"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (8 Viewers)

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

The Kremlin is intensifying its information operation to promote a false narrative that the war will escalate if Ukraine receives weapons capable of striking Russian forces in occupied Crimea. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded on January 19 to a New York Times report that US officials are considering providing Kyiv with weapons capable of striking Russian military infrastructure in occupied Crimea and southern Ukraine.[16] Peskov stated that Western provisions of long-range weapons to Ukraine that can threaten Russian forces in Crimea will bring "the conflict to a new qualitive level, which will not go well for global and pan-European security."[17]

[...]

Peskov's threats are part of a Russian information operation designed to discourage Western support to Ukraine and do not correspond to Russia's actual capabilities to escalate against the West. Kremlin officials have made similar threats regarding select Western security assistance in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. Russia forces, however, do not have the capacity to escalate their conventional war effort in Ukraine and certainly are not capable of conducting successful conventional military operations against the West and NATO in their current state. Russia has severely weakened its military posture against NATO by deploying military units and equipment – including air defense systems – away from NATO and to Ukraine and suffering horrific losses in men and materiel.[18] The Kremlin never assessed that it could defeat NATO in a conventional war, moreover, an assessment that was at the heart of its hybrid warfare doctrine.[19] The Kremlin seeks to minimize Western military aid to Ukraine by stoking fears of an escalation Russia cannot execute.

[...]

The Kremlin is also very unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and extraordinarily unlikely to use them against the West despite consistently leaning on tired nuclear escalation threats. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, in response to NATO Command's planned January 20 meeting in Germany, stated on January 19 that Western officials do not understand that the "loss of a nuclear power in a conventional war can provoke the outbreak of a nuclear war."[21] Medvedev argued that "nuclear powers [like the Russian Federation] have not lost major conflicts on which their fate depends."[22] Medvedev routinely makes hyperbolic and inflammatory comments, including threats of nuclear escalation, in support of Russian information operations that aim to weaken Western support for Ukraine and that are out of touch with actual Kremlin positions regarding the war in Ukraine.[23]

[...]

ISW continues to assess that Russian officials have no intention of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere, and certainly not in response to the provision of individual weapons systems.[24]



These are just the highlights, but the entire article is worth the read.
 
The problem is the idea that NATO nations have lots of "spare" Leo 2s available. Any provision of MBTs will reduce NATO's operational force, at least temporarily.
True, but we've also come to realize that the Russian military is near useless. Is there really any chance of what's left of the Russian armed forces diverting from trying to hold the line in Ukraine to commencing offensive ground ops against NATO in Poland (presumably through Belarus rather than Kaliningrad) or the Baltic Reps, the only parts of NATO they abut? With what?

Canada could decommission its entire armour corps of eighty-odd Leopards plus approx twenty Leopard 2 based ARV/AEVs and send the lot to Ukraine and not be at any greater risk. I imagine the penny pinchers at the DND are thinking of this right now. I think our days of rolling around the Islamic world to counter or support whatever sand-wrought despot, mullah, etc. is in power are over. Might as well put the tanks to their intended use, deterring and if necessary killing Russians, which is the primary reason we have a postwar Canadian Armed Forces at all.
 
Last edited:
True, but we've also come to realize that the Russian military is near useless. Is there really any chance of what's left of the Russian armed forces diverting from trying to hold the line in Ukraine to commencing offensive ground ops against NATO in Poland (presumably through Belarus rather than Kaliningrad) or the Baltic Reps, the only parts of NATO they abut? With what?

The ISW article I linked above addresses exactly this point. The gist of its conclusion agrees with what you write here. They simply do not have the power to project successfully in two theaters at once.
 
More on the Leo IIs:

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany/KYIV, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Germany said it would need agreement from allies to give the green light for the delivery of German-made tanks to Ukraine to fend off Moscow's invasion, apparently dashing Kyiv's hopes for a quick decision.

[...]

German Defence Minister Pistorius said he could not say when there would be a decision on the tanks but that Germany was prepared to move fast if there was consensus among allies.

"All pros and cons must be weighed very carefully," Pistorius said, adding that the issue had been discussed on Friday but no decision had been made.

Pistorius did not say which, if any, allies were not in agreement with supplying the tanks, or give details of what he saw as the pros and cons of such a policy.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz's government has appeared reluctant to authorise the re-export of the tanks for fear of provoking Russia. Some Western officials have also flagged the concern that Russia might capture advanced Western weaponry and steal its technology.

[...]

A government source in Germany has said it would move on the Leopard tanks issue if the United States agreed to send Abrams tanks, which were not included in Thursday's U.S. announcement of new military aid. Berlin said the two issues were not linked.



Quit the hand-wringing already. Of course there's always the risk of high-tech weaponry being captured in a war. That's an awful reason not to use it.
 
Russian tactics may be outdated, their army's performance abysmal but they are able to cover it up by throwing masses of manpower vs the enemy to bleed them out.
EDIT: Russian never really cared about manpower losses, not in WW2 and not here. As long as they have enough cannonfodder to throw at the enemies like the prisoners or recruits from foreign republics.
 
Firing up the factories to resume production will take time, but to my understanding is being done, at least here in America (e.g. Raytheon and Lockheed restarting Stinger production). I'd be surprised if that wasn't true of other nations and weapons-systems.

Yep...I get all of that. However, re-starting Stinger production is a rather different proposition to re-starting tank production.

For example, the UK is sending 12-14 Challenger 2s but, AFAIK, there isn't ongoing production of the type.

As for the Leo 2, the most recent order I can find is by Hungary in 2018 for 44 tanks, with the order due to be fulfilled this year (details are sketchy).

If Leo 2 production is ramping down (likely given Germany-France collaboration on a new tank due to enter service in 2030), then accelerating production will be challenging...and it will require current Leo 2 operators to place orders for replacement tanks.
 
Last edited:
Yep...I get all of that. However, re-starting Stinger production is a rather different proposition to re-starting tank production. 4

For example, the UK is sending 12-14 Challenger 2s but, AFAIK, there isn't ongoing production of the type.

As for the Leo 2, the most recent order I can find is by Hungary in 2018 for 44 tanks, with the order due to be fulfilled this year (details are sketchy).

If Leo 2 production is ramping down (likely given Germany-France collaboration on a new tank due to enter service in 2030), then accelerating production will be challenging...and it will require current Leo 2 operators to place orders for replacement tanks.

Right, I'm not saying it'll be easy, but I don't imagine a country would denude itself without looking at how to replace donations/sales. They may also be hoping to replace equipment from American tanks/artillery in storage, which would have to be refurbed, sure, but that's got to be quicker than ramping a factory back up for new builds.

Just as big a concern is ammunition production, I'd imagine.
 
"All pros and cons must be weighed very carefully," Pistorius said, adding that the issue had been discussed on Friday but no decision had been made.
There are no f#cking cons! JMFC, it's amazing that we could quickly send MLRS but can't send tanks. What special magic do tanks hold over our decision makers?

At this rate it will be 2025 before Ukraine sees a single Block 40/42 F-16C/D made in the 1980s. All because Ukrainians are somehow too thick or backward to sort out how to maintain and operate things. I swear, when this war is over the AFU will be the teachers and experts showing the West how to fight, support and win at conventional warfare. The introductory class will be about how domestic and supposedly-allied foreign politicians can either expedite/help or hinder the nation's defence.
 
Last edited:
Right, I'm not saying it'll be easy, but I don't imagine a country would denude itself without looking at how to replace donations/sales. They may also be hoping to replace equipment from American tanks in storage, which would have to be refurbed, sure, but that's got to be quicker than ramping a factory back up for new builds.

Potentially....but then you're opening multiple other cans o' worms.

First, there's the political issue. Giving up a European-developed MBT and replacing it with an American one won't necessarily be popular with European voters.

Then there's the combat readiness issue. It will take time to refurb the M1s, then you have to train your personnel on them and realign your logistics chains. I just don't see there being time/capacity to keep current personnel fully trained and maintain materiel resources at sufficient readiness for a viable defence.

Logistics also need to be considered. If the M1s are used to make up piecemeal deliveries of Leo 2s from multiple NATO nations, then each of those nations will have duplicative MBT supply chains which will increase costs...and that will eat into defence expenditure in other areas.

The actual number of Leo 2s available is hard to pin down because Germany is providing old versions to NATO Allies who have provided ex-Soviet equipment to Ukraine, with consequent huge risk of double-counting. Germany is the largest operator of the type, with somewhere in the range 266-328 tanks. A number of NATO Allies have much smaller forces, some fewer than 20 Leo 2s. I'm just not sure where even 300 Leo 2s will come from without impacting the front line.
 
And --


WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday it would send hundreds of armored vehicles plus rockets and artillery shells to Ukraine as part of a $2.5 billion military assistance package.

The package includes 59 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 90 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers, 53 mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles and 350 high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, the U.S. Defense Department said in a statement.

The 59 Bradleys included in the latest U.S. package come after a previous 50 announced earlier in January. The armored Bradley has a powerful gun and has been used by the U.S. Army to carry troops around battlefields since the mid-1980s.

The latest assistance also includes additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), eight Avenger air-defense systems, tens of thousands of artillery rounds and about 2,000 anti-armor rockets, the Defense Department said.



Had to look up the Avenger, forgive the Wiki: AN/TWQ-1 Avenger - Wikipedia
 
Potentially....but then you're opening multiple other cans o' worms.

First, there's the political issue. Giving up a European-developed MBT and replacing it with an American one won't necessarily be popular with European voters.

Then there's the combat readiness issue. It will take time to refurb the M1s, then you have to train your personnel on them and realign your logistics chains. I just don't see there being time/capacity to keep current personnel fully trained and maintain materiel resources at sufficient readiness for a viable defence.

Logistics also need to be considered. If the M1s are used to make up piecemeal deliveries of Leo 2s from multiple NATO nations, then each of those nations will have duplicative MBT supply chains which will increase costs...and that will eat into defence expenditure in other areas.

The actual number of Leo 2s available is hard to pin down because Germany is providing old versions to NATO Allies who have provided ex-Soviet equipment to Ukraine, with consequent huge risk of double-counting. Germany is the largest operator of the type, with somewhere in the range 266-328 tanks. A number of NATO Allies have much smaller forces, some fewer than 20 Leo 2s. I'm just not sure where even 300 Leo 2s will come from without impacting the front line.


All fair points, but I'd imagine that no matter the tank models donated/sold, logistics for the UAF are going to be complicated. But as I noted earlier, refurbing the storage tanks will likely trim time compared to firing up factory lines. The political aspect is a fair point and will have to be hashed-over.
 
What's the MANPADS and overall SAM situation on the Russian side? If Ukraine had a fleet of NATO strike fighters, would they survive over the battlefield? The Russian ones certainly don't over the Ukrainian lines.
Notice the Russian aircraft being hit in videos or reports are usually flying low and solitary?

In the real world, you would have a flight or groups of more than two flying sorties.

In that case, a surface to air launch would result in countermeasures, evasion and the other aircraft in the area would target the launch site and reshape the terrain with extreme prejudice.
 
All fair points, but I'd imagine that no matter the tank models donated/sold, logistics for the UAF are going to be complicated. But as I noted earlier, refurbing the storage tanks will likely trim time compared to firing up factory lines. The political aspect is a fair point and will have to be hashed-over.

Yes, logistics for UAF will be (already are) complicated because they're getting all sorts of penny-packets of systems from different vendors/nations.

My logistics comment was focused on the donating NATO nation. Let's say the NATO Leo 2 owners all agree to give up 10% of their tanks for Ukraine. Replacing just that portion of your MBTs with M1 Abrams could double the cost of maintaining your tank force. That's hugely problemmatic given the modest defence budgets of many NATO members.
 
Polands a full NATO member, they got the full fat SepV3's on order.
Poland has two sets of Abrams coming:
  1. 250 M1A2 SEP V3 - see here
  2. 116 M1A1 - see here
One of the key things in these that would also be highly relevant to any proposed sending of modern western MBTs (be they Abrams, Leopard2, Challenger...) is that they also send the necessary support vehicles such as the M88s, JABs etc. Remember that any of these 50 - 70 ton beasts require support to operate on the modern battle field. Things such as bridges can become major obstacles if not designed to handle such. This is something that the Russian/Soveit designs are less troubled by due to their typically lower masses (~40 ton).
 
That is the way to proceed with Switzerland restrictions too.
I find Poland a curious case: They are all vocal with offers to get headlines...but then the fine print comes in. For instance the recent Leo 2 announcement comes with caveats.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back