Current Affairs Ukraine

[Cecil]

For those with a keen eye, you'll notice the Russians using cope cages rather than Kontakt, which shows they're worried about top-down munitions (Javelin, drones).

One thing I’ve noticed throughout this conflict is there just seems to be tanks rolling round without any infantry or AFV support.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

One thing I’ve noticed throughout this conflict is there just seems to be tanks rolling round without any infantry or AFV support.

Yup. Noticed that myself, they’re just asking to be whacked.

 

[PhilM]

Yup. Noticed that myself, they’re just asking to be whacked.

Think we talked about it early on about how Russian tactics were woeful: no infantry screening for their armour; progressing in close, single-file order.

We gave the Ukraine lots of Carl Gustafs, which are easy to use and would make easy work of pretty much all their APCs and IFVs.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Yarrgh]

France has riots on its streets and general unrest so you can understand that Macron is not crazy to put more resources into a war on the other side of the world especially for a non-NATO country like Taiwan. It's easy to understand that the US take the same stance over Ukraine in that case.

Add into all this war fatigue and domestic issues at home and government changes in the offing potentially in the west and it's crisis point In the making for Ukrainian support.

Not a warm glowing long term picture for anyone really.

 

[Cool_Blue]

France has riots on its streets and general unrest so you can understand that Macron is not crazy to put more resources into a war on the other side of the world especially for a non-NATO country like Taiwan. It's easy to understand that the US take the same stance over Ukraine in that case.

Add into all this war fatigue and domestic issues at home and government changes in the offing potentially in the west and it's crisis point In the making for Ukrainian support.

Not a warm glowing long term picture for anyone really.

Understandable yes, but it would be a huge miscalculation for backing for Ukraine to waver now. The scum in the Kremlin are banking on this happening.

 

[PhilM]

Pentagon leak shows S Korea torn on sending Ukraine weapons

The document, seen by the BBC, reveals a conversation between high-level South Korean officials.

www.bbc.co.uk

It appears as if the leaks are wider than first reported.

 

[spectateur]

Pentagon leak shows S Korea torn on sending Ukraine weapons

The document, seen by the BBC, reveals a conversation between high-level South Korean officials.

www.bbc.co.uk

It appears as if the leaks are wider than first reported.

After all there's a sizable section of the republican supporters who are against supporting Ukraine.

 

[tsubaki]

France has riots on its streets and general unrest so you can understand that Macron is not crazy to put more resources into a war on the other side of the world especially for a non-NATO country like Taiwan. It's easy to understand that the US take the same stance over Ukraine in that case.

Add into all this war fatigue and domestic issues at home and government changes in the offing potentially in the west and it's crisis point In the making for Ukrainian support.

Not a warm glowing long term picture for anyone really.

TBF Macron's point was that Europe should be able in a multipolar world to stand up by itself, not just blindly follow the US. He is not wrong to say that in these Trumpian times. The EU (and I include us in that) needs urgently to build up its own military capabilities - manufacturing, stockpiling ammunition, further standardization and interoperability - so that it can ensure its own security. Having dozens / hundreds of tanks unserviceable (as has happened with these Leopard 2s) must never happen again.

Having the EU beefed up like that would be a massive help to the US too - directly in terms of lifting the burden of NATO, and indirectly by having a strong ally who can prevent some of the more idiotic foreign policy steps.

 

[Yarrgh]

Understandable yes, but it would be a huge miscalculation for backing for Ukraine to waver now. The scum in the Kremlin are banking on this happening.

It sure would be.

 

[Yarrgh]

TBF Macron's point was that Europe should be able in a multipolar world to stand up by itself, not just blindly follow the US. He is not wrong to say that in these Trumpian times. The EU (and I include us in that) needs urgently to build up its own military capabilities - manufacturing, stockpiling ammunition, further standardization and interoperability - so that it can ensure its own security. Having dozens / hundreds of tanks unserviceable (as has happened with these Leopard 2s) must never happen again.

Having the EU beefed up like that would be a massive help to the US too - directly in terms of lifting the burden of NATO, and indirectly by having a strong ally who can prevent some of the more idiotic foreign policy steps.

I fully agree. Europe has sleep walked into a position where Russia thought it could push us around and just take what it wants.

I know that this is akin to victim blaming, but if you have a bully next door, he'll behave if he knows you can fight back.

Now off to read what Macron actually said and polish off my rusty French!

 

[PhilM]

France has riots on its streets and general unrest so you can understand that Macron is not crazy to put more resources into a war on the other side of the world especially for a non-NATO country like Taiwan. It's easy to understand that the US take the same stance over Ukraine in that case.

Add into all this war fatigue and domestic issues at home and government changes in the offing potentially in the west and it's crisis point In the making for Ukrainian support.

Not a warm glowing long term picture for anyone really.

There was a report around a month ago out of NATO that it is asking members to replenish its depleted arsenal of ammunition, artillery, tanks and whatnot.

Many members were already not meeting their expected quota, so when this sits next to having to continue to supply Ukraine it's going to be a costly task.

Germany alone was apparently €20bn behind on its pre-war expectation, so imagine what the cost would be now? Either NATO dwindles or it's spending time.

I know for a fact that the MoD had serious concerns about our own stockpiles in terms of our arsenals, with us having a mere few weeks worth of stock.

As you say, with issues at home (cost of living crisis, inflation, NHS and public sector wage demands) are they going to increase % of GDP spent on it?

They may say they will for now, but in the long-term I'm not so sure. Your point about sleep walking into this conflict is fully justified, too.

Russia invaded because they did not expect a response from the west. You could argue it was their own miscalculation (poor analysis), but they felt bold enough.

That comes back on us - to a point.

 

[Yarrgh]

There was a report around a month ago out of NATO that it is asking members to replenish its depleted arsenal of ammunition, artillery, tanks and whatnot.

Many members were already not meeting their expected quota, so when this sits next to having to continue to supply Ukraine it's going to be a costly task.

Germany alone was apparently €20bn behind on its pre-war expectation, so imagine what the cost would be now? Either NATO dwindles or it's spending time.

I know for a fact that the MoD had serious concerns about our own stockpiles in terms of our arsenals, with us having a mere few weeks worth of stock.

As you say, with issues at home (cost of living crisis, inflation, NHS and public sector wage demands) are they going to increase % of GDP spent on it?

They may say they will for now, but in the long-term I'm not so sure. Your point about sleep walking into this conflict is fully justified, too.

Russia invaded because they did not expect a response from the west. You could argue it was their own miscalculation (poor analysis), but they felt bold enough.

That comes back on us - to a point.

Yep, we're between a rock and a hard place.

 

[PhilM]

Yep, we're between a rock and a hard place.

The linear perspective is that: 'Russia are being bled dry, so their task will be much greater. They won't be a threat for a long time.' I agree to an extent.

What this doesn't factor in that after this war the main threat will not be Russia. NATO may not be directly involved with China, but some members will likely be.

I said from the outset that the US and others will be content with this war continuing for a long time because, as long as they maintain supplies, the RA dwindles.

The Russian army and air force have been set back at least a decade, if not more. Yet, I do wonder how much the UK may have indirect been set back by it.

The British Army and RAF heavily adapted during the period in Afghanistan (namely its organisational structure, training, procurement); the Navy suffered from this.

Asymmetric warfare was the priority, and we rapidly bought vehicles and weaponry to facilitate this. Just look at how we bought Mastiffs and then axed them.

The long-standing principle of fighting a major belligerent diminished, but now the threat has to some extent come full circle, and we're majorly unprepared.

So, while we rightly keep funding Ukraine it takes even more money out from the coffers, which would have helped facilitate this. I wonder if France feel the same.

 

[tsubaki]

There was a report around a month ago out of NATO that it is asking members to replenish its depleted arsenal of ammunition, artillery, tanks and whatnot.

Many members were already not meeting their expected quota, so when this sits next to having to continue to supply Ukraine it's going to be a costly task.

Germany alone was apparently €20bn behind on its pre-war expectation, so imagine what the cost would be now? Either NATO dwindles or it's spending time.

I know for a fact that the MoD had serious concerns about our own stockpiles in terms of our arsenals, with us having a mere few weeks worth of stock.

As you say, with issues at home (cost of living crisis, inflation, NHS and public sector wage demands) are they going to increase % of GDP spent on it?

They may say they will for now, but in the long-term I'm not so sure. Your point about sleep walking into this conflict is fully justified, too.

Russia invaded because they did not expect a response from the west. You could argue it was their own miscalculation (poor analysis), but they felt bold enough.

That comes back on us - to a point.

The problem that this government (and the clique around Starmer, as they believe much the same thing) has is that it would be relatively easy to increase the % of GDP spent on the military, and to sort out the cost of living crisis provided the reforms / savings come out of the waste that "austerity", "privatization" and the like have spawned.

Sort them out and the problems will go a long way to being solved, but of course their donors would suffer.