The valiant Defenders of Ukraine

Well are certainly right about 1 and 2. I think even if our capabilities are reduced, Russia’s ability to threaten NATO states is even less.

S. Korea is not part of NATO, not sure it wants to be but the US and South Korea work well together and I think their relationship with Poland will be positive for NATO. Taiwan is a whole different issue.

Germany is not alone in bleeding its capabilities. The US is receiving warnings from its military that our readiness is starting to suffer. No one expected a major war like this and it should be a wake up call for all nato countries.

1 Like

Dan, that is American politics. Your country has provided a lot usefull things to Ukraine but the price tags used by your politicans are the prices to replace decades old vehicels with new production. The very usefull retired M113, the to be replaced Bradleys, the never used (and only in production for export) stingers. Your military is not suffering, some people want orders for things your army do not want.
In Germany we are not only providing from storage but looting the armed forces.

1 Like

Thank you. Yes I cannot complain that America is suffering compared to some countries as far as supplies. We spend a lot of money to be ready but when we fight, we try to have the most supplies and the best training and this helps keeps our losses in men low. In my mind, the troops are always the true cost and I want to give them the best.

American politics dictates that we spend more perhaps than necessary but being able to get around the world takes so much preparation it will always fall short somewhere.

I believe Germany took a generation to disarm from the Cold War and it will probably take that long to rearm. It’s not just weapons but ideas that have to be developed.

Sometimes we fail and fail hard. And both you and I can name times from our histories where soldiers have done remarkable things even though they did not have the materials needed. When that happens though the cost in men is usually higher and sadder. I feel for Ukraine but I believe that they believe in their cause and will always respect their sacrifice.

The US is the most capable ready force in the world however while the US has a lot of equipment, ammunition (including missiles and such) they have been reducing their readiness to minimal levels. Their military complex is capable in the short term of keeping up but in the long term that becomes a question mark.

On the other hand Canada due to government inaction and senior military leadership fuckups the Canadian military is just able to meet NATO requirements and relies heavily on the US and GB for providing air defence and does rely on partner countries heavily for ammunition for weaponry although finally there is movement within Canada to ramp up military resupply.

Sadly most NATO members are in the same boat as Canada and it took a wake up call in the Ukrainian conflict to get governments to take their militaries seriously once again.

1 Like

I am in full support of sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine as it is one of the best if not the best tank out there and it would be relatively easy for Ukraine’s repair gurus to fix and repair the motors as they are diesel and have tons of spare parts for them. And while complex to operate Polish tank trainers have already stated that the experienced tank crews Ukraine has sent are picking up the training aspect of the tanks faster than expected and could possibly field the tanks in 7 weeks under accelerated training.

I am against sending the Abraham’s to Ukraine because while it is one of the best tanks out there still it is very complex to learn to operate and repair as it is also known for breaking down as much as it runs and also it will be a logistical nightmare to keep parts for them as all parts needed will have to come from the US. Add to that it runs on jet fuel which will create a logistical nightmare to keep them refuelled as they are notorious fuel hogs and are very noisy due to the jet engine they run. Add to that due to the complex nature of the tank it is expected that it will take up to 6 months to ship and train crews to operate and maintain the tanks in Ukraine.


No, nothing easy and no tons of spare parts. The Leo 2 will be a logstic nighmare, but at least a planed one.

1 Like

I understand you being against Abrams but it’s not a military decision it became a political one. As it is, 31 Abrams won’t break the system and from what I read, these will not come from US stores but from new production which tells me we are slow walking them. I would expect them only to be ready late 2023 or perhaps spring 2024.

If nothing else, we start building a supply chain for Abrams from Germany to Ukraine. That in itself will not make Russia happy as not only can Ukraine use it, it speeds up the ability for the US to project power should NATO get involved. Hopefully never needed but I’m sure we have teams of people in the pentagon whose job it is to make these plans.


Supply chains for M2 Bradleys, M113, Strykers, M109 and all the other American stuff not compatible with EU produced spare parts are enough. Leave this Abrams beeing a good solution for a polical problem. The US has politicaly donated at the same time as Germany MBT to Ukraine. In my opinion Ukrainian mechanized forces should be supplied with Leos and M2 Bradleys. The main problem is logistics, Ukraine has no ports left and the connections to the EU have not been what a lot of Europeans and Americans think are “normal”.

1 Like

A sober evalution, in German but the generated subtitles are not bad:

Choosing much weaker opponents, and exhausting them economically, helps too.

So does waging war on enemy’s territory where you can destroy infrastructure and punish their civilians.

Being brainwashed into illusion of own exclusivity and moral superiority is not small advantage either - being prosecutor, juror, judge and executor at the same time.

Fortunately, we are getting to the end of that. Main issue now is how to survive the transition - letting you save the face in coming defeat. Easiest would be for you to deal with your own oligarchy - the Swamp. Question is, could you do it?

As usual, key question - WHY?
Why does US need to project power? Why can’t US keep power at home to defend their own land and people?

As long as there are counties with leaders who would like nothing more then to take what they can we will need other countries to project their power to at least slow them down.
For Putin it was a calculated risk to take more of Ukraine and expect only a small verbal “Bad boy” from the rest of the world , like in 2014 when he already stole the first part of Ukraine.
China would love to take Taiwan by force but they also do not know how the US would respond.

The world would be a better place if it indeed would not be needed for any one country to project power , but that will not happen.
A lot of humans love a “Strong leader” and do not mind it if the strong man rapes , steals and murders as long as it is to others , and Putin likes to project himself as that strong man for Russia


Well everything you described is just what Putin is doing now and since he is your friend and all around good guy, you should be happy.

And since he is out there that in and of itself is one reason to stay strong. A man who has to brag about his ability to kill millions is not what I consider a good man. We retain our ability to project power to defend ourselves and our friends from people like him.


Russia was reacting to US/NATO’s projecting power in a hostile way. It would be irresponsible to not react, given the obvious intentions.

There is absolutely no need, from the position of the human civilization, for US projection of its hegemony.

We need to transition to more collaborative world. Yes, it will mean that US would not be dominant in everything. And that is good.

Yes, Russia has learned the lessons. It is presenting a mirror to the US/NATO. Exposing their hypocrisy.

It would be better if US would be projecting positive, creative power. It would be a better defense for most of good, well meaning American people. However, your oligarchy is not investing in that good power of your people. Quite the opposite.

At the end of the Cold War the World has entrusted the US to lead it. US chose to rule it, imposing its dominance and humiliating almost everyone else.

Do you think that Putin would be able to motivate Russians to go an fight in US? They sold you Alaska. They assisted in your liberation wars. Why would they want to harm you now?

If Russia wanted to rule Europe it could have done it when it had troops in Paris or Berlin. It just doesn’t have those ambitions. Like China, India, Latin America, Africa, Arab world, it just wants to be treated as an equal, not humiliated and not under constant threat of those who know the best what is good for them.

I feel sorry for American people. Country heavily indebted, deeply divided of the future of its new generations, investing in forces of destruction.

Well if you feel so sorry for us, clearly we are not the evil force you portray. If we are so weak and divided like you say we cannot possibly be a threat.

Well just more of your hypocrisy. Support your Gulag loving forces as they commit genocide against Ukrainian civilians. What bothers you is that someone says no to the killing. All of nato sees the evil being committed by Putin and his cronies and are United in putting an end to it.

What you fear is Ukraine keeping their freedom and showing that freedom can exist against all sorts of petty evil such as orchestrated by Serbia.

Cry on. You are easy to ignore. We are not perfect but the world is tired of Putin’s naked aggression and fear mongering. Maybe when he is stopped even Russia will find there is a way that doesn’t require slaughtering civilians.

1 Like

I never suggested you all are. Your government and oligarchy that owns it, is another story.

Given your obsession with military toys and tanks recently, let’s say that danger is the same if a monkey would get into a tank - ignorance and low IQ equipped with destructive power is potentially a catastrophic mix.

My only fear is that American people will be manipulated by their rulers into believing that nuclear option is needed to protect their way of life. I have no fear that nazism can win otherwise, no matter how much you support it.

Freedom for Ukrainians was only endangered by EU and NATO - transferring sovereignty to the western oligarchy.

Are gulags any worse than reservations that Native Americans have been placed into? Or ghettos for those you call Negros? Is there a reason why genocide done against them and Australian Aborigines don’t count in your value system? Is there a reason why death of few thousand man of fighting age in Bosnian civil war is genocide but death of 500,000 Iraqi children is “wort it”?

BTW it is pretty clear that Ukrainians are committing genocide - bans on Russian identity, history, culture, ethnic cleansing of Russian people, ban on their religion, threats to Russia itself.
FFS they even removed monuments. Even of Catherine The Great who established many cities in Ukraine, and who was actually a German.

Sure. Sorry for upsetting your echo chamber.

Only Russia is talking about nuclear options


At least that is what they tell you.
And there are reasons why they want you to believe so.

1 Like

Hi Very good points and I totally see them and great to meet up in Bayeux. However I do think that the “make the gap” smaller by concentrating negotiations can MAYBE help preventing an escalation into who knows what. At least it allows communication channels to be a bit more open

E.g. in the 1980s There was a treaty on the Pershing and Cruise Missiles while a vicious very long running Afghan proxy war was going on after the SU invaded Afghanistan. Now it is history it is easy to just write down that the Cold War didn’t turn hot but back then (and now). NATO did have a DEFCON 5 down to 1 escalation path which started with “small tactical nukes” after the conventional stuff ran out.

Most historians like to concentrate on the numbers but I think the key was MEETING eachother in e.g. Iceland.

At that level I see there could be progress. And I read in sources that the SU didn’t have a DEFCON policy like the US But at the time would have gone to DEFCON 1.

Talking helps: To give another example, in 1914 Austria found it not necessary to organize a state funeral. Some historians (HamiltonHerwig say this was one of the crucial escalation as these head of state could at least have made a moral appeal not to go to war.

Very recently the German Foreign Minister clearly have stated that “WE” are at war with Russia. How clear do you want it and WHY this needless escalation. What happened to the “I am not convinced” Fischer who at least THOUGHT in the early 2000s and like e.g. Ritter vehemently opposed the escalation into the Second Iraq war in 2003?

Oh and I don’t agree with the invasion of the Ukraine and the war in general and I am not even saying that sending a new bag of weapons is a bad thing at this point in time and don’t know if it will be “another game changer” . Putting needles oil on a burning fire is STUPID. Her office is within nuke range if she needs convincing :frowning: !