Jacko wrote:
Quite a long article in today’s newspaper about Germany “Bogarting” the tanks which they sold to NATO “partners”.I wonder, what is Germany’s interest in prolonging this war?
Thanks for the link. A good and interesting article. The domestic discussion is really weird, almost totally disregarding the practical and strategical aspect of the topic.
Scholz has yet to explain his reasons. His communication is a total disaster, nearly non-existent. The public on the other hand is very ill-educated and even less interested in military matters and power politics. The degree to which a radical pacifism and a focus on morals and history has taken root in Germany can very easily be underestimated from an outside perspective. It will take a lot more to reawaken Germany’s martial traditions.
I don’t understand the German government.
The Leopard 2 exists to protect/defend against threat of Russian invasion. Now they have a chance to eliminate that threat for 10-15 years.
So why not do it? What’s their game? Is it that they are so terrified of Russia that they sit like a rabbit frozen in car headlights?
If they want to reward their Russian friends with some territory, why not offer him a bit of Saxony?
This is no criticism of German people. They are surely no more cowardly than Brits or French – though all three are clearly cowards compared with the Finns and most of the FSU.
A lot of groupthink here.
Jacko wrote:
Now they have a chance to eliminate that threat for 10-15 years.
Few dozens of Leopards are not going to achieve that.
Lot’s of media attention over minor issue. Perhaps a distraction. Eventually some Leopards will be sent (not too many, I will vager that no more than 100 by the end of spring 23, and no more than 300 by the end of 2023), more Ukrainians and Russians will die and we will be back to square one.
Unless the nukes come out.
So far, it seems the salami tactic https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=yes+minister+salami+tactics&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do861Ka9TtT4 of gradually increasing military support works. As it worked with pushing the NATO eastward. Until it did not. Hmmm.
No, I am not supporting Putin, but for the god’s sake, have a plan B!
What is the point of posting a duckduckgo URL to a Yes Minister spoof video? You can just post its URL and you get this
Until it did not
Are you saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is legitimate? Nobody tried to invade Russia, or threatened to. And to argue that there is no plan B because Russia has nukes, is to argue that any country with nukes can invade who they like and should get away with it, in the name of non-escalation. Obviously one hopes Russia won’t go nuclear, which is perhaps reasonable because that would be the end of Russia, and Putin is very evidently in fear of his life – e.g. see the silly-huge tables he sits around to make sure he doesn’t catch something.
There is no Plan B because the only solution is the only solution that Russia understands: a military defeat. There was no Plan B with Hitler, either.
There clearly is a plan if nukes get used, and the initial response, not published, has been passed to Putin, in the hope that it will make him think twice – in case he was seriously considering it.
Peter wrote:
Are you saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is legitimate?
No, I am saying it was predictable (response to NATO’s invitation to Ukraine), as was predicted by several people, many years in advance.
Peter wrote:
Nobody tried to invade Russia, or threatened to.
We went over this many times. Thinking that Russia will meekly accept NATO bases with nuke missiles pointing at Moscow with flight time giving them no time for reaction is supremely naiive. US did not accept nukes in Cuba ’62, and would not accept them now either.
Peter wrote:
There is no Plan B because the only solution is the only solution that Russia understands: a military defeat. There was no Plan B with Hitler, either.
Do you really believe that if Hitler had the nukes WW2 would have ended the way it did? Even if US had the nukes before him?
How do you imagine military defeat of Russia? (Serious question!)
And (from your side) the crucial point:
Peter wrote:
And to argue that there is no plan B because Russia has nukes, is to argue that any country with nukes can invade who they like and should get away with it, in the name of non-escalation
First of all, exactly because the Russia has (many, many) nukes, the whole approach to its security demands should have been much less ideological and much more pragmatic*. Because the current hardball ( “the only solution that Russia understands: a military defeat”) approach got us where we are: either we push for some form of military defeat of Russia (and hope we don’t end up as radioactive dust) or eventually settle for something that can only be seen as a defeat, regardless of post-hoc spin-doctoring (as US usually does where it gets over its head in areas non-critical to its national security, e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, even Iraq, Libyia, Syria are not exactly success stories).
Second: Military defeat of Russia. The Ukrainians have had their successes near Kharkov and Kherson, but achieving the total liberation to pre-2014 borders would be much harder (and deadlier). Just ask any military expert. They have already received much more ex-USSR tanks then they can conceivably receive of the western ones. Yes, the newest Leopards are much better than old T-62’s (although the Germany is considering sending just 19 of the oldest ones they have), but the numbers available are simply too low. One can hope that the incompetence of Russia’s military has no bounds, but that is not exactly a winning strategy. They are actually learning from their mistakes and adapting (e.g. Geranium drones). Alternatively, one can hope that sufficient military defeats (even if not fully liberating Donbass/Luhansk/Crimea) would lead to the collapse of Putin’s regime. Hmm. Have you paid any attention to internal situation in Russia (and not only via western-biased sources)? The incompetence of how the war is being waged has given rise to hard-liners like Prigozhin (head of Wagner), who are much more likely to succeed Putin than the likes of Gorbachev/Yeltsin (those are generally despised in Russia).
Third: Despite your one-sentence dismissal, most countries outside the western block acknowledge that Russia had valid security concerns that were being dismissed by the west. Hence, while they disapprove of the war, they do not see Russia as ‘going roque, invading whom they want when they want’ (USA has™ for that). Just look-up the list of countries applying to join BRICS. While the hard-liners are deeply unhappy with Putin’s ‘soft-handed’ approach to the war, this is Putin’s geopolitical success. Despite the west trying to portray him as a pariah, the rest of the world has no problem dealing with him. Might be difficult to see/accept from within the west’s information bubble.
*the pragmatic approach: I know that we will have to agree to disagree, but I still claim that there is a vast gap between Belorussia-style vasal state (but note that they refused to send their soldiers to Ukraine) and Finland-like neutral state, that could have been happily inhabited by Ukraine. Too late for that, now.
- another, even more controversial thing we would have to disagree on: Ultimately, Belorussians are better-off than Ukrainians. Eventually, Lukashenko and Putin will die and the Belorussians will get their chance of freedom. Maybe even sooner. Nobody will return dead Ukrainians back to life. Glory is nice and dandy … but the cynical response of (I think US officer, perhaps somebody can find the original quote) to ‘I am willing to die fighting for my country’ is ‘I will make sure of that’.
[I will stop posting on this topic for at least a week. I doubt I can add something new.]
I wasn’t aware that the Ukraine has nuclear weapons pointed by itself or by western powers at Russia. Link. Paranoid imagination does not make something so.
On the other hand, perhaps it would have been better for protecting itself from invasion if Ukraine had retained them. Peace through strength has proved to be a much better deterrent to violence than trying to teach the world to sing. Putin invaded for one reason, because he could.
Otherwise, here’s is a very long link on the subject of General Patton’s remarks on dying for your country.
Peter wrote:
And to argue that there is no plan B because Russia has nukes, is to argue that any country with nukes can invade who they like and should get away with it, in the name of non-escalation.
Not in the name of non-escalation but yes, that is pretty much a fact of life. Whoever has nukes and is willing to misuse that capability has to power to do so onto anyone who does not. MAD has failed at this point as it only works if the realistic threat works both ways. In the current situation, Russia has done what it did with the clear pretext that anyone who would interfere militarily would get nuked and it worked. Nobody so far has comitted boots on the ground or even airplanes e.t.c. to associate with Ukraine out of this very reason. Was Russia not nuclear capable and were the countries opposing Russia right now not clear on the fact that open military support would pull them fully inside this war with all consequences imaginable, I don’t think they would be sitting on their hands as they are doing now but do what the US did in Kuwait in 1992 and kick the invader out. Nobody can risk that however due to the nuclear capacity.
So yes, in theory any nuclear capable country with a large enough army will get away with invading anyone else, as long as they can put out a credible threat that interference will cause nuclear reaction.
Peter wrote:
There is no Plan B because the only solution is the only solution that Russia understands: a military defeat. There was no Plan B with Hitler, either.
The answer to Russia using nukes onto a NATO country would be abundantly clear, on paper. It is Russias declared policy that any military situation where the “rodina” is threatened in it’s existence, would be a reason to rather destroy the world than go under. That is why there is no plan B.
esteban wrote:
Just look-up the list of countries applying to join BRICS. While the hard-liners are deeply unhappy with Putin’s ‘soft-handed’ approach to the war, this is Putin’s geopolitical success. Despite the west trying to portray him as a pariah, the rest of the world has no problem dealing with him. Might be difficult to see/accept from within the west’s information bubble.
BRICS has been touted as the bloc of emerging global powers and a new generation of world leaders, but in effect, just about the only field where they occupy the leading positions in the world is unrestrained and institutionalised corruption. As to the hardliners who still consider Putin too soft, they do exist but wield no political power whatsoever.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not in the name of non-escalation but yes, that is pretty much a fact of life. Whoever has nukes and is willing to misuse that capability has to power to do so onto anyone who does not. MAD has failed at this point as it only works if the realistic threat works both ways. In the current situation, Russia has done what it did with the clear pretext that anyone who would interfere militarily would get nuked and it worked.
What Russia is doing is to try hard to split NATO and the general opinion in Europe by creating FUD. It’s foolish to believe Russia actually would use nukes to rob a few acres of land. If they would nonetheless, then we are doomed either way.
BRICs are a total failure – as anyone who invested in them will know to their cost 
They are all dysfunctional corrupt backward countries run by dictators.
