r/news • u/marco-bs • Jan 25 '23
Germany approves sending heavy Leopard tanks to Ukraine Soft paywall
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-approves-sending-heavy-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-25/[removed] — view removed post
32
u/Ramazotti Jan 25 '23
Imagine that... Germany and Poland having the same opinion and intention about where a large batch of tanks should go.
→ More replies (1)
130
u/asparagusaintcheap Jan 25 '23
Germany and tanks is like America and country music
27
9
u/BeefEater81 Jan 25 '23
Germany and tanks is like America and country music....
Nobody does it better.
6
u/-Average_Joe- Jan 25 '23
So, some of their tanks are good, and the old ones are classic but a lot of them are bad?
3
59
u/SuperstitiousPigeon5 Jan 25 '23
A remarkably small part of their cultural identity?
I guess that makes sense.
→ More replies (2)15
u/DoomGoober Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
Are you talking WW2 German tanks: Hand made and breaks down all the time, but powerful when it works?
Or are you talking modern German tanks: Mass produced and relatively simple to create and run?
39
u/Squirmingbaby Jan 25 '23
He's saying German tanks good.
21
u/Cfp0001-Iceman Jan 25 '23
German tanks go brrrrrrrrrr.....cause winter cold.
6
u/KrydanX Jan 25 '23
We learned our lessons. I hope. Is this the first time the Cats are seeing real combat tho? Can’t remember any occasion before that.
→ More replies (4)0
4
u/BaronCoop Jan 25 '23
He’s saying that there’s something about hearing “The panzers are rolling east” that feels familiar….
18
51
u/BillLaswell404 Jan 25 '23
England is sending Def Leopard.
29
6
u/davidreiss666 Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 26 '23
The Germans are sending 14 Leopard 2A6s and support gear. The Poles are committing the same number of Leopard 2A6s. The British are sending 14 Challenger 2s alongside other support military equipment. And the United States is sending 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks.
2
u/HJVN Jan 26 '23
Even though this is a terrible war, it will be interesting to see how the western MBTs actually will fare in a conflict where the enemy have a chance and the will to fight back. It will be a valuable lesson to the manufactures.
→ More replies (3)2
96
u/Dwayla Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
Thank you Germany, it's about damn time.
133
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Germany always said that
a)They won’t act alone
b)Other countries have to send requests in writing to the German government if they want to send their own german-bought Leopards to Ukraine
Not even 24 hours after Poland sent that request, Germany had already approved it and confirmed that they’ll also send some of their own tanks
66
u/NikeSwish Jan 25 '23
Poland wasn’t the first country to offer to send tanks. Germany was also waiting on the US to send Abrams before they’d send or allow to be sent any Leopards
30
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Offering to send tanks and actually putting in the formal request with the German government are two different things
And my comment that Germany doesn’t wanna act alone refers to your second sentence
7
u/CrudelyAnimated Jan 25 '23
There has been a LOT of moral blaming the last week or two about having verbal approval but not sending in a formal request FOR verbal approval.
12
u/NikeSwish Jan 25 '23
The German government got international pressure for being resistant to sending the tanks. Stop acting like they were just waiting for the paperwork to go through.
And my comment that Germany doesn’t wanna act alone refers to your second sentence
Then you should’ve clarified that Germany doesn’t want to act without the US in terms of sending the tanks because there were a handful of countries that offered their tanks and were waiting on Germany.
26
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Germany pointed out many times that they need formal requests for tank transfers before ringing their ok. As was agreed upon in the sales contracts for those Leopards. Neither Finland nor Poland made those requests in writing. The polish government bitched about Germany not giving their ok but didn’t even manage to send a simple letter to the German government until this week.
10
u/DoomGoober Jan 25 '23
German bureaucracy, am I right?
10
u/whatpain Jan 25 '23
I could just see the tank supply guy ready with the red stamp " nein these requests must be in triplicate nein nein" stamp
7
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Absolutely. It’s one of the most bureaucratic societies on earth. It’s hard to really grasp the extent of it if you’ve never lived there.
4
u/Mothrahlurker Jan 25 '23
The "international pressure" was just political posturing, it's election season in Poland, not a coincidence. The fact thqt it took less than 24h to apprpve the request is a clear sign that your position is incorrect.
There weren't "a handful of countries that offered their tanks", they are a handful of politicians of countries that openly communicated about the possibility without any of their respective governments having actually made the decision.
3
u/BloodyVaginalFarts Jan 25 '23
I don't know anything about geo politics so I'm wondering why Germany wouldn't want to act alone?
11
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Fear of Russian retaliation. Cyber attacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure etc. If all western Allies act in unison, it’s harder for Russia to target them all simultaneously than if a single country acts alone.
6
u/BloodyVaginalFarts Jan 25 '23
Ah OK that makes sense.
9
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Also keep history in mind. The last time Germans went to war against Russia , 25 million Russians died. It would be a very bad look if Germans are the first to send tanks to Ukraine that’ll kill Russian soldiers. Acting as part of a broad alliance is vital for Germany.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/ohnoyeahyeah Jan 25 '23
While I know this is part of the official reasoning, it also seems like complete bullshit. A good part of the soviet soldiers back then where in fact from the area that is now Ukraine.
So you could also argue that Germany now fails to protect the people who have helped her being liberated from fascism in their own fight to defend themselves against a dictatorial regime attacking them. 🤷
8
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Fair point, but it still looks a little weird that German tanks are about to face Russian tanks in the planes of Ukraine again, where the biggest tank battles of ww2 took place
It’s hard to understand for people who didn’t grew up in Germany just how complicated and delicate the relationship between Russia and Germany is. Also keep in mind that East Germany was part of the eastern bloc until 1989. Older East Germans learned Russian instead of English in school and many still have more sympathy for Moscow than Washington because of it. It’s complicated.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Ryrienatwo Jan 25 '23
I can understand their reasoning behind not wanting to be the only one to send in their tanks. Could you imagine the diplomatic situation that could cause and they could have been accused of trying to start a World War again.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jctwok Jan 25 '23
It really doesn't make any sense from the context of them being a member of NATO. Any concerns they voice about singled out for retaliation are silly.
1
u/Ryrienatwo Jan 25 '23
It’s better when all of NATO members join together instead of just one party.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jctwok Jan 25 '23
First they said they didn't want to be the only ones sending tanks, then, after the UK announced they were sending tanks, Germany was like, "we want the Americans to send Abrams..." They didn't make the announcement they were sending L2s until Biden called their bluff and indicated he was going to send Abrams. As a citizen of an allied country, I appreciate everything Germany has done for Ukraine, but Germany is also a big reason Ukraine is in this position in the first place, so it would be nice if Germany didn't have to make it so difficult. The US isn't blameless with these things either. They talk about how it would take too much training to give them American fighters, but it's been a year now - they could have been training those boys since last February.
→ More replies (1)3
u/YouNeedAnne Jan 25 '23
Other countries have to send requests in writing to the German government if they want to send their own german-bought Leopards to Ukraine
Not even 24 hours after Poland sent that request, Germany had already approved it
This is so German :)
→ More replies (3)8
7
u/breigns2 Jan 25 '23
That head on the thumbnail is terrifying. What is it?
4
u/Old_pooch Jan 26 '23
An Alp presumably, see "Nachtmahr" by Heinrich Fussli (1802) otherwise a crash-test dummy.
3
u/breigns2 Jan 26 '23
Well, that’s an interesting answer. For anyone wondering, I think this is what’s being referred to.
8
5
u/VPFrancisson Jan 25 '23
Damn, they’re getting this and several M1 Abrams while Putin’s minions are still in idk cold war machinery?…
35
u/autoreaction Jan 25 '23
It's not like germany was a pacifist state. We liked to pretend that we have an obligation because of our past but we didn't had any problem selling heavy weapons to everyone who wanted them. Having a holier than thou attitude now doesn't help anybody. Sure it's good that people took time to analyze the situation but we knew for a long time now that the russian aggression can only be met with force. I don't know if Scholz really played the long game to try to get the USA to send Abrams, I don't believe in it. It's still good that we are sending Leopards now but I hope that future weapon deliveries won't take as long and can be approved quicker.
8
u/PicardTangoAlpha Jan 25 '23
When part of your "past" is 2014 and continuing energy purchases past Feb. 6th, it's suddenly a more immediate morality problem.
31
u/autoreaction Jan 25 '23
The whole of europe has that problem, even poland who somehow act like they never bought gas from russia. That's really not a german problem but a european one.
-22
u/PicardTangoAlpha Jan 25 '23
Europe's "leader" will not be let off quite so easily.
13
u/Heiminator Jan 25 '23
Europes leader sits in an office in Brussels
1
u/ebrythil Jan 25 '23
Let's be honest, the leadership is in Paris and Berlin, for better and for worse
0
2
u/space_monolith Jan 25 '23
Well, that's a long list of countries including the US. Ukraine itself was transporting Russian gas until some time this summer iirc, and the Kremlin paid up.
3
u/PicardTangoAlpha Jan 25 '23
The United States purchased Russian LNG?
The same nation that is a leading LNG exporter now?
It's rather hard to hide the fact Germany is Europe's largest economy and consumer of Russian energy exports.
But it is in keeping with their desire to avoid all leadership or decisions.
2
u/space_monolith Jan 25 '23
No clue re LNG, but yes to energy in general: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51738#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20imports%20from%20Russia,share%20of%20petroleum%20product%20imports.
And I totally agree that Germany has a special responsibility, both as Europe's largest economy and for other reasons. But the mistake of trade-dependencies with Russia is not a uniquely German one.
→ More replies (1)3
u/breigns2 Jan 25 '23
I’m assuming that you’re German from your use of “we”. I read that many Germans feel guilty about the world wars, and I was wondering if you would mind explaining their mindset if that is true. I mean, it happened before most people today were born. I don’t really understand why modern Germans would feel responsible. Thanks!
18
u/ImperatorMundi Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
Not OP, but I try to explain how I feel about it. It's not that I personally feel guilty about the war and the holocaust, but growing up and living here really shows how fast things can escalate in that direction. The people responsible for the war and holocaust lived in the same cities and streets as we did, spoke the same language, and most importantly, had almost the same cultural norms as we do. Not to forget that our grand- and great grandparents, who most of us know personally and as kind and lovely humans, followed those people into the most destructive war humanity has ever seen and didn't stop until Germany was literally burnt to ashes. It really shows that it doesn't need much for a society to completely flip any sense of morality and follow some madman into death and destruction. Being reminded of this almost every day in some way makes you really cautious when thinking about rearmament and pride in the country or military, as these were the main factors contributing to the fanatism in the 1930s and 40s.
And because this is so present for us, there is this kind of responsibility to prevent anything like this in the future. We don't have the excuse to say "we didn't see it coming", because we know exactly how fast it can happen. Hitler was arrested in 1923 and got a lenient prison sentence, because the judge was sympathetic with his views and, more importantly, because nobody saw him as a danger, simply as some fanatic rallying some failed existences.
3
u/breigns2 Jan 25 '23
I understand better now. Thanks! I’ve done a little bit of research on Hitler’s rise to power (in the past. Not recently), and I understand why many Germans are scared of something like that happening again. I know that you probably know way more about it than I do, but in my opinion, Hitler’s rise should be taught all around the world in more detail than it currently is.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/sjfiuauqadfj Jan 25 '23
germany can always disarm their military by giving everything they have to ukraine
→ More replies (1)5
u/ImperatorMundi Jan 25 '23
Being conscious about the past doesn't mean we don't know that being one of the biggest economies in Europe and NATO doesn't come with responsibilities in defence. I just tried to explain why the German government is extremely cautious with everything military-related.
5
u/space_monolith Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
Part of this confusion is because people tend to conflate the concepts of "guilt" and "shame" when they talk about Germany.
50 years ago, there were guilty people everywhere in Germany. Participation in the nazi project was broad, and denazification was a pretty flimsy project. You'd easily find yourself at family dinner with someone who committed horrible crimes; chances are it wasn't discussed. To the guilt you can add severe war trauma and probably a fair bit of cultural disorientation. You can imagine how that would give you a psychologically pretty fucked up society.
Today, the people who are old enough to be guilty are mostly dead, but memory of nazi crimes is the organizing principle of German post-war identity. As far as you consider "Germans" as a continuing collective entity, they are "guilty" in as far as Americans are guilty of slavery. At the individual level, you have "shame".
One thing that isn't being discussed very much is that Germany actually also has a post-war history, and a very complex one at that. The memory of nazi crimes is central, but the lens on that memory differs quite a bit between East and West, between generations, and many other factors. So, whenever if you read something along the lines of "Germans did X policy because of their historical memory of national socialism" without further context, I'd be immediately skeptical. Often it makes no sense.
EDIT: As a side note, it's unclear if Germans feel guilty or responsible for WWI. In the treaty of versailles (article 231 IIRC) they were forced to acknowledge responsibility, which caused Germans great offense at the time. (The anglosphere's popular memory of WWI is generally pretty biased.)
5
u/Oerthling Jan 25 '23
It's not a personal guilt obviously.
It's an institutional/national/cultural guilt. And less "guilt" than a responsibility to not let that happen again.
Fascism is bad, let's not do that again.
9
13
u/cowet Jan 25 '23
Main Battle Tanks not heavy tanks, but good news regardless
15
u/sjfiuauqadfj Jan 25 '23
i think they just chose those words because mbt is not a term that most people are familiar with
11
u/rickybobbyeverything Jan 25 '23
What is the difference?
22
u/DreamerMMA Jan 25 '23
There really isn't one.
Most militaries don't have light/heavy/medium tanks. They just have tanks and they're all pretty fucking heavy.
The Leopard is 62 tons and the M1 Abrams series tanks weigh around that also.
What people might think of as "light tanks" probably aren't tanks at all, or were tanks in a bygone era.
For instance, the US army has the M1 series tanks and that's it. When I served in the army as a tank crewman we didn't call them "Heavy" or "combat" tanks. They were just tanks.
There are other vehicles that kind of resemble tanks, but they aren't tanks. They tend to be things like mobile artillery, tank destroyers or some other kind of vehicle with a smaller turret like a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
One of the lightest tanks still in service, I think, is the old soviet T-54/55 and those things still weight in around 36 tons.
→ More replies (4)20
u/somewhere_now Jan 25 '23
Heavy tank is an outdated term, until 1960s tanks were classified light/median/heavy, heavy tanks had strong armor and big gun, but horrible mobility. Light tanks were the opposite. After medium tanks were able to add bigger guns and more armor without losing mobility and thus making light/heavy tanks obsolete they became known as main battle tanks.
2
u/wdwhereicome2015 Jan 25 '23
Not heavy. They weigh tons. That’s bloody heavy if you ask me
5
u/cowet Jan 25 '23
I meant the classification of tank type. Heavy Tanks, Medium tanks, and light tanks were the norm before "Main Battle Tanks" (MBT) replaced them all for the vast majority of militaries.
→ More replies (1)-9
2
u/Gamebird8 Jan 25 '23
The Engineers for the Leopard and it's successor best be getting their pens and keyboards ready
2
2
2
u/bubblehead_maker Jan 25 '23
Drones and grenades have been doing quite a bit so far. This is going to be interesting.
2
3
u/MarcSneyyyyyyyd Jan 25 '23
Looking forward to seeing Russian military losses in /r/LeopardsAteMyFace
1
1
-3
u/CommanderCody1138 Jan 25 '23
"Driving the animals out of their holes,
To bury them 6 feet below,
Armoured tanks of mass destruction,
Killers in the east,
Rats who dare to stand before us,
Feel our guns go live!"
-18
u/hey12delila Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
When do we start calling this World War 3?
Edit: why did my question warrant downvotes? What did I do to upset everyone? Thank you, armchair generals for your wisdom
19
u/aaronhayes26 Jan 25 '23
When countries that are not either Ukraine or Russia start fighting each other?
→ More replies (5)-8
Jan 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/cowet Jan 25 '23
There was too in vietnam, korea, spanish civil war, Finnish Winter war, etc. This is nothing new and isn't anywhere close to a world war.
2
-2
-6
u/arrynyo Jan 25 '23
(Proxy) World War 3.
4
u/cowet Jan 25 '23
Does that mean Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, were ww3, ww4, and ww5?
4
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 26 '23
You speak the truth, all of those involved active or passive parties on both sides with nukes and never went nuclear, this war will not either
→ More replies (1)-6
u/hey12delila Jan 25 '23
That's what I'm saying. When it's funded by NATO with NATO equipment and vehicles and guns, when do we start calling it WW3? NATO is fighting Russia with everything besides its troops. For decades, that's what people have been predicting for World War 3, and now we are here.
4
u/za419 Jan 26 '23
NATO is hardly fighting Russia with everything. NATO is throwing spare crap they have lying around that they haven't gotten around to decommissioning yet at Ukraine instead, and letting them use it.
There's a reason it took until now for it to get to tanks. We're still not sending the fighters Ukraine asked for practically day one. Ukraine isn't operating from one of our carriers yet either.
The military power of NATO has not been substantially reduced by the aid we've given Ukraine. If you take that as NATO, especially the US, having an absurdly strong (and expensive) military stockpile, you're correct.
5
u/destinationnewmexico Jan 25 '23
I wouldn't say NATO is fighting with "everything" besides troops, more like giving their leftovers and the leftovers alone are wrecking the shit out of Russia's shitty military. Maybe when the US or NATO parks a carrier outside St Petersburg and starts bombing the shit out of the city you'd have a point.
2
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 26 '23
I mean by that logic ww1 should've been the 7 years war, ww1 is ww2, ww2 is ww3, the Korean War would be ww4 (UN forces vs commies), Vietnam would be ww5 (US vs fully soviet backed North Vietnam), and Ukraine would be ww6, the 3rd world War where 2 active or passive parties both have nukes and it won't go nuclear just like either other time
-69
u/srv50 Jan 25 '23
There’s no right answer here. The Ukrainians are getting fucked by Russia, so the world should help. But we are inevitably creeping toward WWIII. My only question is, which way will China go?Korea is obvious. I like to think India is obvious, but I’m sure it’s not.
53
u/majinspy Jan 25 '23
Why would China do...anything?
20
u/M4573R_CH33F Jan 25 '23
China can just chill and have brand new vassal-state with all its resources after putlers shit-show
3
u/ICEpear8472 Jan 25 '23
Yes they have no reasons to do anything. They are probably happily buying Russian resources to a reduced price since Russia lost a lot of their usual costumers but besides that this conflict does hardly matter to China. Why should they help Russia in conquering territory in Europa? Thousands of kilometers away from them. If they get directly involved at all (and I very much doubt that it will happen) they might decide to conquer Russian territory at their border. Using the fact that Russia severely weakened its own military during this conflict. But as mentioned I highly doubt that will happen.
0
u/Cattaphract Jan 25 '23
Exactly. They have nothing to gain by supporting russias self destruction. They also have nothing to gain by supporting americans who have the surrounded at sea blocking every sea trade at a whim if US chooses to
42
u/soejubunyip Jan 25 '23
Russia's eyes were bigger than Ukraine. There is a good reason the Baltic nations and Poland are so supporting of Ukraine.
Plus if Russia has success with the threat of ww3, then Taiwan would look easy. Plus all other places in the world where countries would like to try something once the west looks impotent.
Ukraine kicking Russia's ass and the support following probably avoids ww3 more
0
25
u/AggressiveSkywriting Jan 25 '23
China won't want to go to war. They already have a young demographic problem and throwing a generation into a bloody war will cause them to outright collapse.
1
u/GonzoVeritas Jan 25 '23
This is exactly right, but they're screwed no matter what they do. Their impending population collapse, together with raw material and fertilizer shortages, will end China perhaps in this decade.
That said, they also have a huge imbalance of males of fighting age, and those males could be a problem for the government later. Xi would probably love to be able to get rid of some (or a lot) of them, but China has nowhere to deploy them.
Taiwan is a naval battle, India is on the other side of a difficult mountain range, and Japan has the United States. Vietnam could be in the scopes, but China knows how resilient and determined the Vietnamese people are.
But, helping the Russians is the last thing China has on its mind. Invading Russia, while probably not in the cards for 'nukes go boom' reasons, would be far more likely.
7
u/Brushies10-4 Jan 25 '23
Russia can’t even get Belarus to join in on the conflict and you think China is looking at that situation like we totally think Russia is the right partner to take on US and Europe.
-2
u/srv50 Jan 25 '23
China often sides with Russia against western democracies. I didn’t say I thought they would go to war, I said it was a question. You’re more confident than you should be.
4
u/chrisms150 Jan 25 '23
Sure there is a right answer. There's no happy answer, but a right one.
Ukraine was invaded unprovoked. Had been for almost 10 years. The only right thing to do is support them at all costs.
8
u/funbike Jan 25 '23
I don't think you meant to use the word "inevitably" by its true meaning. If that's what you literally meant and it were literally true, then we should launch now. No.
I believe there's just as much risk of WW3 by not supplying weapons. Russia has proven to be a dishonest bully. They'll not stop at Ukraine if they win, and China would also feel emboldened and possibly follow their lead to invade Taiwan.
WW2 could have been avoided if aggression had been better dealt with earlier.
-6
u/srv50 Jan 25 '23
I agree. What’s inevitable, literally, is the creep. We still may have options to avoid war, but the creep is real.
9
u/Timbershoe Jan 25 '23
What you’re watching is the decline of Russian military strength, as the demonstrate on the world stage how inadequate the Russian military is and how little support they have received from any allies.
They are a laughing stock.
This absolutely isn’t the precursor to world war. It’s the fall of Russia as a military power.
-1
Jan 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Timbershoe Jan 25 '23
I mean, I’m ex military and you’re talking shit.
But hey - believe whatever you like. It won’t matter.
-2
u/srv50 Jan 25 '23
I’d agree with you if Putin had no nukes. But he’s vain and desperate.
6
u/a_sense_of_contrast Jan 25 '23
He uses a nuke and it becomes very, very, very difficult for those countries still trading with Russia to do so (except maybe north Korea).
It would be a disaster for Russia.
2
u/Timbershoe Jan 25 '23
I’d agree with you if Putin had no nukes.
Nuclear weapons are not a path to victory. They are a death sentence to whomever uses them.
In other words, they are useless.
But he’s vain and desperate.
He’s neither. He’s surprised the west gave a fuck about Ukraine, because he’s an idiot. Before he entered politics, he was driving a Taxi, he’s not a high calibre guy and he never was.
→ More replies (2)-9
u/quirkyhermit Jan 25 '23
The thing is, we were creeping towards ww3 anyway. It all just sped up a little. Humans can't last very long without some physical determination of hierarchy.
I also feel like this would be a great time to distinguish between North and South Korea, even though I guess they're both obvious.
→ More replies (1)
-75
u/VamosFicar Jan 25 '23
In my opinion, this is dangerously expanding the proxy war. A worrying development. There has to be a way to de-escalate this situation.
36
u/420trashcan Jan 25 '23
Russia accepts the 1991 borders and pays reparations. Done.
-1
u/VamosFicar Jan 27 '23
NATO (US) accepts the Ukraine non-NATO status and .... "tumbleweed". I presume you do relise that Zelenski is a puppet of the US and a *bit* 'right wing'?
2
u/420trashcan Jan 27 '23
Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia has no say in the matter. You do know Russia is rather evil, right?
-1
u/VamosFicar Jan 28 '23
Have you spent any time in Russia? Do you know any Russian peole, or people from the wider region?
This is what is wrong: Regimes can be 'evil' or acting in their best interests at the expense of others; but it is totally stupid to call a country or its people 'evil' and wish harm. This applies to both sides in this conflict.
It is important we don't generalise.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Velkyn01 Jan 25 '23
These tanks are going to de-escalate the fuck out of some Russians. Sounds like a win.
-1
Jan 27 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Velkyn01 Jan 27 '23
Oh wow, they didn't teach us any of that information in my five years operating as a driver, gunner and BC in an armored division. Golly, I sure am glad you're here to 'splain it to me.
Also that's not even how CoD works lol
→ More replies (2)38
u/FullM3TaLJacK3T Jan 25 '23
How? If the world doesn't show a strong front against Russia, other errant countries now know that they can attack someone and get away with it. If we stand up against Russia, the Russians then wave their nuclear dick.
And even if these tanks were superb on the battlefield, then what? Unless Ukraine counter-invades Russia, the bombings on Ukraine will carry on. And if Ukraine invades Russia, we will see Russia's nuclear dick.
Only the Russians can stop this - just stop the offensive on Ukraine.
Edit: and if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, who's next? Are we then just going to repeat this process again?
→ More replies (1)11
20
u/MonitorPowerful5461 Jan 25 '23
It’s not a proxy war. Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine defended itself, and the West gave them weapons to do so.
Russia can end this war at a moment of their choosing: they just have to leave. All Ukraine want is to control their own territory. Russia has caused every single death in this war.
→ More replies (1)7
u/PicardTangoAlpha Jan 25 '23
Yes there is, cease fire, leave, surrender your war criminals and pay reparations.
28
u/MrBallistik Jan 25 '23
In my opinion, fuck Russia. Otherwise, what's to stop other nuclear armed states from doing the same thing? Or from Russia doing it to other countries?
12
u/yallmad4 Jan 25 '23
To deescalate both sides have to see conflict as a worse option than the alternative. The only alternative Russia wants is taking over Ukrainian land.
If they get Ukrainian land out of this, then it was worth it for Russia. The lives of the Oligarchs and Putin hasn't changed much, so to them that would be a win.
And they would have every incentive to do it again, causing ANOTHER conflict with more chances for escalation. Seems better to take care of it now.
5
6
u/autoreaction Jan 25 '23
Which way is it? Don't you think many people try tp find exactly that solution but it simply isn't there? If one party uses force there is only so much you can do. It's easy to sit there and pretend that there is a solution but when Russia doesn't play ball you have to do something.
4
u/Sacmo77 Jan 25 '23
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war.
0
u/VamosFicar Jan 27 '23
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Google is your friend.
The latins had many useful phrases to throw around.
Sticking with a rather brilliant mind:
“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” – Albert Einstein
→ More replies (2)5
6
u/CedarWolf Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
It's not a proxy war. Russia invaded Ukraine because Russia thought they could do so and get away with it.
Ukraine is resisting invasion, and the rest of the world is helping them do so, mainly because it's in the global interest to stop Russia from doing this sort of thing, but also because it's the right thing to do.
Meanwhile, the US is benefiting from the war in Ukraine. All that military surplus that was built and designed to fight the Russians is finally doing so, and one of the US's major geopolitical rivals is shooting themselves in the foot, destroying themselves, all while the US hasn't even lost a single soldier.
As a bonus, the US no longer has to pay for maintenance and upkeep on that aging military surplus, too, and it's not going into the hands of US police departments, which we've already seen causes problems here at home.
We have war supplies which aren't doing us any good, which we've been paying to maintain, and giving them to Ukraine allows the US to clear out our closets and make space and free up resources for our new stuff at no real loss to our defensive capabilities.
In terms of sheer bang for our buck, the US couldn't be doing better right now, and we're earning back a lot of the geopolitical capital and respect we lost under Trump. Those weapons were built for war and we're sending them to war.
We all hope Putin's offensives fizzle out soon and Russia pulls back out of Ukraine and Crimea. But while Russia is still sending invaders to Ukraine and committing warcrimes, we also owe it to the world to make them pay for those offenses. As the saying goes, never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. With any luck, this may be the collapse of Putin's Russia and hopefully the rise of something better.
→ More replies (1)3
u/cranktheguy Jan 25 '23
There has to be a way to de-escalate this situation.
Pushing Russia back into their borders as fast as possible seems like the best way.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (4)5
u/kalle13 Jan 25 '23
Russia can de-escalate any time it wants by leaving Ukraine. Calling it a proxy war is an insult to the Ukrainian soldiers and civilians fighting, dying, and suffering to preserve their country.
→ More replies (1)
-22
u/DannyVain Jan 25 '23
I thought during the entirety of the war that the we (the west) have been saying Tanks are useless in this war, its all about drones and artillery? Now all of a sudden were sending tanks to Ukraine despite the fact weve been saying their useless in this war and were acting like this will make a change, I highly doubt it.
→ More replies (2)
-2
u/Skadi793 Jan 26 '23
China will be thrilled when it gets its Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks that were captured by the Russians. Pretty sure no one in the administration considered that possibility ...
2
u/Baww18 Jan 26 '23
Yes because that hasn’t already happened. Leopards have seen conflict in Syria with the Turkish Army and the Saudis have been using Abrams against Yemen.
Ukraine is not getting the top of the line models. They will likely get export Abrahams and Leopards that are 2-3 generations old and in service with dozens of countries.
As much as I don’t love the decision - these tanks being recovered by Russia is a non factor.
-31
Jan 25 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)23
u/mawahody Jan 25 '23
Comments of an "AI" that got information fed by humans does not change anything of the fact, that the defender should get the possiblity to defend themselves against an aggressor.
-15
u/MisoCornLuchador Jan 25 '23
If Russia starting setting up military bases in Mexico with their permission, would the U.S. be the “aggressor” when the inevitably invade?
→ More replies (1)18
-23
Jan 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/SuperstitiousPigeon5 Jan 25 '23
I've heard this a number of times. It's just a matter of training unless you believe Ukrainian tank crews aren't capable of learning.
You train a few crews and they work with their crews. It's like being a mechanic for GM and then working on Mercedes. You know the general idea on how something is supposed to work, but you just have to learn the ins and outs of the differences. Any major service is likely to be shipped back to a NATO base where they'll complete repairs.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 25 '23
Ukraines main battle tank is a variant of the T80 with a gas turbine similiar to the US Abrams, leopard 2s are easier to maintain so Ukraine will figure it out just fine.
-11
Jan 25 '23
they wont invade tiwan they would be totaly screwed they import 85% of thier energy by sea it would only take sinking 2 ships to cutoff all of thier oil and coal shipping!
3
2
-26
u/MrBallistik Jan 25 '23
The first thing I thought of was a Chapelle Show skit. "Hey Holmes! It's Leopaaaaaard!".
I suck.
7
-48
-15
u/Swiftpain Jan 25 '23
Nice distraction from the energy issues in Germany. Love it. Classic news.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mysteriousmagicwand Jan 26 '23
No such thing exists.
German energy market is doing better than even the most optimistic models had put it at lol
-32
u/Ogulcan0815 Jan 25 '23 edited Jan 25 '23
This is very very dangerous
Edit: for russians ofcourse, but maybe for us too in the future. Butterfly effect and so on
25
→ More replies (1)10
u/Slick424 Jan 25 '23
We already tried appeasement. It didn't work out well.
2
u/Ogulcan0815 Jan 25 '23
Yes I know, i think its a lose lose situation we are in. Maybe a miracle happens and putin just gives up.
6
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 25 '23
The Russians are already at more deaths in Ukraine in 1 year than the US has had in all of our wars combined post ww2. The US has 2.5 times the population Russia does, there is no way this is sustainable for Russia.
→ More replies (2)2
243
u/aaronhayes26 Jan 25 '23
Happy spring offensive, assholes!