Germany to approve sending heavy battle tanks to Ukraine

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | Germany to approve sending heavy battle tanks to Ukraine

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #502372
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 9,912

      Summary

      * Ukraine says tanks will be a ‘punching fist’ for democracy
      * Poland submits request to Germany to supply tanks to Kyiv
      * U.S. may drop opposition to providing Abrams tanks
      * Ukraine officials dismissed in biggest shake-up of war
      * Kyiv: Zelenskiy’s actions heed public call for justice

      BERLIN/KYIV, Jan 24 (Reuters) – Germany will send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine and allow other countries such as Poland to do the same to help Kyiv fight off Russia’s invasion, while the United States may supply Abrams tanks, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

      While there was no official confirmation from Berlin or Washington by late on Tuesday, officials in Kyiv swiftly hailed what they said was a potential gamechanger on the battlefield in a war that is now 11 months old.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-pledges-sweeping-personnel-changes-allies-jostle-over-tanks-2023-01-23/

    • #502374
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 9,081

      these tanks as rolling coffins.  IMO, Russia will make a point of going after them, even as they are delivered.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" Baelish

      VFTBNMW is, IMO, literally "take the blue pill".

    • #502375
      Bearian
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 936

      The Abrams tanks are already in Poland on the rails. Probably just waiting to discharge the tankers so they can go to Poland to join their tanks and the Ukrainian Army as foreign Mercenaries

    • #502392
      mrdmk
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,517

      Poster’s note: This is a long compressive report, well worth the read.

      The West’s recent approval of more military assistance for Kiev risks nuclear nightmare, fails Ukrainian expectations and rebukes the World War II history enshrined in a prominent Soviet war memorial in Berlin.

      By Scott Ritter

       

      Early on the morning of May 2, 1945, General Vasily Chuikov, the commander of the Soviet 8thGuards Army, accepted the surrender of the German garrison of Berlin.

      Two days prior, soldiers from the 150th Rifle Division, part of the Soviet 5th Shock Army, had raised the victory banner of the Red Army over the Reichstag. An hour after the banner went up, Adolf Hitler and his mistress, Eva Braun, committed suicide in his study inside the Furhrerbunker.

      Chuikov, the hero of Stalingrad whose battered 62nd Army was renamed the 8th Guards Army in honor of their victory in holding that city in the face of a massive German onslaught, had led his troops into the heart of the Nazi capital, battling stubborn Nazi resistance in the Tiergarten district of Berlin, where the den of the Nazi beast was located. The Soviet general was rewarded for the courage and sacrifice of his soldiers by being in position to accept the German surrender.

      In honor of this accomplishment, and the sacrifice it entailed, the Soviet Army inaugurated, in November 1945, a commemorative monument along the Tiergarten. Constructed from red marble and granite stripped away from the ruins of Adolf Hitler’s Neue Reichskanzlei (New Imperial Chancellery), the monument, consisting of a concave colonnade of six joined axes flanked by Red Army artillery and a pair of T-34 tanks, with a giant bronze statue of a victorious Red Army soldier standing watch from the center pylon.

      LINK–ConsortiumNews, SCOTT RITTER: The Nightmare of NATO Equipment Being Sent to Ukraine

       

      The same idiots who put BIO Labs in Ukraine are the same people who are sending these weapons to Ukraine. According to Scott Ritter, the assortment of tanks that are being sent to Ukraine are going to compound maintenance issues for the Ukrainian war effort. Worse, most of this equipment is going to be use once, then throwaway. Something like a Dixie Cup, Idiots!

      If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit WC Fields

      Warning DO NOT CLICK HERE!
    • #502398
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 25,301

      Which is about 1/10th of what the head Ukrainian general accurately said he would need to stop the Russians. The Russians have literally thousands of tanks, and lots more anti-tank missiles.

      Who makes the Abrams, anyway? They’re profits are going to go up because they’ll have to make more. Which congresscritters get money from them?

      Ukraine will still lose this war.

      Never let your morals stop you from doing the right thing.--Isaac Asimov

      The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.--Julius Nyerere

    • #502399
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,963

      Just after mud season? By then, after Ukrainian troops gain basic familiarity with running and maintaining them, if they want to use them on the front lines that could mean running them in wide open spaces, and in need of a long supply line that won’t be on roads. Russia will surely have made a huge effort to push forward in the time elapsed (the middle of summer?), unless they’re trying to tie up Ukraine’s forces on the center front line, and will make a big push on Odessa, and/or to close the supply lines out of Poland into Ukraine, in conjunction with forces based in Belarus.

      So maybe they won’t all be heading to confront Russia, but instead most will be used to lock down the West of Ukraine, and to protect Kiev. That could keep Russia from ever winning a complete victory, save face for the West, and would enable Kiev to keep repaying its debt, while buying MIC armaments, for the next fifty years.

      Poland’s enthusiasm looks suspicious, and I guess the Zelenskyy regime might make more concessions to them, and figure “good riddance” by letting Poland deal with its western most, problematic, regions.

      https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Western-Ukraine-under-Polish-rule

      Edit: I was conflating the arrival of Abrams tanks as well in my guess work.

      Yikes, only 30? And there will be breakdowns, unless American support teams accompany the tanks on their travels.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/24/us-abrams-tanks-ukraine

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

    • #502408
      Dunatus
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 883
    • #502411
      chknltl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,985

      1: Either Russia does NOT lose this war.

      or

      2: Russia takes things nuclear.

      Russia has made that quite clear. They will defend their sovereignty at all costs.

      There are those who feel that the West can win a nuke war with the combined forces of Russia and China.

      Considering the death toll due to such a war, (which might reach every human on our planet), the cost is FAR too high.

      Those who push for an escalation to this insane war better be careful what they wish for.

      • #502413
        jbnw
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 9,912

        I’ve heard that claimed by the West, but I’ve never heard a Russian official say it.

        • #502415
          chknltl
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,985

          President Putin said that he would not be the first to use nukes…but he would defend Russian sovereignty at all costs.

          I see his meaning as quite clear.

          From my interpretation of that statement, if Putin finds himself losing Ukraine to the West, he will be in the position of “defending Russia at all costs!”

          Here is an interesting edit, note item #3:

          https://www.cfr.org/article/if-russia-goes-nuclear-three-scenarios-ukraine-war

          • #502418
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 9,081

            IMO, he has been quite clear about that.  Also, Putin can cause quite a bit of damage with hypersonic missiles,  which the US cannot presently stop, and which the US has not been able to successfully build, as yet.  I also think Russia probably has weapons which we do not even know about.  When your weapons industry is not based totally on ever-increasing profits and constant wars, more can be done with a lot less money.

            America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

            "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" Baelish

            VFTBNMW is, IMO, literally "take the blue pill".

            • #502421
              chknltl
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,985

              It is actually made quite clear by Putin in my below link.

              Also made quite clear by Putin in this same link, Russia will defend itself by all means necessary.

              I agree with Scott Ritter, Russia must not lose this war.

              Defending itself by all means necessary is open to debate I suppose but I see this as only one meaning.

              • #502446
                jbnw
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 9,912

                He has also stated that an attack will have an immediate response.

                He’s also said that an attack on strategic forces (nuclear weapons) will be considered as a nuclear attack, if I recall correctly.

                So all I’ve heard is that Russia will respond – but that Russia won’t attack first.

                There’s a quote from Putin that in the case of a nuclear attack, they will die as martyrs, but the attackers will just be dead.

                • #502452
                  chknltl
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 1,985

                  1st: NATO retakes territories Russia now considers parts of Russia.

                  I don’t imagine Russia will allow such a thing for very long. Putin will not allow himself to be treated like Sadam Hussein. Both of those factors are where defending Russia at all costs comes into play imo.

                  2nd and more likely, NATO launches nukes first.

                  IIRC, U.S. B-52s are recently based in The British Aisles.

                  Sabre rattling? Considering all the idiots who think that the U.S. can win a nuke war with Russia, I don’t think so.

                  There are more than a few military advisors who feel it important to take out as many of an adversary’s nukes as possible with pre-emptive strikes.

                  Regardless of who lights the candles first, it’s going to be a bad day for everyone.

                  • #502462
                    djean111
                    Participant
                    • Total Posts: 9,081

                    country, hidden, and there are sensors which will set them off if the atmosphere around Moscow reaches a certain level of radioactivity.  A literal dead man’s switch.  The war sluts of the West are gambling that Putin is actually better than they are, and will keep pushing and pushing with ever more outrageous incidents. But always remember that it is the US that is the only country that has deliberately nuked civilians.  In order to impress Russia with what a murderous asshole the US is.  And Zelensky would be more than happy to launch a nuke – with the US’ backing, he is eager to do unspeakable things, knowing that once something has been done, it cannot be undone, and he is gambling that Russia will continue to take his demented attacks until Russia gives up so as to stop the carnage.

                    America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

                    "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" Baelish

                    VFTBNMW is, IMO, literally "take the blue pill".

                  • #502501
                    Ohio Barbarian
                    Moderator
                    • Total Posts: 25,301

                    That would take unanimous consent from all of the members, and that’s not gonna happen. Forget about it.

                    The US Empire may persuade the Poles and the Baltic States to attack Belarus and Russia, or in Poland’s case, to occupy western Ukraine, but that’s just more Slavs to the slaughter so they really don’t matter so long as the war is profitable to US corporations.

                    Never let your morals stop you from doing the right thing.--Isaac Asimov

                    The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.--Julius Nyerere

                • #502545
                  chknltl
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 1,985

                  While Mr. Ritter spends lengthy amount of time on the futility of what is being sent, (actually the entire interview is worth watching)

                  But if your time is limited, go to time stamp 9:05 and have a listen.

                  There is indeed a point where Russia is willing to rain Nukes on NATO countries. It’s not here (yet), but the U.S. needs to end it’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

                  Russia must win this war. Otherwise what stops Ukranian forces from taking areas Russia considers part of Russia now?

                  What stops NATO backed forces from achieving those very goals Scott is talking about?

                  It’s not like U.S. led NATO is backing down, they instead keep escalating this war.

      • #502467
        gordyfl
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,341

        When the dust settles, (hopefully not radioactive), each country involved in this conflict will be deeper in debt and their societies will be worse off.

        It’s pretty clear by now, for Joe Biden, peace is not a priority.

    • #502417
      Joe Shlabotnik
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,716

      I never thought I’d see the day where German and Russian tanks clash again.

      ~ All good things are Wild and Free ~

      • #502447
        jbnw
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 9,912

        And this time, the US and UK are on the side of the Germans and the Italians.

    • #502473
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 25,301

      American battalions have about 56 tanks. It’s like with the stimulus. He promised $2000 and sent $1400. At least he’s consistent.

      Oh, and it might take a year for them to get there. This war should be over by May. I hope.

      Never let your morals stop you from doing the right thing.--Isaac Asimov

      The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.--Julius Nyerere

      • #502486
        jbnw
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 9,912

        But then, I’d expected it to be over in three days, then March, then . . .

        But Biden and the West have no interest in ending it, nor does Zelensky.

        And the people of Ukraine don’t even get to express an opinion now without expecting a visit from the internal security service.

    • #502542
      soryang
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,631

      https://www.military.com/equipment/m88a2-hercules-recovery-vehicle

      http://www.military-today.com/trucks/m1070_het.htm

      https://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/heavy-tactical-vehicles/hemtt-a4/hemtt-a4-fuel-servicing-truck-tanker/

      Without the support vehicles, their crews, maintenance, fuel, and spare parts, the M-1s will end scattered and immobile. Without the attendant mobile support infrastructure that more or less has to move along with the tanks, or at least be at hand not too far away, the tanks will suffer attrition without combat. The effort to move a battalion or larger sized heavy armored maneuver unit is so great it is preferrable to preposition the equipment, or leave it in place once deployed. The effort to assist Ukraine by moving these units into a combat zone where the infrastructure is already compromised by repeated Russian attacks is the least desirable situation, although ostensibly this is what armored units are supposed to do in theory.

      There is also the integrated mobile command and control and communications support equipment that goes with the package, and then the overarching integration into a coordinated combined arms network of forces that Scott Ritter always talks about. To talk about these tanks as if they are a “game changer” in and of themselves is the way civilians and politicians talk without having a clue about the more extensive requirements surrounding the commitment.

      According to Fletcher Prouty, it was the support infrastructure necessary for US army helicopters in Vietnam that lead to an open ended war commitment that basically f….d up the entire US economy during that era and for years afterward. Of course, the situation in Ukraine is potentially far more catastrophic than Vietnam. In the Vietnam context, the US for a time was able to compensate with air support (with substantial losses and political liabilities ie POWs) from Thailand and aircraft carriers on station in the South China Sea.

      Who will supply the airpower to “save” Ukraine?

      惑世誣民 혹세무민

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.