Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Abdul_Latif]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

but it could be there's advanced tech in it they don't want the Russians to get hold of, or that it's really expensive. 

I suspect that is entirely the case, but it doesn’t make NATO look very equal if Germany are taking the flak here, but the US are vetoing their own modern tank being exported for essentially the same reason.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I suspect that is entirely the case, but it doesn’t make NATO look very equal if Germany are taking the flak here, but the US are vetoing their own modern tank being exported for essentially the same reason.

I think the Germans are wary because they'd likely become responsible for much of the spare parts and maintenance of the tanks, even if they came from Finland, Poland etc. If the tanks were a game changer (no idea if they would be), Russia might take it as a declaration of war. Britain has around 220 Challenger tanks available, we're making a token contribution of 14, not sure what war we're keeping the rest for but I can't see Russia at Dover anytime soon given the trouble they're having taking Bakhmut. 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

America are very aware Putin would be getting a propaganda gift if he could portray this as the Soviet Union Russia v USA

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

America are very aware Putin would be getting a propaganda gift if he could portray this as the Soviet Union Russia v USA

As he would Germany v Russia, maybe even more so.

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

America claims that the Abrams is way too fuel hungry and too much training required to be practical for operating and maintaining, but it could be there's advanced tech in it they don't want the Russians to get hold of, or just that it's really expensive. 

They’re not wrong. The Abrams is a gas turbine engine (basically a jet engine), while the Leopard 2 is a turbo diesel. All the Ukrainian tanks are diesel models, so adding the Abrams, which is a fuel hog, would require a whole new fuel supply setup.

[Dev]

Germany is fully aware of the American tank's fuel. It is different from diesel so it  cannot be compared . It is not like for like.

Regarding USA and or Germany v Russia. Isn't that the reality in any case?

There's a significantly greater risk of a land based conflict between Russia and Germany than there is with the USA in future years/decades and this will increase if Germany bottles it now. Storing up more trouble for the future. Russia needs to change its' view of the outside world or else there will be further conflicts viz. the Baltic states etc.

Russia has a track record for "re-absorbing" parts of other nations - which went on, completely unchallenged by the West,  in the build up to this conflict. This isn't going to stop unless the West deals with this harsh reality this time around. This is going to be even more painful than it has been already.

Can Russia change? Only if it comes from within e.g. some sort of break-up geographically or break-down within the civilian Mafia-like leadership. To do that there would need to be a deal by the West with some Mafia-like types. Is that do-able? 

[jagfox]

 

[Ned Nederlander]

FAFO

 

 

 

 

[LongTimeLurker]

This might focus minds in Berlin if accurate:

 

[TxRover]

Poland has forced Germany’s hand:

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-government-united-states-c9459e1bed9ad7358a59b541b3a5ae8c

[Dev]

Came across this article which seems, to me anyway, to sum up the Germany (and France) approach to this War. The link:

www.geostrategy.org.uk/britains-world/britain-europes-challenger-power-on-ukraine/

The key paragraph:

" The absence of either France or Germany from the Tallinn Pledge starkly signals their different preoccupations on how to address Russia’s war against Ukraine. Consequently, Germany’s position on the provision of Leopard 2 tanks already places it at odds with key European allies. It also has other implications for Germany. In the short term it directly constrains Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and liberate Russian-seized territories with the capabilities that it needs. It also makes Germany a less than constructive ally for European states in the face of what many consider to be an existential threat. In the long term it acts as a spur for creating arrangements for military security, including defence equipment procurement, which exclude states that have failed a litmus test of not barring the movement of equipment when allies consider it to be in their vital national interest. "

I think it's the key para because Germany puts its' economy first (short-medium -long term). Loss of valued military trade will, in my view, make Germany stop and think about the non-release of Leopard tanks. Will the with-holding of these tanks (and lucrative support/maintenance/servicing/repairs) lead to a change of heart over this matter by Germany?

France, as usual, pretends to help Ukraine but sends only a modest contribution as it follows Germany's coat-tails. It does, however, try to talk up what it has done but describing wheeled (not tracked) armoured vehicles as Tanks is a bit far fetched even for them. 

 

[ICTChris]

France have supplied some very useful equipment to Ukraine.  I think Macron fancies himself as the man to broker a diplomatic solution, or at least he did at the start, and that lead to slowness in giving gear.

[LongTimeLurker]

Think this hints at F-16s:

 

[welshbairn]

I think part of the reason for Germany's reluctance to allow the supply of Leopards is that they haven't the industrial capacity to quickly replace them, which will give the US an opportunity to nick their market share, and possibly the UK and South Korea. 

[Dev]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

France have supplied some very useful equipment to Ukraine.  I think Macron fancies himself as the man to broker a diplomatic solution, or at least he did at the start, and that lead to slowness in giving gear.

Fair enough. However, when did any diplomacy make any difference to the Russian approach to this War? Bearing in mind the long term Russian strategy of regaining control of Ukraine and France's inaction (and everybody else's) in 2014 etc. In that context Macron's words were purely for show.

[Dev]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I think part of the reason for Germany's reluctance to allow the supply of Leopards is that they haven't the industrial capacity to quickly replace them, which will give the US an opportunity to nick their market share, and possibly the UK and South Korea. 

Yes. The USA has exploited that angle and this may (hopefully) enable the Leopard tanks to be brought into operation - if this is desired by Ukraine/those nations which want to see them used by Ukraine.

[renton]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I think part of the reason for Germany's reluctance to allow the supply of Leopards is that they haven't the industrial capacity to quickly replace them, which will give the US an opportunity to nick their market share, and possibly the UK and South Korea. 

That's a self defeating principle though. The Eastern European countries are already turning away from German industry as fast as possible due to German restrictions on the use of their kit so far. Poland has already let an order of Leopards go in favour of S Korean K2s.

UK won't, Challenger 3 is an extensive rebuild of Challenger 2 - new armour, new gun, new sights, new electronics and digital architecture but it's really a holding pattern. No one is really sure what the actual next generation of MBT should look like, what functionality it should include. For the next ten years, I suspect the K2 has a pretty big opportunity for Western nations looking to rebuild armour fleets for the short term.

[welshbairn]

The German perspective: it's all about internal party politics.

https://www.dw.com/en/why-german-chancellor-olaf-scholz-is-hesitant-about-delivering-battle-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64493249

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, renton said:

That's a self defeating principle though. The Eastern European countries are already turning away from German industry as fast as possible due to German restrictions on the use of their kit so far. Poland has already let an order of Leopards go in favour of S Korean K2s.

UK won't, Challenger 3 is an extensive rebuild of Challenger 2 - new armour, new gun, new sights, new electronics and digital architecture but it's really a holding pattern. No one is really sure what the actual next generation of MBT should look like, what functionality it should include. For the next ten years, I suspect the K2 has a pretty big opportunity for Western nations looking to rebuild armour fleets for the short term.

Norway is already leaning toward the K2 in place of the Leopard now. More interestingly is the K-STAM II option with the K2. Given what’s been happening in Ukraine, militaries all over the world are taking another look at the weaknesses of tanks to top attack. The Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition II (K-STAM II) is a neat little bit of kit that is fired from up to 5 miles away in a stand-off mode, it pops a chute overhead the target point and uses its sensors to detect the target vehicle, identify it from a library of choices, and direct the munition to the most vulnerable point (generally the turret top or engine deck). Exclusive to the Korean L55 120mm, it’s a clone of several other similar munitions not widely available (IMI’s Excalibur, Deihl’s SPEAR, etc).

[vikingTON]

What a surprise:

Quote

 

Poland to ask EU for compensation for supplying tanks

Poland will ask the EU for compensation for the cost of Leopard 2 tanks it wants to send Ukraine, the Polish prime minister said on Tuesday.

“We will apply for reimbursement to the European Union, it will be another test of goodwill,” Mateusz Morawiecki told a news conference.

Morawiecki said that he hoped there would be a quick response from Germany over whether Warsaw can re-export the tanks, Reuters reports. “I hope that this answer from Germany will come quickly, because the Germans are delaying, dodging, acting in a way that is difficult to understand.

“We can see that they do not want to help Ukraine defend itself in a wider way.”

 

So a shakedown hussle by the Polish government then, rather than the noble defence of liberty and European security that they've been trying to flog.