bickster Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, delboy54 said: I wonder if Putin has Sholz in his pocket? , e.g. Putin tells Sholz to delay for as long as possible the decision to send tanks meanwhile Putin tells Sholz, your Swiss bank account is becoming very healthy ....thank you. Another factor about this is the fallacy of EU being one happy family...it takes something like this to highlight the cracks..... It’s not Sholz, it’s a combination of his weak coalition, which does have a considerable amount of more pro-Russian cooperation parties and current public sentiment towards donating tanks and Germany's post WWII history. The West Germans have had a strong anti-nuclear / anti-conflict politics for a long time and it’s hard for them to shake and those from the former East Germany still have a lot of Russian ties. Sholz is a product of all that and he doesn’t have the strength of personality to persuade those against sending the Leopards that they are wrong. He's a weak leader in a difficult situation not a shill, that he’s managed to get Germany weaned off Russian gas so quickly is how’s he's not a shill but sending the tanks may just be beyond him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 I joke about Germany sending tanks but I can appreciate that’s it’s an incredibly sensitive subject. The German people lost 2 World Wars. Europe blames them for starting both. Far right-wing groups are still described as Nazis. Far right-wing groups still claim to be Nazis. There are still a great number of complete idiots who actively try to glorify Hitler and the Nazis. Sending German tanks to fight Russia is the equivalent of the sending the Paratroop Regiment into Ireland in a peace keeping role. Germany needs to pull its finger out and allow other countries to use their Leopard Tanks. They also need to commit all the spare parts, maintenance and technical expertise. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: I joke about Germany sending tanks but I can appreciate that’s it’s an incredibly sensitive subject. The German people lost 2 World Wars. Europe blames them for starting both. Far right-wing groups are still described as Nazis. Far right-wing groups still claim to be Nazis. There are still a great number of complete idiots who actively try to glorify Hitler and the Nazis. Sending German tanks to fight Russia is the equivalent of the sending the Paratroop Regiment into Ireland in a peace keeping role. Germany needs to pull its finger out and allow other countries to use their Leopard Tanks. They also need to commit all the spare parts, maintenance and technical expertise. Europe blames them for starting both, because they started both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 (edited) 48 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Europe blames them for starting both, because they started both. WW2 - Definitely ( Basil Fawlty is the final decision maker on the matter) WW1 - Debatable. Edited January 22, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats Added details 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 3 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Germany needs to pull its finger out and allow other countries to use their Leopard Tanks. They also need to commit all the spare parts, maintenance and technical expertise. This is all they need to do. They don't even have to provide out of their own inventory for Ukraine to get enough of them to crack on with. Hopefully they at least relent in this sooner rather than later. If not I can see Ukraine getting overrun in the next few months in numbers. It would undo all the gains they've made in recovering what they have thus far. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: Europe blames them for starting both, because they started both. Of course. And Germany knows it did and that's why they've long had a policy of purely defensive strategy. They're worried about "them" being complicit in escalating something which then gets out of control - I mean what will Russia definitely do if they have the tide decisively turned due to German tanks? Will they definitely not do something incredibly rash? It's not knowable, hence the caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2023 34 minutes ago, blandy said: Of course. And Germany knows it did and that's why they've long had a policy of purely defensive strategy. They're worried about "them" being complicit in escalating something which then gets out of control - I mean what will Russia definitely do if they have the tide decisively turned due to German tanks? Will they definitely not do something incredibly rash? It's not knowable, hence the caution. Seriously if they're that paranoid about it they should, you know, stop building tanks. You can't have it both ways, make pots of money selling tanks and then stop them being used in a conflict. If I was the UK Government I would have a good old think about building a new UK Tank factory because I'm sure we could get some pretty good future export orders out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 3 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: WW2 - Definitely ( Basil Fawlty is the final decision maker on the matter) WW1 - Debatable. Whilst there were factors involving outside parties it was Germany that held the cards in terms of whether or not it escalated into a major conflict, they chose violence, as they did 30 years later too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Whilst there were factors involving outside parties it was Germany that held the cards in terms of whether or not it escalated into a major conflict, they chose violence, as they did 30 years later too. As I said previously- it’s debatable. It’s been debated for over 100 years and it’s unlikely that the definitive answer will be established on VillaTalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 22 minutes ago, sidcow said: Seriously if they're that paranoid about it they should, you know, stop building tanks. You can't have it both ways, make pots of money selling tanks and then stop them being used in a conflict. If I was the UK Government I would have a good old think about building a new UK Tank factory because I'm sure we could get some pretty good future export orders out of this. There’s an awkward middle ground between the black and white. Germany has the industrial ability to build tanks, but might be perceived to be over cautious in allowing its tanks to be passed on to third parties. It might be ok with preventing the Russians taking Ukraine. But would that set a precedent? What happens when someone wants to give some tanks to South Sudan? Or one of the sides in Libya? Perhaps this shows that (essentially) leasing your tanks from a third party might not be that great an idea if ever you actually need to use them? Yes, the UK could ramp up its tank production and make something as useable as the Leopard at a competitive price, with a promise that once you’ve bought one you can sell it on without consent. We promise not to sit on the fence when your strong ally in the Central African Republic wants to borrow them. But I’m not sure that would happen any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 33 minutes ago, sidcow said: If I was the UK Government I would have a good old think about building a new UK Tank factory because I'm sure we could get some pretty good future export orders out of this. 148 Challenger 3 currently under contrct to be built in Telford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted January 22, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2023 1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: As I said previously- it’s debatable. It’s been debated for over 100 years and it’s unlikely that the definitive answer will be established on VillaTalk. It’s that sort of half arsed attitude that leaves the space for people think its acceptable to put meat gravy on battered fish. 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: There’s an awkward middle ground between the black and white. Germany has the industrial ability to build tanks, but might be perceived to be over cautious in allowing its tanks to be passed on to third parties. It might be ok with preventing the Russians taking Ukraine. But would that set a precedent? What happens when someone wants to give some tanks to South Sudan? Or one of the sides in Libya? Perhaps this shows that (essentially) leasing your tanks from a third party might not be that great an idea if ever you actually need to use them? When all the countries that currently have the Leopard 2 and want to supply some to Ukraine finally tell Germany to stick their licensing deal up their rectum and supply them anyway, your scenario is in greater danger than if Germany agreed with the transfer to Ukraine because they'd still have a credible licensing deal and a degree of control. If the other countries go it alone anyway, Germany looks to have a piece of paper that means nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: As I said previously- it’s debatable. It’s been debated for over 100 years and it’s unlikely that the definitive answer will be established on VillaTalk. There’s only one debate to my knowledge that cannot be solved on Villatalk and that’s whether or not gravy on fish is a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 (edited) On 20/01/2023 at 15:12, villakram said: One of the primary reasons for the Russian move was the ongoing arming of Ukraine and their calculation that in XX months time very little would be possible and their geo-strategic position would be significantly weakened given that Ukraine would not just sit and stare at it's shiny new toys. Somewhat of a chicken and egg situation for Ukraine of course, but one would suggest that earnest negotiations could have avoided all of this. Alas, the Minsk process was completely abandoned. The issue with that is Zelensky had repeatedly called for negotiations. He was elected in 2019 on a mandate of ending the war - he was even seen as a relatively popular figure by ordinary Russians. Compared to some of the alternatives. But whereas as leadership in a progressive country might hear those overtures from a neighbour and see an opportunity for peace, Putin and his acolytes viewed it as weakness. And the weak get beaten. The US and Britain pulling out of Afghanistan encouraged him further. If they didn't have the heart for their pet project, would they really expend too much time and effort trying to help Ukraine - and take on all that associated risk? The top brass in Ukraine were also quite realistic pre and post invasion that their desire to join NATO wouldn't be reciprocated. They knew they'd need to look at alternative security arrangements - including the prospect of being a 'neutral' state in the event of a future theoretical conflict between Russia and NATO. The pathway to full EU membership is problematic for so many reasons - even if Ukraine didn't have a despot for a neighbour. Despite encouragement from then-Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin and leaders of other smaller nations, there is no genuine desire for further EU expansion from the bigger states. All these things were known by both the Ukraine and Russian leadership. So the oft given reasons for the invasion; the de Nazifying of Ukraine, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO and EU expansion can be seen for the horseshit they are. How do you then negotiate with someone acting in bad faith; who uses such phoney justification because they have already decided on a course of action? Annexing territory is so 1930s. Edited January 23, 2023 by HolteExile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 49 minutes ago, sidcow said: Seriously if they're that paranoid about it they should, you know, stop building tanks. You can't have it both ways, make pots of money selling tanks and then stop them being used in a conflict. I'm wasn't taking one side or the other, here - just typing what I perceived to be the reasoning, or part of it, from the Germans. On the point about Germany selling tanks, afaik it's been to other NATO nations, for the purposes of NATO defence, rather than to non-NATO nations (like Ukraine) to use for their purposes, so they would see the two things being different. I'd personally hope that Ukraine does get the Tanks they need to help chase the invaders off their land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2023 21 minutes ago, bickster said: 148 Challenger 3 currently under contrct to be built in Telford They're not really new tanks. Just pimp my ride Challenger 2 upgrades. Building brand new tanks bottom up is a much bigger enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, bickster said: When all the countries that currently have the Leopard 2 and want to supply some to Ukraine finally tell Germany to stick their licensing deal up their rectum and supply them anyway, ...If the other countries go it alone anyway, Germany looks to have a piece of paper that means nothing I don't see it that way. It's not going to happen. Unless Germany consents Ukraine won't get the Leopard 2 tanks is my take on it. As much as arms export can be a dodgy affair, if export licenses are breached against the will of the originating nation, there's all kinds of hell to pay. I'm not talking about alleged backhanders and blind eyes and all that stuff, but an open and clear, deliberate act of totally breaching the applicable laws, contracts, agreements and so on...I'd be absolutely astonished if that happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2023 19 minutes ago, blandy said: I'm wasn't taking one side or the other, here - just typing what I perceived to be the reasoning, or part of it, from the Germans. On the point about Germany selling tanks, afaik it's been to other NATO nations, for the purposes of NATO defence, rather than to non-NATO nations (like Ukraine) to use for their purposes, so they would see the two things being different. I'd personally hope that Ukraine does get the Tanks they need to help chase the invaders off their land. Sorry, wasn't accusing you of taking sides or anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2023 24 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: whether or not gravy on fish is a thing In the Ukrainian cold, they'd love to have a nice plater of FC&G 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts