Peter wrote:
Most Russians are so far brainwashed they think Stalin is a hero, having killed tens of millions.
Yes. The Interview explains the mechanisms at work pretty well. They all date back to the Soviet era and are deeply ingrained in Russian society.
As a former resident of the CSSR you will be well aware of all of them.
Peter wrote:
A very interesting article.
It is indeed a great article. I just took the time to reread it in entirety in English. I had skim-read the German original a few days ago when it was first published (unfortunately there usually is a delay of several days before they publish an English text. So you don’t get the latest news in English but usually the In-depth articles which hold their value for longer).
I really recommend reading this for everyone who wants to understand what is going on inside Russia, especially Russian minds.
Also, as a German I would say the parallels to Nazi Germany are both obvious and scary. I am afraid Russia will need to be similarly comprehensively defeated on the Battlefield to change anything.
The US and Germany have agreed to sent Infantry Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine
In a major turn of events, the German government has finally yielded to public and allied pressure and agreed to send an as of yet unspecified number of Marder IFVs to Ukraine. These are also used by the Bundeswehr, although supposed to be replaced by the currently problem-laden Puma IFV.
According to German media, the defense industry has up to 100 Marder in storage, some of which need to be refurbished before being given to Ukraine. But the industry had started this process in spring 2022 in anticipation of a much earlier offer to Ukraine by the German government which never came.
Now that France has gone ahead by announcing the export of their AMX-10 RC wheeled scout tank, Germany could no longer deflect these requests. Apparently, Biden, Macron and Scholz had agreed on these joint exports before New Year’s Eve. The US will send their older model Bradly IFVs, which are of similar capability as the Marder.
The further significance of this, which may easily get lost in non-German media, is that IFVs are called “Schützen*panzer*” in German, with Panzer famously being the word for “tank”. Everyday discourse doesn’t differtiate here and puts every kind of tracked armoured vehicle into this category, so delivering main battle tanks (Kampf*panzer*) is now easy to sell to the average voter “since we already sent Panzer anyways”.
Note that the Gepard is also a Flugabwehrkanonen*panzer* but with its anti-air cannons doesn’t evoke the same emotional reaponse somehow.
Alas, my personal opinion, MBTs are sure to follow later this year, probably old Leopard 1 which have the same gun calibre as the French AMX-10 RC, 105 mm.
MedEwok wrote:
in German, with Panzer famously being the word for “tank”.
I thought the literal translation of panzer was armour, rather than tank?
Graham wrote:
I thought the literal translation of panzer was armour, rather than tank?
Very good, Graham.
Yes, Panzer = Armour.
Originally, the word “Panzer” on its own meant body armour primarily, e.g. chain mail (Kettenpanzer) but that has fallen into disuse in modern times and current body armour is usually called “Schutzweste” or “Kevlarweste” as if only referring to the “vest” part of it, or more rarely “Körperpanzerung”). The related word “Panzerung” is typically used for the armour of vehicles and ships.
Nowadays, Panzer appears almost only as part of compound words, e.g. a Schildkrötenpanzer is the shell of a tortoise.
Panzer on its own can refer to any kind of armour, but in modern German it is typically used as the short form of Panzerkampfwagen which is the WWII era formal name and literally translation of “armoured fighting vehicle”. In the context of the Ukraine war in particular, this is the only use of the word Panzer (again, body armour delivered to Ukraine will be called “Schutzausrüstung” / “protective equipment” or similar) that is in any widespread use.
Edit: Afaik this meaning has also slipped into several languages as a loanword, notably Dutch pantser and Swedish pansar
MedEwok wrote:
Edit: Afaik this meaning has also slipped into several languages as a loanword, notably Dutch pantser and Swedish pansar
Indeed, “pansar” in Swedish means “armour”, but in the 1940s also begun referring to tanks. However, the main word for tanks in Swedish is “stridsvagn”. (Literally, battle wagon, interestingly the same word is used for ancient horse-drawn war chariots.) “Pansar” referring to tanks is only used in some cases like “pansartrupper” (tank troops).
Graham wrote:
thought the literal translation of panzer was armour, rather than tank?
It’s short for “Gepanzertes Fahrzeug” which in turn means armored vehicle. But as far as I have read texts back to WW I it has been used for tank.
MedEwok wrote:
I am afraid Russia will need to be similarly comprehensively defeated on the Battlefield to change anything.
If you recall how that was done, bombing their cities and a full scale invasion, that option does not really exist for Russia, both for the size and nuclear capabilities. So far anyone who has tried to conquer Russia has failed.
Apart, a full scale attack onto Russia would put Russia into a defensive situation, which in turn would give Putin exactly the leverage on the people he would need to rise them up against a common enemy.
So this is quite a bad situation, as clearly the regime has to be toppled, preferrably without replacing it with something even worse. And yes, that possibility exists.
Of course you are right, a full-scale Invasion is no realistic option given the possibility of nuclear retaliation.
This leaves the only realistic option as this: Arm Ukraine to the teeth so that it becomes a real meat grinder for the Russian people, in the hopes that the mounting losses force a change of public opinion in Russia.
However given that oublic opinion, which I outlined in the excellent Spiegel-Interview yesterday, that will require a whole lot more casualties and even then one cannot be sure if the public opinion in Russia concludes that now would be a good idea to wage the war more radically (just think of Goebbels “Total War” speech) than ever before.
And yes, that does indeed lead us to a worse situation than now. I see no easy way out of this mess.
Armoured vehicles cannot be used alone – as Putin found out. One anti tank missile and poooof it’s gone. One video I saw showed the turret landing 7 seconds later, which translates to the turret launched at 34m/s; at ~15 tons one can neglect air resistance 
They need to be armed with modern kit, and they can be used only with infantry around making sure nobody is in the bushes with AT weapons. So it isn’t what “tank” Ukraine gets that matters. On past record, it will likely be something long obsolete. It will be the details e.g. IR vision, stabilised gun, etc.
Counting injured men and deserters (who will go to jail for many years, if they aren’t shot in the back Russian-style), Ukraine is removing 1k-2k men from the Russian army, daily.
What is need is to arm Ukraine sufficiently that they can steadily push Russian troops out of Ukraine.
When Russian troops and public see that it is hopeless and that fighting will definitely result in death for no gain, troops will start to desert and mobilisation will be noticeably resisted. Nobody wants a certain death for nothing.
But at present they are really only being given enough to hold the Russians back and with a little ingenuity they are managing to use that to make small patches of progress.
They need much more, sooner.
