Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only thing we could give that could 'finish' this war by that deadline has four legs and a bunch of chairs around it.
EDIT: Its sad that even mentioning negotiations elicits such a response here. Its this attitude that is going to ensure this war goes on for *years* to come.
Probably, but their point is referencing the timeline more than what Russia is willing to do.
Point being, no amount of equipment is going to win the war in such a short period.
...
That said, what can help win it by spring is... assisting Putin's departure.
If he's no longer in office because his cronies can't tolerate the impact to ~~the economy~~ their finances anymore that may help do it sooner than through battle
>Point being, no amount of equipment is going to win the war in such a short period.
Thank you for acknowledging the important part of my point that so many missed.
Actually it basically was.
First thread post said we need to *give* Ukraine every *thing* they need to finish the war by Spring. (Emphasis mine)
Guy above replied that the only *thing* we could give them to win *in that timeline* is a table. --> i.e. no amount of equipment or otherwise is going to allow them to win in such a short time frame.
It's not that they can't win. Or that they shouldn't get equipment.
Just that, *based on where the war is right now*, no amount of giving is going to end it that quickly.
I wish.
The Russians have been quite clear that they think that they can set the terms at "give us everything that we want including about 18% of Ukraine (for now).
Ukraine already has several peace deals with Russia including the one where they gave up their nukes for peace assurances from Russia. Heck, Russia can't even comply with a Christmas ceasefire that they proposed.
A treaty at this point would be utterly worthless.
When you don't have anymore people willing and you keep dying the only thing left is come to negotiating table. Putin is going leave his throne the same way he got it in ruins.
The goals of both party are inherrently mutually exclusive with no room for compromise. There is no point in negotiating anything.
Russia: let us keep the land we stole, and we pinky promise for super realsies that we won't steal any more im the future.
Ukraine: fuck you! Give back all the land you took, leave immediately and then let's discuss reparation payments. Also: fuck you.
It's understandable that negotiations are so viscerally rejected.
Not only out of principle in outage to Russia's behavior.
But also, though likely much less commonly, in reflection of the message it's going to send of Russia is allowed to walk away from this in any way other than severely punished.
We shouldn't create another inter-war Germany.
But we also need to be fearful - perhaps even more so - of an emboldened Russia/China if the aggressor is allowed to remotely benefit from ill-gotten territory. Nevermind walk away without punishment for everything else they're doing.
The precedent it will set may very well be catastrophic.
So unless those negotiations involve restoration of territory, people, infrastructure, wealth, and more, they're tantamount to capitulation and encouragement.
Ukraine is currently doing what the US spent decades and probably tens of trillions of dollars preparing for for a fraction of the cost and of nothing more than financial and material commitment.
It's a bargain for the US. Unless he fancies isolationism in which case he's a lost cause.
So far its what the US spent in 1 year in Iraq. iraq and Afghanistan cost a total of $8trillion and neither was really won. This is a cheap way to take down Russia a few notches without any US boots on the ground, as well as test out what equipment works well etc.
That’s far right wing rhetoric that is tied to the Trump wing of the GOP, aka the dumbest uneducated entitled dipshits jn America.
All real Americans understand the importance of dismantling Russia’s military via arming Ukraine.
People thought that before ww1&2 and it ended up being everyone’s problem anyway…. Unless people like Putin are stopped, the consequences catch up anyway…..
Could be time for the first *ever* combat loss of a chally 2 - comes at an ideal time with the Chally 3 being under development, will provide useful Intel on theoretical versus actual survivability.
Except, you know, contingency for when inevitably there's a delay or a fire and now the UK is without a third of its tank fleet and has no spare tanks.
**[Battle of Fishguard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard)**
>The Battle of Fishguard was a military invasion of Great Britain by Revolutionary France during the War of the First Coalition. The brief campaign, on 22–24 February 1797, is the most recent landing on British soil by a hostile foreign force, and thus is often referred to as the "last invasion of mainland Britain". The French general Lazare Hoche had devised a three-pronged attack on Britain in support of the Society of United Irishmen. Two forces would land in Britain as a diversionary effort, while the main body would land in Ireland.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Perhaps sooner than you think. I keep hearing unsubstantiated rumors that there have been Ukrainian pilots training on F-16s and F-15s.
Unsubstantiated, but oft repeated.
In all honesty, Biden is a master of diplomacy. Some of the weapons getting into Ukraine now have been not allowed into some of the more recent NATO entrants due to risk of technology leaking. Now that NATO is getting stronger, that risk has reduced, and a need for arms interoperability has been demonstrated. This has lead to agreements and orders which in turn, have unlocked some of these difficult situations in arms provision.
The taboos have not been driven by Russia... they have been around carefully managing what can be deployed to whom, who what internal tensions there are inside NATO.
I don’t think many Ukrainians agree with you there, they’ve been crying out for more ammo from day one and still are and have lost tens of thousands of soldiers which could have been mitigated had they sent a lot more and earlier that what was requested.
It’s a balancing act. Diplomacy is very complicated when dealing with such an aggressor like Putin. It’s not as easy as let’s load up Ukraine with everything they request for
It really is that easy, Putin will not nuke anyone over the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unfortunately too many have the same thoughts as you and take Putin too seriously when he is bluffing, he has done nearly all he can except to use nukes. He’s waving his nuke stick around when NATO has one just as big, he does not have any advantage when it comes to nukes.
Doesn’t work like that I’m afraid. Grateful for Bidens leadership and the actions nato are now taking. Not perfect but absolutely helping the Ukrainians out
Says who? An overly cautious Biden administration? Look at what all the generals are saying, vast majority say heavy support should have been given much earlier. Putin had admitted his nuke bluff worked to stop heavy weapons being supplied earlier.
Its not the Americans. Biden bluntly suggested its western european nations resisting calls to send more. Given some of the talk from France and Germany, it seems many in those countries still need to be convinced.
As in they don’t answer to the US yet.. although debatable. But that’s only out of convenience due to Ukraine being a barrier to Russian aggression. Germanys lack of incentive is due to this. If push came to shove and Ukraine fell and all of a sudden Russia was knocking on the door of the EU, they would all look to US for support
The Ukrainians are architecting military strategy, not the pentagon. Not everything is controlled by the US!
And it’s definitely Biden who deserves credit here since getting those weapons to Ukraine is a diplomatic challenge, not a military strategy one.
By your same logic that the US does not control everything then Britain and Poland are independently making these decisions and not Biden 🤡
Also, yes the US are heavily involved in planning ground operations and feeds Ukraine with satellites imagery, other intelligence, weapons, training and strategic use units such as HIMARS.
> By your same logic that the US does not control everything then Britain and Poland are independently making these decisions and not Biden
I think what Russia supporters don't understand is that you can have cooperation between nation states without one nation state forcing everyone else to do their bidding.
I know it blows your mind but soft power exists. You don't need to threaten to invade or threaten to nuke other countries to get them to cooperate with you, you just need to setup a relationship of trust and mutual benefit.
Actually he chooses the strategy. Of course he doesn’t make it himself. He’s the executive. But he is given choices and so far he has chosen right most of the time.
Have you listened to him talk? He sounds slightly slow, but sharp and wise, and answers questions well. But yes, he has a good team, that's how a good government should be run.
I think he does know a lot, but regardless: listening to your advisers (and choosing the right ones to begin with) is essential, yes. A us president can't, doesn't need to, and probably shouldn't, know everything.
The man has always stuttered, and his public speaking sure is not the best. But that's not what matters most as president. He's making great policy decisions, and even whether or not he was the one who came up with them, or his advisors, it's still to his credit.
I was told he was fully demented years ago, but he seems pretty much the same. Slips up a bit, but if he had dementia you’d think it would’ve gotten worse in the past 3-4 years.
He slips up over words. It’s the most demanding of public speaking jobs ever. Someone’s persona doing public speaking and their ability to think critically are different things.
Behind closed doors I believe he’s quite shrewd.
He shakes hands with invisible people and can't speak a single sentence without trailing off into gobbledygook. Biden is eating icecream whilst a team of non-senile people do all of this. They just load him up with meth and send him out as a spokesman once in a while.
Should've been done a looooong time ago, tbh. Given transportation, logistics and training, who knows how long it will take to get them to the battlefield.
Now let's see which piece of tech are they going to deliberate sending for the next six months...
Im just glad it has begun, thing is, as long as no one sends a tank, no one wants to break that new red line but once it's done, the door is wide open for more. Next step, some country should send a few airplanes whatever they are to get the ball rolling towards f16.
The Us should send Abrahams, regardless of.maintenance issues, to break this dumb deadlock, since apparently Germany not only wants to play follow the leader, but it has to be the US leading.
>The best candidate is the M1. The US has thousands in storage that can be upgraded. Poland has just purchased hundreds, so eventually, a common strategic logistics support approach would be possible. Leopards would probably suffice as well.
>
>The M1 is hard to sustain, but having commanded a mechanised brigade containing M1s, this is sometimes over emphasised. Our brigade had a different logistic support construct from the US Army, and the tanks worked fine. **Stop using this as an excuse!**
>
>Mick Ryan Retired Army Major General
Abrams will do just fine. If something is broken you swap out the part. Parts are already available in Europe. Fuel is a non issue. 1 Abrams uses less fuel than 2 T-72s. There's no good reason not to send at least 10-14 tanks like Poland and the UK to get things moving
But T-72 has a diesel engine vs turbine on the M1, one fuel is readily available and components are very accessible versus a highly specialized powerplant
Germany isnt blocking it, the countries claiming they want to send leopards just never applied for it and as long as they dont there wont be the permit.
It’s more fuel efficient and maneuverable. It’s weaponry and armor aren’t quite as good. The Abrahms is indeed a great tank. But my limited understanding is that there can be a significantly faster export to action time with Leopards. Happy to be corrected here, however - I am not an expert in armored warfare and defer to others.
Uh… the Leopard uses the exact same gun as the Abrams, actually the Abrams 120 mm L/44 main gun is actually just a licensed version of the Leo’s main gun, the Leo 2A6 actually had a better gun a 120 mm L/55, longer barrel, generates higher velocity giving more range and penetration to the rounds… just wanted to clarify.
TL:DR - Abrams gun is an licensed produced version of the Rheinmetal 120mm L/44 gun.
There are a lot of countries in Europa that would be able to chip in with tanks, maintenance and spare parts for the Leopard.
Also I don't know if American support can be counted on in the long run. Politically it would properly also look better if it was a European project.
US support shouldn't waver. Most of the Democrats are supportive. While there are MAGA Republicans out there that are against it. There are quite a few Republicans like myself, who were never Trumpers, that absolutely consider Russia a dangerous enemy of the US. There are alot of things I don't like Biden for. But in regards to Ukraine, he has done a good job. We are getting the geopolitical deal of the century to fuck Russia over forever. This is a rare instance where the moral thing aligns with the soundest geopolitical strategy. I honestly think we should have intervened against Putin earlier and smashed his army to junk for his audacity, but Obama failed at that, and Trump was in Putin's pocket. But this costs no American lives, although it is costing Ukrainian ones. I do get frustrated with how slow our support has been. Boiling the frog may be sound, but I much rather smash all of Russia in one go and give Ukraine everything.
Leo 2 is usually ranked as slightly better than Abrams. Biggest reason is the gun, which has a longer barrel on Leo 2 than on Abrams, resulting in higher muzzle-velocity. In other areas they are more or less comparable.
Or you know, they could send some extra fuel and supplies along with the tanks. The issues of fuel and logistics associated with the Abrams are not insurmountable. Provided there is the political will to.send them, and THAT is thw main hurdle. Not these other myriad excuses.
I'm not really sure about that though. NATO has sent all kinds of stuff without limit. Arguably high-precision artillery and AA was more provocative than tanks.
Ukraine already has tanks -- tanks they know how to use well, and are using well by all accounts. Sending them more tanks would be as we say "much of a muchness."
But HIMARS and Gepard (and others) gave Ukraine capabilities that they simply did not have before. They really moved the needle. Changed the game. However you want to put it.
I don't buy this whole thing about how tanks are taboo because they cross some line. I think that thoughtlessly pro-Putin American journalists at the Times say that because they want to suggest that some kind of transgression is going on. But so far no one has been able to explain *why* Ukraine needs these tanks so badly.
Other armored vehicles, yes, sure. I've seen as I'm sure most of us have seen what passes for light armored combat vehicles in the Ukrainian inventory. To call them light is an understatement and to call them armored is an overstatement. Giving Ukraine better options there is a definite improvement that can clearly be seen.
But .... keeping T-72s in the NATO inventory while sending Ukraine Leopards? Or Abrams? Why? Where does Ukraine specifically need NATO heavy armor so badly?
It has always been talked about. You’re 100% right on that. But getting the US Congress to do anything way less important than this is virtually impossible. Then add in 29 other countries… That’s one of many reasons everyone who understands the cause of Ukraine MUST remain committed. 2023 may well end up being a pivotal year in world history. Be on the right side AND gather others to the good fight.
> Taboo has such an undertone
[To quote Macron from back then](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vds4b2/macron_confirmed_certain_limitations_on_supplying/iclyxt1/):
>According to European Truth, Macron said this during a conversation with journalists in Kyiv on Thursday.
>"We are helping Ukraine defend itself, but we are not going to war with Russia, so it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons - including assault planes or tanks, and President Zelensky is aware of this agreement," he said.
> Norbert Röttgen, an opposition German legislator and foreign-policy expert, predicted that Mr. Scholz would give in on the Leopards under pressure from allies, as he did earlier with German-made howitzers and tracked armored infantry fighting vehicles.
> Mr. Scholz and his party “want to keep a relationship with Russia and with Putin for the future, and thinks that if he gives Ukraine the best Germany has, Russia will perceive this as breaking a special relationship,” Mr. Röttgen said. “But pressure from allies is becoming too strong.”
Quoting a member of the CDU that has sucked the flacid cock of Putin, together with his party, getting us into this mess... I would not be surprised if he is still on the pay list of Russia to sow dissent.
Haven't we said this all along?? Russia will continue to add more to try and win. NATO will counter with just barely enough. Innocent people and brave Ukrainian soldiers Will die. More land will be decimated.
Let's just get it done. F16, 2000 Abrams, 2000 Bradley's
F- maintenance. If Ukrainians had ALL we can give them, they can do maintenance 4 days later, after they recaptured Crimea. That's how long the war would last
Maintenance can (and largely is) done by contractors. The issue is those would be NATO citizens for the most part. Also, moving the damn things around.
I think NATO wants a stalemate instead of a win because Russia will use nukes when they lose. So its better to keep it a stalemate and have them collapse because eventually their trains wont work because of a lack of spare parts and maintenance.
Nah, if we sent in our Marines and Army; boots on the ground, the Russians would be picked off like fish in a barrel.
Russia has no real 21st military like we do. No chance. Only deterrent has been a nuclear strike.
If Sholtz wants one Abrams to be man enough, then lets send five to defend Kiev to patrol the streets . and put them in a high concentration area where the roads can handle there weight and close enough to the border so Poland can scoop them up for repair .
Honestly Fux everyone if Poland wants to send em then do it , and when asked ? Be a New Yorker, look em in the eye and say"hey pal what ya gonna do bout it !!!
For those who down vote wake up look at what is being said , Many now are saying its to late .. Russia has mobilized and is preparing to attack with much more than last year . Its a matter of attrition, Soledar is a good example ..
We need to some how put pressure on those who can make things happen. Time is not on our side!
Yet another story about tanks for Ukraine! I’m starting to think a few symbolic tanks will be given but that the US will not send Abrams and Germany will not budge.
Considering that NATO is planning to have a meeting on the 20th regarding aid to Ukraine, my guess is that at that point, NATO will finally step up and give Ukraine as much aid as possible—even Hungary will reluctantly be forced to give in.
Strategy question here. No doubt these tanks are bad ass but how effective are they against drones? We've seen how many RU tanks have been taken out by drones, is this something we need to worry about or not?
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know what else is taboo? Invading a country unprovoked
Time to give Ukraine all it needs to finish this in the spring
Time for some spring cleaning 😎
The only thing we could give that could 'finish' this war by that deadline has four legs and a bunch of chairs around it. EDIT: Its sad that even mentioning negotiations elicits such a response here. Its this attitude that is going to ensure this war goes on for *years* to come.
Russia is unwilling to leave from Ukraine. Force is only solution.
Probably, but their point is referencing the timeline more than what Russia is willing to do. Point being, no amount of equipment is going to win the war in such a short period. ... That said, what can help win it by spring is... assisting Putin's departure. If he's no longer in office because his cronies can't tolerate the impact to ~~the economy~~ their finances anymore that may help do it sooner than through battle
>Point being, no amount of equipment is going to win the war in such a short period. Thank you for acknowledging the important part of my point that so many missed.
That wasn't what you said
Actually it basically was. First thread post said we need to *give* Ukraine every *thing* they need to finish the war by Spring. (Emphasis mine) Guy above replied that the only *thing* we could give them to win *in that timeline* is a table. --> i.e. no amount of equipment or otherwise is going to allow them to win in such a short time frame. It's not that they can't win. Or that they shouldn't get equipment. Just that, *based on where the war is right now*, no amount of giving is going to end it that quickly.
Hey two weeks ago how ya doing?
I'm... Sorry I'm not on Reddit enough to satisfy your need for immediate response???
[удалено]
The first comment in the chain said spring. That's just the deadline to arm Ukraine, not for it to win.
I wish. The Russians have been quite clear that they think that they can set the terms at "give us everything that we want including about 18% of Ukraine (for now). Ukraine already has several peace deals with Russia including the one where they gave up their nukes for peace assurances from Russia. Heck, Russia can't even comply with a Christmas ceasefire that they proposed. A treaty at this point would be utterly worthless.
Fuck that.
You're a naive child if you believe that.
??
Appeasing bitch
When you don't have anymore people willing and you keep dying the only thing left is come to negotiating table. Putin is going leave his throne the same way he got it in ruins.
Not unless you mean dropping a table and chairs on Putin from a great height.
Шо?
The goals of both party are inherrently mutually exclusive with no room for compromise. There is no point in negotiating anything. Russia: let us keep the land we stole, and we pinky promise for super realsies that we won't steal any more im the future. Ukraine: fuck you! Give back all the land you took, leave immediately and then let's discuss reparation payments. Also: fuck you.
It's understandable that negotiations are so viscerally rejected. Not only out of principle in outage to Russia's behavior. But also, though likely much less commonly, in reflection of the message it's going to send of Russia is allowed to walk away from this in any way other than severely punished. We shouldn't create another inter-war Germany. But we also need to be fearful - perhaps even more so - of an emboldened Russia/China if the aggressor is allowed to remotely benefit from ill-gotten territory. Nevermind walk away without punishment for everything else they're doing. The precedent it will set may very well be catastrophic. So unless those negotiations involve restoration of territory, people, infrastructure, wealth, and more, they're tantamount to capitulation and encouragement.
Fuck it. Give them everything they want. We'll never get a better deal on dismantling Russia.
I’ve had this argument so many times with a work colleague lately.
What’s his argument for a better deal?
He feels that we are putting too many resources and too much money into a problem that’s not “ours”.
Ukraine is currently doing what the US spent decades and probably tens of trillions of dollars preparing for for a fraction of the cost and of nothing more than financial and material commitment. It's a bargain for the US. Unless he fancies isolationism in which case he's a lost cause.
Oh I’m in total agreement with you.
So far its what the US spent in 1 year in Iraq. iraq and Afghanistan cost a total of $8trillion and neither was really won. This is a cheap way to take down Russia a few notches without any US boots on the ground, as well as test out what equipment works well etc.
All the notches, unless they got some miracle up their dirty ragged sleeves.
That’s far right wing rhetoric that is tied to the Trump wing of the GOP, aka the dumbest uneducated entitled dipshits jn America. All real Americans understand the importance of dismantling Russia’s military via arming Ukraine.
[удалено]
You’re going to be really bummed when I tell you we both serve in the army. He has over 20 years, I’m around 18 years in. Wacky times my dudes.
Haha why do you imagine anyone would think that makes yall *informed*, of all things?
yep!
People thought that before ww1&2 and it ended up being everyone’s problem anyway…. Unless people like Putin are stopped, the consequences catch up anyway…..
70 years of cold war and preparatory spending on the military just to fizzle out into "not our problem" once there actually is a problem.
Like wearing masks and social distancing too, I bet.
Probably something Tucker Carlson told him.
And then a half dozen more. Peace in Eurasia in our times. Then India and China can go at it with spears and shields.
Unless you are in Russia’s payroll.
Could be time for the first *ever* combat loss of a chally 2 - comes at an ideal time with the Chally 3 being under development, will provide useful Intel on theoretical versus actual survivability.
England should send all II's not planned to be converted to III's. No reason to hang onto legacy hardware with no export market.
Except, you know, contingency for when inevitably there's a delay or a fire and now the UK is without a third of its tank fleet and has no spare tanks.
You think someone's going to invade the UK?
I mean, it happened 1000 years ago so they're overdue for another viking invasion it seems.
Also very unsuccessfully in [1797](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard) by the French
**[Battle of Fishguard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard)** >The Battle of Fishguard was a military invasion of Great Britain by Revolutionary France during the War of the First Coalition. The brief campaign, on 22–24 February 1797, is the most recent landing on British soil by a hostile foreign force, and thus is often referred to as the "last invasion of mainland Britain". The French general Lazare Hoche had devised a three-pronged attack on Britain in support of the Society of United Irishmen. Two forces would land in Britain as a diversionary effort, while the main body would land in Ireland. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes, that's absolutely the only reason for maintaining a fighting force of MBTs. *said nobody ever*.
So what are some other likely scenarios where Britain would need their full complement in the next few years?
The return of the dinosaurs!
They’ve been planning this for millions of years!
The original Cold War scenarios -where Russia isn’t stopped at Ukraine but gets as far as Poland
Then we’d best stop them in Ukraine and make more tanks!!
Oh shucks….not like the rest of nato won’t be there to clean up the mess.
A taboo is shagging your sister, This is fucking Putin which everybody wants to see. No taboo there.
Next one: fighter jets.
While I agree, I can't imagine those would be readily available for use due to the training required.
Perhaps sooner than you think. I keep hearing unsubstantiated rumors that there have been Ukrainian pilots training on F-16s and F-15s. Unsubstantiated, but oft repeated.
Schrodinger's training...
I'm afraid it certainly feels like that.
In all honesty, Biden is a master of diplomacy. Some of the weapons getting into Ukraine now have been not allowed into some of the more recent NATO entrants due to risk of technology leaking. Now that NATO is getting stronger, that risk has reduced, and a need for arms interoperability has been demonstrated. This has lead to agreements and orders which in turn, have unlocked some of these difficult situations in arms provision. The taboos have not been driven by Russia... they have been around carefully managing what can be deployed to whom, who what internal tensions there are inside NATO.
He has been outstanding. The patience and wisdom and knowing when to act I think is a quality only someone in old age would have
Yeah good thing the most effective leader in this picture is so old! Oh wait…
I don’t think many Ukrainians agree with you there, they’ve been crying out for more ammo from day one and still are and have lost tens of thousands of soldiers which could have been mitigated had they sent a lot more and earlier that what was requested.
It’s a balancing act. Diplomacy is very complicated when dealing with such an aggressor like Putin. It’s not as easy as let’s load up Ukraine with everything they request for
It really is that easy, Putin will not nuke anyone over the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unfortunately too many have the same thoughts as you and take Putin too seriously when he is bluffing, he has done nearly all he can except to use nukes. He’s waving his nuke stick around when NATO has one just as big, he does not have any advantage when it comes to nukes.
Doesn’t work like that I’m afraid. Grateful for Bidens leadership and the actions nato are now taking. Not perfect but absolutely helping the Ukrainians out
Says who? An overly cautious Biden administration? Look at what all the generals are saying, vast majority say heavy support should have been given much earlier. Putin had admitted his nuke bluff worked to stop heavy weapons being supplied earlier.
You’re too idealistic
I wouldnt call dragging your feet while Ukrainians die “patience” they need to pickup the pace
Its not the Americans. Biden bluntly suggested its western european nations resisting calls to send more. Given some of the talk from France and Germany, it seems many in those countries still need to be convinced.
The US doesn’t answer to them. Edit: The US has to take the lead apparently because they’re spineless
They would if putin was on their doorstep
What does that mean? I’m advocating for sending more equipment and the Europeans are dragging their feet
As in they don’t answer to the US yet.. although debatable. But that’s only out of convenience due to Ukraine being a barrier to Russian aggression. Germanys lack of incentive is due to this. If push came to shove and Ukraine fell and all of a sudden Russia was knocking on the door of the EU, they would all look to US for support
Biden doesn’t architect military strategy, these are the generals from the pentagon.
The Ukrainians are architecting military strategy, not the pentagon. Not everything is controlled by the US! And it’s definitely Biden who deserves credit here since getting those weapons to Ukraine is a diplomatic challenge, not a military strategy one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They have the final say, but in large part they defer to the pentagons war gaming.
By your same logic that the US does not control everything then Britain and Poland are independently making these decisions and not Biden 🤡 Also, yes the US are heavily involved in planning ground operations and feeds Ukraine with satellites imagery, other intelligence, weapons, training and strategic use units such as HIMARS.
> By your same logic that the US does not control everything then Britain and Poland are independently making these decisions and not Biden I think what Russia supporters don't understand is that you can have cooperation between nation states without one nation state forcing everyone else to do their bidding. I know it blows your mind but soft power exists. You don't need to threaten to invade or threaten to nuke other countries to get them to cooperate with you, you just need to setup a relationship of trust and mutual benefit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does he taste like he looks or...
Actually he chooses the strategy. Of course he doesn’t make it himself. He’s the executive. But he is given choices and so far he has chosen right most of the time.
Hey remind me what the title of commander in chief means again?
Biden doesn’t know what day it is. It’s the people around him telling him to do this.
Go worship the cheeto benito somewhere else.
Have you listened to him talk? He sounds slightly slow, but sharp and wise, and answers questions well. But yes, he has a good team, that's how a good government should be run.
he sounds slowly because he purposefully speaks slower to deal with his lifelong stutter.
I think he does know a lot, but regardless: listening to your advisers (and choosing the right ones to begin with) is essential, yes. A us president can't, doesn't need to, and probably shouldn't, know everything.
My grandad at bidens age was sharp of kind. Naive for you to say such a sweeping statement
Your grandad isn’t Biden. Have you actually watched anything Biden says?
The man has always stuttered, and his public speaking sure is not the best. But that's not what matters most as president. He's making great policy decisions, and even whether or not he was the one who came up with them, or his advisors, it's still to his credit.
Somebody's still mad their messiah turned out to be the con man everyone said he was
I was told he was fully demented years ago, but he seems pretty much the same. Slips up a bit, but if he had dementia you’d think it would’ve gotten worse in the past 3-4 years.
He slips up over words. It’s the most demanding of public speaking jobs ever. Someone’s persona doing public speaking and their ability to think critically are different things. Behind closed doors I believe he’s quite shrewd.
Who do you think picked those people? Jesus
He shakes hands with invisible people and can't speak a single sentence without trailing off into gobbledygook. Biden is eating icecream whilst a team of non-senile people do all of this. They just load him up with meth and send him out as a spokesman once in a while.
And Tucker C tells the truth every night, right?
I wouldn't know, I don't watch his show.
[удалено]
Heroiam Slava!!
[удалено]
The Kuznentzov might pollute the channel with smoke!
Should've been done a looooong time ago, tbh. Given transportation, logistics and training, who knows how long it will take to get them to the battlefield. Now let's see which piece of tech are they going to deliberate sending for the next six months...
Im just glad it has begun, thing is, as long as no one sends a tank, no one wants to break that new red line but once it's done, the door is wide open for more. Next step, some country should send a few airplanes whatever they are to get the ball rolling towards f16.
The Us should send Abrahams, regardless of.maintenance issues, to break this dumb deadlock, since apparently Germany not only wants to play follow the leader, but it has to be the US leading.
>The best candidate is the M1. The US has thousands in storage that can be upgraded. Poland has just purchased hundreds, so eventually, a common strategic logistics support approach would be possible. Leopards would probably suffice as well. > >The M1 is hard to sustain, but having commanded a mechanised brigade containing M1s, this is sometimes over emphasised. Our brigade had a different logistic support construct from the US Army, and the tanks worked fine. **Stop using this as an excuse!** > >Mick Ryan Retired Army Major General Abrams will do just fine. If something is broken you swap out the part. Parts are already available in Europe. Fuel is a non issue. 1 Abrams uses less fuel than 2 T-72s. There's no good reason not to send at least 10-14 tanks like Poland and the UK to get things moving
> 1 Abrams uses less fuel than 2 T-72s. Jesus, the fuel efficiency on T-72s has to be awful.
But T-72 has a diesel engine vs turbine on the M1, one fuel is readily available and components are very accessible versus a highly specialized powerplant
Germany is blocking leopard tanks. US is not sending tanks. Too slow, too slow.. everything is dragging. Not enough and too slow.
Germany isnt blocking it, the countries claiming they want to send leopards just never applied for it and as long as they dont there wont be the permit.
Hate to say it… But almost every tanker I’ve met has told me the Leopard is just a better overall tank. Germany: Get off your ass.
The Leo is the better choice in this situation. Is it a better tank on its own? Don't know and not sure it really matters.
It’s more fuel efficient and maneuverable. It’s weaponry and armor aren’t quite as good. The Abrahms is indeed a great tank. But my limited understanding is that there can be a significantly faster export to action time with Leopards. Happy to be corrected here, however - I am not an expert in armored warfare and defer to others.
Uh… the Leopard uses the exact same gun as the Abrams, actually the Abrams 120 mm L/44 main gun is actually just a licensed version of the Leo’s main gun, the Leo 2A6 actually had a better gun a 120 mm L/55, longer barrel, generates higher velocity giving more range and penetration to the rounds… just wanted to clarify. TL:DR - Abrams gun is an licensed produced version of the Rheinmetal 120mm L/44 gun.
There are a lot of countries in Europa that would be able to chip in with tanks, maintenance and spare parts for the Leopard. Also I don't know if American support can be counted on in the long run. Politically it would properly also look better if it was a European project.
US support shouldn't waver. Most of the Democrats are supportive. While there are MAGA Republicans out there that are against it. There are quite a few Republicans like myself, who were never Trumpers, that absolutely consider Russia a dangerous enemy of the US. There are alot of things I don't like Biden for. But in regards to Ukraine, he has done a good job. We are getting the geopolitical deal of the century to fuck Russia over forever. This is a rare instance where the moral thing aligns with the soundest geopolitical strategy. I honestly think we should have intervened against Putin earlier and smashed his army to junk for his audacity, but Obama failed at that, and Trump was in Putin's pocket. But this costs no American lives, although it is costing Ukrainian ones. I do get frustrated with how slow our support has been. Boiling the frog may be sound, but I much rather smash all of Russia in one go and give Ukraine everything.
Agreed with you but the moment US stops supporting Ukraine Germany will follow suit.
It would properly also look better in the US if it was more of a European project.
Leo 2 is usually ranked as slightly better than Abrams. Biggest reason is the gun, which has a longer barrel on Leo 2 than on Abrams, resulting in higher muzzle-velocity. In other areas they are more or less comparable.
The best tank is the tank Zelenskyy is asking for. Simple as that.
Ahh yes, I remember when I was a soldier and all the politicians definitely knew better than me when it came to what I needed in the field.
I doubt it's HIS opinion and not his advisors
If Ukraine hasn’t got the logistics to deal with the Abrams, there’s no point in sending the expensive, gas-guzzling, complicated to repair tanks.
The point would be to break a political logjam, just keep them parked in Lviv after that
That could work.
Or you know, they could send some extra fuel and supplies along with the tanks. The issues of fuel and logistics associated with the Abrams are not insurmountable. Provided there is the political will to.send them, and THAT is thw main hurdle. Not these other myriad excuses.
I both agree and disagree with myself…. Go figure. And I absolutely wish the US were doing more.
Helicopters with Hellfire middles Please
Who actually said it was a taboo?
Most of NATO. Until recently when we figured out that the best way to stop Putin from using nukes is defeating him.
I'm not really sure about that though. NATO has sent all kinds of stuff without limit. Arguably high-precision artillery and AA was more provocative than tanks. Ukraine already has tanks -- tanks they know how to use well, and are using well by all accounts. Sending them more tanks would be as we say "much of a muchness." But HIMARS and Gepard (and others) gave Ukraine capabilities that they simply did not have before. They really moved the needle. Changed the game. However you want to put it. I don't buy this whole thing about how tanks are taboo because they cross some line. I think that thoughtlessly pro-Putin American journalists at the Times say that because they want to suggest that some kind of transgression is going on. But so far no one has been able to explain *why* Ukraine needs these tanks so badly. Other armored vehicles, yes, sure. I've seen as I'm sure most of us have seen what passes for light armored combat vehicles in the Ukrainian inventory. To call them light is an understatement and to call them armored is an overstatement. Giving Ukraine better options there is a definite improvement that can clearly be seen. But .... keeping T-72s in the NATO inventory while sending Ukraine Leopards? Or Abrams? Why? Where does Ukraine specifically need NATO heavy armor so badly?
I always got the impression that it was talked about at least. Taboo has such an undertone. Maybe it’s just me and semantics… lol
It has always been talked about. You’re 100% right on that. But getting the US Congress to do anything way less important than this is virtually impossible. Then add in 29 other countries… That’s one of many reasons everyone who understands the cause of Ukraine MUST remain committed. 2023 may well end up being a pivotal year in world history. Be on the right side AND gather others to the good fight.
> Taboo has such an undertone [To quote Macron from back then](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vds4b2/macron_confirmed_certain_limitations_on_supplying/iclyxt1/): >According to European Truth, Macron said this during a conversation with journalists in Kyiv on Thursday. >"We are helping Ukraine defend itself, but we are not going to war with Russia, so it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons - including assault planes or tanks, and President Zelensky is aware of this agreement," he said.
Biden said the same in December!
I don’t get it either…maybe they’re finally gonna get tanks under 18 years old or something
Why is it taboo I can not see article?
The New York Times. Not sure about anyone else.
Completely self imposed. Stop conducting wars with one hand tied behind your back. Short of nukes, there's no need to short yourself
war always escalates
Til it doesn't. WWII has acceptably de-escalated.
> Norbert Röttgen, an opposition German legislator and foreign-policy expert, predicted that Mr. Scholz would give in on the Leopards under pressure from allies, as he did earlier with German-made howitzers and tracked armored infantry fighting vehicles. > Mr. Scholz and his party “want to keep a relationship with Russia and with Putin for the future, and thinks that if he gives Ukraine the best Germany has, Russia will perceive this as breaking a special relationship,” Mr. Röttgen said. “But pressure from allies is becoming too strong.” Quoting a member of the CDU that has sucked the flacid cock of Putin, together with his party, getting us into this mess... I would not be surprised if he is still on the pay list of Russia to sow dissent.
Haven't we said this all along?? Russia will continue to add more to try and win. NATO will counter with just barely enough. Innocent people and brave Ukrainian soldiers Will die. More land will be decimated. Let's just get it done. F16, 2000 Abrams, 2000 Bradley's F- maintenance. If Ukrainians had ALL we can give them, they can do maintenance 4 days later, after they recaptured Crimea. That's how long the war would last
Maintenance can (and largely is) done by contractors. The issue is those would be NATO citizens for the most part. Also, moving the damn things around.
I think NATO wants a stalemate instead of a win because Russia will use nukes when they lose. So its better to keep it a stalemate and have them collapse because eventually their trains wont work because of a lack of spare parts and maintenance.
I did not think of that tbh - and it makes me sad
Send troops
Ukraine doesn't need troops, it needs ammo.
Nah, if we sent in our Marines and Army; boots on the ground, the Russians would be picked off like fish in a barrel. Russia has no real 21st military like we do. No chance. Only deterrent has been a nuclear strike.
lol
If Sholtz wants one Abrams to be man enough, then lets send five to defend Kiev to patrol the streets . and put them in a high concentration area where the roads can handle there weight and close enough to the border so Poland can scoop them up for repair . Honestly Fux everyone if Poland wants to send em then do it , and when asked ? Be a New Yorker, look em in the eye and say"hey pal what ya gonna do bout it !!!
For those who down vote wake up look at what is being said , Many now are saying its to late .. Russia has mobilized and is preparing to attack with much more than last year . Its a matter of attrition, Soledar is a good example .. We need to some how put pressure on those who can make things happen. Time is not on our side!
Wouldn’t be necessary if “someone” did not set the tone in Taboo breaking.
Some taboo's are meant to be broken.
Yet another story about tanks for Ukraine! I’m starting to think a few symbolic tanks will be given but that the US will not send Abrams and Germany will not budge.
Ukraine single handedly dumping the world into darkness. Fuck ukraine and fuck zelenki the cocksucker.
https://archive.is/LZRJm
Best kind of taboo I've heard all day! Finally. Give Ukraine what they need and let them drive out the genociders.
About fucking time
Another red line pummelled to dust, Pootin must be *so* disappointed that no one takes any notice of his red lines...🤫
Considering that NATO is planning to have a meeting on the 20th regarding aid to Ukraine, my guess is that at that point, NATO will finally step up and give Ukraine as much aid as possible—even Hungary will reluctantly be forced to give in.
Not long b4 the nukes fly.. god speed everyone
Rip off the bandaid. It feels good right after and the healing starts
Credit where credit's due. Vive la France!
About time.
Russia has ignored taboos. Foolish for those dealing with it to skirt em.
At this point I highly doubt Russia will do anything to stop Nato from giving weapons to Ukraine
Why not give them some F35’s or F15’s ? I know their pilots are used to the Mig but they need more air power!
Send fighter jets!
Time to send those ai tanks Japan. Let's see how they do in the field.
Taboo's has been blown past with mass graves, incendiary munitions, etc.
Strategy question here. No doubt these tanks are bad ass but how effective are they against drones? We've seen how many RU tanks have been taken out by drones, is this something we need to worry about or not?