"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I only wish the UK had kept up in the development of support as I feel that the UK got off to a good almost invaluable start but its petered off considerably.
Boris' departure and the Conservative's quick succession of two PMs along with all the infighting that entails caused disruption in Britain's Ukraine strategy and supply chain. And it's not over yet, as I expect Sunak and the Cons to be defeated in the next general election (no later than Jan 2025), followed by a term of Labour ill-governance, replaced by Boris' triumphal return in the late 2020s. Boris is keeping his powder dry, laying in wait as Sunak self-immolates.
 
Last edited:
Boris' departure and the Conservative's quick succession of two PMs along with all the infighting that entails caused disruption in Britain's Ukraine strategy and supply chain. And it's not over yet, as I expect Sunak and the Cons to be defeated in the next general election (no later than Jan 2025), followed by a term of Labour ill-governance, replaced by Boris' triumphal return in the late 2020s. Boris is keeping his powder dry, laying in wait as Sunak self-immolates.

Errr...I thought the forum was not supposed to get into politics?
 
I'll say no more on UK politics and only replied on the matter as it impacts support for Ukraine.

Fair enough...but what evidence do you have that those political disruptions impacted support for Ukraine?

The civil servants and military personnel who worked the export of arms didn't stop working. Despite the "big announcements" made in the House of Commons, much of the support happened more quietly in the background, to include training of Ukrainian personnel. Proposals for new arms shipments would still be worked at the staff officer level and would still be passed up to the Defence Minister despite the ongoing political turmoil.

BTW, I'm not trying to start an argument here. I'm genuinely interested in whether there is evidence of political disruption in the UK hindering that country's ability to deliver support to Ukraine.
 
I'm genuinely interested in whether there is evidence of political disruption in the UK hindering that country's ability to deliver support to Ukraine.
That's where I was trying to lead us, on how UK politics impacts support for Ukraine. But Brother, you can't have it both ways, calling me out for getting into politics, and then asking to continue the political discussion.

This…
Errr...I thought the forum was not supposed to get into politics?
Begets this…
I'll say no more on UK politics and only replied on the matter as it impacts support for Ukraine.
Be careful what you wish for. Or maybe seek elaboration before shutting down the topic?
 
That's where I was trying to lead us, on how UK politics impacts support for Ukraine. But Brother, you can't have it both ways, calling me out for getting into politics, and then asking to continue the political discussion.

This…

Begets this…

Be careful what you wish for. Or maybe seek elaboration before shutting down the topic.

Your first sentence was fine. The second and third sentences not so much.

I'm trying to focus on the first sentence...however, feel free to keep picking away at my posts while not answering a legitimate, and on-topic, question.
 
Errr...I thought the forum was not supposed to get into politics?
I cannot answer your question without violating the above. My question for you, why didn't you lead with your question on the evidence that UK political disruptions impacted support for Ukraine, rather than the above dismissive quip? We could have had an interesting discussion. But no worries, just look it up yourself.
 
I cannot answer your question without violating the above. My question for you, why didn't you lead with your question on the evidence that UK political disruptions impacted support for Ukraine, rather than the above dismissive quip? We could have had an interesting discussion. But no worries, just look it up yourself.

So, in other words, you have no evidence to present. That's fine.
 
Let's all take a moment to read this excellent article:

Excellent info, thanks for sharing.

I also wonder about this...

The US needs to invest in securing its own borders instead. Supporting Ukraine does not limit action at the US border. It is not a zero-sum game. With Ukraine support being only 5% of the Defense Department's budget, America can afford this vital effort in its national (and the world's) interest.

Does that 5% include the kit that was going to be disposed of if not used soon. If so, I would deduct that as sunk cost.
 

MOSCOW, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Major General Vladimir Zavadsky, deputy commander of Russia's 14th Army Corps, has been killed in Ukraine, a top regional official said on Monday.

The governor of Russia's Voronezh region, Alexander Gusev, said Zavadsky had died "at a combat post in the special operation zone", without giving further details.

"Special military operation" is the term that Russia uses to describe the war in Ukraine, now approaching the end of its second year.

The investigative news outlet iStories said Zavadsky was the seventh Major General whose death had been confirmed by Russia, and the 12 senior officer overall to be reported dead since the start of the war.


 
So, in other words, you have no evidence to present. That's fine.
At the risk of getting deep into the smelly stuff I do believe that the politics have impacted the support. I will try and word this factually.
We did keep the same Minister for Defence who was unabashedly pro Ukraine for a while but money seems to have dried up. The Current Conservative Government is very unpopular and seems to be saving money for the elections due next year.

I was embarrassed to read about a month ago that Ukraine were having to limit and even stop using the 105mm guns due to a lack of ammunition. Surely a relatively cheap way to continue support is to purchase the ammunition. A big song and dance was announced earlier in the year that the production capacity for ammunition was going to triple in the UK during 2023, due to a new production line coming on stream this year. Yet no significant new purchases have been announced, lack of money would be the only reason I can think of.

We now have a new Minister of Defence and you have to wonder why the old one left, I wonder why?

To sum up I believe the need to win the next election is a higher priority for the UK politicians, than supporting Ukraine and thats where the money is going.
 
Excellent info, thanks for sharing.

I also wonder about this...

The US needs to invest in securing its own borders instead. Supporting Ukraine does not limit action at the US border. It is not a zero-sum game. With Ukraine support being only 5% of the Defense Department's budget, America can afford this vital effort in its national (and the world's) interest.

Does that 5% include the kit that was going to be disposed of if not used soon. If so, I would deduct that as sunk cost.
The DoD's budget would most likely encompass overall operational cost, R&D, new equipment acquisition and so on for the current/upcoming fiscal year.

Old equipment, including stored ammunition, has already been purchased by former budgets and would not be part of any current fiscal budget.

In figures regarding a congressional "package" being approved for transfer to Ukraine, I'd imagine the dollar amount of any one piece of older equipment would be the cost of procurement of that item at the time of fiscal purchase, not today's dollars.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back