[BostonCard]

Lol, war crimes apparently happened spontaneously.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1573891069648961537?s=21&t=SICawXLjNtNStJPaeIMYEA[/tweet]

We really need to get rid of the passive voice as a cop out for assigning responsibility.  The Russian army committed war crimes in Ukraine.

BC

[BostonCard]

Lol, war crimes apparently happened spontaneously.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1573891069648961537?s=21&t=SICawXLjNtNStJPaeIMYEA[/tweet]

We really need to get rid of the passive voice as a cop out for assigning responsibility.  The Russian army committed war crimes in Ukraine.

BC

[TrumpCard]

The problem has little to do with passive voice and lots to do with the UNHCR. It’s members include many of the worst violators of human rights, such as Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The UNHRC has been a joke at least for my entire adult life, which is a long time.

[TrumpCard]

The problem has little to do with passive voice and lots to do with the UNHCR. It’s members include many of the worst violators of human rights, such as Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The UNHRC has been a joke at least for my entire adult life, which is a long time.

[Mick]

We really need to get rid of the passive voice as a cop out for assigning responsibility.  The Russian army committed war crimes in Ukraine.

BC

"I'm so sorry you feel that way."  All time cop out line.  Actually watched someone -- who had failed egregiously in executing a basic duty -- use that on Mrs. Mick. who went full, unrestrained Karen on her.  Quite a sight...

[Mick]

We really need to get rid of the passive voice as a cop out for assigning responsibility.  The Russian army committed war crimes in Ukraine.

BC

"I'm so sorry you feel that way."  All time cop out line.  Actually watched someone -- who had failed egregiously in executing a basic duty -- use that on Mrs. Mick. who went full, unrestrained Karen on her.  Quite a sight...

[BostonCard]

The problem has little to do with passive voice and lots to do with the UNHCR. It’s members include many of the worst violators of human rights, such as Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The UNHRC has been a joke at least for my entire adult life, which is a long time.

There are plenty of examples outside UNHCR.  For example, here’s the chairman of the FAA saying “mistakes were made” in the context of the 737 Max.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/faa-chie...7-max.html

Good follow-up question… “What mistakes were made and who made them?”

BC

[BostonCard]

The problem has little to do with passive voice and lots to do with the UNHCR. It’s members include many of the worst violators of human rights, such as Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The UNHRC has been a joke at least for my entire adult life, which is a long time.

There are plenty of examples outside UNHCR.  For example, here’s the chairman of the FAA saying “mistakes were made” in the context of the 737 Max.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/faa-chie...7-max.html

Good follow-up question… “What mistakes were made and who made them?”

BC

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1574098446226800643?s=20&t=d4yhSmYuo4AC67-Aba8ilg[/tweet]

Very good thread on some downstream effects of mobilization on the Russian economy.

Russian economy has weathered the sanctions ok so far, just 10% contraction. But this will be another level of disruption. Seems this will difficult to sustain for too long, especially because mobilization will only continue to feed men to the meat grinder as the situation worsens for Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1574098446226800643?s=20&t=d4yhSmYuo4AC67-Aba8ilg[/tweet]

Very good thread on some downstream effects of mobilization on the Russian economy.

Russian economy has weathered the sanctions ok so far, just 10% contraction. But this will be another level of disruption. Seems this will difficult to sustain for too long, especially because mobilization will only continue to feed men to the meat grinder as the situation worsens for Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

[Goose]

Russian economy has weathered the sanctions ok so far, just 10% contraction. But this will be another level of disruption. Seems this will difficult to sustain for too long, especially because mobilization will only continue to feed men to the meat grinder as the situation worsens for Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

I am not sure I would call a 10% contraction an OK weathering :-). Certainly such a contraction in the US would not be viewed as such, but then again, Russians have different standards. That said, it is not by any means a given that the situation will continue to decay for Russian troops in Ukraine. There are lots of reasons to think it will.

However, the arrival of winter may give the Russians a "breathing space" to reorganize. I am sure Ukraine is going to do all they can to prevent that, but it isn't for sure they will succeed. I am sure that Ukraine right now sees they have a relative advantage and would like to exploit it and end this war NOW. OTOH they know their advantage is a slim one and they could blow it by getting too many troops killed trying. The "wild card" is how well Ukraine the country will make it through winter. Their economy has contracted considerably. They are suffering 30% inflation and a similar percentage drop in GDP. Before all that, they were the poorest country in Europe (per capita). This "battle front" may come much more to the fore during the winter. Lets hope the EU and the US will remember what is at stake and not let this get out of hand.

Putin et al undoubtedly are trying to get through the winter and start next spring with a renewed military and a renewed competitive advantage. Obviously, that isn't going to be easy, especially in light of their past performance. However, it isn't impossible. Ukraine and the west needs to continue improving and training the Ukrainian forces to give them an even greater edge over Russia. This is clearly possible, we just have to do it :-).

[Goose]

Russian economy has weathered the sanctions ok so far, just 10% contraction. But this will be another level of disruption. Seems this will difficult to sustain for too long, especially because mobilization will only continue to feed men to the meat grinder as the situation worsens for Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

I am not sure I would call a 10% contraction an OK weathering :-). Certainly such a contraction in the US would not be viewed as such, but then again, Russians have different standards. That said, it is not by any means a given that the situation will continue to decay for Russian troops in Ukraine. There are lots of reasons to think it will.

However, the arrival of winter may give the Russians a "breathing space" to reorganize. I am sure Ukraine is going to do all they can to prevent that, but it isn't for sure they will succeed. I am sure that Ukraine right now sees they have a relative advantage and would like to exploit it and end this war NOW. OTOH they know their advantage is a slim one and they could blow it by getting too many troops killed trying. The "wild card" is how well Ukraine the country will make it through winter. Their economy has contracted considerably. They are suffering 30% inflation and a similar percentage drop in GDP. Before all that, they were the poorest country in Europe (per capita). This "battle front" may come much more to the fore during the winter. Lets hope the EU and the US will remember what is at stake and not let this get out of hand.

Putin et al undoubtedly are trying to get through the winter and start next spring with a renewed military and a renewed competitive advantage. Obviously, that isn't going to be easy, especially in light of their past performance. However, it isn't impossible. Ukraine and the west needs to continue improving and training the Ukrainian forces to give them an even greater edge over Russia. This is clearly possible, we just have to do it :-).

[TrumpCard]

FWIW, this is an attempt to answer the question I posed a few days ago about the strategic value of recapturing Lyman. 

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1574107336460931072

[TrumpCard]

FWIW, this is an attempt to answer the question I posed a few days ago about the strategic value of recapturing Lyman. 

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1574107336460931072

[Treefence]

Starting to get Kharkiv 2.0 vibes, as Ukrainians have pushed deep into Russian occupied territory north of Lyman.  Russian sources admitted the whole line could collapse.  Hopefully Ukraine continues to have success.

[Treefence]

Starting to get Kharkiv 2.0 vibes, as Ukrainians have pushed deep into Russian occupied territory north of Lyman.  Russian sources admitted the whole line could collapse.  Hopefully Ukraine continues to have success.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-recei...45509.html

So, Ukraine finally get one NASAMS system. It would be real interesting to find out where it came from and why it took so long to get it. It is not publicly known what Ukraine actually got, but it undoubtedly is not an NSAMS-2. It will be interesting to see how effective it is and against what threats, although that too probably will not be made public :-(.

REVISION: Probably you have all read this by now anyway, but the NASAMS STILL isn't delivered and we are again in the "couple of months" situation. https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-not-yet-del...59969.html
IMHO this is the kind of situation where heads should roll. Often there are discussions and "issues" that delay getting weapons to Ukraine. That is the process of deciding whether to do something. This situation is something that was decided back on about July 1. At that time it was "a couple of months" away. It still is. It took months just to get a contract. That is insane IMHO.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-recei...45509.html

So, Ukraine finally get one NASAMS system. It would be real interesting to find out where it came from and why it took so long to get it. It is not publicly known what Ukraine actually got, but it undoubtedly is not an NSAMS-2. It will be interesting to see how effective it is and against what threats, although that too probably will not be made public :-(.

REVISION: Probably you have all read this by now anyway, but the NASAMS STILL isn't delivered and we are again in the "couple of months" situation. https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-not-yet-del...59969.html
IMHO this is the kind of situation where heads should roll. Often there are discussions and "issues" that delay getting weapons to Ukraine. That is the process of deciding whether to do something. This situation is something that was decided back on about July 1. At that time it was "a couple of months" away. It still is. It took months just to get a contract. That is insane IMHO.

[dabigv13]

I'm not even convinced they actually have NASAMS in country. Many articles are being written based on a single line in that interview. The number of NASAMS systems was not mentioned in the interview either so we don't know if it's 0, 1, or more.

To me it's possible he meant that thanks to the US Congress, Ukraine will be getting NASAMS. His English is good but it's not perfect.

Read the transcript and judge for yourself-

https://t.co/EnaJ3FWyFv

Number three air defense systems. We absolutely need the United States to show leadership and give Ukraine, the air defense systems. I want to thank President Biden for a positive decision that has been already made. And to the US Congress, we received NASAMS.

There is no follow up on that potential revelation from Margaret Brennan, and NASAMS is not mentioned anywhere else in the interview. There has not been anything confirmatory otherwise either.

[dabigv13]

I'm not even convinced they actually have NASAMS in country. Many articles are being written based on a single line in that interview. The number of NASAMS systems was not mentioned in the interview either so we don't know if it's 0, 1, or more.

To me it's possible he meant that thanks to the US Congress, Ukraine will be getting NASAMS. His English is good but it's not perfect.

Read the transcript and judge for yourself-

https://t.co/EnaJ3FWyFv

Number three air defense systems. We absolutely need the United States to show leadership and give Ukraine, the air defense systems. I want to thank President Biden for a positive decision that has been already made. And to the US Congress, we received NASAMS.

There is no follow up on that potential revelation from Margaret Brennan, and NASAMS is not mentioned anywhere else in the interview. There has not been anything confirmatory otherwise either.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1574311374389649408?s=20&t=fDi2b4Sp4wZCAhMnSiL8bg[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1574311374389649408?s=20&t=fDi2b4Sp4wZCAhMnSiL8bg[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html

Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html

Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

BC

[M T]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

[M T]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

[Goose]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

The reasons the US is not sending tanks to Ukraine are obvious, and have little or nothing to do with Russia. The logistical support requirements for a tank are at least an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude) greater than for something like a HIMARS. The training requirements are also much greater, especially when compared to a T-72. They also fire different ammunition than anything else Ukraine has. It would take a massive effort by Ukraine to have this make any sense.

There are lots of things that Ukraine needs more than tanks. More HIMARS (or German MARS if they really want to give something) would make a big difference and not strain the logistics chain too much. Remember when Ukraine said they wanted 50 of them? Ukraine has tanks (and is getting more from Russia every day :-). Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon. They aren't trained for it and aren't resourced for it. They are doing just fine with the approach they used around Kharkiv. There are probably many on Ukraine's general staff that have visions of a large tank army flowing across Kherson Oblast into Crimea. The US doesn't think that is logistically possible or militarily prudent. IMHO the US is right.

[Goose]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

The reasons the US is not sending tanks to Ukraine are obvious, and have little or nothing to do with Russia. The logistical support requirements for a tank are at least an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude) greater than for something like a HIMARS. The training requirements are also much greater, especially when compared to a T-72. They also fire different ammunition than anything else Ukraine has. It would take a massive effort by Ukraine to have this make any sense.

There are lots of things that Ukraine needs more than tanks. More HIMARS (or German MARS if they really want to give something) would make a big difference and not strain the logistics chain too much. Remember when Ukraine said they wanted 50 of them? Ukraine has tanks (and is getting more from Russia every day :-). Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon. They aren't trained for it and aren't resourced for it. They are doing just fine with the approach they used around Kharkiv. There are probably many on Ukraine's general staff that have visions of a large tank army flowing across Kherson Oblast into Crimea. The US doesn't think that is logistically possible or militarily prudent. IMHO the US is right.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon.

I mean, this is purely your own speculation. Ukraine has proven everyone wrong many times through the war, maybe some more humility is in order regarding what they can and can't do.

Logistics of maintaining tanks is another level than HIMARS, true, but Ukraine seems to have managed the transition to western artillery of a different spec than their prior soviet gear pretty smoothly, and if they had one dedicated front where they planned to use the western tanks it would simplify the logistics of maintaining them.

I'm pretty sure if we got western tanks to Ukraine they would utilize them effectively. Leopards make the most sense and it's confounding that Germany won't send them or allow them to be sent.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon.

I mean, this is purely your own speculation. Ukraine has proven everyone wrong many times through the war, maybe some more humility is in order regarding what they can and can't do.

Logistics of maintaining tanks is another level than HIMARS, true, but Ukraine seems to have managed the transition to western artillery of a different spec than their prior soviet gear pretty smoothly, and if they had one dedicated front where they planned to use the western tanks it would simplify the logistics of maintaining them.

I'm pretty sure if we got western tanks to Ukraine they would utilize them effectively. Leopards make the most sense and it's confounding that Germany won't send them or allow them to be sent.

[M T]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

The reasons the US is not sending tanks to Ukraine are obvious, and have little or nothing to do with Russia. The logistical support requirements for a tank are at least an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude) greater than for something like a HIMARS. The training requirements are also much greater, especially when compared to a T-72. They also fire different ammunition than anything else Ukraine has. It would take a massive effort by Ukraine to have this make any sense.

There are lots of things that Ukraine needs more than tanks. More HIMARS (or German MARS if they really want to give something) would make a big difference and not strain the logistics chain too much. Remember when Ukraine said they wanted 50 of them? Ukraine has tanks (and is getting more from Russia every day :-). Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon. They aren't trained for it and aren't resourced for it. They are doing just fine with the approach they used around Kharkiv. There are probably many on Ukraine's general staff that have visions of a large tank army flowing across Kherson Oblast into Crimea. The US doesn't think that is logistically possible or militarily prudent. IMHO the US is right.

As I understand it, the areas Ukraine wants to move into are wide-open plains.  They need to use armored vehicles of some sort to cross, attack, or defend those areas.  Apparently the modern German tanks are more compatible and fuel efficient than the modern US tanks, but still a big change in parts & training required.  If the war stretches on, the parts for the Soviet-era tanks will dry up, while parts for the modern tanks will be replenished.

Certainly, the delivery of tanks this week wouldn't make any difference in next week's battles.  But getting the commitment soon for tanks that are current might pay off in the spring or the next spring, using the winter for training both fighters and maintainers.  I believe Ukraine is planning for that eventuality.

After seeing what a death trap the Soviet tanks are when attacked by a drone, I don't know that I'd want to be sitting in one of those anywhere except during a firefight.  I presume both sides are retrofitting the tanks so they aren't so vulnerable.

[M T]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world...e-war.html
Any idea of why sending tanks is apparently a red line for Olaf Schulz?

I can't read that article, but other articles have these comments
(source)

Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.

(source)

Crucially, Strack-Zimmermann cited the “Zeitenwende” — a historic shift in German foreign and security policy that Scholz announced in February in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — to argue that Scholz shouldn’t justify his reluctance to send tanks by arguing that other allies like the U.S. weren’t sending modern tanks to Ukraine either.
... The Greens’ co-leader Omid Nouripour delivered a broadside against concerns among Social Democrats that the delivery of tanks to Ukraine could trigger an “irrational” escalation by Putin — a fear that was most recently expressed by the SPD’s Secretary General Kevin Kühnert.

The reasons the US is not sending tanks to Ukraine are obvious, and have little or nothing to do with Russia. The logistical support requirements for a tank are at least an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude) greater than for something like a HIMARS. The training requirements are also much greater, especially when compared to a T-72. They also fire different ammunition than anything else Ukraine has. It would take a massive effort by Ukraine to have this make any sense.

There are lots of things that Ukraine needs more than tanks. More HIMARS (or German MARS if they really want to give something) would make a big difference and not strain the logistics chain too much. Remember when Ukraine said they wanted 50 of them? Ukraine has tanks (and is getting more from Russia every day :-). Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon. They aren't trained for it and aren't resourced for it. They are doing just fine with the approach they used around Kharkiv. There are probably many on Ukraine's general staff that have visions of a large tank army flowing across Kherson Oblast into Crimea. The US doesn't think that is logistically possible or militarily prudent. IMHO the US is right.

As I understand it, the areas Ukraine wants to move into are wide-open plains.  They need to use armored vehicles of some sort to cross, attack, or defend those areas.  Apparently the modern German tanks are more compatible and fuel efficient than the modern US tanks, but still a big change in parts & training required.  If the war stretches on, the parts for the Soviet-era tanks will dry up, while parts for the modern tanks will be replenished.

Certainly, the delivery of tanks this week wouldn't make any difference in next week's battles.  But getting the commitment soon for tanks that are current might pay off in the spring or the next spring, using the winter for training both fighters and maintainers.  I believe Ukraine is planning for that eventuality.

After seeing what a death trap the Soviet tanks are when attacked by a drone, I don't know that I'd want to be sitting in one of those anywhere except during a firefight.  I presume both sides are retrofitting the tanks so they aren't so vulnerable.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1574483334679478284?s=20&t=0_C3D3mr0mNoth2R3oENVA[/tweet]

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

Lots of fires picked up on satellites and videos of Ukrainians east of the Oskil river, some well east. We might be close to another big breakthrough.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1574483334679478284?s=20&t=0_C3D3mr0mNoth2R3oENVA[/tweet]

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

Lots of fires picked up on satellites and videos of Ukrainians east of the Oskil river, some well east. We might be close to another big breakthrough.

[M T]

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

If that were a group of Ukrainian volunteers, you'd feel bad for them, but marvel at their desire to fight for their existence despite being ill-equipped.

But for that to be the invading army, that's crazy.  It is a crime by Putin against his own soldiers.

[M T]

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

If that were a group of Ukrainian volunteers, you'd feel bad for them, but marvel at their desire to fight for their existence despite being ill-equipped.

But for that to be the invading army, that's crazy.  It is a crime by Putin against his own soldiers.

[Goose]

Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon.

I mean, this is purely your own speculation. Ukraine has proven everyone wrong many times through the war, maybe some more humility is in order regarding what they can and can't do.

My speculation is informed by the Ukrainians themselves. If they had enough armor and were ready to engage in a massive armored attack they wouldn't be prioritizing getting Western tanks. Since the Ukraine and the US discuss these things fairly effectively (if perhaps slowly :-) I think it is clear Ukraine wants to develop that capability but does not now have it.

Logistics of maintaining tanks is another level than HIMARS, true, but Ukraine seems to have managed the transition to western artillery of a different spec than their prior soviet gear pretty smoothly, and if they had one dedicated front where they planned to use the western tanks it would simplify the logistics of maintaining them.

Most of the artillery the US provided is essentially identical to what Ukraine already had except the writing isn't Cyrillic. The actual gun-laying hasn't really changed much since WW I. The M777 has a different towing mechanism that is faster and easier to use. Other than that, the same. Note we didn't provide the electronic gun-laying option. The self-propelled howitzers are another matter, in that there is a lot of electronics involved in both the Paladin and the PzH 2000. However, the mechanics of maintenance and actually operating the guns are very similar to the 2S3. Ukraine has indeed done well integrating these units, but it is an entirely different matter with NATO tanks. As cited below, that is a lot harder.

I'm pretty sure if we got western tanks to Ukraine they would utilize them effectively. Leopards make the most sense and it's confounding that Germany won't send them or allow them to be sent.

I tend to agree that Ukraine would utilize them effectively. However, it will take quite a bit of time, at best. It is unclear that going in that direction is the best use of Ukraine's resources. They may get that chance however.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/e2-...r-AA128ekX
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/heavy...00627.html
Germany has stated they were waiting for others to act. If the US acts, Germany no longer has that excuse. This is a tricky situation, because if Ukraine intends to develop a NATO armored division, it is going to take a lot of resources, most of which they don't presently have. The first link above talks a bit about that. The concept of a FARP is a bit beyond either Russia's or Ukraine's current standard of practice.

As I understand it, the areas Ukraine wants to move into are wide-open plains.  They need to use armored vehicles of some sort to cross, attack, or defend those areas.

That is the historical standard. The history and evolution of tanks and armored warfare is complex and too voluminous to dissect here, but after the Yom Kippur war where Israel lost over 800 tanks, the vast majority to Saggers, it became clear (if it wasn't already) that tanks couldn't operate alone against infantry, which of course was what they were created to do. Subsequently, the development of cluster munitions made operating armored vehicles of any kind without artillery superiority almost impossible.

For Ukraine, this means that near Kherson and in Crimea, they need to defeat the Russian artillery first and foremost. Otherwise, moving forward would be too costly. They are now doing that. However, once they have done that, the shoe is on the other foot. Russian infantry and armor can't stay on the battlefield because Ukrainian artillery will destroy them. So, do they need lots of tanks? Is armor survivable in the current environment in Ukraine?

Apparently the modern German tanks are more compatible and fuel efficient than the modern US tanks, but still a big change in parts & training required.  If the war stretches on, the parts for the Soviet-era tanks will dry up, while parts for the modern tanks will be replenished.

True.

Certainly, the delivery of tanks this week wouldn't make any difference in next week's battles.  But getting the commitment soon for tanks that are current might pay off in the spring or the next spring, using the winter for training both fighters and maintainers.  I believe Ukraine is planning for that eventuality.

I think they are too. However, it needs to be carefully examined whether this is a good idea. More HIMARS and a few ATACMS may actually do the job as well or better. Neither armor nor infantry can stand in the presence of artillery. Today, infantry has a good chance to defeat armor with ATGMs. They aren't going to just run away because an IFV or a tank shows up. A combined arms operation can succeed, but only with artillery superiority and the willingness to accept significant losses. Better if you can make the enemy run away.

After seeing what a death trap the Soviet tanks are when attacked by a drone, I don't know that I'd want to be sitting in one of those anywhere except during a firefight.  I presume both sides are retrofitting the tanks so they aren't so vulnerable.

Drones are a problem, but ATGMs are much more prevalent and much more of a problem. NATO tanks are pretty resistant to Russian ATGMS but are not invulnerable to them. Russian tanks don't do so well against Javelins and similar, as we have seen. OTOH, Russian cluster munitions can be pretty deadly. That is why they have them and that is what the Smerch/9M55Kx is for. As far as "retrofitting", everybody has been scrambling for years to find an answer. Reactive armor has some pluses, but as we have already seen it isn't a panacea. Also, what happens if you run over a 9M55K4 minelet? A NATO tank will survive but is probably a mobility kill. Another take on this is https://www.quora.com/How-vulnerable-is-...explosives
Trophy is also an option, but how well it works in "real life" is TBD. For sure Ukraine won't get this from us.

[Goose]

Ukraine is not engaging or planning to engage in a massive armored thrust anytime soon.

I mean, this is purely your own speculation. Ukraine has proven everyone wrong many times through the war, maybe some more humility is in order regarding what they can and can't do.

My speculation is informed by the Ukrainians themselves. If they had enough armor and were ready to engage in a massive armored attack they wouldn't be prioritizing getting Western tanks. Since the Ukraine and the US discuss these things fairly effectively (if perhaps slowly :-) I think it is clear Ukraine wants to develop that capability but does not now have it.

Logistics of maintaining tanks is another level than HIMARS, true, but Ukraine seems to have managed the transition to western artillery of a different spec than their prior soviet gear pretty smoothly, and if they had one dedicated front where they planned to use the western tanks it would simplify the logistics of maintaining them.

Most of the artillery the US provided is essentially identical to what Ukraine already had except the writing isn't Cyrillic. The actual gun-laying hasn't really changed much since WW I. The M777 has a different towing mechanism that is faster and easier to use. Other than that, the same. Note we didn't provide the electronic gun-laying option. The self-propelled howitzers are another matter, in that there is a lot of electronics involved in both the Paladin and the PzH 2000. However, the mechanics of maintenance and actually operating the guns are very similar to the 2S3. Ukraine has indeed done well integrating these units, but it is an entirely different matter with NATO tanks. As cited below, that is a lot harder.

I'm pretty sure if we got western tanks to Ukraine they would utilize them effectively. Leopards make the most sense and it's confounding that Germany won't send them or allow them to be sent.

I tend to agree that Ukraine would utilize them effectively. However, it will take quite a bit of time, at best. It is unclear that going in that direction is the best use of Ukraine's resources. They may get that chance however.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/e2-...r-AA128ekX
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/heavy...00627.html
Germany has stated they were waiting for others to act. If the US acts, Germany no longer has that excuse. This is a tricky situation, because if Ukraine intends to develop a NATO armored division, it is going to take a lot of resources, most of which they don't presently have. The first link above talks a bit about that. The concept of a FARP is a bit beyond either Russia's or Ukraine's current standard of practice.

As I understand it, the areas Ukraine wants to move into are wide-open plains.  They need to use armored vehicles of some sort to cross, attack, or defend those areas.

That is the historical standard. The history and evolution of tanks and armored warfare is complex and too voluminous to dissect here, but after the Yom Kippur war where Israel lost over 800 tanks, the vast majority to Saggers, it became clear (if it wasn't already) that tanks couldn't operate alone against infantry, which of course was what they were created to do. Subsequently, the development of cluster munitions made operating armored vehicles of any kind without artillery superiority almost impossible.

For Ukraine, this means that near Kherson and in Crimea, they need to defeat the Russian artillery first and foremost. Otherwise, moving forward would be too costly. They are now doing that. However, once they have done that, the shoe is on the other foot. Russian infantry and armor can't stay on the battlefield because Ukrainian artillery will destroy them. So, do they need lots of tanks? Is armor survivable in the current environment in Ukraine?

Apparently the modern German tanks are more compatible and fuel efficient than the modern US tanks, but still a big change in parts & training required.  If the war stretches on, the parts for the Soviet-era tanks will dry up, while parts for the modern tanks will be replenished.

True.

Certainly, the delivery of tanks this week wouldn't make any difference in next week's battles.  But getting the commitment soon for tanks that are current might pay off in the spring or the next spring, using the winter for training both fighters and maintainers.  I believe Ukraine is planning for that eventuality.

I think they are too. However, it needs to be carefully examined whether this is a good idea. More HIMARS and a few ATACMS may actually do the job as well or better. Neither armor nor infantry can stand in the presence of artillery. Today, infantry has a good chance to defeat armor with ATGMs. They aren't going to just run away because an IFV or a tank shows up. A combined arms operation can succeed, but only with artillery superiority and the willingness to accept significant losses. Better if you can make the enemy run away.

After seeing what a death trap the Soviet tanks are when attacked by a drone, I don't know that I'd want to be sitting in one of those anywhere except during a firefight.  I presume both sides are retrofitting the tanks so they aren't so vulnerable.

Drones are a problem, but ATGMs are much more prevalent and much more of a problem. NATO tanks are pretty resistant to Russian ATGMS but are not invulnerable to them. Russian tanks don't do so well against Javelins and similar, as we have seen. OTOH, Russian cluster munitions can be pretty deadly. That is why they have them and that is what the Smerch/9M55Kx is for. As far as "retrofitting", everybody has been scrambling for years to find an answer. Reactive armor has some pluses, but as we have already seen it isn't a panacea. Also, what happens if you run over a 9M55K4 minelet? A NATO tank will survive but is probably a mobility kill. Another take on this is https://www.quora.com/How-vulnerable-is-...explosives
Trophy is also an option, but how well it works in "real life" is TBD. For sure Ukraine won't get this from us.

[M T]

Video of instruction of Russian conscripts

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

I wonder if Edward Snowden is now eligible for this draft.  Accepting Russian citizenship at this juncture....

[M T]

Video of instruction of Russian conscripts

Almost makes you feel bad for the Russian conscripts. Can't even provide them sleeping bags or tourniquets.

I wonder if Edward Snowden is now eligible for this draft.  Accepting Russian citizenship at this juncture....