Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PEVEI t1_j5pl8n1 wrote

Finally, it took them a while, but it’s the result that counts. It sounds like the US may provide some Abrams as well; it’s hard to imagine Russia standing up to modern main battle tanks.

47

polystyr t1_j5pqxo2 wrote

What will be next? High range himars/ cruise missiles more bradleys? F16’s? Hopefully for ukraine.

16

Gone213 t1_j5pszr0 wrote

So let's get this straight, Lithuania or Latvia sent tanks and urged Germany and Poland to send tanks. Germany and Poland were in a standoff on who would send tanks first. The US announces they'll most likely be sending in Abrams tanks and now Germany and Poland will be sending in their leopard tanks? Did I get that right?

12

hallese t1_j5punf3 wrote

I think Poland was more concerned about getting a pledge from Germany that the tanks Poland sends to Ukraine can be replaced some day, and that Germany wasn't going to ban Poland from future purchases.

25

johndoe73684168 t1_j5pzjvn wrote

The Netherlands btw leases tanks from Germany and after this announcement are considering buying them and giving them to Ukraine.

75

xdeltax97 t1_j5q1uv8 wrote

Wonder what they’ll be getting next?

5

one_jo t1_j5q3sdr wrote

Afaik there where a lot of older tanks sent by various nations including Germany via trade. German chancellor Scholz didn’t want to send Leopard 2 tanks though without American support and them sending Abrams tanks. Apparently the US is willing to send some now so probably Scholz will agree on Leopard 2s too. According to German news the decision will be made tomorrow. Not sure how der Spiegel knows more already.

8

k890 t1_j5q5ijy wrote

Ukraine Air Force spokesperson say combat aircraft is chosen and pilots/service crew will start training soon along with preparing airfields to handle Western aircraft soon.

But I take it with massive grain of salt.

14

R_V_Z t1_j5q66jt wrote

That's a weird name for a cat, did Elon name it?

−11

silly_biomedic t1_j5qc7r9 wrote

This is great news. The russian destruction of ukranian towns and unprovoked mass murder is wrong and putin's regime must be stopped. However, it bears reminding that each escalation risks an existential nuclear threat. If the end result is millions dead, the means by which it happaned have been slowy unravelling.

Edit: Despite being downvoted to hell; I stand by the comment. When we provided HIMARS, manpads, and anti-tank capabilities, russia was no longer able to enter cities with mechanized vehicles. Thus, they aimed to drone strike and artillery barrage cities, targetting civilians to erode the war effort, logistics, and morale. In short, western intervention escalated the tradgedy. Of course, I fully agree with our support of weapons to Ukraine, but the link between the two is sadly very clear.

A demonstrative nuclear strike over the black sea or rural ukraine is not out of the question as the next step in a series of escalations. I have been celebrating that the Ukranians will have modern tanks to defeat the russians; but I think those who say they can't or won't are wrong. Putin has shown he is an arrogant, crazy asshole and his regime is likely coming to a close. When a rabid animal has it's back against a wall, you can expect it to bite. Even if the risk is incredibly low, the potential for devestation and horrific tragedy remains high. I think that in general, these weapons can and must be used to expel russia out of ukranian territory. I just hope that looking back it doesn't come at a cost.

−32

KerPop42 t1_j5qeh39 wrote

Eh, probably not. Put in can't unilaterally use the nukes, and he's losing popularity. Using nukes would paint a huge target on Russia's back, and over an offensive war that poses no existential threat to Russia.

The odds of an escalation of material support for Ukraine resulting in tactical nukes is pretty much nil.

10

pragmatic_zealot t1_j5qfnaw wrote

>Putin can't unilaterally use the nukes

Are we sure about this? If there are others that need to authorize using nukes, I'm sure they're at least a little worried they might fall out of a building the day after they refuse.

I hope you're right, and I'd bet you are, but can't say I don't lose sleep over it.

1

willstr1 t1_j5qgw24 wrote

Nukes aren't fully automated, it's still orders through a chain of command and I bet most of that chain isn't willing to end the world for Putin's fragile ego. And even that assumes the nukes and launch vehicles work. Equipment that is expensive to maintain and never expected to be used are a prime target for a kleptocracy

5

k890 t1_j5r4vu0 wrote

I mean, B2 Spirit bomber had first flight in 1989 it's barely younger than HIMARS rockets design used by Ukraine. B2 aging fleet gonna be replaced with B-21 Raider in nearby future so why keep pieces of somehow still flying metal scraps in USA while Ukraine gonna put them to good use last time in their history? /s

1

frealfr t1_j5rauef wrote

Germany sure has dropped the ball.

−14

Crizbibble t1_j5s3c4k wrote

Germany made the smart play here in waiting and getting the US to announce they are send Abrams and taking the spotlight off of their country. Sometimes you have to protect your people first.

1

swizzlemc2pots t1_j5s6m1e wrote

Only dropped it by allowing politicians to be influenced by russian money to switch from nuclear to gas thereby funneling money to russia to invade ukraine. Indirectly europe funded russia

1

aiboaibo1 t1_j5sou5i wrote

Effing game of pretense, they wanted to send them all along, just avoid pics of German tanks rolling on the same soil as in Nazi days. Russian media is going to have a field day with the imagery.

Now the US is going to play for time and wait for countries to send out their Leos so they can purchase Abrams from the US. Good sales strategy.

Germany has entirely lost all the lessons from WW2. Time when Germany was a force for good is entirely over. Also never start a land war in Asia.

−10

BloodIsTaken t1_j5stxac wrote

God, I‘m so sick of everyone who says abandoning nuclear energy made Germany dependent on Russia. The vast majority of nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants in Germany came from Russia, so even if Germany had continued using nuclear energy it wouldn’t have changed much in terms of independence - if anything it would be worse, as we have seen how fast Germany could get independent from russian gas even during a cold (-10C or lower temperatures at times) winter.

1

Nervous_Promotion819 t1_j5t1s3h wrote

A tank company (14 tanks) means about 250 soldiers who will no longer have their main weapon system. It takes years to fill those gaps, and by then these soldiers have forgotten a lot because they haven't been able to practice. One has to remember that even if Ukraine is completely pushing Russia out of its territories, it does not mean that Russia is no longer a threat in the future.

2

YlangScent t1_j5t2ef5 wrote

True, but that's a bit of a simplistic argument to make.

The truth of the matter is that Ukraine is not part of NATO or any formal alliance to begin with. In fact they've been on the Russian 'side' for most of modern history and are the most corrupt nation in Europe after Russia.

It is currently unthinkable that Ukraine becomes pro Russian again in the near future, but not unthinkable that corruption will lead material into the wrong hands. There's also a somewhat non negligible chance that Ukraine becomes neutralized and loses their arsenal to Russia.

>One might ask what use a tank is to a country that will not and can not use it.

The same use as nuclear weapons: deterrent. If Ukraine still had theirs, there would have never been an invasion. Also the world is unpredictable, you never know what you need your tanks for. Could be as simple as training or as serious as defending your own country rather than a country you have sympathy, but no treaties with.

2

Morbanth t1_j5t3c1d wrote

>Germany and Poland were in a standoff on who would send tanks first. Did I get this right?

No. Countries that buy the Leopard agree to follow German arms restrictions and everyone was waiting for permission from Scholz to send their used, older model tanks to Ukraine. Scholz asked the US to put their money where their mouth is and send Abrams first, which they agreed to. Now Ukraine is getting 30 Abrams and about 100 Leopards.

1

sonic_stream t1_j5td11m wrote

I no endorsing US war and Russia war, but with Russian's warcrimes, combined with their violation of international rules and laws, Russian atrocities cannot be stopped since they have no desire to negotiate and UN is useless.

The only way to end Russian agression is to defeat them on battlefield once and for all. And no stop giving me bullshit about I being warmongers. Russia commited too much warcrimes and atrocities that any sane person will prefer destruction of Russia more than negotiation, if it mean alternative form of making Russia accountable for the war crime.

I mean, at least make more effort in respecting Geneva Convention like US, but Russia just blatantly commit war crimes purposely it's disgusting.

6

[deleted] t1_j5tllhu wrote

Russia invaded. Everyone would happily take peace if Russia would just leave.

Escalating the defence of a nation against an aggressor is also a historical norm. Did you not learn that from history? It’s how Russia defeated Germany in WW 2 after all.

3

Red_Meridian t1_j5tsaq0 wrote

Russia has killed or kidnapped 1 million Ukrainians. This is a time for vengeance and we should be enabling that. Russia is going to be ready with 500k troops in March and that 1 million will be 5 by the end of the year if NATO doesn’t step up.

2

TheMindfulnessShaman t1_j5u4vpo wrote

> I mean, at least make more effort in respecting Geneva Convention like US, but Russia just blatantly commit war crimes purposely it's disgusting.

It's a Geneva Warcrimes Checklist to the Kremlin.

He literally awarded Russia's Highest Medal to the Bucha regiment right after Ukraine was able to re-secure the area and discover the mass graves and atrocities there.

2

AdminsAreLazyID10TS t1_j5vgnkk wrote

Germany isn't deterring anyone with their 300 obsolete tanks. Who's going to invade them anyways? Poland? Denmark? Hungary, lmao? Not happening.

That's the real deal with the "modern" tank designs, btw, they're all forty years old now and all vulnerable to modern AT.

There's an actual modern Abrams design on the way (and the rebirth of light tank philosophy) that aims to have countermeasures but the real thing is this Ukraine war will be the last chance obsolete, fifty or forty year old designs like Leopards, Challengers, and M1s have in a genuine tank vs tank setting.

Germany might as well just send all 300 rust buckets and embed design engineers to figure out how to make a modern replacement.

1

YlangScent t1_j630sht wrote

>Who's going to invade them anyways?

Same way Ukraine was thinking before 2014.

It's irrelevant what the current situation of the world is. It's utterly unpredictable what the future brings and extremely irresponsible for a country to give up war or defense material. Just look at Sweden and Finland scrambling to join NATO to gain protection now and giving up 'ideals'.

Equipment can be as old and obsolete as they come, it is still better than not having them. Especially if the 'enemy' is currently unlikely to expand their arsenal.

2