Ukraine War: David And Goliath

[Zorral]

I would love to watch this:

The Robin Hood-style epic that’s a surprise hit in wartime Ukraine

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/01/dovbush-movie-ukraine-smash-hit/

Quote

 

KYIV — A rousing action drama set in 18th-century Ukraine about a legendary Robin Hood-like figure has struck a nerve in the country and become the breakout hit of the fall, with its themes of national self-determination and the struggle against invaders.

“Dovbush” has broken box office records and has been seen by more than half a million people and earned close to $2 million — a princely sum for Ukrainian cinema — making it the second-highest-grossing Ukrainian feature film since independence in 1991.

“It’s Ukraine’s ‘Braveheart,’ ” said Daniel Bilak, a Canadian living in Ukraine who is one of the movie’s producers and whose family came from Ukraine.

The movie tells the story of Oleksa Dovbush, a historical figure shrouded in myth and the subject of numerous folk songs and stories. “Dovbush” is an opulent tale of love, violence and betrayal set against the backdrop of castles, 18th-century villages and breathtaking Ukrainian landscapes.

Dovbush fought against the Polish gentry — who at the time ruled over his region of western Ukraine — and would swoop down from his lair in the Carpathian mountains with his band of “opryshky,” or outlaws. The money he took from the landowners, he then gave to the poor peasants — at least according to local legends.

It is the country’s first homemade blockbuster, running two hours, with a record-breaking budget (for Ukraine) of some $5 million.

Bilak said the film “caught a wave.”

“I think is quite phenomenal that we’ve had this success during a war, although we’ve probably had this success because we’re in a war,” he said. “I always believed in the success of the movie. I just I think that the size has sort of taken me aback.”

The popularity of “Dovbush” provides a window into Ukraine more than a year and a half into Russia’s brutal invasion. It is a nation that is still up for watching movies and in need of a diversion, but also hungers for narratives that reflect the country’s fight for existence.

The movie has also become entwined in the war effort itself, given the power of its message and the emotions it elicits — which hasn’t been lost on Ukrainian officials. Bilak said that more than 12,000 soldiers had seen the movie in different spots around the country — sometimes in open fields near the front line — in showings organized by Ukrainian officials.

The timing of the film’s release was accidental, according to the movie’s makers — and it nearly didn’t get distributed at all. Filming ended in July 2021, while the conflict with Russia was still limited to the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The next year, with February’s full-scale invasion, the premiere set for May was postponed until the war’s eventual end.

In Ukraine, a new wartime debate: When is Christmas?

But director Oles Sanin, who co-wrote the film, said he convinced distributors to finally release it, because more than a year into the war, Ukrainians had already experienced a “spiritual victory.”

“The film is about hope, the film is about heroes who are very relevant now,” Sanin said, shortly before a showing at a veterans’ hospital in central Kyiv. “The importance of this picture is enormous and the relevance is huge, so we decided to release it now.”

Sanin said that he did not want to create a piece of “open propaganda,” which would have been “shameful.”

Bilak said that the government was not involved in the film’s production and “saying ‘you’ve got to put this or that message in.’ ” The state film agency did provide the bulk of the initial financing — some $2.5 million — but in the form of a loan that has to be paid back from the movie’s profits.

For many viewers, the film is “cathartic,” he said. Ukrainians still “have a lot of fight left in them” in the war against Moscow. The film “shows we have a history of fighting for freedom. But we never give up.”

Some of those involved in the film say that part of its appeal was that it was historical — even if some of this history is shrouded in folk tales and legend.

One part of the film deals with a meeting between Dovbush and the Baal Shem Tov, the 17th-century founder of Judaism’s Hasidic movement, who allegedly gave refuge to Dovbush when he was on the run from Polish authorities. Legend has it that Dovbush gave him his pipe as a gesture of gratitude.

There is debate whether this meeting, enshrined in folk tale, actually took place, but Luzer Twersky, an American actor who plays the Baal Shem Tov — and a direct descendant of the mystic — said what counts is that this is a wholly Ukrainian story, countering Moscow’s claims that Ukraine is not a separate country from Russia.

“[Dovbush] lines up with current events in a really important way, especially considering how much Russia is trying to deny Ukrainian history,” Twersky said by telephone. “This is a historical film. I mean, it’s also mythological history, but national mythology is part of a national history in a way. So I think that that is definitely a huge part of why it’s so popular.”

Twersky recently returned to the United States after spending weeks in Ukraine for the premiere and then appearing at showings. Viewers’ reactions were “very, very emotional — a lot of the comments were just superlatives and not like full, fully formed thoughts,” he said.

“I’ve had people come up to me after films and tell me that this was the third or fourth time they’ve seen it — people keep going to see it over and over and over again,” he said.

In the eastern city of Zaporizhzhia, Twersky said he looked at the crowd entering the theater and saw a soldier come in. “A regular kid, you know, and he walks in and he’s clearly coming directly from the front. I mean, he’s barely triaged, right? He’s got fresh bandages. You can see where he’s wearing a makeshift arm sling.”

Twersky said that the image of a soldier arriving directly from the front “really messed with my head — it really brings it home.”

The war is a backdrop at every showing, adding an extra dimension to the action taking place on the screen.

At a screening for dozens of service members at the end of September at a community center outside Kyiv’s center, military officials held a medal ceremony for family members of nine soldiers who had been killed.

The families looked dazed as they received awards for their sons, husbands and fathers. Once seated, one woman stared at the medal and caressed it lightly with her fingertips.

“Today we will show you a special picture. This is a historical drama,” said Alyona Starodubova, the center’s director, after the ceremony. “The events that you will see on the screen took place in the 18th century. But how relevant it is today. Exactly what happened to our ancestors is relevant today. History goes in circles.”

Galina Koval, 56, received a medal at a screening of the film on behalf of her son Oleksandr Ponomarenko, who died in 2022 in eastern Ukraine. (David Stern/The Washington Post)
After the movie, Galina Koval, 56, whose son Oleksandr Ponomarenko died in August of last year from artillery shelling in near Kramatorsk in eastern Ukraine, said she liked the film, though it was sometimes difficult to watch the violence.

“The violence was terrible because war is terrible,” she said, holding a framed photo of her son that she brought with her and the posthumous medal he received “for courage.”

“It was a powerful film,” she said. “I think my son would have liked it very much.”

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Zorral

[Werthead]

Russia's northern advance round Avdiivka has been stretched so thin that Russia stripped troops from the flanks to focus on the front, hoping the Ukrainians didn't notice. The Ukrainians did notice and have launched a counter-assault right down the H20 highway, penetrating more than a kilometre into the Russian lines outside Krashnohorivka. The Russians are sending in the few reserves they have. Depending on your Telegram channel of choice, the Russians are stabilising the front after heavy losses, or the entire northern hook around Avdiivka is in danger of collapsing.

Ukraine has also hit the command centre for the Russian Dnipro front (which holds the line of the Dnipro in Kherson Oblast). Former VDV commander Colonel General Teplinsky, noted for being one of the few competent, high-ranking Russian generals, has just taken command of the grouping. Some suggestions they might have been trying to take him out personally to further confuse the situation on the Dnipro front.

The Russian Yabloko party has broken with political unity in the Legislative Assembly for St. Petersburg by calling for a ceasefire and peace talks with Ukraine. Yabloko is arguably the most pro-west, liberal Russian political party to be allowed to exist, which may not be the case for much longer. It's a pretty minor group though.

The Kerch Bridge was covered in smoke for a large part of this morning. Unclear if there was any fire directed at it, but some locals claimed it was a drill with boats pumping out smoke from nearby to camouflage the bridge.

An entire battalion, the 1st of the 1251st Motorised Rifle Regiment, was devasted when Ukrainian forces pinpointed their mustering point for deployment to the front. One HIMARS strike later, most of the unit's vehicles were destroyed and numerous soldiers wounded. Number KIA unclear.

Another TOS thermobaric launcher has been destroyed on the front.

[Padraig]

Quote

I don't think that's accurate. Most European nations in 2014 put Russia under sanctions, as did the US. The US started directly supporting Ukraine at that time too, though not obviously as heavily as they are now. There were a lot of other things since 2014 as well - the poisoning in the UK, the Czechia munitions depot, the interference in elections.

Eventually I was going to respond to this post by Kalbear.

I don't think we disagree too much, just how you frame it.  Sure, the 2014 invasion had a negative effect on relations (and did lead to some sanctions) but a lot of things continued on their merry way.  The football World Cup was held in Russia in 2018 (Macron turned up for the final) without any great fuss.  Nord Stream 2 continued, even though that was controversial even before 2014.  According to the below website, EU FDI in Russia kept increasing until 2017, when it flatlined.  Sure, other figures look worse (imports and exports, but even here, there was a negative trend on those metrics from before 2014, given the rise of China).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/702591/EXPO_STU(2023)702591_EN.pdf

Russian went into recession in 2015 but that was more to do with falling oil prices than sanctions, although sanctions obviously didn’t help.  Some countries were more hardline than others but a lot of money was still been made in Russia until 2022 by EU countries.  The 2022 invasion was the real game changer.

[Bironic]

Quote

Hodges has been extremely optimistic about Ukraine since at least March 2022.  IIRC he said that Ukraine would recapture Mariupol by the end of 2022 and all of Crimea in 2023.  I would take anything he says with significant salt.

@Maithanet

I agree with you that Hodges is overly optimistic regarding Ukraine, which is why I don't put much weight in his analysis regarding the war in Ukraine.

What I found interesting in the interview is that he thinks that the US Government has not yet decided  if it wants Ukraine to win and that the US government has not yet set a clear strategic goal of its support for Ukraine. He claims that reasons such as "we don't have enough ATACMS" have been contradicted by the CEO of Lockheed Martin.

If I look at US Government policy for the last 1.5 years that seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Bironic

[Maithanet]

4 hours ago, Bironic said:

What I found interesting in the interview is that he thinks that the US Government has not yet decided  if it wants Ukraine to win and that the US government has not yet set a clear strategic goal of its support for Ukraine. He claims that reasons such as "we don't have enough ATACMS" have been contradicted by the CEO of Lockheed Martin.

If I look at US Government policy for the last 1.5 years that seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment.

I think the US policy has been pretty clear - Russia cannot be allowed to win the war.  However, denying Russia the win does not mean doing what is needed for Ukraine to win, and that's what we're seeing right now.  In addition, it runs the risk of Russia getting the win if Trump takes office in 2025. 

[Zorral]

Mercenaries or Volunteers? Economic Pain Pushes Colombian Veterans to Ukraine
Hundreds of experienced fighters have joined Kyiv’s ranks to improve their financial fortunes, reflecting the recruitment struggles faced by both sides of the conflict.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/world/americas/colombia-soldiers-ukraine-war.html

Quote

 

Manuel Barrios joined the battle against Russian forces in Ukraine because a bank threatened to repossess his home in Colombia. Luis Alejandro Herrera returned to the front to recover the savings he lost in a failed attempt to enter the United States through Mexico. Jhoan Cerón fought to provide for his toddler.

All three died in a war that their relatives said they knew or cared little about.

They were among hundreds of Colombian veterans who have volunteered to fight for Ukraine for the chance to make at least three times what they can earn at home.

“He said he was fighting a war in a country that wasn’t his because of the dire need,” said Mr. Barrios’s wife, Maria Cubillos.

The stories of Colombian volunteers highlight the shifting nature of the Ukraine war, which has transformed from a fast-moving struggle for national survival into a war of attrition. Heavy losses and stalemated battles are forcing both sides to look for new pools of fighters to replenish their ranks. ....

 

 

[Wilbur]

It is pretty clear that IF the Biden administration wanted to end the war in Ukraine, it could do so fairly easily, just by clearing out one or two of the massive parks of nearly-obsolete equipment stored in the deserts of northern Nevada.

My individual view is that the reluctance to do so comes from Jake Sullivan, the NSA.  He doesn't seem to have the will to act, and he doesn't possess the sort of experience that provides useful knowledge, skills or aptitudes for conclusive decision making.

The longer the Ukraine war drags on, the more it encourages China to engage in similar acquisitive endeavors on its borders.

Quite why President Biden is swayed by the advocates of "slow supply" like Sullivan, I don't know.  In many cases it is cheaper for us to send old military kit to Ukraine to be blown up there than it is to decommission it ourselves, so personally I would have an angry horde of GAO accountants going through the entire inventory and identifying all of the equipment and ammo that falls on the "cheaper to Ukraine" side of the equation and slapping air mail stamps on it as fast as I could.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Wilbur
added links

[Ran]

The Sierra Army Depot, pretty crazy how much is there, and all of it regularly serviced on a yearly basis, so most of it should work.

The US has been pulling equipment from there and sending it to Ukraine, though, as far as I understand it ... but there's a whole lot of stuff that isn't allowed to go out for export reasons (like lots of M1 Abrams with depleted uranium armor). And at the same time, there's only so many tank drivers, so many anti-tank crews, etc., just flooding Ukraine with equipment it doesn't have the manpower to use seems unlikely to help.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Ran

[Kalbear]

While I'm sure Ukraine could use more equipment - especially in certain types - as far as I can tell the limiting factor is not equipment right now. I guess if we sent a VERY large amount of HIMARS and ATACMS and whatnot so Ukraine could obliterate all artillery at long, long range it might help some, but from what I've read the issue is simply it is limited by manpower and by the battlefield itself. 

[Makk]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

While I'm sure Ukraine could use more equipment - especially in certain types - as far as I can tell the limiting factor is not equipment right now. I guess if we sent a VERY large amount of HIMARS and ATACMS and whatnot so Ukraine could obliterate all artillery at long, long range it might help some, but from what I've read the issue is simply it is limited by manpower and by the battlefield itself. 

When Bakhmut fell the Ukrainians ran out of mortars which is one of the most important tools to stop mass infantry charges. I'm not sure if that was just logistical or they were short across the entire front. We don't really know what is happening in Avdiika, obviously Ukraine doesn't want to reveal how much ammunition they have, but I hope it isn't a similar situation. This is a really great opportunity for Ukraine as the Russians are attacking the city relentlessly for political rather than strategic reasons in a seemingly crazy manner that doesn't care about losses. The longer this can continue the more Russia's forces will be degraded. Ukraine doesn't want to be forced to conserve ammo at this time.

I don't personally think sending more tanks is the highest priority. Ukraine needs much more of the cost effective stuff (drones) or the things they absolutely can't do without (ammunition, air defense, mine clearing equipment). It will be good to get F-16s but Russia will still have air superiority which is a real sticking point. I'm not sure what the most effective way of dealing with that is, can Gepards reliably shoot down the better Russian fighter jets? Those and the Patriot system seem to be overperforming and will be really important. But Ukraine doesn't get to choose their stuff, they mostly get what other countries have in storage/surplus with a little input. 

 

[Werthead]

Excellent analysis by the Ukrainian commander-in-chief of the conflict so far, the current risk of it transitioning to a frozen front and what is needed to defeat Russian forces in detail and drive them from Ukrainian territory. He also briefly outlines the danger of a domino effect, where major regional wars erupt in short order in close temporal proximity to one another (Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Hamas possibly escalating to bring in Iran, South Kore/North Korea, China/Taiwan) which would culminate in a global crisis.

The argument is briefly made, successfully I think, that Russia's defeat in Ukraine is now a major geopolitical necessity which should be brought about as quickly as possible. Doing so would demonstrate the depth of western commitment to the international order and strengthen the deterrence factor.

The report notes the technological superiority of Ukrainian forces armed with western weapon systems, but also notes the Russians are learning to adapt, and shortages of western systems means Ukraine has to be right almost every time with every decision it makes: Russia is making a lot of bad decisions, but it can afford to make them.

[Bironic]

2 hours ago, Makk said:

I don't personally think sending more tanks is the highest priority.

Agreed, but if this is really going to be a long drawn out war (and it looks that way atm), the quality of the tank really makes a difference. In a modern western MBT like the abrams you will lose the vehicle but you will often recover at least part of the crew when it gets destroyed. With russian tanks the crew often dies, for russia with its large and powerless population that is not an issue, but for a  medium sized democracy like Ukraine it will be in the longterm... Just as an example the Iraqi army got 140 refurbished M1 abrams 2010-2012, Ukraine got around 31... the USMC has completely phased out their ca. 400 M1 abrams in 2021 and the USA has more than 3000 of these in storage which is quite comparable to the total number of Leopard 2 in the whole world (and way higher than every other modern western tank)...

2 hours ago, Makk said:

 It will be good to get F-16s but Russia will still have air superiority which is a real sticking point. I'm not sure what the most effective way of dealing with that is, can Gepards reliably shoot down the better Russian fighter jets? Those and the Patriot system seem to be overperforming and will be really important. But Ukraine doesn't get to choose their stuff, they mostly get what other countries have in storage/surplus with a little input.

The Gepards are a short range system. Russia tends to keep its airplanes within its own controlled air space and fire medium to long range weaponry into Ukrainian territory, so they won't be shot down by Gepards...

The cheapest and easiest way to destroy aircraft of any kind is to destroy them on the ground. And the most effective way to stop them from using those aircraft is to destroy the airfields. Ukraine has done that with their first ATACMS strike. Basically Ukraine needs long range weaponry of various kinds, which they don't really get.

It's also the most economical way of air defense, there's not enough Patriot (and they are expensive) or Gepard systems in the world to cover all of Ukraine. If you want to remove the threat of aerial attack, you have to remove it at the source, not when it's already hitting you.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

but there's a whole lot of stuff that isn't allowed to go out for export reasons (like lots of M1 Abrams with depleted uranium armor)

Why is that not allowed for export? Radiation? Possible technology espionage? International treaties?

Edited November 2, 2023 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Makk said:

When Bakhmut fell the Ukrainians ran out of mortars which is one of the most important tools to stop mass infantry charges. I'm not sure if that was just logistical or they were short across the entire front. We don't really know what is happening in Avdiika, obviously Ukraine doesn't want to reveal how much ammunition they have, but I hope it isn't a similar situation. This is a really great opportunity for Ukraine as the Russians are attacking the city relentlessly for political rather than strategic reasons in a seemingly crazy manner that doesn't care about losses. The longer this can continue the more Russia's forces will be degraded. Ukraine doesn't want to be forced to conserve ammo at this time.

If we're talking ammunition? Oh yes, I'm sure Ukraine can use more. Russia can too, apparently! But that's not what folks were talking about above. 

It is probably a good idea to make Ukraine not have to be as stingy with valuable equipment as they have been and be able to take risks for higher rewards, or be able to mass attacks in a more effective way, but I think we're past the point where just 'moar' is going to cut it. 

 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Why is that not allowed for export? Radiation? Possible technology espionage?

Per an article:

Quote

 

The US is especially sensitive about the M1’s armor, which for all current variants reportedly includes plates of ultra-dense depleted uranium. DU is non-radioactive — in fact, it’s less reactive than regular uranium, because all the radioactive isotopes have been removed to make nuclear fuel, which is why it’s called “depleted” — but it’s potentially toxic if ingested or inhaled, as could happen to the tank crew if an enemy round slams through the plate. (In that case, though, the crew has more immediate problems).

So every Abrams sold to foreign customers, even close allies like Australia, has the depleted uranium armor removed. Some of the older M1A1s being prepped for export, say to Poland, may have already had this process performed. But the more modern M1A2s all have the DU plates, and swapping them out adds weeks to the delivery timeline.

 

So it's not Ukraine, it's basically anyone who is not the US. That said it's pretty clear that the reactive armor that the M1 has is also not being shipped to Ukraine and that is more around espionage/weapon restriction issues.

[Makk]

13 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The Gepards are a short range system. Russia tends to keep its airplanes within its own controlled air space and fire medium to long range weaponry into Ukrainian territory, so they won't be shot down by Gepards...

For the Jets to be used effectively against a moving force they do have to get a lot closer though right? Hypothetically if the Ukranians did start to drive some heavy equipment across the Dnipro, the real big danger in my mind would be aviation strikes which Ukraine can't match. Can the Gepards help protect against this at all? I presume they can at least shoot down some surveillance drones but if the jets can just eliminate any significant target Ukraine sends across I cant see an attack from this direction working at all.

[Bironic]

26 minutes ago, Makk said:

For the Jets to be used effectively against a moving force they do have to get a lot closer though right?

I think for close air support they often use Su 25 and attack helicopters like the Ka52, both of them get shot down with some regularity. I assume they have to move them closer to the front (outside of Manpad range most of the time and underneath Radar I guess) but probably within the range of things like the Gepard, NASAMS etc...

26 minutes ago, Makk said:

Can the Gepards help protect against this at all? I presume they can at least shoot down some surveillance drones but if the jets can just eliminate any significant target Ukraine sends across I cant see an attack from this direction working at all.

I really don't know... I don't know if the gepards are amphibious (I assume they are to some degree)... This whole Dnipro crossing idea looks very risky for me, but I admit I have not enough knowledge to make an assessment...Gepards are very good at shooting down drones and missiles, that has been reported often (and they use much cheaper ammo compared to missile based systems).

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per an article:

So it's not Ukraine, it's basically anyone who is not the US. That said it's pretty clear that the reactive armor that the M1 has is also not being shipped to Ukraine and that is more around espionage/weapon restriction issues.

Thanks for the Info! Much appreciated!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Bironic

[Wilbur]

The links to pictures of tanks might be kind of misleading, but it is a good representation of the kind and especially the volume of excess military stuff that is available in Nevada.

You can drive for miles and miles on public roads through places like Hawthorne Army Depot, which is the largest, on the way to Lake Tahoe, and as far as the eye can see are dugouts and redoubts full of munitions that we will never, ever use.  The stuff has been slowly contaminating water tables and creating a hassle to store since I was a kid.

Ship it to Ukraine and let them perform acute, percussive disposal.  It just boggles the mind that we don't have a crash program to rid ourselves of the burden of this stuff and use it to an actual positive end.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Per an article:

So it's not Ukraine, it's basically anyone who is not the US. That said it's pretty clear that the reactive armor that the M1 has is also not being shipped to Ukraine and that is more around espionage/weapon restriction issues.

So the only tank crews the USA wants to poison with DU are its own tank crews. That is so considerate of the welfare of foreign soldiers. I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone in saying we really appreciate the concern. 

[hauberk]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So the only tank crews the USA wants to poison with DU are its own tank crews. That is so considerate of the welfare of foreign soldiers. I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone in saying we really appreciate the concern. 

Nope. Perfectly happy as long as the DU is delivered as a fin stabilized discarding sabot penetrator at muzzle velocity.  It’s only the armor that’s an issue. 
 

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Per an article:

So it's not Ukraine, it's basically anyone who is not the US. That said it's pretty clear that the reactive armor that the M1 has is also not being shipped to Ukraine and that is more around espionage/weapon restriction issues.

The reactive armor was, I thought, already out of the bag. I have vague recollections of a story coming out back in the late 80s of the Israelis losing a reactive armor equipped Abrams to mechanical difficulty on the other side of a border. I can’t recall the source, location on conflict and it’s possible it was stripped as described above but my recollection is that it was at least implied to have reactive armor. 

[Toth]

9 hours ago, Bironic said:

I really don't know... I don't know if the gepards are amphibious (I assume they are to some degree)... This whole Dnipro crossing idea looks very risky for me, but I admit I have not enough knowledge to make an assessment...Gepards are very good at shooting down drones and missiles, that has been reported often (and they use much cheaper ammo compared to missile based systems).

The Gepard is just a clever slug thrower mounted on a Leopard 1 chassis. It's decidedly not amphibious, but it doesn't need to be, because Ukraine got plenty of pontoon bridges and bridge-layer vehicles. The issue is, of course, suppressing Russian artillery near the Dnepr enough to make a concerted crossing less suicidal. The only truly amphibious vehicles Ukraine has are the poor old BMPs. Here Ukraine's counter artillery capabilities are king.

But yeah, like Makk says, Gepards have proven to be awesome at drone defense and while their original mission profile back when they were designed was to protect armored units on the move, it has its reason why Germany has been phasing it out. I don't think it can be expected to defend itself against any fighter and would struggle even against helicopters hurling missiles at it from outside its range. You really want to bring missiles for that job. Ukraine may receive 15 more Gepards from Germany and 30 the US bought from Jordan pretty much as we speak, but I still doubt Ukraine wants to risk them at the front line for the expectation of dubious results.

It's quite frustrating. I've just scrolled through the Wikipedia articles to see what else we in Germany could deliver for a push. The Gepard has a range of 5,5 km. It was so far "replaced" with Ozelot, a light weapons carrier with some missiles attached to it. Those are mostly just Stingers with an 8 km range or LFK NG, which have a 10 km range. The problem is, Germany only has 19 of those, most currently stationed in Lithuania...

Strange, the website for the Skyranger, the Boxer variant that is supposed to be a beefed up Gepard, says its effective firing range is only 4 km, but it's also advertised specifically to cost-effectively bring down drone swarms, not to defend against jets and missiles.