the NATO logic of this: an outright potentially successful push against Russian forces is much more likely to escalate the war beyond Ukraine and also go nuclear.
Not arming Ukraine at all will give Russia the green light and likely move on Kiev.
So this midway ground is a seemingly necessary compromise, and the hope is, slowly weakens Putin and Russias capabilities. Good outcome for NATO.

But it is also a betrayal and game playing with Ukraine. It drags the war on for years and sacrifices Ukrainian lives for no territorial gain. If they don't regain the occupied territories then better for Ukrainians to have peace talks, acknowledge the loss of territory, set up a protected border and stop the war. Instead NATO will dangle support like a carrot, seemingly indefinitely, knowing it is not actually sufficient.

That's how it looks to me anyhow. Anyone disagree?

In all honesty, I don’t know. Which probably makes this the most pointless comment on this thread (excluding the contributions from AA). But it seems important to acknowledge that few of us have any real idea of what it would take to create a Ukrainian victory, or what those consequences would be. Your scenario seems plausible, but other scenarios that are less cynical are also plausible. How can I possibly know where the truth lies?

 

[ska invita]

I think it is a mistake to see NATO as a single entity with some kind of plan. There are a lot of countries in NATO with very different stances on the war. The likes of Turkey, Hungary and Poland having nothing like the same interests here.

Any apparent hesitation form NATO is more likely to keep the less enthusiastic members on board that because of some grand master plan.

It is possible that one of Putin's aims was to drive wedge in NATO. to the extent that there is any kind of single NATO goal it is probably just not to allow any public splits, and certainly not to have any countries leave.

well yes it comes down to the USA really

 

[nogojones]

Sorry, but I don't think this thread is the right place for this discussion.

(Obviously I am a running dog of capitalism. Actually I wouldn't mind a war crimes allegation; I have had judgements against my work in both the European Court of Human Rights and, completely unrelated, the Central Court or the European Union so it would be nice to complete the set with a hearing at the Hague.)

I'll say no more as it may prejudice the your upcoming trial.

 

[nogojones]

Is 100 tanks , whenever they arrive, going to make any substantial difference? From what I've read of analysts last 24 hours, no.
So comes back to the question of what is NATO doing here. The suggestion that it's military support is enough only for a stalemate that slowly drains Russia is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Its possible to see the NATO logic of this: an outright potentially successful push against Russian forces is much more likely to escalate the war beyond Ukraine and also go nuclear.
Not arming Ukraine at all will give Russia the green light and likely move on Kiev.
So this midway ground is a seemingly necessary compromise, and the hope is, slowly weakens Putin and Russias capabilities. Good outcome for NATO.

But it is also a betrayal and game playing with Ukraine. It drags the war on for years and sacrifices Ukrainian lives for no territorial gain. If they don't regain the occupied territories then better for Ukrainians to have peace talks, acknowledge the loss of territory, set up a protected border and stop the war. Instead NATO will dangle support like a carrot, seemingly indefinitely, knowing it is not actually sufficient.

That's how it looks to me anyhow. Anyone disagree?

I think there is a big part of this for NATO. Slowly bleed Russia out, whilst drip feeding Ukraine old stocks of arms and trying not to escalate to the point of armageddon.
The totally uncynical part of my brain - which is a very, very small part of of my head - thinks there may have also been the hope that each incremental increase of support may have persuaded the Russian state that it was time to back down a bit. Plus the consideration that you need to be able to recruit/conscript Ukrainians in the numbers needed with the skillsets necessary, train them suitably and make sure all the logistics are in place to support these tanks or whatever. I don't think you can just dump a load of unfamiliar kit on them and expect them to hit the ground running. I suspect work will have been going on in the background over the last few moths to enable this.

But, yeah, the ability to take out one of the two major military adversaries of NATO, with minimal investment and no loss of western European /American blood is a dream come true for NATO.

 

[emanymton]

When you say 'less enthusiastic' what are these members less enthusiastic about? Also who are the most enthusiastic and what are they most enthusiastic about?

Supporting Ukraine militarily.

 

[tim]

This. I think it's generally appreciated that Ukraine is prone to corruption, much more so than its neighbours, with one very obvious exception (edit: two, actually, I was forgetting).

I think it may just be that it's a topic people have limited interest in engaging with when they perceive it as coming from a perspective of pro-Russia or artificial balance.

Yes, every one remembers Hungary and forgets little Moldova

 

[The39thStep]

Supporting Ukraine militarily.

BTW I agree with you that NATO probably hasn't got one grand plan but it will certainly have scenarios that will have been risked assessed and they will be updated as the war ebbs and flows and dynamics change.


I think there are some lines within both NATO and the EU, some blurred, some absolute but they are about the type of military support and what it could be used for, not military support in itself. Off the top of my head, I can think of Hungary as a NATO state that isn't supplying arms but both Turkey and Poland who you mentioned are. What other NATO countries did you have in mind who don't support Ukraine militarily?

There is also a lot of verbal jockeying around. For example, Cleverley ( the most misnamed defence secretary I can think of ) framed his meeting with Blinken as urging the USA to go further and faster, most of the US press frames it as Biden pushing the reluctant EU ( even though the EU has financed more to Ukraine than the US) , the 'you go first' invitation from Germany to the US regarding the tanks pretty much asked for the US to put themselves in a situation where it was they who could be accused of escalation. Some of this no doubt is political cover for the blame game that would follow the scenario if Russia were to 'win' or Ukraine not achieve its war aims.

 

[Cid]

BTW I agree with you that NATO probably hasn't got one grand plan but it will certainly have scenarios that will have been risked assessed and they will be updated as the war ebbs and flows and dynamics change.


I think there are some lines within both NATO and the EU, some blurred, some absolute but they are about the type of military support and what it could be used for, not military support in itself. Off the top of my head, I can think of Hungary as a NATO state that isn't supplying arms but both Turkey and Poland who you mentioned are. What other NATO countries did you have in mind who don't support Ukraine militarily?

There is also a lot of verbal jockeying around. For example, Cleverley ( the most misnamed defence secretary I can think of ) framed his meeting with Blinken as urging the USA to go further and faster, most of the US press frames it as Biden pushing the reluctant EU ( even though the EU has financed more to Ukraine than the US) , the 'you go first' invitation from Germany to the US regarding the tanks pretty much asked for the US to put themselves in a situation where it was they who could be accused of escalation. Some of this no doubt is political cover for the blame game that would follow the scenario if Russia were to 'win' or Ukraine not achieve its war aims.

I think that's a pretty accurate assessment, but not sure it really contradicts emanymton - a set of goals that have a broadly similar desired outcome (some form of independent Ukraine, Putin as a pariah, no nukes) but differ in methods of realisation and details... The effect may (or may not) be functionally the same as Ska's conception, but the motivation is different - the result of an evolving and somewhat improvised policy rather than a coherent plan.

 

[The39thStep]

I think that's a pretty accurate assessment, but not sure it really contradicts emanymton - a set of goals that have a broadly similar desired outcome (some form of independent Ukraine, Putin as a pariah, no nukes) but differ in methods of realisation and details... The effect may (or may not) be functionally the same as Ska's conception, but the motivation is different - the result of an evolving and somewhat improvised policy rather than a coherent plan.

It wasn't intended to contradict emanymton .I asked a question and had my own opinion on NATO dynamics. If anything I was seeking clarity.

 

[kebabking]

Humourous, but perhaps telling...

 

[Spymaster]

Humourous, but perhaps telling...

"Smaller female students" around him and he's still a short arse

 

[Pickman's model]

Humourous, but perhaps telling...

as opposed to the lofty king charles iii who'd never do such a thing, resorting instead to standing a step above his bride

 

[two sheds]

To be fair some people wear those heels if one leg is shorter than the other. Perhaps he's just got two legs shorter than each other.

 

[MickiQ]

as opposed to the lofty king charles iii who'd never do such a thing, resorting instead to standing a step above his bride

I remember seeing that photo at the time and thinking he looked a proper wrong un in it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I remember seeing that photo at the time and thinking he looked a proper wrong un in it.

i suppose all heads of state are wrong uns

 

[Dystopiary]

as opposed to the lofty king charles iii who'd never do such a thing, resorting instead to standing a step above his bride

19 she was then. Probably thought he loved her. Horrible bloody family.

 

[The39thStep]

Doesn't Simon Cowell wear higher heels ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Doesn't Simon Cowell wear higher heels ?

yes. and if he had any way to order an army into ukraine he'd have taken it years ago.

 

[The39thStep]

yes. and if he had any way to order an army into ukraine he'd have taken it years ago.

Another one we should send to the front

 

[Pickman's model]

Another one we should send to the front

It'd raise a lot of people's morale

 

[Dogsauce]

Reports today that the Leopards are estimated to be delivered in 2-3 months and the Abrams in anything up to a year....piss poor effort. the training needed could be fullfilled in weeks yes they have complex systems but we have simulators and trainers ready, supply isnt an issue despite the excuses.

Sometimes I wonder if this, and Scholt’s apparent stubbornness delaying the delivery of tanks, are just a bluff and the tanks are already near the front and ready to go. That would be a tactical masterpiece if true (it won’t be),

 

[The39thStep]

Interesting article which describes the moving lines within NATO and the EU on arms supplies . Looks like a game of chicken is developing for the more hawkish elements .

Ukraine got its tanks. Now it wants jet fighters too

Discussions are underway about supplying Kyiv with modern aircraft, despite Western fears of escalation.

www.politico.eu