Russia-Ukraine War

[jlehtone]

But now we are already at this point and we cannot roll back anything.

Russia can retreat out of Ukraina and discard claims to Ukrainian areas.

The Russian Constitution is valid on the territory of Russia.

I had just a referendum. All 100% of one vote did support of ceding all of Russia, except Vladivostok, to China, effective immediately.
The territories in discussion are thus no longer covered by Russian Constitution. You are welcome.

[himid]

Again it's not hindsight.

If Russia would act in good faith, then Russia had a wide range of actions to implement not after 8 years, not after 9 years, but 2-3 years into the conflict - even basic counter-battery would stop the shelling really fast - isn't Russians suppose to be masters of artillery?

Russia was doing absolutely nothing, it was convinient for it to keep this conflict smolder, until it can see the window to takeover whole Ukraine.

Look at the frontline right now - the one that run on the ourskirts of Donetsk barely moved an inch.

If Ukraine and West entered Minks agrement in bad faith, so did Russia.

Except that it's Russia who launched a full scale invasion and occupation.

First, any intervention by Russia would be perceived in a very specific way. Lugansk and Donetsk did not have counter-battery radars.
There was nothing in the agreements that the guarantors could interfere. I don't understand these conventions at all. They agreed, but no one can do anything if the agreements are not respected.

Secondly, counter-battery combat is just one of the measures that does not solve anything by itself. The enemy fired back and left immediately. That is what is happening now.

Thirdly, if you followed the news, you would understand that any response from the republics was cited as a violation of the agreements. And more often, the blame was generally placed on Russia (although at that moment Russia was not a party to the conflict).

If you use your method, then there was simply no need to conclude any Minsk 2 in 2015 (the first agreement was violated by the Ukrainian side). And to help the republics reach Kyiv with all the ensuing consequences for Poroshenko, who has settled there.

P.S.
I think that the agreements themselves in Minsk were drawn up incorrectly, and the functions of guarantors were not spelled out. If the economic and military functions of guarantors had been prescribed, then perhaps we would not have come to what we have now.

[himid]

Russia can retreat out of Ukraina and discard claims to Ukrainian areas.

Forget it, it's not real. If you want to negotiate, then you need to negotiate on realistic terms.

I had just a referendum. All 100% of one vote did support of ceding all of Russia, except Vladivostok, to China, effective immediately.
The territories in discussion are thus no longer covered by Russian Constitution. You are welcome.

You confuse your opinion and the opinion of people who live on this territory. The UN Charter spells out the right of nations to self-determination in the event that the state infringes on their rights. The situation with Donetsk and Lugansk fully fits this article of the UN Charter. Do you want examples?
1) Since 2014, Ukraine has not paid pensions and other benefits to people. And in retirement, these people worked in Ukraine all their lives.
2) Ukraine organized a total food and commodity blockade of these regions.
3) Ukraine restricted the movement of citizens of these regions.
4) Ukrainian troops regularly shelled Donetsk, Lugansk, destroying houses and infrastructure. Let me remind you once again: do you not like the fact that Russia is hitting the energy sector? And Ukraine has been hitting the energy sector of the republics for all 8 years.

By the way, regarding Crimea, the situation is similar:
1) Blocking the North Crimean Canal
2) Complete disconnection from the power supply in the absence of any power generation on the peninsula.

In fact, all of the above falls under the definition of "genocide". But you always interpret laws, articles or definitions in the way that suits you.

[CBJ]

Since you have clearly ignored the warning earlier not to keep repeating the same old propaganda talking points, you are no longer welcome in this thread. Post here again, and you will be removed from the forum.

[Observe]

I wonder about the need for tanks. Considering all the ruined Russian tanks we've been seeing, it seems that whatever anti-tank weapons are being used, they are quite effective. With drones, shoulder mounted missiles, etc, is the day of the tank over? I seem to remember that the U.S. Marines decided to get rid of their tanks, although I'm not sure what their reasons were.

[Alan Phipps]

MBTs etc are just one element of an effective all-Arms manoeuvre battle capability. Commanders on the ground see the critical importance of them when they don't have enough available for conducting the operation at hand.

You may be correct though that expeditionary and asymmetric combat forces might not employ MBTs so much.

[mr.WHO]

I wonder about the need for tanks. Considering all the ruined Russian tanks we've been seeing, it seems that whatever anti-tank weapons are being used, they are quite effective. With drones, shoulder mounted missiles, etc, is the day of the tank over? I seem to remember that the U.S. Marines decided to get rid of their tanks, although I'm not sure what their reasons were.

Imagine modern battlefield as Chess board and tanks as chess piece - if you're missing one type of piece, but your enemy don't, you're at big disadvantage.

Ukraine problem with tanks is that their ex-soviet tanks are rapidly going to the wall - their military industry has been flattened, while ex-soviet NATO industry has been decomissioned/reduced.
This means that Ukraine is running low on spare parts (What remained of Polish and Czech soviet production industry is now running on 120% to supply Ukraine).
See recent "exotic" supply routes like Marocco or Pakistan - options to buy Ukraine compactibile soviet equipment is running out.

Ukraine has to start switching to Western tanks this year.

However, even Leopards 2 have their problems:
- low readiness across the west it like 20% combat ready
- low production capability - Hungary ordered like 40 brand new Leo 2, 5 years ago and they are still waiting for them.
- low production/amount of spare parts - that's why Poland was dissapointed with the speed of modernization of Leo 2 to Leo 2PL - that's the reason why we want to dismiss them and send them to Ukraine.

Leopard 2 will be just a temporary plug for 2023, but eventually we'll see Abrams as well, if war goes to 2024.


On the side note, Netherland consider giving F-16 as they replace them with F-35.

[notaterran]

However, with the latest weapons pledges, spring offensive will be the last shot for Russia, by september/october, Russia will be facing basically NATO grade Ukraine.

I agree. Even if Ukraine doesn't get tanks and has to make do with what they have (artillery, missiles, drones) their troops are going to be better prepared. As time goes by Ukrainians are not getting tired, they are becoming more battle-hardened. The Russians seem to be counting on having nearly unlimited cannon fodder to overwhelm the Ukrainians with.

[notaterran]

Germany’s Leopard has similar capabilities to the US-made Abrams or UK’s Challenger, but also presents some advantages, according to military experts. It is lighter and easier to fuel than the American tank, which is powered by a thirsty turbine engine. It is deemed more reliable than the Challenger.

But the crucial advantage is its availability. Thirteen European armies operate some 2,000 Leopard 2 tanks, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Link

So will Germany eventually allow tanks to go to Ukraine?

[mr.WHO]

So will Germany eventually allow tanks to go to Ukraine?

I think the big question first is if Germany allow other countriess to give theirs Leopard 2.
There is too much drama about Germany giving or not giving their equimpment - looking at how poor state the Bundeswere is, I don't really mind them beign hesitant, but they should at least not block other countries.

Germany should be more flexible, given that they are not a "NATO frontline country".
It's a bit weird that countries bordering with Russia, must take a burden - fortunately France, Denmark, Spain and Netherlands start to ramp up the equiment flow.

Hell, even Sweden understand that neutrality only will let you go for some time - people need to be reminded that certain austrian painter wanted to invade Switzerland, once he'd be done with other things on his checklist.

[Tamina]

- low production/amount of spare parts - that's why Poland was dissapointed with the speed of modernization of Leo 2 to Leo 2PL - that's the reason why we want to dismiss them and send them to Ukraine.

According to Wikipedia, the Leoprd 2 is being built since 1978. As you say, the modernization of Polands Leopard 2's stalled. So essentially, Poland wants to send Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine and recreate Turkey-Syria 2016. I feel like there is a lot of hype pushed into something that will ultimately dissapoint in all regards, makes the West look weak, and crush Ukraines morale.

[mr.WHO]

According to Wikipedia, the Leoprd 2 is being built since 1978. As you say, the modernization of Polands Leopard 2's stalled. So essentially, Poland wants to send Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine and recreate Turkey-Syria 2016. I feel like there is a lot of hype pushed into something that will ultimately dissapoint in all regards, makes the West look weak, and crush Ukraines morale.

It's really questionable if it will be repeat of Turkey-Syria.
Note that Ukraine tank force seem to fare bit better than Russian tank force, despite having the same tanks.

Plus, did people forgot that Erdogan had a military coup some years ago? Just like in all regimes, he probably don't want military to be too strong, so Turkey performance in Syria isn't good benchmark.

[Tamina]

Questionable. Erdogan doesn't give orders on the battlefield. Ukrainians may be better at handling those tanks - maybe - but the 2A4 is still a heavily outdated system. And all this hype train I am currently witnessing about this "supertank" is imo heading into a disaster.

[mr.WHO]

Questionable. Erdogan doesn't give orders on the battlefield. Ukrainians may be better at handling those tanks - maybe - but the 2A4 is still a heavily outdated system. And all this hype train I am currently witnessing about this "supertank" is imo heading into a disaster.

I agree that hype for 2A4 is definetly too big, but as I mentioned, it's not superweapon, but element of whole system - the fact that Ukraine was able to hold and even pushback Russia for over a year suggest they know how to use combined-warfare.

As for Erdogan - he might not give orders on battlefield, but purges within officer corp has as destructive effect. Any weapon is useless if people wielding it doesn't have an idea how to use it - Turkish Leopards 2 were used without infantry support, kinda like Russia was using their tanks early on.

[clakclak]

Questionable. Erdogan doesn't give orders on the battlefield. Ukrainians may be better at handling those tanks - maybe - but the 2A4 is still a heavily outdated system. And all this hype train I am currently witnessing about this "supertank" is imo heading into a disaster.

It certainly is no "Wunderwaffe" like some of the media makes it out to be, but it still comes with the Rheinmetall L44 gun. While the newer Leopard versions use a newer gun, this is the same gun used by all modern American Abrams tanks, even the latest most updated versions. Thus a lot of post soviet era ammunition is available for that gun system and even though the Leopard 2a4 is probably not able to fire all of it, as I imagine some requires computer wizardry, I'd assume that there is still ammo available with far more penetration power than whatever was used in the 70s. (Small edition here: The gun is also used by the Japanese tank fleet and the majority of South Korea''s tanks (specifically the roughly 1500 K1A1s), with only the newest South Korean tanks using a similar, yet domestically produced gun, so there is even more ammo available, especially considering South Korea's deep stockpiles.)

So the gun is still good and most likely able to destroy any current Russian tank when it manages to score hits.

Speedwise the 2a4 can go 60+ km/h, possibly even 70+ km/h on roads, this is still fast even for modern tanks.

So then there are the two things that really could be issues: The ability to detect the enemy and the armour protection.

The first can probably be mitigated to a certain degree by having the tank work with reconnaissance vehicles. The AMX 10-RC allready delivered by France could fill that role, and work in tandem with tanks. Same for certain versions of the Bradley and probably a bunch of more lightly amoured systems allready delivered.

As for the amour, I'd say herein lies the true weakness of the Leopard and all tanks really. Anti-Tank weapons these days are simply very effective. I'd assume that if the Russian can hit it (which they will) they can destroy it. The question is how much value can the tank generate for Ukraine before it is destroyed. If the West delivers 30 vehicles, probably not a lot, if they deliver 300 probably a substantial amount (I know 300 is a highly unrealistic number though).

[Falcrack]

At the very real risk of drawing the ire of CBJ, I believe banning himid from this discussion was a mistake. I may not agree with him, I believe the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was abhorrent, but it does not benefit us if we have only an echo chamber of those with whom we agree remaining to discuss these issues with.

[chew-ie]

Thought so too - but then again he was warned to not bring in propaganda. And he certainly did - and even told "us" that "we" are wrong in all we know [about russia]. No good ground for discussing eye-to-eye. Same mistake was done by others before.

[CBJ]

Let's not have a discussion of moderator actions, please. Suffice it to say that the decision wasn't taken lightly, and all the factors you mention were taken into account.

[notaterran]

“Supplies of offensive weapons to the Kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin said. “If Washington and NATO supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.”

Link

Russia must be very worried that Western tanks could alter the current balance. The Germans' hesitation about tanks must be good news for the Kremlin.

[notaterran]

It's already a mini world war.

That's what the Korean War (a.k.a. The Forgotten War) was. Perhaps the next step after sending Western tanks will be to send Western planes and long-range missiles? One year in, it's doubtful that Russia will nuke Ukraine just like they didn't nuke Afghanistan. Western nations don't want to be directly involved so it doesn't look like this will escalate to WWIII, tanks or no tanks.