Jump to content

Ukraine: Are ya winning yet.


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

As it is a sub paywall piece, here is more from the NYer article by Elif Batuman.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/30/rereading-russian-classics-in-the-shadow-of-the-ukraine-war

 Recall, Stalin was born in Georgia and grew up there.

Quote

 

.... Georgia’s tangled history with Russia seemed to open out before me like another pathway in an ever-forking maze. In 1783, King Erekle II signed a treaty with Catherine the Great that secured Russian protection of Georgian lands against the Persian Empire (and the Ottoman Empire, and various neighboring tribes and khanates). Russia never fulfilled the treaty and, in 1801, began its annexation of Georgia. Tiflis, as Tbilisi was then known, became a colonial capital, with printing presses, schools, and an opera. It also became the base for Russia’s expansion into Chechnya and Dagestan. In response to Russian incursions, many of the North Caucasus highlanders came together to form a Muslim resistance army, led by a series of Dagestani imams, the last of whom, Imam Shamil, surrendered in 1859. During the war, generations of Russian literary youths—among them, Pushkin and Tolstoy—went to the region. They wrote about their experiences, forming what came to be known as the Russian literature of the Caucasus: works I had been hugely excited to learn about in college, because they often included Turkic words. As the nineteenth century progressed, Georgian literary youths began to study in St. Petersburg, read Pushkin, and adopt Russian Romantic rhetoric to describe Georgian national identity.

Georgia was conquered by the Red Army in 1921, and seceded from the U.S.S.R. in 1991. The country annually mourns April 9, 1989, when the Soviet Army quashed a pro-independence demonstration in Tbilisi. Stalin’s birthday is still commemorated every December in his hometown of Gori. In 2008, Russia sent troops into Georgia to support the separatist republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Memory of the ensuing war has done much to bolster popular Georgian support of Ukraine. Nonetheless, the ruling Georgian Dream Party, founded by the Russian-made billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, hasn’t joined the international sanctions against Russia.

After the invasion of Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens crossed the Georgian border, for a wide range of reasons, both ideological and pragmatic. Tens of thousands reportedly took up residence in the capital, reviving historic memories and driving up apartment prices. Meanwhile, because so many study-abroad offerings in Russia had been cancelled, enrollment in Meredith’s normally tiny program shot up by an order of magnitude, to more than eighty. Contemplating the invitation, I wondered how people in Tbilisi would feel about their city becoming a destination for Russian philological study. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On more tranche -- and there's a great deal more after this pull.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/30/rereading-russian-classics-in-the-shadow-of-the-ukraine-war

Quote

 

.... One place I had really wanted to see in Tbilisi was the Tiflis Imperial Theatre, opened in 1851 to promote Russian culture and to distract people’s attention from the North Caucasus war. The young Tolstoy had attended the Italian opera there, and I felt certain it was the same theatre that he imagined Hadji Murat visiting. Unfortunately, the building turned out to have burned down in 1874. Instead, I stopped by its original site, in Freedom Square, where Pushkin Street meets Tbilisi’s main thoroughfare, Rustaveli Avenue. Standing in the busy square, gazing from the City Assembly building, constructed in the nineteenth-century Moorish Revival style, to a Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, renovated in the early-two-thousands Courtyard by Marriott style, I felt the words “center” and “periphery” slowly losing their meaning. In Tolstoy’s career, was Tbilisi peripheral, or was it central? Tolstoy’s first novel, “Childhood,” was written in Tiflis but set in Russia. Fifty years later, “Hadji Murat” was written in Russia, but set partly in Tiflis.

Historical phenomena—revolution, modernity—are often said to start at a center, and then to spread to the peripheries. But that hierarchy or chronology—center first, periphery second—can be misleading. Technically, capitalism wasn’t born in a self-sufficient Western Europe and then transmitted to the rest of the world. It was, from the beginning, enabled by the wealth streaming into Western Europe from non-European colonies. The peripheries were always already playing a central role.

I thought of Edward Said’s “Culture and Imperialism” (1993)—a classic text that I read for the first time only after my Ukraine trip—which makes a similar case about novels. As Said points out, novels became a dominant literary form in eighteenth-century Britain and France, precisely when Britain was becoming the biggest empire in world history and France was a rival. Novels and empires grew symbiotically, defining and sustaining each other. “Robinson Crusoe,” one of the first British novels, is about an English castaway who learns to exploit the natural and human resources of a non-European island. In an influential reading of “Mansfield Park,” Said zooms in on a few references to a second, Antiguan property—implicitly, a sugar plantation—belonging to Mansfield’s proprietor. The point isn’t just that life in the English countryside is underwritten by slave labor, but that the novel’s plot itself mirrors the colonial enterprise. Fanny Price, an outsider at Mansfield, undergoes a series of harrowing social trials, and marries the baronet’s son. A rational subject comes to a scary new place—one already inhabited by other, unreasonable people—and becomes its rightful occupant. What does a story like that tell you about how the world works?

In college, I had studied Said’s earlier and more famous book, “Orientalism,” which is often assigned alongside the Russian literature of the Caucasus. (It’s about how Western descriptions of the East, whether scientific or artistic, end up reinforcing modes of Western domination.) But I had never read “Culture and Imperialism,” or considered the role of imperialism in novels like “Anna Karenina.” Post-colonial criticism, which Said helped pioneer, originally focussed on the legacy of British and French colonialism, meaning that places like Russia, Turkey, and the former Soviet Union tended to get left out. Said himself omitted Russia from his book, claiming that the subject was too big, and that, because the Russian Empire grew contiguously, and not by overseas conquest, imaginative projections didn’t play the same role as they did in Britain or in France. (Russian literature curricula are already changing, in the wake of the Ukraine war. The Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, a leading professional organization, has dedicated its 2023 conference to the theme of decolonization.)

In Tbilisi, it seemed clear that the Russian Empire had required vast resources of imagination to build and to sustain—and that my favorite novels might have played a role.  ...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Going back to the Leopard tanks.

Apparently this is why Scholz is dragging his feet (summary of a spiegel article).

He is afraid to be singled out as a war party by Putin/Russia. So he wants other NATO countries to commit to distribute tanks, too (France has not said it would deliver its LeClercs to Ukraine). So he wants to spread out the risk. And he also wants to show unity among the alliance, thus he is not willing to go beyond the commitments of the other states. Cue the US not delivering its Abrams Tanks.

The UK delivering old tankss is not viewed as equivalent. 

The delivery of Leopard tanks would apparently tilt the balance significantly into Ukraine's favor, as the Leo is apparently superior to Russian models (weapon range of several KM to 1.5 KM). And like I said, he is afraid of the Russians viewing it as German tanks being deployed. (check previous paragraph)

The Leopard 2 is better than the Challenger 2 in a few areas, but the Challenger 2 is better in others. The big weakness of the C2 is its cannon is not quite as good as the Leopard 2's (the L2 and the Abrams made the right choice on the type of gun but the C2 went in a different, more obsolete direction, and also fires non-standard NATO rounds which is really dumb), but the L2 is a fair bit more fragile. Also, and I'm not entirely sure how true this is, but the British built a toilet into the C2 after analysing battlefield casualties from tank crewmembers leaving allied tanks to go to the loo, which they think has a nontrivial impact on survivability. But the L2 has slightly longer range so as long as it engages at range it should be as survivable. There's really not much between them. The L2 is more appropriate for Ukraine because there's simply a fuckton more of them (2,000 knocking around Europe versus 300-odd C2s) and they're a lot closer.

To be frank, there's also likely little to no risk to any NATO country from doing that. I think the fear is more of there being a too-severe reversal in Ukraine's favour too quickly, which makes Putin panic and deploy WMD in Ukraine. But the Ukrainians seem to be willing to take that risk. The alternative is that the war stalemates out and ends with a de facto Russian victory (having gained a moderate amount of territory at the end of the conflict, albeit at a beyond-colossal cost) or Russia somehow manages to pull off an overall victory, overruns Ukraine, invades Moldova and might risk invading Poland or Romania, at which point Germany will be very sorry it didn't send those tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that 100, 200 or even 300 tanks in question, no matter which type, would let Ukraine make up for tank losses from some period of time, but would not give Ukraine extra offensive potential. Leopard or Challenger, neither will change the game in such numbers. It is said tanks do not fight duels too often these days, so their superiority over Russian tanks alone may turn out not to be excessively meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying it is, I don't know enough about tanks (nor do I care to tbh) to tell you the pro and cons of tank a over tank b. I was merely giving the summary of what's apparently happening behind the scenes at the German goverment according to Der Spiegel.

Edit: meant as a response to @Werthead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Poland has rumoredly taken the bait and is preparing the paper work. Remains to be seen, if they actually ask for a permission, or whether it was merely grandstanding in a run up to the election (what it now kinda looks like to me). Either way, Baerbock has played them quite well there.

The request is said to be lodged.

Sending it before the meeting in Ramstein? Not sure if it would have been practical. Some details, like how many units to send in the end, might have depended on arrangements to be made at the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, broken one said:

I think that 100, 200 or even 300 tanks in question, no matter which type, would let Ukraine make up for tank losses from some period of time, but would not give Ukraine extra offensive potential. Leopard or Challenger, neither will change the game in such numbers. It is said tanks do not fight duels too often these days, so their superiority over Russian tanks alone may turn out not to be excessively meaningful.

Ukraine has significantly more tanks available now than it did at the start of the conflict, a combination of tanks captured from the Russians and influxes of Soviet-era tanks from neighbouring countries. Ukraine has lost tanks, but it does not appear to be a huge number of them, and they used tanks to excellent effect during the Kharkiv counter-offensive.

An additional 300-odd tanks would not allow them to win the war instantly, but it would allow them to mount a similar counter-offensive elsewhere. The Russian position of digging in heavy defences is fine, but they are not digging in reserve positions behind their front line, so if the front line falls, the Russians have to retreat and then decide where they are going to build a new line ad hoc. That theoretically allows a major breakthrough and wrap-up of large areas of the front if the Ukrainians can achieve a breakthrough in one area.

300-400 tanks and maybe 500 IFVs would make a huge difference in Ukraine's offensive potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Ukraine has significantly more tanks available now than it did at the start of the conflict, a combination of tanks captured from the Russians and influxes of Soviet-era tanks from neighbouring countries. Ukraine has lost tanks, but it does not appear to be a huge number of them, and they used tanks to excellent effect during the Kharkiv counter-offensive.

An additional 300-odd tanks would not allow them to win the war instantly, but it would allow them to mount a similar counter-offensive elsewhere. The Russian position of digging in heavy defences is fine, but they are not digging in reserve positions behind their front line, so if the front line falls, the Russians have to retreat and then decide where they are going to build a new line ad hoc. That theoretically allows a major breakthrough and wrap-up of large areas of the front if the Ukrainians can achieve a breakthrough in one area.

300-400 tanks and maybe 500 IFVs would make a huge difference in Ukraine's offensive potential.

Ukraine has many soldiers and too little equipment other than automatic rifles to arm them. Recently Ive watched an analisys on Ukrainian losses in tanks and IFV's, seems the tanks they got from abroad plus what they captured from Russians during their succesful offensive in September refilled (more or less) losses they had taken during two quarters of war. And what they would get now (in most optimistic version, assuming Germany joins) would be similar refreshment of current, and maybe some future losses, as they lose tanks and IFV's (permanently or not) in significant numbers all the time, and it is normal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Turkey, Leopards were found to be disappointing during the operation in Syria. AFAIK, this was the most intense real combat action for the Leopards ever and they (at least the ones Turkey has) proved vulnerable to ATGM strikes employed by asymmetrical forces like ISIS. Due to mounting casualties, Turkey switched to heavily upgraded M60s that could withstand ATGMs much better than Leopards. Of course, Ukraine vs. Russia could be a conventional tank vs. tank battle where Leopards might suit better. Or not. If Leopards are sent to Ukraine and perform poorly, that would be a major blow to German arms exports. Perhaps the major reason why they are unwilling to provide Leopards to Ukraine is this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a report on “Morning Edition” that highlighted the divergent opinions about supporting Ukraine between the former DDR and the former BDR.  It seems a majority in the East does not favor support Ukraine with Tanks while a majority in the West does.  

How serious are the cultural divisions between former East and West Germany?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/24/1150942783/germany-is-under-increased-pressure-to-send-its-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There was a report on “Morning Edition” that highlighted the divergent opinions about supporting Ukraine between the former DDR and the former BDR.  It seems a majority in the East does not favor support Ukraine with Tanks while a majority in the West does.  

How serious are the cultural divisions between former East and West Germany?

The two partys which do not support the Ukrainian side are the Linke (very left) and the AFD (very right leaning). both have a much stronger support in the formaer East Germany than in West Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

The two partys which do not support the Ukrainian side are the Linke (very left) and the AFD (very right leaning). both have a much stronger support in the formaer East Germany than in West Germany.

I moved my question to the German Politics thread.  Seems more appropriate there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, broken one said:

The request is said to be lodged.

Sending it before the meeting in Ramstein? Not sure if it would have been practical. Some details, like how many units to send in the end, might have depended on arrangements to be made at the meeting.

Yeah, but those PiS clowns banging their own drum about sending tanks against Germany's wishes really has an election campaign/slogan to it.

Support for Ukraine being super popular in Poland (we are the most pro Ukrainian party among pro Ukrainian parties. Don't trust that bed wetter Tusk, he won't deliver tanks without the consent of the Germans). They could also play their anti-German card at the very same moment. If the potato was able to get hard, this message would be like his political viagra. (and yes, I kinda hope that this image is now kinda stuck in PG's head :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, broken one said:

I think that 100, 200 or even 300 tanks in question, no matter which type, would let Ukraine make up for tank losses from some period of time, but would not give Ukraine extra offensive potential. Leopard or Challenger, neither will change the game in such numbers. It is said tanks do not fight duels too often these days, so their superiority over Russian tanks alone may turn out not to be excessively meaningful.

Well, Zaluzhny said that Ukraine needs 300 tanks, 500 IFVs and 700 artillery pieces (might be wrong, quoting from memory) to win the war, which is in line with what is being discussed.

The type of weapon they need the most, however, are not tanks but artillery, and this is where Western aid is most likely to fall short. For some reason, most NATO countries seem to consider artillery as unnecessary and outdated, which is crazy talk to me.

And Ukraine needs munitions and spare parts more than either tanks or artillery. This may not be sexy, headline-grabbing stuff, but this is what wins wars 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western militaries have had smaller investment in artillery due to the advancement in air support.  The US has had air supremacy over the battlefield in every conflict they've fought since at least Vietnam.  Thus big artillery pieces have mostly been replaced by precision air bombardment.  This has some clear advantages - it is much more accurate so you need to expend less munitions, less collateral damage and if done properly fire support can be provided faster than with ground artillery.  But Ukraine will never have air supremacy over this battlefield.  So they need ground artillery in huge numbers. 

Or to put another way, NATO did not invest in the possibility of needing to provide massive support for the defense of a non-NATO country.  If they had, they probably would have invested in a lot more of things like medium range artillery and millions of shells. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Western militaries have had smaller investment in artillery due to the advancement in air support.  The US has had air supremacy over the battlefield in every conflict they've fought since at least Vietnam.  Thus big artillery pieces have mostly been replaced by precision air bombardment.  This has some clear advantages - it is much more accurate so you need to expend less munitions, less collateral damage and if done properly fire support can be provided faster than with ground artillery.  But Ukraine will never have air supremacy over this battlefield.  So they need ground artillery in huge numbers. 

Or to put another way, NATO did not invest in the possibility of needing to provide massive support for the defense of a non-NATO country.  If they had, they probably would have invested in a lot more of things like medium range artillery and millions of shells. 

Sounds like training and F-16s might be more helpful in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advancements in air power do not replace artillery's capability of delivering firepower continuously, instead of in limited strikes. And with drones for scouting and correction, and "smart" high-precision shells, the only real advantage of aviation is range and payload size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...