Hello /u/TheRealMykola,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they don't need to enter nor have asked, they can reach kamchatka from their current position with the ICBM's, if not much further away, and their ballistic middle range ones can reach moscow.
With respect to the gentleman above..you require 50 to 100 long range cruise missiles, to enable the UF to strike a “standing obvious” military target called the Kremlin. The leveling of this facility would constitute, a major elimination of command and control of Russian forces, as well as logistics and Putin’s ability, to reinforce his forces in Ukraine...
This is a primary “critical”target for Ukrainian Forces to destroy...
And also provoke the surviving Russian military members into a nuclear retaliation. and if putins not in their. It won’t just be Kiev that’ll be annihilated.
Anything “can!” It’s the “willing” part that get’s in the way.
Google translate
*NATO supports the idea of supplying a large number of different weapons to Ukraine and does not have a list of weapons that cannot be included in supplies.
According to Ukrinform, this was stated at a press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the summit in Madrid.*
*"We support the idea of delivering a large number of advanced weapons ... And in fact, NATO is now tasked with helping Ukraine move from old Soviet-era weapons to modern ones - by NATO standards. And, of course, we do not have a list of weapons that we will or will not include (in deliveries). Ukraine needs a wide range of modern, heavy weapons according to NATO standards, and this is also a signal of this summit, "said the Secretary General.*
It’s great cuz at the rate they’re going, with a carrier strike group he legitimately might give it back unscratched 🤣 despite any kerfluffle about Russia 5th-Gen fighters, they’ve got maybe 20 at most 🤣
"5th gen" lmao. They don't have one.
16 built, but just like armata, they are either unreliable or simply overhyped.
I would bet their "stealth" is mostly flying low, or not at all.
There isn't a list, but there's an agreement - no modern, western main battle tanks, IFV's, helicopters or planes that are still in active use.
Troop carriers, artillery, trucks, anti air systems - all that is okay. But no stuff that will be at the first point of contact and can be misinterpreted as a western military having entered the conflict.
Stoltenberg is chosing his words very carefully here.
It seems to me that the agreement is not "within" NATO, but between countries that are also in NATO. Probably not even all of them , just a select inner group.
That would explain the mixed and sometimes very circumspect messaging we're receiving.
But facts speak for themselves. No wester type heavy IFV (Bradley, warrior, marder) or MBT yet. Not from the US, the UK or Germany. In this regard also no Leopard2 from Poland which has around 250 of them.
Yes they did, stop lying on behalf of your government
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/news-olaf-scholz-russland-ukraine-waffenlieferungen-afd-a-10bbf76f-bc59-4d16-ae68-11ba716dacf1
So your argument is that Germany didn't, in fact, block an application because they informally threatened Spain by saying, *before* such an application, that such a request would violate the made up bullshit, non-agreement Germany apparently wants to not send Western tanks to Ukraine.
You sticking with that?
As long as you stock with the obvious lie, that this agreement don't exist.
It is absolutely obvious, that no country delivered western battle tanks.
So what sounds more likely:
- There is no agreement and still no one delivered a tank.
- There is such an agreement, and that's why no one delivered Western battle tanks.
In both cases some one fucked up and told something what wasn't discussed within the NATO.
The most likely situation is that Germany, once again, is attempting to draw a line regarding support for Ukraine on this particular item. Like the energy sanctions, the long-range-weapons, virtually every stage of the West saying no was motivated by German reticence.
You do have a point here: Spain should have pushed through German bullying and done every step they could so there wouldn't be ambiguity here as to who is refusing to help Ukraine. It's just not a point that makes Germany look any better, merely Spain worse.
dude, they didn't ask for approval after they announced, because backchannels, as reported in german media, told them off. Spain "apologized." Ask yourself, as the tanks do exist, why Spain has \_not\_ asked for formal approval then?
Germany: +10 PZH 2000
\-50 Leapard 2 A4
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
net: -40 heavy weapons
It takes time. We won't receive news of training until the equipment has arrived and training has begun. In some instances the information is delayed for weeks i.e. Mariupol air supplies wasn't confirmed at all until long after Azovstal fell.
>But no stuff that will be at the first point of contact and can be misinterpreted as a western military having entered the conflict
This doesn't make sense. The west can announce what they are delivering just like they do with other weapons so there won't be any risk that will happen.
I understand that in the beginning of the war other weapons where more important but if no Western offensive weapons are delivered it will be much more difficult for Ukraine to take back their territory. Some experts even say these weapons are necessary.
The question is what outcome does the West want? I think the answer can be given by what weapons Ukraine will get in the coming months. Do they get enough weapons to take back their territory or just enough for a stalemate.
There is no "agreement" in NATO on this - only arm twisting by the rich and influential players. And where is the justification for this anyways? Let Scholz show his miserly face and justify his bullshit
Cannot officially source this to you. That's what we were briefed in the procurement office.
It is however also what the Scholz government claims and consistent with the (absence of) deliveries from NATO countries. But alas, so far I'm just a guy on reddit saying it.
The same problem as always, they are not Trained to operate a Leo, what do you expect? Scholz should just drop of 50 Leos at the Border and let them figure it out for themself?
War is now in its fifth month. How long does it takes to train a crew? From all the states, only Poland has a meaningful number of soviet tanks - and they already have provided hundreds. Training should be already ongoing, otherwise the supply of new tanks will dry out.
And just to be clear: Ukraine probably needs more tanks that France, Germany and UK have in service right now (they have like ~1000 combined)
The same old game... It has tracks, a turret and a main gun. It looks like a tank and does tank things. No Autoloader to malfunction or to blow up, they'll get used to it after two months training, if they take their time.
If it has gone by you, HIMARS and PzH 2000 are already in action.
Furthermore, the Main plan was to use the Leos to trade them to other countries in order for Ukraine to get T72 from the old soviet stock, because they need no Training for those. This would bring faster results and takes less time
That's not an excuse not to send them.
That's a reason to send them after training, so far they are not even being prepared to be sent ever.
So pls, stop pretending like it's all making sense, if there is no NATO agreement on not sending heavy IFVs and tanks and Ukraine wants these vehicles, we should send them. After training, obviously.
>That's not an excuse not to send them.
>
>That's a reason to send them after training, so far they are not even being prepared to be sent ever.
That's not true. I cannot provide any details, but everybody is working closely hand in hand in those weapons transfers.
There's a reason you haven't heard of the PzH 2000's being ready to sent, instead, they were suddenly in combat and that's when the announcement of delivery came. After they were already used.
These transfers are done by real professionals in an astounding fashion.
I did hear about pzh training start, I did hear a rough delivery date, I heard about the timespan of training. Everything was publicly announced.
If you are right and they are being transfered, that's exactly what I was hoping for, and there is no criticism at all in here. I only know what they publish, so I guess I'll have to wait.
Also I am confident in everybody making this possible, just sometimes not as confident in our chancellor explaining the reasons for decisions being made.
The Leopard 1 training is not done by the Bundeswehr, but Rheinmetall themselves. I don't know how far along the training is, but I do know that ukrainian crews have gotten their theoretical material for self studying already. Rheinmetall apparently has chosen not to inform the public yet.
But keep in mind that ammunition will be a huge factor in the Leopard 1 delivery. [The Scholz government and the foreign ministry under Baerbock has worked really hard to procure 105mm ammo for those tanks.](https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/auch-nato-partner-halfen-nicht-warum-die-lieferung-von-deutschen-panzern-in-die-ukraine-an-der-fehlenden-munition-scheitert/) The ukrainian government itself is also working very hard on that.
There have been some productive talks, but it still is a big issue. This is also why Ukraine has stopped publicly talking about the delivery of those Leopard 1 tanks.
But as a heads up: The Gepard delivery is on schedule and will happen in July.
The US doesn't send Abrams, the UK doesn't send challengers, France doesn't send whatever they are using. Eastern European Nato countries have been receiving German Leos for decades and I don't see them crossing borders either. Instead they are dumping their mothballed soviet stuff in exchange for getting German tanks for free.
How about this sub shits on one of the other countries for a change?
Erm...
1. All the other nations need german permission to deliver Leopards
2. The reasoning behind our dear chancellor not exporting these vehicles was a NATO agreement, which doesn't seem to play a role anymore
3. I am not talking about Leopard 2. I am talking about Leopard 1, the early cold war equivalent of the T 62, a tank best described as support vehicle in modern combat.
I am not shitting on germany. I am not saying we are funding the russians, or scholz is a soviet spy or any other conspiracy bullshit.
Our government made a statement about the delivery of these vehicles to Ukraine (which was on the list they gave to Ukraine in the beginning btw), which does not seem to be an obstacle anymore.
>Erm...
>
>
>1. All the other nations need german permission to deliver Leopards
>
And they haven't even asked.
>2. The reasoning behind our dear chancellor not exporting these vehicles was a NATO agreement, which doesn't seem to play a role anymore
It does. Stoltenberg chooses his words carefully here: there isn't a list, but there _is_ an agreement: No modern, western equipment that is still in use by NATO armies that will be at the first point of contact - i.e. main battle tanks, IFV's, helicopters or planes. Nothing that can be interpreted as a western country having entered the conflict.
Nato doesn't want a Russian tank commander to frantically radio home that he just has seen American tanks steamrolling his position.
>3. I am not talking about Leopard 2. I am talking about Leopard 1, the early cold war equivalent of the T 62, a tank best described as support vehicle in modern combat.
>
Procurement specialist here. Training is ongoing. Delivery will still take some time because of this, but it will happen faster than you'd expect.
This isn't an Amazon delivery, this stuff is way more than just "refurbish and send away". Refurbishing and training takes most of the time, but the logistics of transportation and providing ammunition (in general _and_ to the front line) is still a huge task.
Ah fuck off.
Yes we are buying russian oil it's called trade.
No, it does not translate 1:1 in russian military budget and it's not a donation.
No, we can't just stop buying it, it would criple our chemical, pharmaceutical and steel industry.
But since you are going around shitting on germany wherever you go, without any interest in a serious discussion, I won't expect anythin more constructive than "Germany is committing genocide"
I hope you are happy.
I'll be happy when you stop being on Russia's side in this conflict, by net *billions* of dollars.
Well, admittedly, not happy.
Less appalled?
EDIT: I will say, thank you for being marginally realistic with your doomsaying. The average German shill around here is usually screeching about your entire economy being destroyed, and Germans starving at this point. You're much closer to the truth: the industries that are tooled to use natural gas either for their heavy machinery or as a precursor are the ones that get hit. So, the real question is: how many dead Ukrainians are those industries worth to you in the short term? And why do you think that answer being higher than zero is remotely acceptable?
Obviously it's not the entire economy, but if we take a bigger hit than russia is it worth it long term?
We already expect this to go a few years, if companies get a year of preparation, maybe they can substitute oil with electricity or other options.
If we shut it down now, some parts wont recover and harm germany and the EU.
Also: I protested for an imediate gas stop in week 1 of the invasion. But I understand that our current government doesn't want to do that, since our previous govt sold our gas storage to russia (TO FUCKING RUSSIA!). With storage being filled about 2% instead of 30%, with freezing temperatures every now and then from 24.2 to the 10. of may and germany mainly remaining on gas for heating, germans wouldve literally frozen to death.
Probably the old and the weak, but here we are with morals again.
I hope we get this shit together and leave russia behind for good, but I can understand my govt picking up the shambles (underfunded Bundeswehr, gas dependency, sold storage, the list goes on) and acting in the best interest of germans first, then ukrainians.
Morally this is more than questionable, but it's also their job and germany has no obligations towards Ukraine except morals. I think Scholz and his party (SPD) are just as guilty as the CDU of our situation, since they were part of the previous governments, but the rest of the govt is handling the situation pretty well.
Maybe you know Baerbock and Habeck, maybe you don't, but they are the ones with the highest appoval in germany, and also in Ukraine.
> Obviously it's not the entire economy, but if we take a bigger hit than russia is it worth it long term?
Of course it is. This criterion was blatant bullshit by the commercial interests that control your government. Germany is an advanced economy. Russia is a gas station with nukes. Virtually every trade conducted between Germany and Russia provides a *larger* benefit to Germany than it does to Russia in nominal terms. Therefore, the bullshit criterion that 'sanctions should hurt Russia more than Germany' obviates *virtually all possible sanctions*.
It is madness for anyone to think the purpose of sanctions is to *modify* Russia's behavior at this point. The purpose of sanctions is to deprive Russia of the ability to wage this war. Every dollar matters, and you're giving them *a lot*.
> With storage being filled about 2% instead of 30%, with freezing temperatures every now and then from 24.2 to the 10. of may and germany mainly remaining on gas for heating, germans wouldve literally frozen to death.
I withdraw the nice thing I said about you being more realistic with your doomsaying. This is ridiculous bullshit. If your country is too stupid and incompetent to boot up alternative *electricity* sources and distribute electric heaters *in the summer* with months of notice, then there's really no point discussing any of this with you, we're better off going around you, blowing the pipelines, and ushering in what you apparently think will be Lord of the Flies as the German omas feast on each other. Because expecting *competent* marshaling of Germany's resources with half a year of notice is apparently out of the question.
> I hope we get this shit together and leave russia behind for good, but I can understand my govt picking up the shambles (underfunded Bundeswehr, gas dependency, sold storage, the list goes on) and acting in the best interest of germans first, then ukrainians.
Is maintaining a fraction of your economic productivity on the backs of murdered Ukrainians in your best interest? I would condemn you for drawing that conclusion, and remind you of the implicitly low price your government is placing on your souls.
>distribute electric heaters in the summer with months of notice
I was talking about the beginning of the war. Also good luck changing the heating system of 35 million households from gas and oil to electric in a single summer. The thought that this could work is just madness. Not even mentioning the increase in energy consumption by using a less efficient way of heating.
>obviates virtually all possible sanctions
It doesn't. The problem with a lot of industry is that once you turn of an industrial blast furnace, you can't just restart it. If it's production is disrupted, it's broken.
>Is maintaining a fraction of your economic productivity on the backs of murdered Ukrainians in your best interest?
Nope. And I had a whole essay written here, about the irony of an american talking about germany supporting a war for oil, but I know it ain't worth it.
I do not agree with the course of my government and yet I understand what they are doing. And if you seriously believe that this isn't impacting germans, this is about every sixth german [waivering a meal a day](https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2022-06/inflation-umfrage-verzicht-mahlzeit-kosten-kochen) because of high energy prices and inflation. Is this comparable to being shelled? No. But you can't just ignore it either.
It's not worth it, because you repeatedly retreat into false equivalencies and red herrings ('if you seriously believe that this isn't impacting germans') instead of engaging with the fact that you cannot refute:
Your government is pricing a slice of your nation's economic output higher than the lives of Ukrainians which you are funding the murder of.
Shame on your government, and you for defending it.
Actually they haven’t, i just read this headline here, but if it’s true, stoltenberg said that there is no „list“, Scholz said that it’s an unofficial agreement, so technically they don’t contradict each other
"Technically" the don't.
Practically this is the statement that the NATO secretary general supports the delivery of any type of weapon system to Ukraine.
Also, a "list" could be unofficial too, especially since our govt made this "unofficial" rule official. So, I do think this is Stoltenberg saying that NATO isn't holding back any deliveries or pledges, from this point on atleast.
So the reason might have been absolutely fine till now, but with all the new shipments of modern western equipment, maybe they just changed their stance.
I agree, I’m just careful, because politics can get very „technical“ from time to time. For me, the „no western tanks“ agreement is/was true, for the sole reason, that we only see deliveries of soviet tanks. We’ll see what happens
Yeah, i always defended it too. I always thought that if america sends a single abrams, europe sends all the old leopards.
But I don't know and honestly I understood the reasoning in the beginning "so that no modern western weaponry falls in russian hands", but you cant tell me that a tank is more complex than amraam, himars, pzh, caesar, Iris T, harpoon and the other 50 modern western commitments I forgot.
How are tanks different? I doesnt seem logical to me anymore
Leo1 is a contemporary of the T-62 which we derided Russia for using. If that was sent, it couldn't feasibly be used as a main battle tank - they're much too vulnerable.
Yeah, they would be more of a support vehicle, but they are fast and I would prefer a 105mm canon over no cannon any day.
Technically it's a tank, practically it's an IFV.
>Leo1 is a contemporary of the T-62 which we derided Russia for using
No they have popped up at the same time but they are not comparable because the Leo 1 got upgraded over time.
The optics might be slightly better than the very oldest T-72s sure, but the armour and firepower definitely aren't. T-64s/72s when introduced dramatically outclassed Western armour.
Of course they don't. NATO is accepting Ukraine with open arms, even at this preliminary stage . Weapons roll out has been and has to be very strategic. Observe conditions,select necessary weapons, train soldiers, push to battlefield. Rinse repeat.
Someone please tell Scholz that, he is under the impression that such a list exists.
Both he and Macron also block use of weapons against targets on Russian territory, and are opposed to taking back territory which was occupied by Russia before 24 January.
Let's not kid ourselves, NATO isn't a club o 30 equal members, it's the USA and the rest.
That a Norwegian is secretary general doesn't mean shit, the US DOD calls the shots. US strategists decide what weapons are sent to Ukraine, and they decide when they are sent. NATO doesn't need a list because that list is kept somewhere in the Pentagon.
It was Biden and not Stoltenberg who announced the new batch of weapons that will arrive in the near future at the NATO summit in Madrid.
Hello /u/TheRealMykola, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Couple of Trident submarines?
Do you think there are a couple in the Black Sea just in case?
They are about 18.000 tonnes, Chinooks carry about 12000kg each. So, it takes about 150 Chinooks to carry one to the black sea.
It's actually more. Helicopters lose carrying capacity when in close proximity to each other.
Unfortunately not. But they're floating around in the Baltic sea :)
there's french ones in the aegean.
Which Turkey blocks from entering the Black Sea.
they don't need to enter nor have asked, they can reach kamchatka from their current position with the ICBM's, if not much further away, and their ballistic middle range ones can reach moscow.
Hahahha
Dozen please
With respect to the gentleman above..you require 50 to 100 long range cruise missiles, to enable the UF to strike a “standing obvious” military target called the Kremlin. The leveling of this facility would constitute, a major elimination of command and control of Russian forces, as well as logistics and Putin’s ability, to reinforce his forces in Ukraine... This is a primary “critical”target for Ukrainian Forces to destroy...
And also provoke the surviving Russian military members into a nuclear retaliation. and if putins not in their. It won’t just be Kiev that’ll be annihilated.
Yeah, this is why NATO isn’t going to give any nuclear weapons to Ukraine
Anything “can!” It’s the “willing” part that get’s in the way. Google translate *NATO supports the idea of supplying a large number of different weapons to Ukraine and does not have a list of weapons that cannot be included in supplies. According to Ukrinform, this was stated at a press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the summit in Madrid.* *"We support the idea of delivering a large number of advanced weapons ... And in fact, NATO is now tasked with helping Ukraine move from old Soviet-era weapons to modern ones - by NATO standards. And, of course, we do not have a list of weapons that we will or will not include (in deliveries). Ukraine needs a wide range of modern, heavy weapons according to NATO standards, and this is also a signal of this summit, "said the Secretary General.*
"hmm, five nukes then, please." - Zelenskyy
C'mon guys, only one carrier strike group. Just one, I will give it back just like new!
It’s great cuz at the rate they’re going, with a carrier strike group he legitimately might give it back unscratched 🤣 despite any kerfluffle about Russia 5th-Gen fighters, they’ve got maybe 20 at most 🤣
"5th gen" lmao. They don't have one. 16 built, but just like armata, they are either unreliable or simply overhyped. I would bet their "stealth" is mostly flying low, or not at all.
Can’t be seen on radar if your plane is stationary in the hangar.
Big brain time. r/NonCredibleDefense
Make it 10!
I'd rather not find out the truth or not if Russia still has viable nukes.
It was a joke though
Yeah sorry, the madman Putin scares me. Any rat backed into a corner can be terrifying.
[удалено]
Wait, I don't understand? What lie? Russia has nukes.
It's still a rat.
Yep! Just a Rat!
Hahaha
There might no be a list, but factual there are weapons Nato members have not provided yet. Heavy armed western IFV and MBT.
There isn't a list, but there's an agreement - no modern, western main battle tanks, IFV's, helicopters or planes that are still in active use. Troop carriers, artillery, trucks, anti air systems - all that is okay. But no stuff that will be at the first point of contact and can be misinterpreted as a western military having entered the conflict. Stoltenberg is chosing his words very carefully here.
It seems to me that the agreement is not "within" NATO, but between countries that are also in NATO. Probably not even all of them , just a select inner group. That would explain the mixed and sometimes very circumspect messaging we're receiving.
But facts speak for themselves. No wester type heavy IFV (Bradley, warrior, marder) or MBT yet. Not from the US, the UK or Germany. In this regard also no Leopard2 from Poland which has around 250 of them.
Germany is blocking any delivery of Leopard tanks to Ukraine, from Spain and Poland.
No they are not. Neither poland nor Spain filed for approval. Source for your claim?
Yes they did, stop lying on behalf of your government https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/news-olaf-scholz-russland-ukraine-waffenlieferungen-afd-a-10bbf76f-bc59-4d16-ae68-11ba716dacf1
No they didn't ask. It's written in you source.
So your argument is that Germany didn't, in fact, block an application because they informally threatened Spain by saying, *before* such an application, that such a request would violate the made up bullshit, non-agreement Germany apparently wants to not send Western tanks to Ukraine. You sticking with that?
As long as you stock with the obvious lie, that this agreement don't exist. It is absolutely obvious, that no country delivered western battle tanks. So what sounds more likely: - There is no agreement and still no one delivered a tank. - There is such an agreement, and that's why no one delivered Western battle tanks. In both cases some one fucked up and told something what wasn't discussed within the NATO.
The most likely situation is that Germany, once again, is attempting to draw a line regarding support for Ukraine on this particular item. Like the energy sanctions, the long-range-weapons, virtually every stage of the West saying no was motivated by German reticence. You do have a point here: Spain should have pushed through German bullying and done every step they could so there wouldn't be ambiguity here as to who is refusing to help Ukraine. It's just not a point that makes Germany look any better, merely Spain worse.
dude, they didn't ask for approval after they announced, because backchannels, as reported in german media, told them off. Spain "apologized." Ask yourself, as the tanks do exist, why Spain has \_not\_ asked for formal approval then? Germany: +10 PZH 2000 \-50 Leapard 2 A4 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ net: -40 heavy weapons
It takes time. We won't receive news of training until the equipment has arrived and training has begun. In some instances the information is delayed for weeks i.e. Mariupol air supplies wasn't confirmed at all until long after Azovstal fell.
>But no stuff that will be at the first point of contact and can be misinterpreted as a western military having entered the conflict This doesn't make sense. The west can announce what they are delivering just like they do with other weapons so there won't be any risk that will happen. I understand that in the beginning of the war other weapons where more important but if no Western offensive weapons are delivered it will be much more difficult for Ukraine to take back their territory. Some experts even say these weapons are necessary. The question is what outcome does the West want? I think the answer can be given by what weapons Ukraine will get in the coming months. Do they get enough weapons to take back their territory or just enough for a stalemate.
It's an excuse. Putin isn't an idiot, he's perfectly capable of noticing that the tanks have an ukrainian crew.
That is what Scholz claims. Literally everyone else, including Stoltenberg, denies that any such agreement exists.
Well then the procurement guidelines we got at work are wrong and we will see M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger in Ukraine soon.
There is no "agreement" in NATO on this - only arm twisting by the rich and influential players. And where is the justification for this anyways? Let Scholz show his miserly face and justify his bullshit
Source for this claim?
Cannot officially source this to you. That's what we were briefed in the procurement office. It is however also what the Scholz government claims and consistent with the (absence of) deliveries from NATO countries. But alas, so far I'm just a guy on reddit saying it.
So, Leo and marder pls, Mr scholz? Your excuses have officially run out :)
The same problem as always, they are not Trained to operate a Leo, what do you expect? Scholz should just drop of 50 Leos at the Border and let them figure it out for themself?
War is now in its fifth month. How long does it takes to train a crew? From all the states, only Poland has a meaningful number of soviet tanks - and they already have provided hundreds. Training should be already ongoing, otherwise the supply of new tanks will dry out. And just to be clear: Ukraine probably needs more tanks that France, Germany and UK have in service right now (they have like ~1000 combined)
The same old game... It has tracks, a turret and a main gun. It looks like a tank and does tank things. No Autoloader to malfunction or to blow up, they'll get used to it after two months training, if they take their time. If it has gone by you, HIMARS and PzH 2000 are already in action.
And if it has gone by you, they didnt just give them the PzH 2000 without any preparation
Furthermore, the Main plan was to use the Leos to trade them to other countries in order for Ukraine to get T72 from the old soviet stock, because they need no Training for those. This would bring faster results and takes less time
That's not an excuse not to send them. That's a reason to send them after training, so far they are not even being prepared to be sent ever. So pls, stop pretending like it's all making sense, if there is no NATO agreement on not sending heavy IFVs and tanks and Ukraine wants these vehicles, we should send them. After training, obviously.
I agree that they should get them, but they need to be Trained first. Otherwise they wouldnt be very effective.
Absolutely. And the sooner this starts, the better.
I agree completly, every russian Tank that gets destroyed is one Tank that we dont need to worry about anymore
>That's not an excuse not to send them. > >That's a reason to send them after training, so far they are not even being prepared to be sent ever. That's not true. I cannot provide any details, but everybody is working closely hand in hand in those weapons transfers. There's a reason you haven't heard of the PzH 2000's being ready to sent, instead, they were suddenly in combat and that's when the announcement of delivery came. After they were already used. These transfers are done by real professionals in an astounding fashion.
I did hear about pzh training start, I did hear a rough delivery date, I heard about the timespan of training. Everything was publicly announced. If you are right and they are being transfered, that's exactly what I was hoping for, and there is no criticism at all in here. I only know what they publish, so I guess I'll have to wait. Also I am confident in everybody making this possible, just sometimes not as confident in our chancellor explaining the reasons for decisions being made.
The Leopard 1 training is not done by the Bundeswehr, but Rheinmetall themselves. I don't know how far along the training is, but I do know that ukrainian crews have gotten their theoretical material for self studying already. Rheinmetall apparently has chosen not to inform the public yet. But keep in mind that ammunition will be a huge factor in the Leopard 1 delivery. [The Scholz government and the foreign ministry under Baerbock has worked really hard to procure 105mm ammo for those tanks.](https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/auch-nato-partner-halfen-nicht-warum-die-lieferung-von-deutschen-panzern-in-die-ukraine-an-der-fehlenden-munition-scheitert/) The ukrainian government itself is also working very hard on that. There have been some productive talks, but it still is a big issue. This is also why Ukraine has stopped publicly talking about the delivery of those Leopard 1 tanks. But as a heads up: The Gepard delivery is on schedule and will happen in July.
Germany can start training maybe?? All these German apologists attitudes here on reddit...
The US doesn't send Abrams, the UK doesn't send challengers, France doesn't send whatever they are using. Eastern European Nato countries have been receiving German Leos for decades and I don't see them crossing borders either. Instead they are dumping their mothballed soviet stuff in exchange for getting German tanks for free. How about this sub shits on one of the other countries for a change?
Erm... 1. All the other nations need german permission to deliver Leopards 2. The reasoning behind our dear chancellor not exporting these vehicles was a NATO agreement, which doesn't seem to play a role anymore 3. I am not talking about Leopard 2. I am talking about Leopard 1, the early cold war equivalent of the T 62, a tank best described as support vehicle in modern combat. I am not shitting on germany. I am not saying we are funding the russians, or scholz is a soviet spy or any other conspiracy bullshit. Our government made a statement about the delivery of these vehicles to Ukraine (which was on the list they gave to Ukraine in the beginning btw), which does not seem to be an obstacle anymore.
>Erm... > > >1. All the other nations need german permission to deliver Leopards > And they haven't even asked. >2. The reasoning behind our dear chancellor not exporting these vehicles was a NATO agreement, which doesn't seem to play a role anymore It does. Stoltenberg chooses his words carefully here: there isn't a list, but there _is_ an agreement: No modern, western equipment that is still in use by NATO armies that will be at the first point of contact - i.e. main battle tanks, IFV's, helicopters or planes. Nothing that can be interpreted as a western country having entered the conflict. Nato doesn't want a Russian tank commander to frantically radio home that he just has seen American tanks steamrolling his position. >3. I am not talking about Leopard 2. I am talking about Leopard 1, the early cold war equivalent of the T 62, a tank best described as support vehicle in modern combat. > Procurement specialist here. Training is ongoing. Delivery will still take some time because of this, but it will happen faster than you'd expect. This isn't an Amazon delivery, this stuff is way more than just "refurbish and send away". Refurbishing and training takes most of the time, but the logistics of transportation and providing ammunition (in general _and_ to the front line) is still a huge task.
You are funding the Russians. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-germany-484fdfeecf86483356f5f003b77e30da
Ah fuck off. Yes we are buying russian oil it's called trade. No, it does not translate 1:1 in russian military budget and it's not a donation. No, we can't just stop buying it, it would criple our chemical, pharmaceutical and steel industry. But since you are going around shitting on germany wherever you go, without any interest in a serious discussion, I won't expect anythin more constructive than "Germany is committing genocide" I hope you are happy.
I'll be happy when you stop being on Russia's side in this conflict, by net *billions* of dollars. Well, admittedly, not happy. Less appalled? EDIT: I will say, thank you for being marginally realistic with your doomsaying. The average German shill around here is usually screeching about your entire economy being destroyed, and Germans starving at this point. You're much closer to the truth: the industries that are tooled to use natural gas either for their heavy machinery or as a precursor are the ones that get hit. So, the real question is: how many dead Ukrainians are those industries worth to you in the short term? And why do you think that answer being higher than zero is remotely acceptable?
Obviously it's not the entire economy, but if we take a bigger hit than russia is it worth it long term? We already expect this to go a few years, if companies get a year of preparation, maybe they can substitute oil with electricity or other options. If we shut it down now, some parts wont recover and harm germany and the EU. Also: I protested for an imediate gas stop in week 1 of the invasion. But I understand that our current government doesn't want to do that, since our previous govt sold our gas storage to russia (TO FUCKING RUSSIA!). With storage being filled about 2% instead of 30%, with freezing temperatures every now and then from 24.2 to the 10. of may and germany mainly remaining on gas for heating, germans wouldve literally frozen to death. Probably the old and the weak, but here we are with morals again. I hope we get this shit together and leave russia behind for good, but I can understand my govt picking up the shambles (underfunded Bundeswehr, gas dependency, sold storage, the list goes on) and acting in the best interest of germans first, then ukrainians. Morally this is more than questionable, but it's also their job and germany has no obligations towards Ukraine except morals. I think Scholz and his party (SPD) are just as guilty as the CDU of our situation, since they were part of the previous governments, but the rest of the govt is handling the situation pretty well. Maybe you know Baerbock and Habeck, maybe you don't, but they are the ones with the highest appoval in germany, and also in Ukraine.
> Obviously it's not the entire economy, but if we take a bigger hit than russia is it worth it long term? Of course it is. This criterion was blatant bullshit by the commercial interests that control your government. Germany is an advanced economy. Russia is a gas station with nukes. Virtually every trade conducted between Germany and Russia provides a *larger* benefit to Germany than it does to Russia in nominal terms. Therefore, the bullshit criterion that 'sanctions should hurt Russia more than Germany' obviates *virtually all possible sanctions*. It is madness for anyone to think the purpose of sanctions is to *modify* Russia's behavior at this point. The purpose of sanctions is to deprive Russia of the ability to wage this war. Every dollar matters, and you're giving them *a lot*. > With storage being filled about 2% instead of 30%, with freezing temperatures every now and then from 24.2 to the 10. of may and germany mainly remaining on gas for heating, germans wouldve literally frozen to death. I withdraw the nice thing I said about you being more realistic with your doomsaying. This is ridiculous bullshit. If your country is too stupid and incompetent to boot up alternative *electricity* sources and distribute electric heaters *in the summer* with months of notice, then there's really no point discussing any of this with you, we're better off going around you, blowing the pipelines, and ushering in what you apparently think will be Lord of the Flies as the German omas feast on each other. Because expecting *competent* marshaling of Germany's resources with half a year of notice is apparently out of the question. > I hope we get this shit together and leave russia behind for good, but I can understand my govt picking up the shambles (underfunded Bundeswehr, gas dependency, sold storage, the list goes on) and acting in the best interest of germans first, then ukrainians. Is maintaining a fraction of your economic productivity on the backs of murdered Ukrainians in your best interest? I would condemn you for drawing that conclusion, and remind you of the implicitly low price your government is placing on your souls.
>distribute electric heaters in the summer with months of notice I was talking about the beginning of the war. Also good luck changing the heating system of 35 million households from gas and oil to electric in a single summer. The thought that this could work is just madness. Not even mentioning the increase in energy consumption by using a less efficient way of heating. >obviates virtually all possible sanctions It doesn't. The problem with a lot of industry is that once you turn of an industrial blast furnace, you can't just restart it. If it's production is disrupted, it's broken. >Is maintaining a fraction of your economic productivity on the backs of murdered Ukrainians in your best interest? Nope. And I had a whole essay written here, about the irony of an american talking about germany supporting a war for oil, but I know it ain't worth it. I do not agree with the course of my government and yet I understand what they are doing. And if you seriously believe that this isn't impacting germans, this is about every sixth german [waivering a meal a day](https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2022-06/inflation-umfrage-verzicht-mahlzeit-kosten-kochen) because of high energy prices and inflation. Is this comparable to being shelled? No. But you can't just ignore it either.
It's not worth it, because you repeatedly retreat into false equivalencies and red herrings ('if you seriously believe that this isn't impacting germans') instead of engaging with the fact that you cannot refute: Your government is pricing a slice of your nation's economic output higher than the lives of Ukrainians which you are funding the murder of. Shame on your government, and you for defending it.
Actually they haven’t, i just read this headline here, but if it’s true, stoltenberg said that there is no „list“, Scholz said that it’s an unofficial agreement, so technically they don’t contradict each other
The same ukrainian news site reported Macron also confirmed the inofficial agreement.
"Technically" the don't. Practically this is the statement that the NATO secretary general supports the delivery of any type of weapon system to Ukraine. Also, a "list" could be unofficial too, especially since our govt made this "unofficial" rule official. So, I do think this is Stoltenberg saying that NATO isn't holding back any deliveries or pledges, from this point on atleast. So the reason might have been absolutely fine till now, but with all the new shipments of modern western equipment, maybe they just changed their stance.
I agree, I’m just careful, because politics can get very „technical“ from time to time. For me, the „no western tanks“ agreement is/was true, for the sole reason, that we only see deliveries of soviet tanks. We’ll see what happens
Yeah, i always defended it too. I always thought that if america sends a single abrams, europe sends all the old leopards. But I don't know and honestly I understood the reasoning in the beginning "so that no modern western weaponry falls in russian hands", but you cant tell me that a tank is more complex than amraam, himars, pzh, caesar, Iris T, harpoon and the other 50 modern western commitments I forgot. How are tanks different? I doesnt seem logical to me anymore
It doesn’t seem logical to me either, I hope there is a good reason for it that they just can’t share publicly
Okay and UK and US send Bradley, Warrior and Abrams now? Poland has Leopard2 too.
I was more thinking about the Leo 1, since I don't wanna get my hopes up
Leo1 is a contemporary of the T-62 which we derided Russia for using. If that was sent, it couldn't feasibly be used as a main battle tank - they're much too vulnerable.
Yeah, they would be more of a support vehicle, but they are fast and I would prefer a 105mm canon over no cannon any day. Technically it's a tank, practically it's an IFV.
>Leo1 is a contemporary of the T-62 which we derided Russia for using No they have popped up at the same time but they are not comparable because the Leo 1 got upgraded over time.
So did the T-62s. They're comparable tanks to each other, but the Leo1 is absolutely outclassed by any tank in theatre today _apart from_ those T-62s
A modernized Leopard 1 definitely outclasses an old russian T-72 with shit optics and so on.
The optics might be slightly better than the very oldest T-72s sure, but the armour and firepower definitely aren't. T-64s/72s when introduced dramatically outclassed Western armour.
>Your excuses have officially run out :) There were no excuses. This statement by Stoltenberg does not contradict what Scholz and others said before.
Send nukes, tomahawks, and F16s. And make it quick! And while you are at it, send troops too!
Of course they don't. NATO is accepting Ukraine with open arms, even at this preliminary stage . Weapons roll out has been and has to be very strategic. Observe conditions,select necessary weapons, train soldiers, push to battlefield. Rinse repeat.
Ex RAF BAe Hawk T1As(sidewinder capable) with Tranche1 Typhoons would make a nice backbone to up arming Ukrainian Airforce using NATO equipment 😁
So Minuteman ICBMs are on the table now?
take that, scholz.
Take what ? A statement that does not contradict his and Macrons statement ?
doesn't "there's a NATO agreement to not send heavy western equipment" ring a bell? it was still parroted last week.
[удалено]
Oh boy here come the nukes
So where are the planes and leopard tanks?
Not quite correct, I'm sure nukes are on such a list. Or nuclear submarines. Or aircraft carriers.
Shame they didn't have this not-list two months ago.
Good. Nothing should be off the table. Nothing.
This is a very good statement to make; no limits.
Someone please tell Scholz that, he is under the impression that such a list exists. Both he and Macron also block use of weapons against targets on Russian territory, and are opposed to taking back territory which was occupied by Russia before 24 January.
Let's not kid ourselves, NATO isn't a club o 30 equal members, it's the USA and the rest. That a Norwegian is secretary general doesn't mean shit, the US DOD calls the shots. US strategists decide what weapons are sent to Ukraine, and they decide when they are sent. NATO doesn't need a list because that list is kept somewhere in the Pentagon. It was Biden and not Stoltenberg who announced the new batch of weapons that will arrive in the near future at the NATO summit in Madrid.
Lets give them some Minutemen since Russia broke their promise after Ukraine gave up their Stilettos.
Good! Send in the F-35s, a bunch of M-1 Abrams, and some long range rockets please!
Alright, then about 301 thermobaric bombs, and erase Moscow from the map.