What's going on in Ukraine?

[TheFrog]

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude towards the Ukrainians and we should be sending them everything they need to fight this fight.

I always felt that Putin's territorial ambitions were not confined to Ukraine. That, had Ukraine tamely capitulated as was widely expected, Moldova would have been next and that Poland and the Baltic States would have been in the frame.

Sooner or later, I believe that Putin would have attacked a NATO country, and then there would have been an obligation for NATO countries to fight, if not with boots on the ground, then certainly with air power.

For this reason, we should be grateful. They are fighting our fight. We should be sending them everything they need.

What's your country's president's position on this war, Rinkals?

[Tilly Orifice]

What is clear to me is that we cannot reset and go back to how it was before February this year, whatever Macron and Scholz might think.

Russia might be able to survive for a while, were the Ukrainians to concede and allow a Russian occupation, but Russia (and Putin) is irretrievably damaged, and I doubt that all the king's horses and all the king's men and can repair her to where she was earlier this year.

I'm actually surprised that the Georgians and Chechnya haven't taken the opportunity to rebel, but I would imagine that that's still coming.

Japan has already taken the Kril Islands, and Russia has border disputes with a number of other countries, not least with China, and one thing that Molotov/Ribbentrop taught us is that invading nations cannot count on their allies not to stab them in the back.

Japan hasn't "taken" the Kuril Islands but have reaffirmed their claim to sovereignty over the southern islands after they were forced to cede them to the Soviet Union post WW2 stating that Russia are illegally occupying this territory of Japan

My point is that the Russians have contested territories and whether Japan have 'taken' them or 'reaffirmed their claim' the result is the same.

Whatever the specifics, it is clear that Putin (and Russia) had territorial ambitions which are now unlikely to be achieved. Furthermore, the strength of the Russian Bear has been exposed as a myth, so I do expect Russia to lose territory in the medium to longer term. I may be wrong, but I think that trying to restore Russia's position as a global superpower is a fool's errand. Not only that, but just putting the prospect on the table gives Putin a massive fillip and reaffirms that he is doing the right thing and that his territorial ambitions are justified and achievable.

I bet that if the Japanese really do take them, you'll find that the result isn't the same at all.

[Rinkals]

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude towards the Ukrainians and we should be sending them everything they need to fight this fight.

I always felt that Putin's territorial ambitions were not confined to Ukraine. That, had Ukraine tamely capitulated as was widely expected, Moldova would have been next and that Poland and the Baltic States would have been in the frame.

Sooner or later, I believe that Putin would have attacked a NATO country, and then there would have been an obligation for NATO countries to fight, if not with boots on the ground, then certainly with air power.

For this reason, we should be grateful. They are fighting our fight. We should be sending them everything they need.

What's your country's president's position on this war, Rinkals?

My country's position is to denounce Ukrainian resistance and implore them to surrender and not fight.

However, I notice that you haven't understood the point of my post. If Putin invaded Poland or any other NATO country, NATO would have been forced into this war which would have been escalated, very probably into WWIII. Regardless of the loyalties of our ruling ANC Government, this would be a VERY BAD THING.

Ukraine's resistance has made this much less likely (although Putin and his State media still tout Russian expansion as a possibility). For that we owe Ukraine a debt of gratitude. In my opinion.

[Rinkals]

Japan hasn't "taken" the Kuril Islands but have reaffirmed their claim to sovereignty over the southern islands after they were forced to cede them to the Soviet Union post WW2 stating that Russia are illegally occupying this territory of Japan

My point is that the Russians have contested territories and whether Japan have 'taken' them or 'reaffirmed their claim' the result is the same.

Whatever the specifics, it is clear that Putin (and Russia) had territorial ambitions which are now unlikely to be achieved. Furthermore, the strength of the Russian Bear has been exposed as a myth, so I do expect Russia to lose territory in the medium to longer term. I may be wrong, but I think that trying to restore Russia's position as a global superpower is a fool's errand. Not only that, but just putting the prospect on the table gives Putin a massive fillip and reaffirms that he is doing the right thing and that his territorial ambitions are justified and achievable.

I bet that if the Japanese really do take them, you'll find that the result isn't the same at all.

Possibly.

The point was that Russia has territorial disputes which have not been fully contested because Russia was regarded as a powerful adversary. That is clearly not the case now.

[Rinkals]

Just to make the point that my original post on this matter, which started this spat, was intended to show that this discussion was not about anti-french or anti-german sentiment, but was about the feeling that certain European countries were inhibiting Ukraine's defence of herself.

As The Frog pointed out, a Government's response to a situation does not necessarily reflect the view of the general populace, and I will further concede that, despite Macron's appeasement rhetoric, France has indeed supplied the Ukrainians with much-needed weaponry.

[derriz]

A load of Daily Express jingoistic shite accusing Germany of blocking a Spanish attempt to supply tanks to Ukraine.

You should read a bit more instead of regurgitating bollox like this. For example https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/06/08 ... raine-yet/

Eh?

I try to take care not to reference British tabloids, nor do I regard them as a valid news source, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

My source was a Twitter thread which referenced Der Spiegel.

The only news sources in English reporting this "Germany blocking Spanish giving tanks to Ukraine" are the usual suspects in the jingoistic UK press - particularly the Express.

The guy writing that twitter stuff, that you consider "proof", is clearly also of the same ilk. The claim that "#Spain considered delivering #Leopard tanks Ukraine. Then Berlin told them off," is simply a lie.

If you go to Der Spiegal and read the full article - it doesn't in any way support this claim - my link describes the actual situation. Or as the original source - referenced from Der Spiegel - in Business Insider says the issue of suppling modern Nato tanks to Ukraine would cause: "The pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) to finally follow suit would increase extremely." - not that the Germans would block the move ffs.

You know that Germany has oked all requests for re-export of heavy weapons, including howitzers, tanks and armoured personnel carriers as well as directly supplying howitzers and tanks themselves. There are reasons to criticise the initially slow response from Scholz but this "story" you've posted is basically fake-news jingoistic nonsense.

[FalseBayFC]

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude towards the Ukrainians and we should be sending them everything they need to fight this fight.

I always felt that Putin's territorial ambitions were not confined to Ukraine. That, had Ukraine tamely capitulated as was widely expected, Moldova would have been next and that Poland and the Baltic States would have been in the frame.

Sooner or later, I believe that Putin would have attacked a NATO country, and then there would have been an obligation for NATO countries to fight, if not with boots on the ground, then certainly with air power.

For this reason, we should be grateful. They are fighting our fight. We should be sending them everything they need.

What's your country's president's position on this war, Rinkals?

My country's position is to denounce Ukrainian resistance and implore them to surrender and not fight.

However, I notice that you haven't understood the point of my post. If Putin invaded Poland or any other NATO country, NATO would have been forced into this war which would have been escalated, very probably into WWIII. Regardless of the loyalties of our ruling ANC Government, this would be a VERY BAD THING.

Ukraine's resistance has made this much less likely (although Putin and his State media still tout Russian expansion as a possibility). For that we owe Ukraine a debt of gratitude. In my opinion.

Southern Africa has long been a plaything of the West and Soviet bloc. They waged proxy wars and poured billions of dollars of arms into civil wars in Mocambique and Angola and SWA/Namibia. We're only just recovering from these colonial adventures. A large part of our population in SA still has sympathies for Russia. During apartheid, many of our politicians were exiled in the Soviet bloc. But there's probably a bigger part of our population who are sympthetic toward the Ukrainian cause.

Also we don't have a pot to piss in. No money. We send peace-keepers to regional conflicts in Africa and help out with natural disasters in neighbouring countries. Beyond that we're battling to feed our own.

[Rinkals]

@Derriz

At no point did I refer to British tabloids, so bringing them in is irrelevant.

I confess that I didn't read the entire Spiegel piece, but the screenshot of the relevant page, confirms my position (and that of the Tweet's author).

Your own link says that German opposition leaders asked Scholtz to sign the release "without delay", which he refused to do.

As I said in my post (which you have edited from your quote), such action looks like a deliberate prevarication to delay and limit Ukraine's ability to fight off the Russian invasion.

Hellraiser put up a link to a Twitter thread that listed the excuses Scholz used to delay or refuse military support which turned out to be untrue. I can't find the link, otherwise I would provide it (perhaps he still has it?)

[derriz]

@Derriz

At no point did I refer to British tabloids, so bringing them in is irrelevant.

I confess that I didn't read the entire Spiegel piece, but the screenshot of the relevant page, confirms my position (and that of the Tweet's author).

Your own link says that German opposition leaders asked Scholtz to sign the release "without delay", which he refused to do.

As I said in my post (which you have edited from your quote), such action looks like a deliberate prevarication to delay and limit Ukraine's ability to fight off the Russian invasion.

Hellraiser put up a link to a Twitter thread that listed the excuses Scholz used to delay or refuse military support which turned out to be untrue. I can't find the link, otherwise I would provide it (perhaps he still has it?)

The only other news sources interpreting these events they way you (and your twitter clown) have done are the euro-bashing UK press.

The article I posted and the Spiegel article make clear what happened. Spain has either 10 or 40 tanks (depending on the source) - unmaintained since the mid 1990s - which some low level spanish bureaucrat suggested they might be repairable and could be sent to Ukraine. At the top level, the Spanish government NEVER considered or proposed this plan and have denied they are even actively considering it. No request ever went to Scholz to sign a release but he was asked by journalists would he sign a release and he answered (reasonably given there was no specific request) that it would be assessed.

From this inconsequential exchange, we get your twitter guy and the Daily Express (and Telegraph) jumping up and down with indignation "Spain blocked from suppling tanks to Ukraine by Scholz!!!". It's a bullshit non-story.

Scholz clearly dithered at the start (like all other countries - including the UK and to an extent the US) but Germany's complete reversal of decades of diplomatic, economic and military policy in the space of weeks in response to Russian aggression despite the huge financial cost has been remarkable.

[Rinkals]

The only other news sources interpreting these events they way you (and your twitter clown) have done are the euro-bashing UK press.

Not true.

There is plenty of comment from Poland, Estonia and other Baltic states calling out Scholtz' prevarication.

The article I posted and the Spiegel article make clear what happened. Spain has either 10 or 40 tanks (depending on the source) - unmaintained since the mid 1990s - which some low level spanish bureaucrat suggested they might be repairable and could be sent to Ukraine. At the top level, the Spanish government NEVER considered or proposed this plan and have denied they are even actively considering it. No request ever went to Scholz to sign a release but he was asked by journalists would he sign a release and he answered (reasonably given there was no specific request) that it would be assessed.

That may be, but there is a definite perception that Scholz is dragging his feet.

From this inconsequential exchange, we get your twitter guy and the Daily Express (and Telegraph) jumping up and down with indignation "Spain blocked from suppling tanks to Ukraine by Scholz!!!". It's a bullshit non-story.

Absolutely irrelevant.

I follow on Twitter because it is pretty close to real time and offers perspectives that you don't get from other sources, much of which is behind paywalls, anyway.

Scholz clearly dithered at the start (like all other countries - including the UK and to an extent the US) but Germany's complete reversal of decades of diplomatic, economic and military policy in the space of weeks in response to Russian aggression despite the huge financial cost has been remarkable.

Two, links, one British (I hope you don't take exception to the BBC) and the other German.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61604329
https://www.spiegel.de/international/ge ... 3c144b10a6

However vocal, these German unionists are in a minority. Home and abroad, Mr Scholz has come under attack for not sending Ukraine enough weapons.

...

Leading politicians from across Germany's political spectrum accuse Mr Scholz of acting as a brake on arms deliveries.

Poland's President Andrzej Duda has accused Berlin of breaking its word, saying that modern German Leopard tanks, promised by Berlin to backfill Soviet-era tanks sent to Ukraine, have not arrived.

Internationally there is a perception that Germany does not want to arm Ukraine.

"I don't understand why it's so complicated," said a frustrated Ukrainian foreign minister this week. President Volodymyr Zelensky's adviser went on social media to plead for multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).

In reality Berlin is supplying large amounts of weapons; not as much as the US, but comparable to other European countries. Experts say Germany ranks somewhere in the middle.

The German parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of supplying heavy weapons. Most mainstream politicians and almost all parties support the move, including Olaf Scholz's own Social Democrat SPD, his coalition partners, the Greens and the liberal FDP, as well as the conservative opposition.

The far-right AfD and radical left-wing Die Linke are the only parties to object to arming Ukraine. Both are struggling in the polls and are fractured by internal spats.

There have been objections to weapons deliveries in the media debate, such as a public letter written by some academics and media personalities. But none of the signatories have political influence, and few have any expertise on Russia or Ukraine.

And yet, despite the consensus in the political mainstream, Mr Scholz still appears hesitant.

In speeches he repeats set phrases like "Putin must not win, Ukraine must exist". Inexplicably he never talks about Ukraine winning the war.

...

On the one hand Mr Scholz pledges full support for Ukraine. On the other, the security council that he chairs hasn't signed off requests for modern Leopard or Marder tanks which suppliers say they could send and which Ukraine wants.

This week Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, chair of the parliament's defence committee and defence expert for the liberal FDP, a party in Scholz's own governing coalition, said it was unacceptable that Germany was seen in the world as putting the brakes on military help for Ukraine "simply because we're not able to communicate properly and organise ourselves".

She wants a transparent list of what Germany is delivering and better coordination, saying the chancellor "can pull all the strings" when it comes to arms deliveries. "I'm trying to understand why he doesn't. Is out of conviction or because of his party?"

Certainly in polls, Social Democrat voters are some of the most likely to oppose arming Ukraine. The SPD traditionally believes peace in Europe can only be achieved by working with, not against Moscow. Some influential party figures would rather focus on a peace deal with Vladimir Putin and believe sending weapons to Ukraine might escalate the conflict.

...

Then he said tanks could be sent to Poland, but those don't seem to have arrived and it's not clear what the agreement was anyway. Now the message is that Berlin is sending Gepard defensive tanks directly to Ukraine, but not Leopard or Marder offensive tanks, because of a supposed informal agreement with Nato.

Other countries don't seem to have such fraught public rows about the details of arms deliveries.

The Spiegel article expresses similar sentiments, but focusses on indecisiveness.

If the course of the past few months has shown one thing, it's that Scholz doesn’t make decisions until he has no other choice. When it came to arms deliveries, other Europeans had to lead the way. It was the same story when it came to cutting Russia off from the SWIFT international payments system. The chancellor’s pattern of action in this war has been that he will finally make a decision when there is no other way around it. It’s also quite possible that he will travel to Kyiv at some point for the same reason. Or send armored vehicles to Ukraine.

...

FDP politician Strack-Zimmermann also believes Scholz is primarily responsible. "One person is in charge," says the Defense Committee chair, "and that’s the chancellor." During the election campaign, Scholz promised: "If you order leadership from me, that’s what you’ll get." Were that true, he should have delivered long ago.

But he hasn’t. Or at least he has only very slowly. Is it because he is worried that Germany will be drawn further and further into the war?

Whatever the case, it has become clear that Scholz’s people are applying the brakes wherever possible.

Both of these articles are a little old, but nothing much has changed.

[Calculon]

I don't think any poster has a problem with legitimate criticism of Macron or Scholtz, it's your use of fake news to do so that is the problem.

[Hugo]

The only other news sources interpreting these events they way you (and your twitter clown) have done are the euro-bashing UK press.

Not true.

There is plenty of comment from Poland, Estonia and other Baltic states calling out Scholtz' prevarication.

The article I posted and the Spiegel article make clear what happened. Spain has either 10 or 40 tanks (depending on the source) - unmaintained since the mid 1990s - which some low level spanish bureaucrat suggested they might be repairable and could be sent to Ukraine. At the top level, the Spanish government NEVER considered or proposed this plan and have denied they are even actively considering it. No request ever went to Scholz to sign a release but he was asked by journalists would he sign a release and he answered (reasonably given there was no specific request) that it would be assessed.

That may be, but there is a definite perception that Scholz is dragging his feet.

From this inconsequential exchange, we get your twitter guy and the Daily Express (and Telegraph) jumping up and down with indignation "Spain blocked from suppling tanks to Ukraine by Scholz!!!". It's a bullshit non-story.

Absolutely irrelevant.

I follow on Twitter because it is pretty close to real time and offers perspectives that you don't get from other sources, much of which is behind paywalls, anyway.

Scholz clearly dithered at the start (like all other countries - including the UK and to an extent the US) but Germany's complete reversal of decades of diplomatic, economic and military policy in the space of weeks in response to Russian aggression despite the huge financial cost has been remarkable.

Two, links, one British (I hope you don't take exception to the BBC) and the other German.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61604329
https://www.spiegel.de/international/ge ... 3c144b10a6

However vocal, these German unionists are in a minority. Home and abroad, Mr Scholz has come under attack for not sending Ukraine enough weapons.

...

Leading politicians from across Germany's political spectrum accuse Mr Scholz of acting as a brake on arms deliveries.

Poland's President Andrzej Duda has accused Berlin of breaking its word, saying that modern German Leopard tanks, promised by Berlin to backfill Soviet-era tanks sent to Ukraine, have not arrived.

Internationally there is a perception that Germany does not want to arm Ukraine.

"I don't understand why it's so complicated," said a frustrated Ukrainian foreign minister this week. President Volodymyr Zelensky's adviser went on social media to plead for multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).

In reality Berlin is supplying large amounts of weapons; not as much as the US, but comparable to other European countries. Experts say Germany ranks somewhere in the middle.

The German parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of supplying heavy weapons. Most mainstream politicians and almost all parties support the move, including Olaf Scholz's own Social Democrat SPD, his coalition partners, the Greens and the liberal FDP, as well as the conservative opposition.

The far-right AfD and radical left-wing Die Linke are the only parties to object to arming Ukraine. Both are struggling in the polls and are fractured by internal spats.

There have been objections to weapons deliveries in the media debate, such as a public letter written by some academics and media personalities. But none of the signatories have political influence, and few have any expertise on Russia or Ukraine.

And yet, despite the consensus in the political mainstream, Mr Scholz still appears hesitant.

In speeches he repeats set phrases like "Putin must not win, Ukraine must exist". Inexplicably he never talks about Ukraine winning the war.

...

On the one hand Mr Scholz pledges full support for Ukraine. On the other, the security council that he chairs hasn't signed off requests for modern Leopard or Marder tanks which suppliers say they could send and which Ukraine wants.

This week Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, chair of the parliament's defence committee and defence expert for the liberal FDP, a party in Scholz's own governing coalition, said it was unacceptable that Germany was seen in the world as putting the brakes on military help for Ukraine "simply because we're not able to communicate properly and organise ourselves".

She wants a transparent list of what Germany is delivering and better coordination, saying the chancellor "can pull all the strings" when it comes to arms deliveries. "I'm trying to understand why he doesn't. Is out of conviction or because of his party?"

Certainly in polls, Social Democrat voters are some of the most likely to oppose arming Ukraine. The SPD traditionally believes peace in Europe can only be achieved by working with, not against Moscow. Some influential party figures would rather focus on a peace deal with Vladimir Putin and believe sending weapons to Ukraine might escalate the conflict.

...

Then he said tanks could be sent to Poland, but those don't seem to have arrived and it's not clear what the agreement was anyway. Now the message is that Berlin is sending Gepard defensive tanks directly to Ukraine, but not Leopard or Marder offensive tanks, because of a supposed informal agreement with Nato.

Other countries don't seem to have such fraught public rows about the details of arms deliveries.

The Spiegel article expresses similar sentiments, but focusses on indecisiveness.

If the course of the past few months has shown one thing, it's that Scholz doesn’t make decisions until he has no other choice. When it came to arms deliveries, other Europeans had to lead the way. It was the same story when it came to cutting Russia off from the SWIFT international payments system. The chancellor’s pattern of action in this war has been that he will finally make a decision when there is no other way around it. It’s also quite possible that he will travel to Kyiv at some point for the same reason. Or send armored vehicles to Ukraine.

...

FDP politician Strack-Zimmermann also believes Scholz is primarily responsible. "One person is in charge," says the Defense Committee chair, "and that’s the chancellor." During the election campaign, Scholz promised: "If you order leadership from me, that’s what you’ll get." Were that true, he should have delivered long ago.

But he hasn’t. Or at least he has only very slowly. Is it because he is worried that Germany will be drawn further and further into the war?

Whatever the case, it has become clear that Scholz’s people are applying the brakes wherever possible.

Both of these articles are a little old, but nothing much has changed.

The criticism of Scholz seems a tad unfair. He's been in the job all of five minutes so this is very much a situation that he inherited. Maybe he is being overly cautious but I tend to prefer that mentality to the recklessness of British & American foreign policy.

[derriz]

I don't think any poster has a problem with legitimate criticism of Macron or Scholtz, it's your use of fake news to do so that is the problem.

exactly.

@Rinkals - I'm not really trying to defend everything Scholz has done. It's just that particular tweet you posted - and I know it was in response to some wider arguments you're making - is a tabloid non-story. Some criticism of Scholz is justified but it would be better if it was real/actual stuff and not this makey-uppy outrage which is little more than thinly disguised anti-German xenophobia. The opening line of the tweet you posted is simply a lie - Scholz did not block Spain sending tanks to Ukraine.

I also want to see the Russians punished severely for what they've done - militarily, economically and diplomatically. So we're probably on the same side in that regard. I just don't like fake news.

[tabascoboy]

FWIW looks like RU Forces now have the upper hand in the wasteland they made which was once Severodonetsk. UA forces in the city are/were largely comprised of foreign volunteers, it was claimed.

Ukraine's military says that Russian forces have advanced and pushed its troops back from the centre of Severodonetsk, a key eastern city, as Moscow presses for total control of the Donbas.

[Rinkals]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

In the mean time:

He understands that Western democracies move slowly in some regards. But from his perspective when the West prevaricates in sending systems they're eventually going to seen anyway, more Ukrainians needlessly die.

[petej]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

In the mean time:

He understands that Western democracies move slowly in some regards. But from his perspective when the West prevaricates in sending systems they're eventually going to seen anyway, more Ukrainians needlessly die.

The latest thread from Phillips O'Brien is good in that it points out without the UK in the EU there is a lack western/original member states leadership in supplying weapons. I think Germany is very reluctant to lead on this and would have been far happier to follow.

[Rinkals]

I don't think any poster has a problem with legitimate criticism of Macron or Scholtz, it's your use of fake news to do so that is the problem.

exactly.

@Rinkals - I'm not really trying to defend everything Scholz has done. It's just that particular tweet you posted - and I know it was in response to some wider arguments you're making - is a tabloid non-story. Some criticism of Scholz is justified but it would be better if it was real/actual stuff and not this makey-uppy outrage which is little more than thinly disguised anti-German xenophobia. The opening line of the tweet you posted is simply a lie - Scholz did not block Spain sending tanks to Ukraine.

I also want to see the Russians punished severely for what they've done - militarily, economically and diplomatically. So we're probably on the same side in that regard. I just don't like fake news.

I object to this.

I have linked all sources.

If Calculon considers the BBC and Der Spiegel to be fake news, that's up to him, but I don't regard them as such.

If you think I'm spreading lies and fake news, why don't you tell me what it is you consider that I'm lying about, instead of making vague accusations?

[derriz]

I don't think any poster has a problem with legitimate criticism of Macron or Scholtz, it's your use of fake news to do so that is the problem.

exactly.

@Rinkals - I'm not really trying to defend everything Scholz has done. It's just that particular tweet you posted - and I know it was in response to some wider arguments you're making - is a tabloid non-story. Some criticism of Scholz is justified but it would be better if it was real/actual stuff and not this makey-uppy outrage which is little more than thinly disguised anti-German xenophobia. The opening line of the tweet you posted is simply a lie - Scholz did not block Spain sending tanks to Ukraine.

I also want to see the Russians punished severely for what they've done - militarily, economically and diplomatically. So we're probably on the same side in that regard. I just don't like fake news.

I object to this.

I have linked all sources.

If Calculon considers the BBC and Der Spiegel to be fake news, that's up to him, but I don't regard them as such.

If you think I'm spreading lies and fake news, why don't you tell me what it is you consider that I'm lying about, instead of making vague accusations?

I've been extremely specific - you're just not reading what I've written. It's at the end of the second paragraph you're replying to.

[Rinkals]

exactly.

@Rinkals - I'm not really trying to defend everything Scholz has done. It's just that particular tweet you posted - and I know it was in response to some wider arguments you're making - is a tabloid non-story. Some criticism of Scholz is justified but it would be better if it was real/actual stuff and not this makey-uppy outrage which is little more than thinly disguised anti-German xenophobia. The opening line of the tweet you posted is simply a lie - Scholz did not block Spain sending tanks to Ukraine.

I also want to see the Russians punished severely for what they've done - militarily, economically and diplomatically. So we're probably on the same side in that regard. I just don't like fake news.

I object to this.

I have linked all sources.

If Calculon considers the BBC and Der Spiegel to be fake news, that's up to him, but I don't regard them as such.

If you think I'm spreading lies and fake news, why don't you tell me what it is you consider that I'm lying about, instead of making vague accusations?

I've been extremely specific - you're just not reading what I've written. It's at the end of the second paragraph you're replying to.

You have NOT been specific.

You have provided an article which does not disagree with the article I posted.

You have accused me of getting my information from British Tabloids and have accused me of lying.

I have told you that I get a lot of information from Twitter feeds and I explained why.

Sorry, but if you say that I am a liar, you need to explain where I lied.

[derriz]

I've been extremely specific - you're just not reading what I've written. It's at the end of the second paragraph you're replying to.

You have NOT been specific.

For the 4th and last time: SCHOLZ DID NOT BLOCK SPAIN FROM SENDING TANKS TO UKRAINE.

[Uncle fester]

SCHOLZ BLOCKED SPAIN FROM SENDING TANKS TO UKRAINE?
What a wanker.

[FalseBayFC]

Scholz is a tank blocking knobhead!

[Flockwitt]

Is that you Sholz?

[laurent]

Seriously the Spanish tanks or any western ones are not a good option: They are a good bit heavier than Russian ones the Ukrainian infrastructure would not cope with them.

Also the 40 tanks available would need refitting as they have been in storage 30 years or so.

[Calculon]

I read on twitter that those specific tanks were previously offered by the Spanish to the Czechs who rejected them due to the terrible condition they were in. Apparently, the Spanish did not store them properly.

[Grandpa]

I'm missing the updates from _Os_ and Hellraiser.. they always kept me positive.. I hope they come back to this thread.

[laurent]

I'm missing the updates from _Os_ and Hellraiser.. they always kept me positive.. I hope they come back to this thread.

I created a list to track stuff on twitter (there is a lot of good stuff there but you have to sift through )

I can't devote enough time to update things here.

[Slick]

[tabascoboy]

Fire in this location was also reported Saturday am, so not sure if this is new or just a late report of the same. This is stated to be a military base as opposed to the repair facility of Saturday so could be a new one

[tc27]

Russia watched the US demolish Iraqs Soviet designed AD system in 1991 and immediately started to design new AD systems that would make this impossoble. Now 30 years later Ukraine is launching deep raids using helicopters..shrugs.

Not sure what to add to the analysis of the war other than we are seeing a peer/near peer conflict for the first time since possibly Korea. Daily causality rates in the 100s and going to be normal. Ukraine is going to have to ruthlessly keep mobilizing its population and the west is going to have to come through with artillery and ammunition.

[tabascoboy]

[tabascoboy]

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III will preside at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels tomorrow to identify and examine the next steps needed to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression.

A senior defense official, speaking on background, expects representatives from up to 50 nations to attend the contact group meeting. "The focus is first and foremost on Ukraine's urgent requirements to continue the battle, that it's fighting against Russia right now," the official said.

The Ukrainians are now fighting a tough battle against Russian forces in the Donbas region. This is a change since the contact group meetings began in April when the Russians were trying to envelop the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. The Ukrainians needed systems to combat tanks and armored personnel carriers to counter aviation assets.

The tenacious Ukrainian defense, coupled with weapons like the Javelin anti-armor missiles and Stinger anti-air systems, helped the Ukrainians defeat the Russian attempt to take Kyiv and decapitate the government.

The Russians, however, did not give up. They shifted their main effort to the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. "It is an artillery battle now," the officials said. "The secretary convened defense ministers to focus on what would be required for the new battle, focusing on artillery, armor, [unmanned aerial vehicles] and sustainment."

A uniformed service member explains the capabilities to another service member while inside of a tank.
Austin coordinates with the contact group to get the correct capabilities into Ukraine when needed. For example, one nation may have an artillery piece, another may have the ammunition, while a third may have spare parts the system needs. The contact group is a way to coordinate the three nations to get the various parts of the system to the front lines of the fight.

The battle now also calls for longer-range fires including multiple long-range rocket systems and other more advanced systems. This also forced a change and the official noted that, in the beginning, Ukrainian forces had trained on equipment that nations provided. But now the systems are more complex and the Ukrainians had not used them before.

This means a shift from simply rushing systems to soldiers. Now, the soldiers must come back to learn to use these new systems. Then, they go back to their units and teach their fellow soldiers how to use and maintain the systems.

The battles in the Donbas region are brutal artillery slugfests. Ukrainian officials said they are losing between 150 and 200 soldiers a day in the fighting. "Ukrainians know themselves best what they're dealing with, and we actively seek their information on the battlefield conditions," the official said. "Generally, we take their assessment as reliable and valid. I would say the numbers are not out of line with what you expect of this kind of artillery battle."

A uniformed service member loads a weapon through an open door on the backside of a tank while two other uniformed service members observe.
Ukrainians show no sign of giving in to the far larger Russian force. "The Ukrainians have done a great job finding recruits, volunteers," the official said. "We don't see any signs of cracks in their morale … but they need the high-end capabilities to be able to fire from further back."

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stori ... -brussels/

[tabascoboy]

A bit of a tangent but...

Fears for Taiwan as China lays groundwork for its own ‘special military operation’

Xi Jinping signs directive allowing for ‘non-war’ uses of the military – a tactic similar to that used by Russia before it invaded Ukraine

Paywalled item: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... rs-taiwan/

And back on-topic, though bearing in mind losses may not be verified

[Hellraiser]

[tabascoboy]

A few days old but I didn't see it reported before

[fishfoodie]

Russia is starting to look like Ankh-Morpork, after the first Insurance policy was sold.

[tabascoboy]

[FalseBayFC]

That will be huge if they come with M30 rockets which have double the range and are GPS guided.

[Hellraiser]

[Hellraiser]