Vocal Voices

The UK sends one squadron, 14 tanks, to Ukraine and Germany finds itself under incredible pressure.

Most of NATO in Europe bought German Leopard2 tanks instead of British, American or French. It all seemed good at the time and Germany was selling them cheaper than the UK or France, the US would not sell their highest protection tank, that is reserved for the US alone and is the only US tank which can withstand depleted Uranium NATO anti tank rounds.

But when Germany sold the Leopards, they insisted that Germany have the right to block any forward sales or distribution of the tanks.

Now Germany is in a cleft stick and the US to a lesser degree. A NATO nation has given first line main battle tanks to Ukraine. Maybe only one squadron of 14 tanks but a quick reading of the battles of the Yom Kippur war and you can see what even a few highly capable tanks can do. In that war the Centurion tanks were outclassed at night, but during the day they were destroying 5:1 or more.

An expectation has been set, Poland and many others want to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine. Germany is prevaricating, again.

Even the white house is now facing calls internally to get the Abrams out there.

Amazing what trouble such a little. Country can cause.....

Abrams tanks of various iterations are used by Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Taiwan, so they are not exclusive to the US Army. The big difference is that none of those countries are in Europe or in NATO, though the forwarding restrictions are probably the same as for the Leopards.

Germany has a different problem with its Leopard 2 tanks as they are almost all based in Europe and NATO. If it allows secondary export from the likes of Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain etc. to Ukraine then Russia could view it that NATO (the alliance) is getting directly involved in the war instead of it being a stand-off arms supplier in what it already views as a proxy war. Throw in the rumoured supply of F16's and other aircraft and high tech armaments and that suspicion will only intensify.

Let us not forget that Russia has nuclear capable hypersonic ground based missiles already stationed in Kaliningrad as well as ship based versions on ships in the Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black seas. It could be very tempted to use a few tactical nukes against these new weapons in Ukraine.... or worse, if push comes to shove.

NATO realises this, which is why it is holding off in giving Ukraine longer range missiles capable of hitting Russia proper.

The point about the Abrams was that the armour on the export version is not as good as that used by US forces.

NATO is already inextricably involved in Ukraine. The only way out is to Win, fast. First line NATO MBT's would make that much more possible.

Germany needs to adjust their perception. The UK alone has enough nukes to totally lay wast to all of Russia and to rearrange the dust many times over.

The Nuclear threat goes both ways.

I am just offering a different view to the simplistic one that by sending more and better weapons the problem will be solved: it will not. There are many other factors at play.

The only way out is to Win, fast.

Snap! Just like that, eh? Any details as to how without escalation?

The UK alone has enough nukes to totally lay wast to all of Russia and to rearrange the dust many times over.

And if it (or NATO) tried then Russia would resort to massive retaliation in a MAD scenario. An apocalypse would be upon us. Hundreds of millions would die from the initial exchanges. Many hundreds of millions more would be injured and many of them would die from their injuries and / or from fallout. Then would come the nuclear winter with billions more perishing or at the very least scavenging for survival.

So, please, do tell, who would be the winners in your kindergarten scenario?

BTW today the Doomsday Clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe.

.

Workingman wrote:I am just offering a different view to the simplistic one that by sending more and better weapons the problem will be solved: it will not. There are many other factors at play.
And if it (or NATO) tried then Russia would resort to massive retaliation in a MAD scenario.

I was talking about the MAD scenario in reverse. Everyone keeps saying "Russia has Nukes we have to tread carefully". Actually we don't. They are waging a war of aggression and acquisition in a foreign state and they need to be told to get the F out and if they want to rattle the Nuc sabre we need to remind them that they cannot survive that event. Even from the 3rd largest Nuclear power in the world let alone the largest.

Sitting on the fence just gets more and more people killed. Both Ukranian and Russian.

Brining in 1st line NATO tanks means that Ukraine can break through weaker Russian lines where they have older 70's tanks and then sweep along the battle front cleaning up as much as they can reach. It is a game changer as much as the original tank was in WW1. Right now Ukraine and Russia are close to matched in heavy armour as they are using mainly the same vehicles. Getting an influx of 200 or so NATO MBT's will radically alter the balance of power.

Add to it a SAM shield like the Syrians had in the 70's and they could roll Russia right back out of the border. Once the logjam is broken on MBT's the focus will change and they will want to get it over as fast as possible. Russia would need to divert every 2000's MBT to Ukraine and remove all the older tanks to have a hope of defeating this kind of move. Something they would find logistically challenging in the extreme.

Russia can no longer win. It just needs to end and that end is with Russia back in Russia.

I suspect the biggest fear the NATO nations have is that with sufficient MBT's, Ukraine will be able to roll up the Crimea and return it to Ukraine. Given that the US already tacitly accepted that Russia could steal (annex), Ukraine, that would be a big policy change.

Britain changed all that when we decided to train Ukrainian soldiers on the Challenger 2 and send 14 of them over. Leaving the rest of NATO scrambling to reset policy and not look like they are holding back. OK the Challenger is a 30 year old tank which is only being refreshed now with the Challenger 3. But it is still an extremely formidable fighting platform.

According to the last hours news, unconfirmed reports are saying that Germany has caved and the US is considering following them in with Abrams.

With Germany caving most other EU states who hold the Leopard 2 are looking to ship some tanks to Ukraine.

There is a list of committed hardware here.

Having shown Putin the big stick, now would be a good time to offer him a negotiated settlement.

What? "You return to your Russian borders and we won't consider booting your ass out of Crimea???"

Very little less is going to be acceptable to a country which has been relentlessly pounded by Russian shells and missiles and aircraft strikes.

In most cases you negotiate through stalemate or pending collapse. In this case Ukraine is poised to push Russia out. They will want to do it and anybody who says otherwise will be asked how much of their own country they would give up to Russia if they invaded.

There is the crux. We wouldn't give them one square inch.

Put the controller down, turn off the Xbox and come join the real world.

And please stop believing the myth that all the Russian kit is 1970s stuff. It has some very advanced kit in Ukraine from cruise missiles Zircon to Iskander to Avangard to T - 80U and T - 90 tanks and aircraft Mig - 29 and 31 plus SU - 27, 30 and 34 plus the Tu -160 supersonic bomber.

You might be able to kid some people that just telling the Russians to Foxtrot Oscar or we'll shout very loud will work, but you are not sliding that crap past me.

I know it has very advanced kit in Ukraine. But the most advanced is in limited supply. The bulk of the armour is much older. If it wasn't Ukraine would have been wiped out very quickly as their own tanks are almost all pre 90's.