By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:30 - Jan 19 by Kievthegreat
I think it's not without reason to be more cautious right now. In terms of attrition, it's not just manpower where Russia could have an advantage. When it comes to tanks and perhaps more crucially IFVs they have a much greater stockpile in reserve. Yes it's older equipment, but at the moment Ukraine is depleting it's stocks of IFVs and tanks, while the west doesn't seem to be ramping up deliveries of systems like the Bradley, Leopard, etc... quick enough. Something is still better than nothing, especially if Ukraine hopes to mount offensive operations, because without combined arms it will fail against an entrenched enemy.
IFVs (and somewhat tanks too) are effectively expendable, so perhaps some western countries are reluctant to send them knowing the majority will not survive. Ukraine can deploy HIMARS safely behind the frontline and scurry before a response can be mustered. IFVs by their nature are deployed right in the front line and in offensive operations will be lost in the course of battles.
The key very much still remains that Russia does not have the industrial capacity to match if the West commits to helping Ukraine, but it relies on sticking the course. It's very frustrating to read about the current situation with Leopard 2s where Germany it seems don't want to send them without America sending Abrams, but America is saying that the logistics of the Abrams upkeep and fuelling would be problematic as they are such ridiculous fuel hogs (even amongst tanks). So we get stuck in Limbo where Germany are holding up potentially hundreds of tanks from multiple countries arsenals which now cannot be shared.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2023 11:31]
I think any country sending kit like infantry fighting vehicles (Bradley’s etc) or even tanks must know that once sent that’s it. Gone.
The question surely is that even if Leopard 2s (really good tank), Abrams, Challengers are sent, how long will Ukraine crews take to learn how to use them effectively? And with these you need the capability and skills to recover and repair - something the Allies did in WW2 to great effect 1943/45.
The Germans had technically excellent hardware, but it’s recovery, repair and support was woefully lacking and their relatively few resources drained away as much through that as allied action.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:18 - Jan 23 with 7933 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:18 - Jan 23 by Eireannach_gorm
Seems that the rest of NATO does not believe this.
Germany and France have always had an eye on postwar Russian contracts in my view, so their support for Ukraine has been as meagre as it’s possible to be. Mind you, Germany’s military has been run down to irrelevance over the years and despite fine words, my guess is that it’ll stay that way.
Brave words from Poland, but there’s a limit to what they can do. Great people, the Poles.
The policy, starts and ends with Biden. It is to still to just keep Ukraine on life support and little more. Personally, I don’t think this is sustainable and Ukraine will be forced to surrender eventually. Russian military will improve tactically and have numbers on their side.
I thought Ukraine would cave in after three or four days and are still resisting, so I’m hopefully wrong.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 09:06 - Jan 23 with 7874 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:42 - Jan 23 by Churchman
Germany and France have always had an eye on postwar Russian contracts in my view, so their support for Ukraine has been as meagre as it’s possible to be. Mind you, Germany’s military has been run down to irrelevance over the years and despite fine words, my guess is that it’ll stay that way.
Brave words from Poland, but there’s a limit to what they can do. Great people, the Poles.
The policy, starts and ends with Biden. It is to still to just keep Ukraine on life support and little more. Personally, I don’t think this is sustainable and Ukraine will be forced to surrender eventually. Russian military will improve tactically and have numbers on their side.
I thought Ukraine would cave in after three or four days and are still resisting, so I’m hopefully wrong.
I think that's a bit harsh on Germany, which with its former reliance on Russian energy and closer business contacts with Russia, has taken much more of an economic hit in connection with sanctions than, say, the UK, if you leave aside Russian donors to the Tory party and dirty money floating about the City.
There also has to be borne in mind the post-war reluctance, both on the part of Germany and its allies, for Germany to build up its armed forces or be actively engaged in military conflict, given its history.
I might add that the much higher profile support the UK has offered, appears to have been partly driven by a desire to take the heat off problems that Johnson and now Sunak have at home. It's perhaps no coincidence that Johnson pops up in Kyiv yesterday at the time he is coming under scrutiny for his links to the BBC chair.
But as you suggest, the greatest limiting factor in all this seems the reluctance of the part of the US to get too involved, perhaps fearing Putin's reaction if he is actually defeated.
As regards the conflict itself, I am inclined to think it has reached stalemate (something that may well suit the US), and I can't really see Russia gaining much more ground given its ineptitude, reflected in the fact that it now has less land than it did a few months ago.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 9:20]
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 09:21 - Jan 23 with 7821 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 09:06 - Jan 23 by DJR
I think that's a bit harsh on Germany, which with its former reliance on Russian energy and closer business contacts with Russia, has taken much more of an economic hit in connection with sanctions than, say, the UK, if you leave aside Russian donors to the Tory party and dirty money floating about the City.
There also has to be borne in mind the post-war reluctance, both on the part of Germany and its allies, for Germany to build up its armed forces or be actively engaged in military conflict, given its history.
I might add that the much higher profile support the UK has offered, appears to have been partly driven by a desire to take the heat off problems that Johnson and now Sunak have at home. It's perhaps no coincidence that Johnson pops up in Kyiv yesterday at the time he is coming under scrutiny for his links to the BBC chair.
But as you suggest, the greatest limiting factor in all this seems the reluctance of the part of the US to get too involved, perhaps fearing Putin's reaction if he is actually defeated.
As regards the conflict itself, I am inclined to think it has reached stalemate (something that may well suit the US), and I can't really see Russia gaining much more ground given its ineptitude, reflected in the fact that it now has less land than it did a few months ago.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 9:20]
Germany didn't just wake up one day and find itself accidentally reliant on Russian energy. It made a conscious decision to build its economy that way, shutdown its nuclear reactors and then even chose to ignore what happen to Crimea. It's utterly complicit - I'm surprised that there isn't more international criticism of its behaviour.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 09:06 - Jan 23 by DJR
I think that's a bit harsh on Germany, which with its former reliance on Russian energy and closer business contacts with Russia, has taken much more of an economic hit in connection with sanctions than, say, the UK, if you leave aside Russian donors to the Tory party and dirty money floating about the City.
There also has to be borne in mind the post-war reluctance, both on the part of Germany and its allies, for Germany to build up its armed forces or be actively engaged in military conflict, given its history.
I might add that the much higher profile support the UK has offered, appears to have been partly driven by a desire to take the heat off problems that Johnson and now Sunak have at home. It's perhaps no coincidence that Johnson pops up in Kyiv yesterday at the time he is coming under scrutiny for his links to the BBC chair.
But as you suggest, the greatest limiting factor in all this seems the reluctance of the part of the US to get too involved, perhaps fearing Putin's reaction if he is actually defeated.
As regards the conflict itself, I am inclined to think it has reached stalemate (something that may well suit the US), and I can't really see Russia gaining much more ground given its ineptitude, reflected in the fact that it now has less land than it did a few months ago.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 9:20]
Russia are building up forces, strengthening supply lines and even they will have learned something from their ineptitude. They also couldn’t care a less how many of their own people die, let alone the enemy.
Yes, Germany has taken a hit thanks to its misplaced policy towards Russia. However there is a smokescreen when it come# to defence. When it set up its post war armed forces they were defensive and I believe constitutionally governed that way.
During the Cold War something like 3% of GDP went towards defence and wile it didn’t offer much (they let the US do the heavy lifting/defend them), they offered something, especially technologically. We are now 80 years on from WW2 and Western Europe still rely totally on the US. Germany is still hiding behind the sins of its past, in my view.
Post Cold War they’ve allowed their defence to run down to nothing. Most stuff has been rotting in storage and their capability is negligible and their defence spending down to 1%. They’ve promised to raise it to the NATO agreed 2% and it’ll be interesting to see if they do. In the meantime I still believe their eye, like France’s, is on those juicy post war Russian contracts.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:02 - Jan 23 with 7741 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 09:24 - Jan 23 by Churchman
Russia are building up forces, strengthening supply lines and even they will have learned something from their ineptitude. They also couldn’t care a less how many of their own people die, let alone the enemy.
Yes, Germany has taken a hit thanks to its misplaced policy towards Russia. However there is a smokescreen when it come# to defence. When it set up its post war armed forces they were defensive and I believe constitutionally governed that way.
During the Cold War something like 3% of GDP went towards defence and wile it didn’t offer much (they let the US do the heavy lifting/defend them), they offered something, especially technologically. We are now 80 years on from WW2 and Western Europe still rely totally on the US. Germany is still hiding behind the sins of its past, in my view.
Post Cold War they’ve allowed their defence to run down to nothing. Most stuff has been rotting in storage and their capability is negligible and their defence spending down to 1%. They’ve promised to raise it to the NATO agreed 2% and it’ll be interesting to see if they do. In the meantime I still believe their eye, like France’s, is on those juicy post war Russian contracts.
I fully respect your position but take a different view.
On the future of the war, I'm no expert, but if the Russians are recruiting prisoners or using mercenaries and their tanks aren't up to much, I am not wholly convinced that they can turn things round that much, especially as Ukraine appears to have much better trained troops and now has much better armaments.
It is easy to criticise Germany but isn't it the case that the whole of the West looked on Russia favourably until the invasion? We even effectively forgave them for annexing Crimea.
The aim was in part to try to bring Russia into the fold, and just look how keen the City and the Tory party were to court Russian money, so I am not sure Germany deserves particular criticism. I might add that I don't think there will be Russian contracts on offer so long as sanctions remain in place, which I can't see being removed while Putin is in power.
There was also a supposed peace dividend which made various countries, including the UK, take their eyes off the ball.
Indeed, when it comes to defence spending, do you really think the UK is in much better shape to defend itself? Just look at recent defence spending reviews, which senior military people have criticised.
In addition, the UK may spend 2% on defence but there is now included in that figure things that wouldn't have been included before such as the cost of MOD civil service pensions and Armed Forces pensions.
I would just conclude by saying that like you I thought Ukraine would be defeated in a matter of days, so leaving aside the tragic loss of life and destruction, that is one positive to take out of the situation.
EDIT: The following from Full Fact indicates the extent of defence cuts in the 2010s.
"Defence spending fell by 22% in real terms between 2009/10 (just before the 2010 election) and 2014/15, before the new counting methods were introduced. Comparing to 2010/11, it fell by 18%. Those figures use 2016/17 prices.
In the two years since then, it has stayed virtually the same in real terms, and between now and 2019/20, spending is planned to increase by 1% in real terms."
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 11:17]
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:17 - Jan 23 with 7661 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:02 - Jan 23 by DJR
I fully respect your position but take a different view.
On the future of the war, I'm no expert, but if the Russians are recruiting prisoners or using mercenaries and their tanks aren't up to much, I am not wholly convinced that they can turn things round that much, especially as Ukraine appears to have much better trained troops and now has much better armaments.
It is easy to criticise Germany but isn't it the case that the whole of the West looked on Russia favourably until the invasion? We even effectively forgave them for annexing Crimea.
The aim was in part to try to bring Russia into the fold, and just look how keen the City and the Tory party were to court Russian money, so I am not sure Germany deserves particular criticism. I might add that I don't think there will be Russian contracts on offer so long as sanctions remain in place, which I can't see being removed while Putin is in power.
There was also a supposed peace dividend which made various countries, including the UK, take their eyes off the ball.
Indeed, when it comes to defence spending, do you really think the UK is in much better shape to defend itself? Just look at recent defence spending reviews, which senior military people have criticised.
In addition, the UK may spend 2% on defence but there is now included in that figure things that wouldn't have been included before such as the cost of MOD civil service pensions and Armed Forces pensions.
I would just conclude by saying that like you I thought Ukraine would be defeated in a matter of days, so leaving aside the tragic loss of life and destruction, that is one positive to take out of the situation.
EDIT: The following from Full Fact indicates the extent of defence cuts in the 2010s.
"Defence spending fell by 22% in real terms between 2009/10 (just before the 2010 election) and 2014/15, before the new counting methods were introduced. Comparing to 2010/11, it fell by 18%. Those figures use 2016/17 prices.
In the two years since then, it has stayed virtually the same in real terms, and between now and 2019/20, spending is planned to increase by 1% in real terms."
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 11:17]
Quite a lot of internal and external political conflict in Germany with respect to war in Ukraine.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:02 - Jan 23 by DJR
I fully respect your position but take a different view.
On the future of the war, I'm no expert, but if the Russians are recruiting prisoners or using mercenaries and their tanks aren't up to much, I am not wholly convinced that they can turn things round that much, especially as Ukraine appears to have much better trained troops and now has much better armaments.
It is easy to criticise Germany but isn't it the case that the whole of the West looked on Russia favourably until the invasion? We even effectively forgave them for annexing Crimea.
The aim was in part to try to bring Russia into the fold, and just look how keen the City and the Tory party were to court Russian money, so I am not sure Germany deserves particular criticism. I might add that I don't think there will be Russian contracts on offer so long as sanctions remain in place, which I can't see being removed while Putin is in power.
There was also a supposed peace dividend which made various countries, including the UK, take their eyes off the ball.
Indeed, when it comes to defence spending, do you really think the UK is in much better shape to defend itself? Just look at recent defence spending reviews, which senior military people have criticised.
In addition, the UK may spend 2% on defence but there is now included in that figure things that wouldn't have been included before such as the cost of MOD civil service pensions and Armed Forces pensions.
I would just conclude by saying that like you I thought Ukraine would be defeated in a matter of days, so leaving aside the tragic loss of life and destruction, that is one positive to take out of the situation.
EDIT: The following from Full Fact indicates the extent of defence cuts in the 2010s.
"Defence spending fell by 22% in real terms between 2009/10 (just before the 2010 election) and 2014/15, before the new counting methods were introduced. Comparing to 2010/11, it fell by 18%. Those figures use 2016/17 prices.
In the two years since then, it has stayed virtually the same in real terms, and between now and 2019/20, spending is planned to increase by 1% in real terms."
[Post edited 23 Jan 2023 11:17]
My comments were about Germany and to an extent France. Not all Europe got into bed with Russia in quite the way Germany and a number of others did. Crimea 2014 was ignored. Killings - ignored. Putin - ignored.
Germany does deserve specific criticism in my view because as Europe’s most important country economically, it made catastrophic decisions over Russia, not just to row Russia into non threat by trade. It acted for commercial advantage too. If you are down to one working strike aircraft, as they were a few years ago, defence is not your priority.
The U.K. is a separate debate. It’s attitude towards defence has been awful for years. About a 100 of them. The tories have slashed spending every year since taking office. It’s army is down to militia status and doesn’t even have the means of transporting itself. Cuts, delays, pitiful procurement, lack of support for the people in the front line. Don’t start me on the UKs meagre contribution. All it really has is a nuclear deterrent- which I happen know is in good working order.
Politically, the U.K. was one of the three countries who guaranteed Ukraine’s borders. They and the US are accountable / should hang their heads in shame not honouring that guarantee. Add in the boatloads of Russian money donations, money laundering, cash for honours you name it and a public enquiry on U.K. corruption is required.
Western Europe needs to get its act together when it comes to defence and secure its own future. It’s not going to happen while there’s so much mistrust within it.
2
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:04 - Jan 23 with 7607 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:54 - Jan 23 by Churchman
My comments were about Germany and to an extent France. Not all Europe got into bed with Russia in quite the way Germany and a number of others did. Crimea 2014 was ignored. Killings - ignored. Putin - ignored.
Germany does deserve specific criticism in my view because as Europe’s most important country economically, it made catastrophic decisions over Russia, not just to row Russia into non threat by trade. It acted for commercial advantage too. If you are down to one working strike aircraft, as they were a few years ago, defence is not your priority.
The U.K. is a separate debate. It’s attitude towards defence has been awful for years. About a 100 of them. The tories have slashed spending every year since taking office. It’s army is down to militia status and doesn’t even have the means of transporting itself. Cuts, delays, pitiful procurement, lack of support for the people in the front line. Don’t start me on the UKs meagre contribution. All it really has is a nuclear deterrent- which I happen know is in good working order.
Politically, the U.K. was one of the three countries who guaranteed Ukraine’s borders. They and the US are accountable / should hang their heads in shame not honouring that guarantee. Add in the boatloads of Russian money donations, money laundering, cash for honours you name it and a public enquiry on U.K. corruption is required.
Western Europe needs to get its act together when it comes to defence and secure its own future. It’s not going to happen while there’s so much mistrust within it.
I don't think I would disagree with any of that.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:09 - Jan 24 with 7398 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:18 - Feb 6 by Eireannach_gorm
This is not good.
The German tanks have to be built / refurbished and the American long range missiles will arrive by the end of the year.
Thankfully the UK and the rest of Europe have a bit more urgency with the supply of weapons.
It is a horrible situation but it is coming at massive cost to Russia and even if they gain occupation, that cost will continue. I am still hoping that Putin's death comes soon and brings an opportunity for someone else to wash their hands of the disaster and blame it on Putin and find a peaceful settlement. I guess a lot of that depends upon the continued appetite for war among those surrounding Putin and influencing who succeeds him.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:25 - Feb 6 by Nthsuffolkblue
It is a horrible situation but it is coming at massive cost to Russia and even if they gain occupation, that cost will continue. I am still hoping that Putin's death comes soon and brings an opportunity for someone else to wash their hands of the disaster and blame it on Putin and find a peaceful settlement. I guess a lot of that depends upon the continued appetite for war among those surrounding Putin and influencing who succeeds him.
I agree, but there is a question around cost. There is no cost to Putin in terms of human life. He cares not a jot about that. Not interested. People, misery, war crimes don’t matter to that animal.
Material cost? They’re getting around sanctions and growth this year will exceed the U.K, money from energy is rolling in to upgrade his military.
The true cost is political. Russia always was junior partner to China and it’s getting more junior by the minute. The little madman won’t like that. As you rightly point out, a lot will depend on who follows Putin and their appetite for this disaster.
However, Putin looks as fit as hell for a 70 year old and I suspect has many more years in him - unless he falls out of a window, eats a funny oyster or accidentally shoots himself. Here’s hoping.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
