Ukraine War: incompetence vs fecklessness

[Werthead]

Ukraine pulling out of Avdiivka. Probably the correct decision: the supply corridor to the city had been reduced to less than half of the same corridor for Bakhmut at the corresponding time and the axes of attack into the city had become too numerous to hold against.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a re-run of Bakhmut though, with Ukraine mounting counter-attacks to keep the Russians off-balance before they can fortify. If you are going to cede ground, then a spit of land right next to Donetsk City about as far east in Ukrainian territory as you can get is not too bad.

[Bironic]

On 2/12/2024 at 7:36 PM, Rippounet said:

True. To be fair though, from a French perspective, our country has been pushing for a European military alliance that would not rely on US power since the 1950s, and was denied at every turn.
The "French" plan was to develop a military alliance around a strong France-Germany axis, including the development of European weaponry and combined brigades (a friend of mien served in one of these in Germany btw). But both the US and the UK were lukewarm about it, and Eastern Europeans often preferred siding with the US in both commercial and diplomatic matters ; they sought to rely on the US to defend them from a resurgent Russia - while Germany or France wanted to buy cheap fossil fuels from it.
It's the historical paradox of the US position: what the US really wants is for Europe to develop its own military... through buying American weapons. France was ok with the first part, less so with the second...
So we're here also because everyone wanted to develop their own militaro-industrial complex, and this came at the price of unity. If I wanted to paint with a thick brush, NATO was also a great marketing tool... Meanwhile, France had its own assault rifle (the famas), its own jet fighter (the rafale), its own tank (the leclerc), its own submarines ... etc, that it wanted to sell.
A military alliance that entailed sabotaging our own defense industry was not appealing.
So yeah, it is true that France and the French are unlikely to want to extend a nuclear umbrella to Eastern Europe in the near future. But a bit of historical perspective helps understand that: in recent decades, these same Eastern European states often chose to rely on the US rather than help develop an independent European military power (there was a line about "old Europe" at some point, yeah? ) , so...

I agree that France is the country that has most often pushed for a more unifief european military. The most notable example probably the Pleven plan of the early 1950s. But alas that same plan was ended by whom? The French Parliament.

I think some of the reasons why the other european countries were reluctant to support France in such endeavours are

a) unlike the US, France post WW2 isn't a Great Power/Super Power/World Power/Hyper Power; thus severely limiting the amount of help they could lend to another european country even if the would be willing to, compared to the USA

b) France's position is actually quite similar to the US position: France wants a strong european military that uses European French Weapons and is led by Europe France (what you call the historical paradox of US policy yours analysis I agree to btw, but it applies to France as well) look at Rafale: the idea was to build a european fighter jet, to be able to withstand the massive american fighter jet concurrence. Which country did not agree with sharing and cooperation but wanted the lions share and the project lead and thus prefered to develop its own fighter jet instead of the Eurofighter? France! Similar things happened in the case of Leclerc/Leopard 2 and so on and so forth...

c) the US has a track record, as well as until Trump quite unanimous support for military intervention even nuclear if necessary for the other European Nations, while France is more interested in interventions in "Francafrique" & MENA & Indopacific and has an abysmal track record in large swaths of (eastern) europe (failure to support the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, failure to stand up to Hitler in Munich essentially giving czechoslovachia to him, failure to defend Poland, BeNeLux, Denmark, Norway; failure to defend itself, Vichy France cooperating with Nazigermany, etc.), obviously this applies largely also to the other "great" nations of europe: UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Turkey, Soviet Union/Russia etc.

Completely agree with the bolded parts

Navalnys last video message apparently

Edited February 17 by Bironic

[Rippounet]

Yes, absolutely. As I said, "we're here also because everyone wanted to develop their own militaro-industrial complex," and that includes France.
The one good point of the French position was that, because France couldn't quite finance all those expensive R&D programs on its own, it was always looking for partners for weapons development programs. I'm not an expert, but I know partnerships were developed with Germany and Spain at least - possibly Italy I believe.
The point isn't to say that the French position was exemplary. Its main goal was always to keep its own militaro-industrial complex and sell its own weapons to make big bucks. That, btw, I have little consideration for.
Nonetheless,  proposing to develop common R&D programs had its own merits. And even assuming France still kept the lead on most of these programs, the knowledge and production would still have had to be split between several countries. Imho, other countries could have indulged France a bit and progressively obtained both valuable technology and weapons production centers. After a bit of time, i.e. once factories had been built and production lines established, it would have been relatively easy to tell France to fuck off it it became too annoying.
But I think this required too many efforts. Significant initial investments. Indulging France for a bit - and I'm aware how annoying the French can be. Getting those factories up and running. Etc.
In other words, all of this was a long-term strategy that would only bear fruit after decades, with a lot of negotiation and bickering in-between. And all this with the US not liking it much, and potentially making significant efforts to sabotage this kind of strategy, using its own technical superiority and surveillance programs to break up partnerships.
By contrast, buying stuff from the US was always a solid short-term choice that could provide immediate benefits, including American goodwill and support - especially through NATO.
But, and there's my big but. Why did European cooperation not take off with renewed vigor after Trump threatened to blow up NATO (the first time)? European countries should have immediately realized that they could no longer afford to wait for the US to drop the ball to develop their own weapons and production lines. I guess these things take time, but it's like we still waited the last possible moment (i.e. the invasion of Ukraine) to be concerned with weapons production...
In a nutshell: a lot of people must have fucked up pretty badly. Or maybe I'm underestimating some oppositions, including US hostility. I haven't done my homework on this tbh.
 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The point isn't to say that the French position was exemplary. Its main goal was always to keep its own militaro-industrial complex and sell its own weapons to make big bucks. That, btw, I have little consideration for.

Part of the answer. The other part is, it's kinda useful to have some sorta military expertise and to develop your in-house military gear. It's better to be not fully dependent on the US or military supplies, and they won't share their top shelf stuff with anybody anyway.

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

ut, and there's my big but. Why did European cooperation not take off with renewed vigor after Trump threatened to blow up NATO (the first time)? European countries should have immediately realized that they could no longer afford to wait for the US to drop the ball to develop their own weapons and production lines. I guess these things take time, but it's like we still waited the last possible moment (i.e. the invasion of Ukraine) to be concerned with weapons production...

 

The drawback with Europe not having the military budget of the US, there's also not that front edge r&d (at least on the same level as the US), so Europe is one step behind. Plus it takes years. Just ask the Indians how their fully homegrown fighter project went (fighter jet engines are apparently are real pain to develop and build).

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The one good point of the French position was that, because France couldn't quite finance all those expensive R&D programs on its own, it was always looking for partners for weapons development programs. I'm not an expert, but I know partnerships were developed with Germany and Spain at least - possibly Italy I believe.

You are thinking of EADS (Airbus for the non-Euros) aren't you?

Germany also has their industries they'd like to protect/use. So that means Naval vessels and submarines by ThyssenKrupp instead of the French contractor). Don't get me wrong, competition is good to keep R&D alive and well.

 

As for buying abroad. I think S. Koreans offer a better cost/benefit ratio compared to US contractors.

 

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But, and there's my big but. Why did European cooperation not take off with renewed vigor after Trump threatened to blow up NATO (the first time)? European countries should have immediately realized that they could no longer afford to wait for the US to drop the ball to develop their own weapons and production lines. I guess these things take time, but it's like we still waited the last possible moment (i.e. the invasion of Ukraine) to be concerned with weapons production...

I'm a little surprised such efforts weren't underway back in Dubya's time when the US was attacking and occupying a sovereign nation based on the ludicrous belief that Iraq had financed the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they were, and went nowhere.

But yes, I agree that Trump's rise to the office should have been the clearest signal yet that the old order was dead, or at least convulsing with demons. Perhaps caution was suggested given Trump's erratic and prickly nature, or perhaps there was some foolish hope he would learn on the job and eventually act like a typical president.

I would like to know the geopolitical strategies going forward of various foreign leaders toward given the worryingly tumultuous nature of US politics and governance. Right now the fate of NATO--and with it, the probability of future land grabs by Russia and China--seems like it will be decided by a coin toss. I can't imagine the rest of the world will tolerate those odds for much longer, even if Biden wins. It's hard to act in good faith with Dr. Jekyl when Mr. Hyde pops up half the time. 

[Toth]

33 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm a little surprised such efforts weren't underway back in Dubya's time when the US was attacking and occupying a sovereign nation based on the ludicrous belief that Iraq had financed the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they were, and went nowhere.

Mmh... it could be because Great Britain joined the Iraq War, while France and Germany opposed the war. So using it as a stepping off point to disentangle the EU from the US could have isolated Great Britain. In addition to this, the danger presented was one of the US abusing its position to go on a pointless revenge spree, but Bush wasn't questioning the security guarantees of NATO. Much the opposite, given how necessary it was for him to invoke Article 5 against Afghanistan. Though at least politically it caused tensions and it took quite a lot of effort by Obama to smooth over relations afterwards. Meanwhile Trump is openly threatening allies and tearing up treaties out of ideology and pique.

[Larry of the Lawn]

39 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

 

I would like to know the geopolitical strategies going forward of various foreign leaders toward given the worryingly tumultuous nature of US politics and governance. . 

Yeah, look at the Iran nuclear deal.  There is zero point in making any long term agreement with the US.  The world police is condensed into a cop with a 30 second memory and all the coolest weapons.

[Bironic]

There were many failures that should have prompted a closer cooperation by the European military and industry, from very recent (Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump Presidency & MAGAs, Retreat from Afghanistan, War in Donbas & Annexation of Crimea, wars in Libya and Syria) fairly recent (Russian invasion of Georgia, Putins 2007 speech, Putins ascent to Power and his war in Chechnya, Iraq War and unilateral Dubyea Presidency) somewhat recent (Yugoslav wars), or quite old: failure to detain either (Nazi) Germany and its allies nor the Soviet Union and its allies etc.

The fact that it didnt happen and isn't really going to happen now means that there are probably several reasons underneath it. Not the least that defense & military and foreign policy are the most "core" things that make a sovereign state a state and giving them up even partially is equivalent for a lot of people to giving up being a state/nation. And most people serving and working in the military, in defense & weapons industry tend to be more on the right, nationalistic spectrum of the political landscape rather than Europhiles...

[Derfel Cadarn]

I don’t have a link (Twitter no longer embeds for me) but apparently Denmark is sending all of its artillery to Ukraine.

edit: https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/02/18/prime-minister-denmark-to-supply-all-its-artillery-to-ukraine/

Edited February 18 by Derfel Cadarn

[Werthead]

Also good news: the Czech Republic has sourced 800,000 rounds of artillery ammunition that could be within Ukraine in weeks. And Finland's own ammunition production factories - Finland maintains an almost ludicrously massive (well, so it seemed before February 2022) artillery force and resupply chain, though not on the scale of South Korea - are now churning out ammo for resupply to Ukraine as well. It's not on the same level as Russia, but it should help raise the floor on how much Ukraine can do on a daily basis. 

Germany is also investing in Rheinmetall production within Ukraine itself, which will enable Ukraine to receive artillery ammunition straight off the production line, although it looks like that will take longer before it's in full swing.

France is also establishing a drone supply programme to Ukraine, with thousands to tens of thousands of drones expected to be sent to Ukraine this year. France is also training 10,000 more Ukrainian troops and has provided Ukraine with its latest-model AI upgrade package for the Caesar self-propelled gun, which is very popular with Ukrainian gunners for its simplicity and effectiveness. France has indicated it also has a large number of AMX-10 RC light tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and SCALP missiles (aka Storm Shadow) which are due to go out of service in 2024-25 and these are all earmarked for Ukraine.

Canada is discussing sending 83,000 decommissioned CRV7 rockets to Ukraine. These can be fired from helicopters but can be modified for ground-to-ground use and have various warhead options, including a 7.3kg one that can penetrate armoured targets.

Russian losses to take Avdiivka: 47,186 killed and wounded, 364 tanks destroyed, 748 IFVs destroyed or disabled, and five aircraft shot down.

Russian attacks SW out of Bakhmut, unclear how that is going. An attack towards Robotyne to try to reverse the Ukrainian gains of last summer, but that seems to have ended with an armoured column being destroyed. Unclear on the scale of tat.

Four Russian aircraft destroyed in two days, suggesting another improvement of Ukrainian AA capabilities.

Informal suggestion that Ukraine will receive F-16s in June.

Edited February 18 by Werthead

[Clueless Northman]

On 2/17/2024 at 5:56 PM, Bironic said:

Not the least that defense & military and foreign policy are the most "core" things that make a sovereign state a state and giving them up even partially is equivalent for a lot of people to giving up being a state/nation. And most people serving and working in the military, in defense & weapons industry tend to be more on the right, nationalistic spectrum of the political landscape rather than Europhiles...

The ludicrous part being that European countries basically have given up all of these core powers (industrial output and military tech levels), but to the US. It's as if most nations or at least political leaders across the EU prefer to let the US have that kind of power over them, rather than fellow European nations.

 

On 2/17/2024 at 3:33 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm a little surprised such efforts weren't underway back in Dubya's time when the US was attacking and occupying a sovereign nation based on the ludicrous belief that Iraq had financed the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they were, and went nowhere.

I would like to know the geopolitical strategies going forward of various foreign leaders toward given the worryingly tumultuous nature of US politics and governance.

Europe is led by absolute morons, and has been for decades, or they're just too deep into wishful magical thinking. I came to that conclusion - that US is awfully unreliable - more than 20 years ago, and that's just by looking at current events. A long look at US historical record would've been enough. I mean, we go from Kennedy to Nixon, then from Carter to Reagn, than from Bush to Clinton to W. Bush, from W to Obama, and then from Obama to Trump. It's kind of obvious that every decade at least, possibly more often, you have US administrations or presidents basically looking to overturn key parts of previous policies, including foreing policies, and every time you think it' can't get worse, it actually can get worse. Any Euro leader worth a cent would know how it works and would plan accordingly - that is, seeking more autonomy if not independence from US alliance and help, in pretty much every field.

Edited February 19 by Clueless Northman

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Also good news: the Czech Republic has sourced 800,000 rounds of artillery ammunition that could be within Ukraine in weeks. And Finland's own ammunition production factories - Finland maintains an almost ludicrously massive (well, so it seemed before February 2022) artillery force and resupply chain, though not on the scale of South Korea - are now churning out ammo for resupply to Ukraine as well. It's not on the same level as Russia, but it should help raise the floor on how much Ukraine can do on a daily basis. 

Germany is also investing in Rheinmetall production within Ukraine itself, which will enable Ukraine to receive artillery ammunition straight off the production line, although it looks like that will take longer before it's in full swing.

France is also establishing a drone supply programme to Ukraine, with thousands to tens of thousands of drones expected to be sent to Ukraine this year. France is also training 10,000 more Ukrainian troops and has provided Ukraine with its latest-model AI upgrade package for the Caesar self-propelled gun, which is very popular with Ukrainian gunners for its simplicity and effectiveness. France has indicated it also has a large number of AMX-10 RC light tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and SCALP missiles (aka Storm Shadow) which are due to go out of service in 2024-25 and these are all earmarked for Ukraine.

Canada is discussing sending 83,000 decommissioned CRV7 rockets to Ukraine. These can be fired from helicopters but can be modified for ground-to-ground use and have various warhead options, including a 7.3kg one that can penetrate armoured targets.

Russian losses to take Avdiivka: 47,186 killed and wounded, 364 tanks destroyed, 748 IFVs destroyed or disabled, and five aircraft shot down.

Russian attacks SW out of Bakhmut, unclear how that is going. An attack towards Robotyne to try to reverse the Ukrainian gains of last summer, but that seems to have ended with an armoured column being destroyed. Unclear on the scale of tat.

Four Russian aircraft destroyed in two days, suggesting another improvement of Ukrainian AA capabilities.

Informal suggestion that Ukraine will receive F-16s in June.

That is a staggering loss, for tiny gain.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

The ludicrous part being that European countries basically have given up all of these core powers (industrial output and military tech levels), but to the US. It's as if most nations or at least political leaders across the EU prefer to let the US have that kind of power over them, rather than fellow European nations.

 

Europe is led by absolute morons, and has been for decades, or they're just too deep into wishful magical thinking. I came to that conclusion - that US is awfully unreliable - more than 20 years ago, and that's just by looking at current events. A long look at US historical record would've been enough. I mean, we go from Kennedy to Nixon, then from Carter to Reagn, than from Bush to Clinton to W. Bush, from W to Obama, and then from Obama to Trump. It's kind of obvious that every decade at least, possibly more often, you have US administrations or presidents basically looking to overturn key parts of previous policies, including foreing policies, and every time you think it' can't get worse, it actually can get worse. Any Euro leader worth a cent would know how it works and would plan accordingly - that is, seeking more autonomy if not independence from US alliance and help, in pretty much every field.

Is it not wonderful and wicked, sir? The caress of our people so sinful and soft that our provincials fancy themselves free! What a marvelous empire we are!

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

The ludicrous part being that European countries basically have given up all of these core powers (industrial output and military tech levels), but to the US. It's as if most nations or at least political leaders across the EU prefer to let the US have that kind of power over them, rather than fellow European nations.

 

Europe is led by absolute morons, and has been for decades, or they're just too deep into wishful magical thinking. I came to that conclusion - that US is awfully unreliable - more than 20 years ago, and that's just by looking at current events. A long look at US historical record would've been enough. I mean, we go from Kennedy to Nixon, then from Carter to Reagn, than from Bush to Clinton to W. Bush, from W to Obama, and then from Obama to Trump. It's kind of obvious that every decade at least, possibly more often, you have US administrations or presidents basically looking to overturn key parts of previous policies, including foreing policies, and every time you think it' can't get worse, it actually can get worse. Any Euro leader worth a cent would know how it works and would plan accordingly - that is, seeking more autonomy if not independence from US alliance and help, in pretty much every field.

I think that the pool of competent leadership dried up, right across Western democracies, at some point in the 1990's.

Love them or loathe them, Thatcher, Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand, Schmidt, Adenauer, Bush Senior, Attlee, Churchill, Eisenhower were all pretty clear-sighed about foreign affairs.

[mormont]

Would that be Margaret Thatcher, who was notoriously 'clear-sighted' about South Africa, to pick just one foreign policy issue at random?

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Would that be Margaret Thatcher, who was notoriously 'clear-sighted' about South Africa, to pick just one foreign policy issue at random?

The same.  These were all leaders who prioritised Western security interests.  Which often involved doing deals with shitty people.

[Bironic]

I don't agree with this "in the past we were led by lions and now by donkeys", almost all of the people usually mentioned have massive failures, faults and flaws under their belt. IMHo there are no statistics to back up that belief either... And I don't think that there are no good/great/competent leaders/politicians etc today.

That doesn't mean that I am optimistic about our future or that everything will be fine, but this weird nostalgia makes me always uneasy, it somewhat resembles the MAGA slogans (when was america great the last time? under Ike? Kennedy?) BS if you ask me...

[mormont]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

The same.  These were all leaders who prioritised Western security interests.  Which often involved doing deals with shitty people.

But backing the apartheid regime was not, in fact, the right decision by that criterion. Nor was backdoor sales of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, for that matter. And as for Churchill, well, there have been books written by more qualified folks than I on that one.

Your list might well have been willing to back Ukraine in ways that (some) current leaders are not. Then again they're all dead, so we'll never know. But the idea that this is down to their 'clear sight', I'm sceptical about.

I don't want to derail further, so I'll leave it there.

[polishgenius]

Churchill gave Poland (which didn't want to be communist) to Stalin in return for stabbing the leftist anti-fascist rebels he'd been allied with in Greece (who did want to be communist) in the back to keep Greece 'Western'. He was right on the Nazis, obviously, but his 'clear-sightedness' can fuck off. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it: ask the Kenyans, the Irish, or the way his WW1 idea inflicted such a horrible mess at Gallipoli that Australia and Turkey- the two armies opposing each other- have had friendly relations ever since on the basis of 'fuck that cunt'. 

I've also seen it sense that prior to WW2 breaking out Churchill was seen as such a crank that him hating the Nazis made some in parliament more likely to think their threat was exaggerated. I dunno if that's true, though. 

 

[SeanF]

28 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Churchill gave Poland (which didn't want to be communist) to Stalin in return for stabbing the leftist anti-fascist rebels he'd been allied with in Greece (who did want to be communist) in the back to keep Greece 'Western'. He was right on the Nazis, obviously, but his 'clear-sightedness' can fuck off. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it: ask the Kenyans, the Irish, or the way his WW1 idea inflicted such a horrible mess at Gallipoli that Australia and Turkey- the two armies opposing each other- have had friendly relations ever since on the basis of 'fuck that cunt'. 

I've also seen it sense that prior to WW2 breaking out Churchill was seen as such a crank that him hating the Nazis made some in parliament more likely to think their threat was exaggerated. I dunno if that's true, though. 

 

Knocking Churchill is now very popular in the kinds of circles that don’t see that much difference between the Western powers  and the Nazis (Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Tariq Ali, Clive Ponting, David Irving etc.)

One can argue that the leaders who founded and guided NATO, and led the West, from the 50’s to the 90’s, were just one cheek of the same sordid arse as the leaders of the Eastern bloc, who provided the other cheek.

But, I think that’s an argument that comes from a place of great privilege.

Edited February 19 by SeanF