11
votes
Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - January 19
This thread is posted weekly on Thursday - please try to post relevant content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Especially significant updates may warrant a separate topic, but most should be posted here.
If you'd like to help support Ukraine, please visit the official site at https://help.gov.ua/ - an official portal for those who want to provide humanitarian or financial assistance to people of Ukraine, businesses or the government at the times of resistance against the Russian aggression.
Foreign Ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joint statements:
https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1616699708969287680
https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1616699923994660865
https://twitter.com/UrmasReinsalu/status/1616700018748018689
I wonder what reaction that would cause in Germany.
My – admittedly relatively recent – understanding of the EU politics is that Germany and Austria opposed entry of the Eastern European states into the EU, calling them a bog. This may or may not be the same attitude behind Germany's Ukraine-war antics with lazy delivery of arms.
The three Baltic states, on the other hands, were some of the most supportive states of Ukraine throughout the war, in terms of both relative GDP contributed to Ukraine's fund and their acceptance of fleeing Ukrainians as refugees. They may also be the most vocal against Russia – behind Ukraine, of course. (The oppressive history towards the Baltic states by the Soviet Union aren't helping the situation.)
Germany being the de facto leader of the EU, and the "little dogs" (relatively speaking) calling the "big dog" out... I wonder what the German leadership thinks of that.
I imagine they're sweating bullets over the state of the country's army and tank fleet. They don't want to have to crack open the storage and see just how bad things really are for themselves, let alone show the rest of Europe and Russia too.
I doubt Britain's situation much better. They're probably relieved that the attention is on Germany.
House Foreign Affairs chairman says some members don’t understand what’s at stake in Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/22/politics/mike-mccaul-republicans-ukraine-russia-cnntv/index.html
No German tanks for Ukraine until America sends its own, Scholz tells U.S. lawmakers
I posted about the Leopard II’s below but should have made that in a reply here. To get back on track, here’s rumblings about the announcement that the M1 Abrams is soon to be headed to Ukraine.
In reversal, US poised to approve Abrams tanks for Ukraine
https://apnews.com/article/us-m1-abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-249de5c301a9bf83b5f3ac2182076a02
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports: The US is angry with Scholz (article in German; archived version).
Translated snippets from the article welcome under this comment.
Regarding this and the above "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams", both of those seem to be back channel communications. The "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams" line is not official policy at all; it was what was communicated to the US in confidential channels - among which talks in Ramstein, and a phone call between Scholz and Biden.
The "US angry with Scholz" , well... my take is that the US argument of "Abrams is not appropriate for Ukraine" is complete BS. Replacing an engine pack is a comparable repair job, and with the APUs Abrams have, their fuel economy is fairly comparable. In fact, Abrams and Leopard are possibly the most similar current western tank models. And again, that Lloyd Austin is angry with Scholz is, afaict, an inofficial stance from a internal document. Nevermind that it's also a matter of interpretation. All the report says, judging from the article, is that the negotiations in and around Ramstein were rougher than usual.
I could entirely see this as merely "Germany/Scholz pressure US to also commit tanks".
Note also that there could be a defense economics angle to this: The US, Germany and Korea are in the business of exporting tanks. The only thereof who apparently is expected to supply Ukraine is Germany. Which means Germany has to delay deliveries to other partners, lengthen the backlog of products required by the Bundeswehr, and all that for no money in return. And this won't be a short-term loss. Any country that decides for/against a tank model now, will likely do so for a long time. Germany's been operating the Leo2 for 40 years, and we haven't seriously thought about replacing it yet, so that's the rough time frame over which the loss of procurement, upgrade and maintenance contracts will play out. It's would be a shame if this is what's standing in the way of Ukrainian aid. Poland for example is apparently looking to replace it's Leo2s with M1s and K2s. But before you crucify germany, consider that the US could be perfectly happy to exploit this opportunity for the same shitty motives and not give any concessions to assuage german fears. It's all speculation anyway, but I figured I'd share this one.
In related news, Poland, who has been crying the loudest for Leo2s, but doing fuck all, has finally actually done something: They have finally officially asked Germany for permission to send Leo2s. I have waited for this moment, and I didn't think it'd ever come. PiS, the Polish government party, is on a anti-german crusade, and they use every dirty trick they can come up with to paint Germany as the bad guy; mostly for popularity with the electorate. So I did not, not for a single second, buy their bullshit about "Germany won't let us send our Leo2s."
But, well, all of that will soon be moot, because Poland has officially asked, and Germany is now forced to give a clear answer: Yes, or No?
Before you jump down my throat for any of my statements here, please read carefully whether I support those statements myself, or merely relay them; if in doubt, ask. This overall discussion on Leo2 has been extremely toxic, at least outside of tildes, both within Germany and outside thereof. I have no interest of inviting that discussion culture to over here, or to bring it here myself.
German news orgs Spiegel and NTV apparently agree that Germany has greenlit the delivery of foreign-owned and announced delivery of Bundeswehr Leopards, and apparently Abrams will also be rolling. Looks like an alliance with enough critical mass has finally been found.
About that:
— The Washington Post
For me, a layperson with little understanding of the legal process behind heavy equipment transfer, the timeline checks out: within the same month (Jan 2023):
That doesn't sound to me like Poland beating around the bush in order to paint Germany in the worst light possible. It sounds instead like Poland – and other countries, like Finland – putting pressure on Germany to fulfill its promises in regards to helping Ukraine like it said it would.
Besides: Ukraine asked for the tanks on day 7 of the war.
I'm not a fan of the present Polish government, but even an asshole is right every once in a while. (Even if it allows the asshole to feel perfectly justified in their assholery.)
So what am I missing?
This argument works better when Germany itself has had its commitment to the security of Ukraine demonstrated prior. For someone who'd been stalling on promises for months... Not so much.
I wonder why the conversation had been so very toxic indeed.
So, here's why I don't think that's accurate... I admit that's merely one out of multiple possible interpretations of the facts. I hope you see that given the facts, multiple different interpretations are possible, as most of it is about human factors and (mis)communication. So leave space in your rhetoric for my interpretation, and I'll leave space for yours. Anyway, of course Germany has to sign off on the transfer. This is usually the domain of Habeck, who is in favor, though apparently the authority ultimately rests with the chancellor, who hasn't publicly decided yet? I'm not quite sure. In any case, the problem I have with Poland's stance is that they've themselves "stalled" (urgh) by not actually requesting permission. The problem with that is that Poland was for two weeks or so complaining that Germany was holding them back, when they didn't even ask. I don't believe the common explanation that they didn't formally ask out of diplomatic decency; they don't have that when it comes to Germany. For bullshit domestic reasons, Scholz couldn't accept without actually being asked, I believe. Alas, ask and you shall get an answer. I'm not surprised in the least by the nature of the answer.
I don't think it's at all a coincidence that NATO and allies have generally coordinated their deliveries closely. Generally, I think it is, was, and will be a good idea to figure out what's needed the most, figure out what can (politically, logistically, economically) be sent, and do that. I don't think it's a coincidence that this ends up in everyone agreeing to start sending (155mm artillery/IFVs/Tanks) at the same time. Working as intended, and frankly I wouldn't pretend to know whether political or logistical feasibility is what's so slow.
And I don't really believe that either: The main argument for the logistical and maintenance difficulty is the gas turbine engine. But that's not a major downside anyway: It's barely more fuel hungry, it's just as easy to remove the engine, and overhauling the engine will be done abroad anyway. Sure, it's not complete bullshit - but isn't nearly the disqualifier it's portrayed to be.
To clarify: Are you insinuating that I am contributing to the toxic conversation?
I'm no tank expert, but from skimming some discussion by someone who is (a thread I can't find now), my impression is that the Leopards and Abrams aren't that similar from a maintenance standpoint. One difference is that they have different kinds of engines - diesel versus turbine.
I'm aware of that. It is my understanding that in the field you just strip out the entire engine pack and replace it, sending the defective unit rearward. Whether you send it back to MTU Friedrichshafen or to an American-run supply depot in Poland doesn't really matter. And when stripping out the engine, the size of the job apparently doesn't depend much on the type of engine.
I dunno, maybe the Americans did a silly and designed an unmaintainable nightmare of a track or something, but I don't see the Abrams as unviable as it's sometimes portrayed as.
Oh, and the other one is fuel consumption of the engine... But consider that the gas turbine can run on almost anything that burns. Including diesel.
U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea, via The New York Times:
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
Germany won’t block Poland giving Ukraine [Leopard 2] tanks
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-government-united-states-c9459e1bed9ad7358a59b541b3a5ae8c
Germany set to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Der Spiegel reports
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/europe/germany-leopard-2-tanks-ukraine-announcement-intl/index.html
…
Top Ukrainian officials ousted in anti-corruption sweep (Washington Post)
[...]
[...]
[...]
Ukrainian journalists are uncovering Ukrainian corruption (Washington Post)
What Bradley Fighting Vehicles Will Mean for Ukraine (The Bulwark)
From the article:
[...]
[...]
The author talks about tanks in this Twitter thread.
is it purely for fear of nuclear war that the US isn’t using its military to take over russia and call it a day?
Mostly nuclear deterrence, and partially because an invasion of Russia would be a herculean task from a military and logistics perspective. Not only would the US probably need to implement at least limited drafting in order to pull together the manpower to fight a war on such a large front, even including European allied support, such an effort would almost certainly force the US to reduce its efforts in supporting other allies around the world, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc in countering influence from powers like China. This isn't even to mention how such a large war would likely be unpopular and be used as a tool in domestic politics.
In other words, the US would have to pull a Russia in order to conquer Russia.
The difference is: people aren't all that afraid to storm government buildings in the US. Designated Survivor may well become a reality if such a turn would take place.
Keep in mind the US hasn't won a war since WWII.
I think it depends on how you define winning? If the war is there to take ground, remove or greatly limit the ability of their opponent to leverage violence, and to bring their opponent to the negotiation table, there's a bunch of military excursions (whether you want to call them "wars") that the US has won.
The thing that the US has been spectacularly bad at is winning the peace that comes after the shooting has mostly stopped. The US may be the world's police, but more often than not what's needed is the world's EMT, and that's not the force that the USA has.
Apart from the "hasn't been a war since WWII" pedantry, the US has at the least won
Winning a war does not mean you automatically accomplish all of your political goals, however.
Well, in some ways it was more of a draw. Fought to a stalemate that lasted two years, then a cease fire and armistice. The South Korean president refused to sign.
Unless you're going by the definition of 'wars actually declared by the US Congress' because WWII was the last time that Congress declared war, that's... definitely not true. 'Hehe the US lost to a bunch of Vietnamese farmers' is the memetic thing to say, but the US has been involved in dozens of armed conflicts post-WWII, and achieved its strategic goals a fair amount of the time. I'm not saying that those goals were morally upright or even good for the US' foreign policy goals long term, but said military goals were achieved. Its also worth considering that in cases where the US fought in a more 'conventional' military conflict, which a non-nuclear war with Russia almost certainly would be, the US seems to win more often than it loses (I'm thinking of the Korean war and the Gulf war specifically, but its possible that I'm forgetting some other conflicts which might be considered 'conventional').
The problem is that war is different than it was 60 years ago. A war with Russia likely wouldn't stay conventional for very long. I have no doubt that the US could dismantle Putin's government in a few months, but what then? Install a puppet regime and fight off another 20 year anti western insurgency?
What's different about Russia that it wouldn't become another quagmire where the US feels it has an obligation to stick around to provide stability and avoid a strongman taking over the country again?
If anything, I think Russia would be an even tougher insurgency than Afghanistan was. The country is absolutely huge, with a strong anti western sentiment amongst the massive population, with some parts that are more or less uncharted even to this day, the weather is harsh, and there's a massive amount of heavy weaponry that's been proliferated throughout the country after 30 years of post soviet corruption. As an added bonus, if you thought IEDs and suicide bombers using homemade and makeshift explosives in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad, what happens when they have access to nuclear weapons?
Is the US government not likely fighting a non-conventional, non-nuclear war with putin now? Sanctions are a form of warfare, as are withholding of grain amd energy. Putin’s propaganda machine i running full tilt. I’ll wager at least one us infrastructure hit has putin or wagner group behind it. Who knows what actions are occurring inside Russia.
Possibly. My comment was done in continuation of the 'why doesn't the US just invade Russia' premise in the top-level comment, and isn't really discussing what is actually happening in reality.