Ukraine

20 odd ammo dumps in a week or so, from 4 units, imagine that x 100

My understanding is that there is a capability issue, in that given the complexity of the system, it takes 4-6 weeks to get a platoon up to speed on all aspects of utilisation and targeting, as well as maintenance requirements.

Could they be training multiple teams simultaneously? Maybe, but they probably want to slow walk it initially to understand exactly what needs to be focused on, prior to then rolling it out at scale

"I won’t doubt there are photo ops, but there is substance behind the uk effort, so think you are being a bit harsh."

The reason I don't give Johnson credit is that the policy towards Ukraine has been consistent from Cameron through to May and then Johnson. Do we think Cameron or May would have performed worse than Johnson when faced with this crisis? For a start off, we wouldn't have Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary, who clearly never heard the phrase 'loose tongues cost lives'..

Personally I think either of the previous PM's would have performed considerably better than Johnson.

My understanding is that there is a capability issue, in that given the complexity of the system, it takes 4-6 weeks to get a platoon up to speed on all aspects of utilisation and targeting, as well as maintenance requirements.

Could they be training multiple teams simultaneously? Maybe, but they probably want to slow walk it initially to understand exactly what needs to be focused on, prior to then rolling it out at scale

Ukraine will have highly competent individuals who are in similar branches to our Royal Artillery, who will be trained quickly enough, remember there might only be 4 HIMARs just now, but there's also a dozen M270 MLRS's that the UK and others have provided, with more HIMARs and probably M270s to follow in the coming weeks/months.

It's still just letting Ukraine try to fight Russian forces to a standstill in their own country, which is the most depressing part, there just doesn't seem to be an end to this conflict, it really could roll on for years if something doesn't change in Russia.

It's interesting what exactly the strategies of the Western powers are. If there is indeed one overarching, uniform strategy across so many different countries (my take is that at the highest level there kind of is, but at the tactical level approaches to implementation vary significantly).

Given that if you take the big red button option off the table (I know that we can't rule it out completely due to Putin) it seems fairly certain that NATO would obliterate Russian forces in a conventional warfare scenario, it does make you wonder why the slow walk in terms of wider military support to Ukraine. I suspect that notwithstanding the differences in focus and strategies across the NATO countries, there is a scenario whereby NATO (or some NATO countries) are still concerned about overly (or ideed overtly) provoking Putin. However it does seem to be the case that from a stretegic geo-political perspective a drawn out conflict makes a lot of sense. It serves in the long-term to greatly debilitate any extant military (not to mention economic) capability that the Russians possess, further undermines Putin's regime and hopefully puts the Russian bear back in its cave for a generation or two.

So it could well be that the strategy is to give Russia just enough succour to keep pushing forward and thereby getting sucked ever more into a demoralising and debilitating conflict that it can never hope to win, without delivering the knockout blow that might cause it to retreat, regroup and revive its ambitions. Over time as the Russian war machine - and the resources of its economy - are stretched further and further, the senario of total collapse becomes ever more possible (if not probable), meaning Putin and his gangster regime are fatally compromised.

Ultimately I guess that the strategy could well be to ensure that the Russians are weakened to an extent that they no longer pose a short or medium term threat, and that the upshot of this is that as a country they embrace the checks and balances of a properly functioning democracy given that the bloody nose they got from Putin's disastrous aggression was so severe

I don't think the West has a coherent strategy about this. I think they are delivering as much assistance as they can. One consideration is that NATO countries need to keep a large reserve of weapons for their own defense so they can only supply stuff that is surplus to that. The arms manufacturers only have the production capacity for peacetime needs, the lead time on a lot of the military gear will be years, not weeks, so boosting production won't happen overnight.

Another thing is that NATO and U.S. militaries are set up for very high-tech combined arms operations, with land, air, and sea forces working together in very complex operations. Ukraine does not have the infrastructure and trained personnel to fight like that so a lot of the high-tech systems wouldn't be any use to them. For example, aircraft like F16s and F18s need precision guided weapons to be useful, otherwise they have to fly in low and slow, which makes them vulnerable to ground fire. All that technology requires technical infrastructure for servicing and repairs. A squadron of F16s would be useless without all the required infrastructure, which would require months or years to set up and train personnel. The Ukrainians are familiar with Eastern Bloc gear so supplying them with old Warsaw Pact gear will have a more immediate impact than spending months training them to use modern NATO gear.

thols2 +1
The simple fact is that supply to a defending state is governed by law. You can supply proportionate to the self-defence needs of a state, which is why weapons capable of hitting targets in Russia haven't been sent.
This is a massive balancing act as thols2 says and can't really be an international strategic act IMV.
There are states that could do a lot more and states that are massively punching above their weight in %GDP terms.
I guess that there is an argument to supply former Warsaw Pact countries who are now NATO members with the modern tech stuff and send their Warsaw Pact-era materiel to Ukraine. Apart from logistics, an indirect consequence of modern weapons in Ukraine is that they could end up in the hands of the aggressor

Personally I think either of the previous PM’s would have performed considerably better than Johnson

In the context of this war? How so? It's governed by International Law, one that Boris hasn't been accused of breaking

Do we think Cameron or May would have performed worse than Johnson when faced with this crisis?

In a counter-factual world, how would we think PM Corbyn would have shaped up against Putin?

BJ is a disgrace, but at least he did one thing right-ish.

Well Corbyn was pointing out the danger of Putin since long before Johnson slept off his hangover at Lebedev’s party, so no reason to imagine he would have been slow to act. Johnson has been happy to play the big man, as long as it’s Ukrainians dying; no downside to sending them weapons as long as its not us suffering.

Not much point in going down a hypothetical, what if Corbyn scenario 🤷‍♂️

Well Corbyn was pointing out the danger of Putin since long before Johnson slept off his hangover at Lebedev’s party

Corbyn was against NATO and supplying support to the Ukraine with the Stop the War movement and letters he issued, he was pushing the Minsk Agreement to be what stops any conflict, but to be fair to him, he probably didn't think Putin would do what he did, like most of the world.

As for countries supplying Ukraine, there is a balancing act between supplying defensive aid and offensive aid, the latter could effectively draw countries into the war, Poland have offered a lot more than provided, but NATO have pushed back on some of the more potentially offensive weapons.

There has been a leadership vacuum in the West because of the fragile state that Trump and Johnson have left NATO and the EU in. Putin also had a hand in this...

As a consequence, for the most part approaches to the conflict have looked unilateral. Again, something Putin had been working on for 15 years.

Perhaps it's a score draw with this one, Johnson did step into that vacuum and in doing so gave the conflict a greater media profile, which as mentioned, was much appreciated by Ukranians, (the military aid would have arrived if May or Cameron had been in charge).

On the counterfactual side, had Brexit and Trump not happened, we would have seen a much more unified, multilateral approach towards Russia, especially in the lead up to the conflict. So whilst Johnson did step into the leadership vacuum, it was a vacuum that he was in large part responsible for creating in the first place.

With Corbyn? Would we be sending as much material to Ukraine as we are? and would we have been providing the same level of training and cooperation over the last few years as we have been? I'm not so sure,

There has been a leadership vacuum in the West because of the fragile state that Trump and Johnson have left NATO and the EU in

You seem to enjoy counter-factual arguments. Trump cut the US direct budget contribution from 22% to 16%. He was making a point in that the direct budget funds NATO HQ and some operations and is "only" $2.5bn shared between 29 countries at the time.
Trump also had a go at those countries that contribute <2% GDP to NATO, of which there were 21/29. Jens Soltenberg later congratulated Trump on Fox News because contributions increased.
Guess who else you name who also contributes well to NATO and the Ukraine, as opposed to the biggest economies in the EU...
As to the state of the EU my earlier posts make it clear that I have no interest in turning this into a Brexit thread and I won't be engaging with either you or those of your ilk

Trump did considerably more damage to NATO than good

Trump did considerably more damage to NATO than good

Please explain

I think NATO had lost its sense of purpose somewhat. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has given NATO a renewed sense of purpose.

At the same time, NATO, for reasons of optics, didn’t want to look as though it’s taking Russia on. So it’s individual nations are giving aid, not NATO itself?

Think about how much the conversation has beens about the gap between how much each individual nation is giving compared to another. Think abput the gap between what has been promised and what has been delivered. Then think about how Putin jas,and continues to exploit those gaps.

I am in no way exonerating how the major continental nations have acted but some of us believe that Brexit may have been instrumental in the chain of events we're witnessing. the UK chose to Brexit, we weren't kicked out.

For all it's faults, I saw the European Union as a better guarantee of peace in Europe than NATO even. (We have discussed how Putin thinks the same). That's why I voted remain even though I am not a federalist.

It is said that the American revolution of 1776 inspired the French revolution a decade later. I wonder if history will cite Brexit as the inspiration for Trump being elected and the unravelling of the status quo that ensued?

That is my counterfactual argument anyway.

So it’s individual nations are giving aid, not NATO itself?

NATO's function is to deter aggressors and to defend its member countries. They also look at strategic areas including space and cyberspace, new generation weapons, etc.
NATO has strengthened deterrence and defence by effectively doubling forces on its Eastern flank since the invasion and its members have supplied materiel to Ukraine.
They've had a Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine since 2016 ( https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_09/20160920_160920-compreh-ass-package-ukra.pdf)

I don’t see any weapons in that aid package?

NATO advises and organises while NATO's state members provide the means to see those plans through. An example is standardised ammunition
States are free under international law to act individually to provide self-defence means to others but this isn't a NATO function and individual NATO states are sometimes conflated with "NATO"
NATO also incorporates non-member partners into its exercises as it has done with Ukraine https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_176327.htm
Russia has alleged that NATO uses the exercises to secretly transfer arms outside international law

One consideration is that NATO countries need to keep a large reserve of weapons for their own defense so they can only supply stuff that is surplus to that. 

Defend against who? Russia?
What is the point of having (for example) tanks in the UK, in France, in Germany doing nothing but waiting to defend against Russia when they could be being used against Russia right now.
If this war reaches the UK or France then we have gone far beyond needing some tanks. We should get everything we can into Ukraine as soon as we can and worry about rearming later.
Britain's defense against Russia is mostly Tridant, and the RAF, not artillery and NLAWS, same for France.

Britain’s defense against Russia is mostly Trident.

Ironically though its not a defence given by the time those come in to play theres no winners and nothing left to defend against.

One consideration is that NATO countries need to keep a large reserve of weapons for their own defense so they can only supply stuff that is surplus to that.

Defend against who? Russia?

That consideration is part of what NATO will be doing now. They still have to provide deterrence and defence and have already organised its members to double defence on NATO's eastern flank.
Individual NATO countries also have to think about their own relationship to non-members, e.g. US-Taiwan

Germany is one stage away from gas rationing https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europe-edge-nord-stream-russian-gas-link-set-planned-shut-down-2022-07-10/
Michelin has converted its gas boilers to run on either gas, oil or coal https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fearing-russian-gas-shut-off-frances-industry-turns-oil-2022-07-10/
Canada has agreed to return a German-made turbine that it was servicing to the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. It's been decided that it's a necessary sanction-busting measure because of the energy mess in Europe. Ukraine has protested the move

Ironically though its not a defence given by the time those come in to play theres no winners and nothing left to defend against.

Presumably they meant deterrence not defence

I get the whole give them everything now argument.
However, its really not that simple
Tanks for example. I have driven a challenger, ok it was round a feild and no one was shooting at me but its a huge 50t complex machine that requires dedicated support systems and ammo.
Plus years of training is required to get the best out of it.
Same for plames and even more so for helicopters.
Apaches would probably be very helpful but are overly complex machines, tricky to fly and require alot of spares.

Now, big guns, thats different. I am sure the us military is providing an hourly gps target list imto the Ukrainian military hq. But thete is still the logistics of moving and armiing howitzer type weapoms so they can be effective and not instantly neutralised by ru counter battery fite or missile / drone strikes.
Plus lobbing a 10kg warhead 10km still only had a few yards kill zone so you may need to fire alot of rounds to take out armor to

One consideration is that NATO countries need to keep a large reserve of weapons for their own defense so they can only supply stuff that is surplus to that.

Defend against who? Russia?

I was actually thinking more of the U.S. having defense treaties with countries like Japan and South Korea, plus a friendship with Taiwan. North Korea is an extremely dangerous country and the U.S. has treaty obligations with Japan and South Korea so they need to keep a lot of ships, aircraft, and soldiers in that region. China would probably invade Taiwan if they were confident they could get away with it. The U.S. needs to keep enough military presence in the region to cast doubt in China's mind that it would be a quick, cheap victory. China also has simmering disputes with other Asian countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines so that region is likely to become more and more the top priority for the U.S. in the coming decades.

Defend against who? Russia?
What is the point of having (for example) tanks in the UK, in France, in Germany doing nothing but waiting to defend against Russia when they could be being used against Russia right now.
If this war reaches the UK or France then we have gone far beyond needing some tanks. We should get everything we can into Ukraine as soon as we can and worry about rearming later.

I don't think we need to be unduly concerned about the Russians reaching Western Europe, they're not even able to secure Eastern Ukraine, let alone reach Western Ukraine.

Does seem to be that the long range artillery is starting to have the desired impact. Strelkov is on record saying that 10 ammo dumps, a number of gas storage sites and 12 command posts have been taken out in the last few days. Ukrainians do seem to be fighting a superb tactical battle. Suck the Russians in, severely dissipate their attacking potential whilst extending their supply lines, withdraw to massively fortified positions and use their artillery to destroy their command and logistics infrastructure.

One of the senior Ukrainian commanders said a month or so ago that the tide would start to turn towards the end of August. Perhaps he was right..

I don’t think we need to be unduly concerned about the Russians reaching Western Europe

Change that to Germany and you are essentially back in the 1920's. While I think we should continue to support Ukraine in it's efforts to defeat Russian aggression, I think clearly the very best solution would be for the Russians to get themselves shot of Putin and his bunch of hangers-on, call an end to war and start the long process of becoming a normal democratic country that isn't sabre-rattling at it's neighbours, we would do well I think to encourage that, rather than amass weaponry along it's borders.

Ukrainians do seem to be fighting a superb tactical battle.

I suspect they are also fighting a superb propaganda battle. It's difficult to know what to believe. They've been publicly stating that they are taking huge losses and urgently need help, but this week they're boasting that they have an army of a million ready to go on the offensive. My hope is that the heavy losses was just disinformation to keep Russia wasting their army in a fruitless offensive while Ukraine preserved their force ready to counterattack when the Russians were exhausted. But, this could just be propaganda to demoralize the Russians and encourage them to withdraw. Guess we'll find out in the next few months.

I think you’re giving Cameron & May too much credit - it was on their watch we had Salisbury, MH17 and Russia invading the Crimea - their ‘strategy’ was more of appeasement as they encouraged the Roubles to roll into London whilst uttering empty rhetoric.
As for Boris, it was just a PR stunt - no real effort at statecraft, he didn’t bring parties together - he simply opened the UK’s strategic weapons reserve for a quick quid to the degree we’re now short of heavy munitions.
Under the Tories, the UK military is now the smallest it’s been since Napoleonic times and many capabilities are severely degraded - there was concerted effort to demobilise the UK’s only heavy mechanised brigade from Germany as tanks were seen as irrelevant. The hawks will love it as wars are what drive up recruitment.
The replacement infantry fighting vehicle is decades late and billions overspent because awarding the competition to a US contractor to the detriment of UK companies has worked out well because a market-driven ideology in the MOD. Never mind, the flag-shaggers love him.

One of the senior Ukrainian commanders said a month or so ago that the tide would start to turn towards the end of August. Perhaps he was right

Something needs to change before winter if severe Europe-wide fuel shortages are to be avoided.
We only used 4% Russian gas before this started so no massive drama to turn that off, but everyone is now chasing the same supplies

 their ‘strategy’ was more of appeasement as they encouraged the Roubles to roll into London

TBF to both Cameron and May this was the EU/US/World response to Russians and their wealth (regardless of how they acquired it). It basically said the more we allow Russians access to normal ways of investing money, the more normally they will behave; i.e. by accepting normalised taxation and fees on their transactions, and allowing laws and adjudications to intercept illegality. However I don't think anyone was expecting the largest crook in the system to behave as he ultimately did. Again while enforcing rules on Russian money is important here, we would be better to help the the Russians transition to a more normal political settlement

Again while enforcing rules on Russian money is important here, we would be better to help the the Russians transition to a more normal political settlement

Russia and China have both pulled the same stunt. I was supportive of the idea that closer economic ties would lead to positive change as their leaders experienced the benefits of joining the global system. I think we had to try that, but we can now see that China and Russia have no interest in any system that constrains them so it's long past time to disentagle from them. Russia is not going to transition to any sort of normal country, even if Putin were to fall out a window tomorrow, his replacement would be just as bad, possibly worse.

andrewh
Free Member

North Korea is an extremely dangerous country

Dangerous to it's own people, that's about it. It's got a GDP equivalent to Glasgow.

thols2
Free Member
Russia is not going to transition to any sort of normal country, even if Putin were to fall out a window tomorrow, his replacement would be just as bad, possibly worse.

I actually suspect Putin has moved toward a planned economy fully in the Chinese model and that's the true motivation for this war.

I think he sees that they'll probably overtake the US in 20 years time in terms of GDPPC and decided that some of that growth will be good for Russia.

North Korea has a very large army and thousands of artillery pieces dug into the sides of steep valleys just north of the DMZ. Seoul is just south of the DMZ so it would be flattened if war broke out. North Korea also has ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. They are a huge danger to South Korea and Japan, that's why those two countries have defense treaties with the U.S. and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed on their soil.

Quite aware of the geography and their potential threat to SK and Japan, but they aren't attacking anyone unless they are attacked.

I actually suspect Putin has moved toward a planned economy fully in the Chinese model and that’s the true motivation for this war.

Your imagination is running wild there. His motivation was to try to rebuild the old Russian sphere of influence, he said so himself. He needed to deter Ukraine from joining the EU to do that. There was no grand strategy beyond he wanted to dominate Ukraine and turn it into a puppet state. He didn't believe the west would actually impose serious sanctions, he had no plan to follow any kind of Chinese economic model.

I actually suspect Putin has moved toward a planned economy fully in the Chinese model

I'm not sure if I'd describe the Chinese system as a 'planned economy', at lesst not in the old Soviet sense of the word. They call it 'Socialism in a Chinese style' but as far as I can make out it's just raging capitalism

Guess we'll find out in 20 years time.

Quite aware of the geography and their potential threat to SK and Japan, but they aren’t attacking anyone unless they are attacked.

They quite frequently do very provocative things, firing artillery at South Korean positions is pretty normal, for example. In 2010, they sank a South Korean navy ship. They are much more dangerous than you realize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

shermer75
Free Member
I actually suspect Putin has moved toward a planned economy fully in the Chinese model

I’m not sure if I’d describe the Chinese system as a ‘planned economy’, at lesst not in the old Soviet sense of the word. They call it ‘Socialism in a Chinese style’ but as far as I can make out it’s just raging capitalism

tbf, I'd not be too knowledgeable here as to the technical name, but i'd tend think of it is a highly planned and cherry picked form of capitalism, but the name of it isn't really as important as the direction of GDP over the last 30 years.

thols2
Free Member
They are much more dangerous than you realize.

I'll leave you to that fantasy.

NK would be a repository of troops if China ever decided to go on the offensive. On their own, they aren't a threat to anyone.

but the name of it isn’t really as important as the direction of GDP over the last 30 years.

Yep they are def getting something right!!