The Russian invasion of Georgia happened in August 2008. It was a response to this that the Americans decided to accept Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, in December 2008, and this was supposed to happen very quickly, in a couple of months.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The Russian invasion of Georgia happened in August 2008. It was a response to this that the Americans decided to accept Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, in December 2008, and this was supposed to happen very quickly, in a couple of months.
I think you're dwelling a bit much on the Germans and Nord Stream 2. That's not what this conflict is about, nor did German reliance on Russian energy allow Putin to do what he's doing in Ukraine.
Right. It happened about 6 months after the Bucharest Summit where NATO members agreed to pursue Georgia becoming a NATO member. Putin had no intention of allowing that to happen, just as it didn't with Ukraine.
This is all a bit off topic, but if we dwell into history: Nord Stream was created to secure the gas supply to Germany. Why was it needed? Because Ukraine wasn't a reliable transit country. Their discussions with Gazprom involved stealing gas and threatening to shuttle down pipelines if there is no agreement reached, if I remember correctly mainly around 2006.
Of course Germany in 2008 didn't support Ukraine joining the defence organisation NATO if they actually were acting hostile towards Germany to get leverage against Gazprom.
Of course Germany in 2008 didn't support Ukraine joining the defence organisation NATO if they actually were acting hostile towards Germany to get leverage against Gazprom.
They cooked their numbers before joining Euro, and essentially lied about their economy.
I hope you're right mate, Russia has a of potential if only they had someone in power who concentrated on making Russians lives better instead of foreign conquest.
I have my doubts. Isn't it just so ingrained in their culture that political power is always exercised by power and the barrel of a gun? They gave the world Tolstoy, Medvedev, Tchaikovsky, Sputnik and Dostoyevsky, but when it comes to political culture, Russia always end up in the exercise of might, where civil society, democratic processes loses to raw power, every time?
I wonder if it has something to do with the size of the place? How the hell are you going to control such a vast area with a 'relatively' small population without using force. But Canada seems to do it just fine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64341337.amp
Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a direct appeal to Germany to provide tanks ahead of crunch talks involving dozens of Western allies at Ramstein air base in southern Germany.
The US and European nations have already promised Kyiv more equipment to fight Russia's invasion.
Berlin is under growing pressure to allow its Leopard 2 tanks to be sent.
"If you have Leopard [tanks], then give them to us," Mr Zelensky told German public TV.
"These leopards won't go through Russia. We're defending ourselves," he said, in remarks criticising the German government's hesitant attitude.
Defence officials from more than 50 countries are due to meet at Ramstein, a day after the US and several European nations pledged more equipment to help Ukraine fend off any further Russian offensives.
Almost 11 months after Russia launched its war against Ukraine, Nato military officials believe Moscow is planning a renewed spring offensive with troop numbers bolstered by a partial mobilisation since the end of September.
The UK also offered 14 of its battle tanks recently - but Kyiv wants more.
As the nation of manufacture, Germany has to give its permission before countries such as Poland or Finland commit to sending their own Leopard tanks. However, Polish deputy foreign minister Pawel Jablonski indicated on Friday that Warsaw might do so anyway.
"We'll see. I think if there is strong resistance, we'll be ready to take even such non-standard action. But let's not anticipate the facts," he told Polish radio.
Ukraine's allies faced a "simple choice" on Friday, an adviser to the defence minister in Kyiv remarked ahead of the summit.
"Tanks for Ukraine are tanks for freedom," Yuriy Sak told BBC's Newsnight programme. If these were not sent, other countries might one day "have to use them themselves" against Moscow, he warned.
Berlin said this week that a decision on the Leopard was conditional on the US agreeing to send Abrams tanks, which it is not intending to do. But the new German defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said he was not aware of "such stipulation".
Late on Thursday, Germany said its position would become clear in the coming hours, AFP reported.
Mr Zelensky has repeatedly taken aim at Berlin's perceived hesitancy and on Thursday criticised suggestions that the US and Germany were only planning to commit vehicles if the other nation did the same.
"I don't think this is the right strategy to go with", Mr Zelensky commented, while calling for "strong decisions" to be made during Friday's conference.
Retired US Army general David Petraeus said there was "legitimate reluctance" in Washington on the issue of sending Abrams tanks because it was difficult to maintain and had a jet turbine.
He told the BBC it was "imperative" that any Western tank donations were made "early enough, so [Ukrainian soldiers] can actually train on them".
For its part, Russia has warned Western countries that providing tanks to its enemy would mark an "extremely dangerous" escalation in the conflict.
On Thursday, Western nations pledged to send more vehicles, artillery and munitions to bolster the Ukrainian war effort.
The US committed a new package worth $2.5bn (£2bn), saying this took its spend on Ukrainian support to $26.7bn since last February's full-scale invasion by Russia.
Tanks were not included in the offer, but the Pentagon did promise an extra 59 Bradley armoured vehicles, 90 Stryker personnel carriers and Avenger air defence systems, among other provisions.
The announcement came after nine European nations promised more support of their own following a meeting in Estonia. This included:
Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a direct appeal to Germany to provide tanks ahead of crunch talks involving dozens of Western allies at Ramstein air base in southern Germany.
The US and European nations have already promised Kyiv more equipment to fight Russia's invasion.
Berlin is under growing pressure to allow its Leopard 2 tanks to be sent.
"If you have Leopard [tanks], then give them to us," Mr Zelensky told German public TV.
"These leopards won't go through Russia. We're defending ourselves," he said, in remarks criticising the German government's hesitant attitude.
Defence officials from more than 50 countries are due to meet at Ramstein, a day after the US and several European nations pledged more equipment to help Ukraine fend off any further Russian offensives.
Almost 11 months after Russia launched its war against Ukraine, Nato military officials believe Moscow is planning a renewed spring offensive with troop numbers bolstered by a partial mobilisation since the end of September.
The UK also offered 14 of its battle tanks recently - but Kyiv wants more.
As the nation of manufacture, Germany has to give its permission before countries such as Poland or Finland commit to sending their own Leopard tanks. However, Polish deputy foreign minister Pawel Jablonski indicated on Friday that Warsaw might do so anyway.
"We'll see. I think if there is strong resistance, we'll be ready to take even such non-standard action. But let's not anticipate the facts," he told Polish radio.
Ukraine's allies faced a "simple choice" on Friday, an adviser to the defence minister in Kyiv remarked ahead of the summit.
"Tanks for Ukraine are tanks for freedom," Yuriy Sak told BBC's Newsnight programme. If these were not sent, other countries might one day "have to use them themselves" against Moscow, he warned.
Berlin said this week that a decision on the Leopard was conditional on the US agreeing to send Abrams tanks, which it is not intending to do. But the new German defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said he was not aware of "such stipulation".
Late on Thursday, Germany said its position would become clear in the coming hours, AFP reported.
Mr Zelensky has repeatedly taken aim at Berlin's perceived hesitancy and on Thursday criticised suggestions that the US and Germany were only planning to commit vehicles if the other nation did the same.
"I don't think this is the right strategy to go with", Mr Zelensky commented, while calling for "strong decisions" to be made during Friday's conference.
Retired US Army general David Petraeus said there was "legitimate reluctance" in Washington on the issue of sending Abrams tanks because it was difficult to maintain and had a jet turbine.
He told the BBC it was "imperative" that any Western tank donations were made "early enough, so [Ukrainian soldiers] can actually train on them".
For its part, Russia has warned Western countries that providing tanks to its enemy would mark an "extremely dangerous" escalation in the conflict.
On Thursday, Western nations pledged to send more vehicles, artillery and munitions to bolster the Ukrainian war effort.
The US committed a new package worth $2.5bn (£2bn), saying this took its spend on Ukrainian support to $26.7bn since last February's full-scale invasion by Russia.
Tanks were not included in the offer, but the Pentagon did promise an extra 59 Bradley armoured vehicles, 90 Stryker personnel carriers and Avenger air defence systems, among other provisions.
The announcement came after nine European nations promised more support of their own following a meeting in Estonia. This included:
- UK - 600 Brimstone missiles
- Denmark - 19 French-made Caesar self-propelled howitzers
- Estonia - howitzers, ammunition, support vehicles and anti-tank grenade launchers
- Latvia - Stinger air-defence systems, two helicopters, and drones
- Lithuania - anti-aircraft guns and two helicopters
- Poland - S-60 anti-aircraft guns with 70,000 pieces of ammunition
- Czech Republic - produce further large calibre ammunition, howitzers and APCs
- Netherlands - support expected to be detailed on Friday
Netherlands are now becoming front-runners, really well done! Time is of essence now.
Lots of countries were similar in the past but changed. Maybe they just need a right leader/party to give them a chance to change, they had that chance 20 years ago but got despot in Putin. But you're right to become a true democracy Russian culture to an extent will have to change which won't be easy.
Without wanting to continue this random segue... Requiring market reform as a condition of the largest bailout in history, is hardly as ridiculous as you make it seem.
As you state yourself, the economy was built almost like a developing country on things like holiday housing that are hugely affected by economic cycles and their pensions were completely unfunded (worst in Europe) with the issue getting worse every year. Saying they could have given 30bn but ended up giving many times that isn't fairly assessing the counterfactual. The Germans knew that without market reform, £30bn would not have been the end of the bailouts and bailouts without conditions would incentivise riskier behaviour among EU states, setting the precedent that governments could stop making difficult political decisions on things like pensions as Germany could bail them out.
I'm extremely on the fence about whether it was the right thing to do in hindsight, but their actions at the time weren't irrational.
Belgium are donating surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, machine guns and ammunition to Ukraine apparently.
Finally. The black sheep of western Europe starts acting.
I just don't know if it's possible for Russia as a massive transcontinental federation to become a democracy. Maybe it needs to break up into smaller, more manageable units for a democratic culture to arise.
Seriously? We are in between Norway and Denmark regarding support, leading the likes of Ireland, Portugal, Finland etc.
It's definitely a barrier for sure. A state system is the only way I can imagine it would work without the country breaking up. Though when you think about it Russia is so vast that it has lots ethnic regions with little or no similarities to each other that are part of the country through no choice of their own. Maybe a break up into smaller countries is inevitable, scary proposition for the rest of the world though with so many Soviet Nukes laying around Russia.
The ol' 'multiple stab wounds to the heart' suicide...
Not any scarier than the breakup of the Soviet Union itself.
Russia clearly lacking infantry fighting vehicles/tanks at this point now, otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing such suicidal attacks (pictured in the tweet below):
At least he didnt fall from a window.
Alright.
You seemed so dumbfounded by the notion that Greece faked its economy. I just gave you a source. Never said Germany itself is perfect.
I wouldn't make too much noise on this as I think it was German bankers that they hired to cook the books and Germany knew and possibly directed the Greeks in the doing of it.
Greek entry into the Euro was a political decision and a fraud committed on the people in the EU.
True, though maybe the only difference back then was Russia was on board to convince countries to give up the nukes they found themselves in possession of after independence.
Without the benefit of hindsight, something we all have, the breakup of the Soviet Union absolutely WAS a scary and volatile time. Things turned out alright (for most of the Warsaw Pact states at least), but that was by no means guaranteed.
I’m not saying that that risk means we should try to stop that happening, but we should be aware of the potential of internal armed conflict in a nuclear power, rather than dismiss it.
Gazprom started blackmailing Ukraine with gas as soon as Ukraine got their first pro-Western president and you need to be blind not to see a political background to those actions (especially with hindsight). So the whole "Ukraine stealing German gas" thing was completely invented by Kremlin. It was obviously beneficial for Germany to not get into that beef and just secure the gas supply to their country. But to double down on that decision (to proceed with Nord Stream 2) after 2014 just shows what a morally bankrupt leaders you had at the time.
This could be the reason why they’re launching the attack on their foot:
It’s only visually confirmed, the true figure probably at least 30% larger. These are simply stupid numbers and no way does Russia have much left in stock what would be in working condition.
German intelligence alarmed by Ukrainian losses, according to Guardian reporting.
Which is precisely why they need better weapons.
Germany is the country of Satan is his point.
Does not work. The F16 like most US made systems are in need for control in suplylines and infrastructure. The Ukraine can not operate US jets or Eurofighers or Rafale.
The only realistic chance for jets are the Swedish Gripen; planes made to be used from streets and low level control (easy to maintain).
Quite interesting how we went from "Tanks are obsolete, easy pickings for drones and ATGMs" back in April to "Ukraine urgently needs more tanks" 9 months later. This war continues to transform and surprise. I was myself quite sceptical about the future of large infantry pushes supported by tanks and IFVs in this modern era, after Russia suffered terrible loses in the early stage of the war in the push for Kyiv. Trench warfare in 2023 was not what I anticipated.
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier? The sooner this ends, the less costly it will be for everyone (including Russia).
Ukraine's backers need to change their posture too. Identify what Ukraine needs to win, what of that can be realistically delivered, then provide it in significant (not token) numbers through lend-lease programs and finally but very importantly... ramp up military production significantly in order to replace the equipment donated and allow for continuous deliveries to Ukraine. Then the message might get through to Russia that this war is unwinnable for them. At the moment, they think they can grind Ukraine down and outlast the resolve of the West to support it. The fact Ukraine still can't match Russia in basic shell artillery batteries and munitions, is kind of scandalous. There's hundreds if not thousands of old 155mm type arty systems in NATO storage. The US has 800+ M109s in cold storage alone.
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier? The sooner this ends, the less costly it will be for everyone (including Russia).
Ukraine's backers need to change their posture too. Identify what Ukraine needs to win, what of that can be realistically delivered, then provide it in significant (not token) numbers through lend-lease programs and finally but very importantly... ramp up military production significantly in order to replace the equipment donated and allow for continuous deliveries to Ukraine. Then the message might get through to Russia that this war is unwinnable for them. At the moment, they think they can grind Ukraine down and outlast the resolve of the West to support it. The fact Ukraine still can't match Russia in basic shell artillery batteries and munitions, is kind of scandalous. There's hundreds if not thousands of old 155mm type arty systems in NATO storage. The US has 800+ M109s in cold storage alone.
Last edited:
No one with credibility was claiming that tanks are obsolete though. The likes of Kofman and Rob Lee have emphasized that tanks are still valuable.
The dynamics on the ground re: trench warfare and the use of infantry and armor are simply down to a lack of available weapons for both sides. For instance, if jets were apart of Ukraine's equation (and Russian SAMs weren't a part of Russia's) things would be very different. Beyond the needless death and destruction, this conflict is a good test case for how belligerents with limited resources will fight over the next few years.
Ironically, we are still dealing with the knock on effects of the breakup since this entire conflict now is merely a late stage ripple effect of waning Russian power.