Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Krakenzero

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
708
Supports
Santiago Wanderers
Who told you exactly that the Russian have lost far more? All the western intelligence recently hinted that the causalities are very much comparable while withholding the real causalities of the UKR for obvious reasons. Even if the Russians are losing twice as much as the UKR, look at their population.

And the Russians may have limited capacity to replenish troops and weapons but they are using tons of missiles which were produced very lately, plugging holes in their frontline while gaining lands lately. Now, the UKR are preparing to resist the Russians offensive while not being able to make their own to regain some territories.

The initiatives are very much coming from the Russians. That's after people here talked about how they would be on the backfoot for months. The reality here is that the Russians adapted and seemed to be dedicating the momentum here.

The UKR does NOT have limitless resources from the west. I am not sure how people are not taking consideration of the fatigue that the UKR are having or will have very soon.

I don't think I am the one who is consuming anyone's propaganda too much here. Not to mentioned how I pointed out the Bekhmut was very important for both sides weeks ago while everyone was saying it was useless. Well, it was so useless that there were reports of UKR losing triple digits of men daily defending it because according to some western intelligence that if the UKR loses it, it will be harder for them to defend the cities around behind that line. And the Russians are gaining some foothold there little by little with their army of convicts.
Practically all reports say so. We are almost one year after the invasion and Russia controls less territory than after the first week of the invasion. Winter stopped all warfronts, even Bahkmut were Wagner has been months throwing everything they have and haven't been able to secure it. It's bad that Ukraine is having 100 a day losses, but Russia's apparently are 700-800 a day right now.

Initiative seems to have varied during the conflict, but to date none of the RA offensives have resulted in a significant breakthrough since the beggining of the war (maybe Severodonetsk/Lyschansk?). On the contrary, Ukraine actions so far have been more indirect (Kharkiv, Lyman, Izyum, Kherson) and more effective. By the way, the only big Ukranian city that Russia captured and retained during the conflict is Mariupol, which was esentially indefensible. Kiev, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporzhizhia and Kherson are in Ukraine's hands.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Practically all reports say so. We are almost one year after the invasion and Russia controls less territory than after the first week of the invasion. Winter stopped all warfronts, even Bahkmut were Wagner has been months throwing everything they have and haven't been able to secure it. It's bad that Ukraine is having 100 a day losses, but Russia's apparently are 700-800 a day right now.

Initiative seems to have varied during the conflict, but to date none of the RA offensives have resulted in a significant breakthrough since the beggining of the war (maybe Severodonetsk/Lyschansk?). On the contrary, Ukraine actions so far have been more indirect (Kharkiv, Lyman, Izyum, Kherson) and more effective. By the way, the only big Ukranian city that Russia captured and retained during the conflict is Mariupol, which was esentially indefensible. Kiev, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporzhizhia and Kherson are in Ukraine's hands.
None of the (respectable) report says exactly that. I am sure the reports you were looking at showed that the Russians KIA are now over 100k. The respected ( I hope) Western intelligent agencies reports didn't say anything close to it. Even if you take the figure of 180,000 and 1: 3 ratio is right, their KIA would be far below what we read online.

And we do NOT actually know how much UKR lost so far. If we don't then, how can we say confidently that the Russians are losing much more than the UKR? I can believe the equipment loss because the Russians simply had more. But it would be really difficult to estimate about the troop losses.

RA offensives did not have a significant breakthrough since the beginning? I mean they occupied about 15% of the UKR land right now. Nevermind about theirs. Let's worry about the UKR's. Right now, we see nothing of it while having in extremely difficult situation of defending the Bahkmut area.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,381
Location
South Carolina
Of course, if you write it that way, the UKR have all the advantages.
Okay, well, I’m not making it up. That’s the reality of the situation.
How long do you think we will have to wait to see all those advantages will be used against the Russians in the battle field?
We already have seen them. Twice.
1) the defeat of the initial invasion
2) the counter-attack that retook half of Russia’s gains
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,225
The bold part is what I am concerned because the West probably think that the situation was getting worse for the UKR. We hope it is not too late.

I am not saying the UKR are doing a bad job, the opposite in fact but I am not getting where some people are getting all the Russians are losing and going to lose soon etc stuff. I am asking and thinking if I am the only one who does not see it that way.
I agree with you. We don't really know what exactly is the condition of either the Russian or the Ukrainian forces. I am also worried about the constant missile attacks by the Russians. For almost a full year now, the Russians have been bombarding Ukraine with artillery and missiles and taking out important infrastructure like the electricity grid. This makes it harder for Ukrainians to function. The West should rush in more help, especially air defenses and long-range missiles to help Ukraine target the Russian military units that are causing them damage. The Ukrainians should be able to hit inside Russia, not to kill civilians, but to destroy the missile bases, the bombers etc. They have already done this on a very limited scale, but long-range missiles will probably help them a lot.
 

Krakenzero

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
708
Supports
Santiago Wanderers
None of the (respectable) report says exactly that. I am sure the reports you were looking at showed that the Russians KIA are now over 100k. The respected ( I hope) Western intelligent agencies reports didn't say anything close to it. Even if you take the figure of 180,000 and 1: 3 ratio is right, their KIA would be far below what we read online.

And we do NOT actually know how much UKR lost so far. If we don't then, how can we say confidently that the Russians are losing much more than the UKR? I can believe the equipment loss because the Russians simply had more. But it would be really difficult to estimate about the troop losses.

RA offensives did not have a significant breakthrough since the beginning? I mean they occupied about 15% of the UKR land right now. Nevermind about theirs. Let's worry about the UKR's. Right now, we see nothing of it while having in extremely difficult situation of defending the Bahkmut area.
Then bring one of the respectable reports that you quote so we can decide, since I'm not sure you are qualified to decide which ones are respectable and which aren't. But I'm curious, if the RA started an invasion with 200,000 forces one year ago, and six months ago asked for a reinforcement of 300,000 more to control a smaller area than the one they invaded initially, how much do you think their casualties were at that point? Do you think they have increased or decreased since then?

We can say confidently that the RA has lost more military than Ukraine because of military experts and military history that says that invaders do tend to have a higher casualties ratio than defenders, and because of the proxy that visibily destroyed military vehicles provide, and because of the amount of visual confirmation provided by both sides.

Russia ocuppied about 10% of Ukraine's territory 8 years before the war. Since March 1st their major offensives have been Kiev (failed), Kharkiv (failed), Mariupol (succeeded at enormous cost), Odesa (siege failed), Kherson (had to abandon it) and parts of Lugansk (most of which they controlled way before).
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Okay, well, I’m not making it up. That’s the reality of the situation.

We already have seen them. Twice.
1) the defeat of the initial invasion
2) the counter-attack that retook half of Russia’s gains
I did not mean that you made it up. Just need to feel something positive about the current situation.

What you wrote made much more sense and something positive to look forward instead of reading how the Russian will run out of their resource next week for months.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Then bring one of the respectable reports that you quote so we can decide, since I'm not sure you are qualified to decide which ones are respectable and which aren't. But I'm curious, if the RA started an invasion with 200,000 forces one year ago, and six months ago asked for a reinforcement of 300,000 more to control a smaller area than the one they invaded initially, how much do you think their casualties were at that point? Do you think they have increased or decreased since then?

We can say confidently that the RA has lost more military than Ukraine because of military experts and military history that says that invaders do tend to have a higher casualties ratio than defenders, and because of the proxy that visibily destroyed military vehicles provide, and because of the amount of visual confirmation provided by both sides.

Russia ocuppied about 10% of Ukraine's territory 8 years before the war. Since March 1st their major offensives have been Kiev (failed), Kharkiv (failed), Mariupol (succeeded at enormous cost), Odesa (siege failed), Kherson (had to abandon it) and parts of Lugansk (most of which they controlled way before).
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying that the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract it because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.

If you are not sure that I am qualified to decide which ones are respectable, then what make you think what you read are more respectable? I am sure those military experts say those and the UKR did some offensives as well. Don't forget that. You asked the question about the causality. I think it makes more sense that I ask you that question. If you believe what you see online from some of those sources, the Russians probably don't even have enough troop to defend Moscow. 100k KIA and three time of that would give 400k causality altogether already. I mean come on.

Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world didn't think that the UKR would be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
 
Last edited:

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
6,382
Supports
Hannover 96
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying the the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.
Milley talked about 100k casualties (meaning killed and wounded together), von der Leyen misquoted him by talking about 100k dead. That's why she retracted that statement.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
I agree with you. We don't really know what exactly is the condition of either the Russian or the Ukrainian forces. I am also worried about the constant missile attacks by the Russians. For almost a full year now, the Russians have been bombarding Ukraine with artillery and missiles and taking out important infrastructure like the electricity grid. This makes it harder for Ukrainians to function. The West should rush in more help, especially air defenses and long-range missiles to help Ukraine target the Russian military units that are causing them damage. The Ukrainians should be able to hit inside Russia, not to kill civilians, but to destroy the missile bases, the bombers etc. They have already done this on a very limited scale, but long-range missiles will probably help them a lot.
We all would agree that the western aid are not as fast as it should. I will raise the point again that the war fatigue of the UKR forces will be real and there would be not much point training them and giving them modern weapons at that point. I am hoping it is not too late at this point.

One poster said that the Western industry is great but I would argue that it is not ready at the moment to supply all the weapons and ammunitions that the UKR need. Putin would just whip the whole country to spend on military as soon as today while the west can't do it instantly.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Milley talked about 100k casualties (meaning killed and wounded together), von der Leyen misquoted him by talking about 100k dead. That's why she retracted that statement.
The point was that Milley said something like both losses were comparable which I quoted because I would think he would know a bit better than us. I doubt that both losses are really close myself but it is not as bad as the 100K Russian KIA information though.
 
Last edited:

Krakenzero

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
708
Supports
Santiago Wanderers
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying that the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract it because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.

If you are not sure that I am qualified to decide which ones are respectable, then what make you think what you read are more respectable? I am sure those military experts say those and the UKR did some offensives as well. Don't forget that. You asked the question about the causality. I think it makes more sense that I ask you that question. If you believe what you see online from some of those sources, the Russians probably don't even have enough troop to defend Moscow. 100k KIA and three time of that would give 400k causality altogether already. I mean come on.

Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world think that the UKR will be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
Since you continue to return to the numbers discussion by bringing up numbers that I haven't mentioned, and refuse to bring the respectable reports (save for the debunked Von Der Leyen quote) and/or to answer my question about casualties, I'll assume you have no relevant data on the matter.

My impression is that Ukraine has been losing forces at a 100-150 a day average, and the RA at 250-300 a day (which has probably been increasing since Bahkmut). Considering that the war is now about 330 days long and the 2 or 3 to 1 WIA ratio, it's not far from what we've seen reported.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Since you continue to return to the numbers discussion by bringing up numbers that I haven't mentioned, and refuse to bring the respectable reports (save for the debunked Von Der Leyen quote) and/or to answer my question about casualties, I'll assume you have no relevant data on the matter.

My impression is that Ukraine has been losing forces at a 100-150 a day average, and the RA at 250-300 a day (which has probably been increasing since Bahkmut). Considering that the war is now about 330 days long and the 2 or 3 to 1 WIA ratio, it's not far from what we've seen reported.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mil...well-over-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-2023-1

https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...000-dead-or-wounded-in-ukraine-norwegian-army

https://nypost.com/2023/01/20/russi...ore-than-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-milley/

“The numbers of casualties in war are always suspect,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told reporters in Germany. “But I would tell you that the Russian casualties, the last time I reported out publicly [in November] I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it’s significantly well over 100,000 now.”

Milley did not estimate Ukraine’s military losses, but in November he suggested that Ukraine had lost roughly the same amount of forces as Russia."
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,224
Okay. Let me make this a bit clear again.

The Russians sent untrained troops and convicts etc.

But were they able to achieve what they wanted to there? And, there was no sign of slowing down of whatever they are doing. So what are we actually feeling good about it, especially, the UKR themselves are hardly a modern army and have a much more inferior population while their lands are getting destroyed right now? It is what I am wondering myself.
Sorry, you may be trying to be clear but you've lost me. If you talking about Bakhmut then no, they've not even come close to what they wanted to achieve. If WW2, then just stop comparing this whole thing to WW2, its not remotely a comparable situation.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
5,794
Sorry, you may be trying to be clear but you've lost me. If you talking about Bakhmut then no, they've not even come close to what they wanted to achieve. If WW2, then just stop comparing this whole thing to WW2, its not remotely a comparable situation.
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.

" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.


“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.

According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.

British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,381
Location
South Carolina
I did not mean that you made it up. Just need to feel something positive about the current situation.

What you wrote made much more sense and something positive to look forward instead of reading how the Russian will run out of their resource next week for months.
Ahhh gotcha. Misread your comment. Apologies!
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,880
Supports
Barcelona
You don't, unless of course you're fighting an insurgency in a city, which isn't on the table given that we are talking about inside Russia.

I know, i just wanted him to explain his: "i dont want civilian casuslties, but i want UA to attack urban areas"
 

Real Name

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
14,242
Location
Croatia
Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world didn't think that the UKR would be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
Yes they stablized their line but already lost a lot of ground in Kherson and before that in Harkiv region. Also they're pushing in Bakhmut but cant get through. Not to mention, as it was already mentioned, only big city they occupied is Mariupol.
Of course question need to be asked about UA losses and is it sustainable, how much longer can they hold in Bakhmut and how big of a toll it will take on their forces on the whole.
 

RoyH1

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,980
Location
DKNY
Of course it did, the entire country was mobilised to fight for their very existence, which is a far cry from whatever kind of war they are currently engaging. General mobilisation might just be the end of Putin, although he appears to be setting the stage putting very visible AA units around Moscow... They likely still wouldn't have prevailed without the lend lease. Based on all the analysis I've heard, he might be able to somehow convince another 500k men to go fight for him, but effectively equipping and supplying them is a whole other matter.
And that is the biggest problem for the Putin regime. The average Russian conscript is not going to have the same level of motivation no matter how much they brainwash them. Fighting to defend your homeland is not the same as fighting in a foreign country where the question "What am I doing here?" is more difficult to answer.

Russia doesn't have a good record with "smaller wars" over the past century.
They suffered a humiliating defeat against Japan in 1905.
They really suffered against the Finns in the Winter War in 1940. Suffered huge casualties for very small territorial gains.
Afghanistan- we all know how that ended.
First Chechen War
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,224
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.

" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.


“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.

According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.

British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
Yes Bakhmut might well fall in the next few weeks, it might not, we've been here before. If it does, it'd be one hell of a stretch to call that a Russian victory. What happens then? They expend another ~40k men trying to break the next defensive line a few km up the road? Bring it on.

Bakhmut does matter, Ukraine obviously would rather not give up any ground and its reportedly a well defensible position, but its also just 40 km2 of abandoned rubble. It's certainly not as important as some are making it out to be. Media have to print something and aside from German shenanigans, this is the only thing going on so the exposure blows it out of proportion a bit in the minds of the casual observer.

Still, I find it very reassuring that despite it being the focal point of Russia's offensive, their inability to take this relative speck of land after so long and at so much cost, can't be seen as anything other than a spectacular failure and sign of their impotence, whether they finally take it or not.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,902
Official request by Poland.
Germany has now received Poland’s official request to re-export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, Reuters reports Polish defence minister Mariusz Blaszczak said.
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,224
The following footage appears to be very recent, perhaps the last few days. Watch this and tell me your still unsure if Russia is really losing many more than Ukraine. A hundred or so troops moving unsupported in the open toward Bakhmut. Annihilated by artillary, grads, drones and ultimately finished off by a tank and IFV. There are countless clips like this. Russia has drones up too, they also release footage of their successes when they have them, its just very far and few between in comparison.

 

goalscholes

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2021
Messages
904
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.

" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.


“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.

According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.

British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
At the moment, there is largely stalemate across Ukraine. In some areas e.g. Bakhmut, it is clear that Russia are throwing bodies into the meatgrinder to make marginal gains. I imagine Ukraine casualties here are pretty high, given there isn't a huge amount of defence from artillery and Russia have so many men there. However I think it is extremely obvious that attacking a good defensive position with unsupported and inexperienced troops will lead to a significantly higher casualty rate for Russia. There are plenty of videos supporting this, with Russians advancing in open fields and being easily taken out.

There is clearly a reason why Ukraine needs tanks. With Russia dug in and Ukraine unable to break defensive lines with the current weather/ weaponry, Russia can afford to push their soldiers into a smaller number of positions for tactical, marginal gains. Breaking through less-defended Russian lines would force Russia to reassign soldiers to other areas, blunting their ability to attack Bakhmut, and given what we’ve seen earlier in the war significant Russian retreat.

I think you're overestimating Russia's position. According to pretty much every expert, the current war is a protracted war of attrition, with some unknowns around future Russian air power and Western government resilience. Bahmut may fall, but this line is moving metres rather than miles each day, and so a month worth of gains could be wiped out with a single, effective counter-attack. After giving Ukraine further NATO weaponry (i.e. tanks and air defence), which surely is the current base case, most experts expect Ukraine to seize significant momentum.

That doesn't mean the war will be over quickly. But it should ramp up the pressure on Putin from Russia's far right, whilst giving Ukraine a significant morale boost (and vice-versa for Russia).
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,224
So matching UK numbers, but from what I gather 14 is basically one tank company that then would be supported by other armour and vehicles.

 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,167
Location
Hollywood CA
Why though? Just tweeting that and not explaining isn't great.
The obvious conclusion being that too much emphasis is being placed on the story will they/won't they get Leopard tanks and that they won't be definitive game changers on the ground.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,225
The obvious conclusion being that too much emphasis is being placed on the story will they/won't they get Leopard tanks and that they won't be definitive game changers on the ground.
It is a step forward. It should have been done 8+ months ago.
 

the hea

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
6,327
Location
North of the wall
It is a step forward. It should have been done 8+ months ago.
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
6,382
Supports
Hannover 96
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
Reports in Germany suggest that the US will finally agree to Scholz request to deliver Abrams, so Germany should deliver some Leopard and allow states like Poland to send theirs.

If true then only Scholz reluctance has gotten Abrams to Ukraine, as the US tried to pressure Germany to just deliver Leopard...
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
8,105
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
To me that looks like a political maneuvre to put pressure on Scholz. It seems to be a direct consequence of Baerbock's statement a few days ago. Even if the impact isn't too big in a military sense, it might be a step in the right direction from a diplomatic perspective and only increases the chances that Germany will follow through with what you demand.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,225
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
They can't send 300 tanks all at once. And it is not fair just for Poland to provide 300 tanks. If Poland provides 300 tanks, then Germany, given its size/economy/manufacturing strength etc, should also provide 1000+ tanks. The problem is not the number of tanks, the problem is that Germany does not do anything without a lot of external pressure. This story did not start last week, it has been going on for MONTHS. Germany should have provided the tanks first, and then Germany should pressure others to provide tanks, not the other way around!
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,902
I know these propagandists will continue this kind of rhetoric. But does the average Russian viewer never think to himself "you've been threatening the West so much, when are you going to actually do it?"

 

the hea

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
6,327
Location
North of the wall
They can't send 300 tanks all at once. And it is not fair just for Poland to provide 300 tanks. If Poland provides 300 tanks, then Germany, given its size/economy/manufacturing strength etc, should also provide 1000+ tanks. The problem is not the number of tanks, the problem is that Germany does not do anything without a lot of external pressure. This story did not start last week, it has been going on for MONTHS. Germany should have provided the tanks first, and then Germany should pressure others to provide tanks, not the other way around!
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
6,382
Supports
Hannover 96
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
The Bundeswehr has 19 active 2A4, used to simulate enemies in combat training. There is a rumour that these could be send quite quickly because they are not part of the active duty inventory/planning.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,225
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
Yes, true.

But when talking about "major part of each countries defense capability", we should keep in mind that most of these countries have zero defense needs at this moment. Nobody is going to invade Spain, or Germany, or Canada. Their defense capabilities are needed in Ukraine, that's where the common defense is today. The best defense for Spain or Germany is to make sure that Ukraine wins.