They might,but it will be without armoured support,because mud is still a problem in Ukraine,but then again human life is probably less worth than a tank in Russia these days.
Thank you.
I am intinctively inclined to give your reply a lot more credence. You at least considered the notion before pointing out the reasons against.
I still wonder what novel concept the Ukrainians might introduce to enhance the effectiveness of their expected counter-offensive.
German politicians like Annalena Baerbock and others have been stand out figures.
Scholz is not acting like he is because he is German, no, it's ideological, Socialists in Switzerland are doing the same, blocking offensive capacity to Ukraine, and this is replicated across many European countries, including Ireland, those with a position most beneficial to Russia are majority radical left.
The CDU party have a lot of questions to answer about political leadership being compromised by Russia.
Russia put a lot of effort in to German politicians and leaders in the last few decades.
I see the dreadful Geoffrey Roberts (ex UCC) is at it again in the Irish Times. He talks about "Putin's restraint". The Irish Times never refuses anyone with an anti-Western opinion.
Fighting for Jesus now apparently!
Oh dear me.
Actually it's a very balanced piece treading on a topic that no one wants to talk about. Risks of a wider war are enormous which has the potential to kill many many people. It's not anti-western, it's just another side to the overall group-think. History has shown us time and again to never underestimate Russia. I for one would like to see more similar analysis.
I have severe doubts that anything is an easy target for the orcs. They have shown a clownish level of incompetence from day 1 and that isn't going to turn around for them now.
More likely scenario is that the influx of the new NATO toys accelerates the orc collapse.
A "balanced piece" about a quasi-genocidal was of aggression is actually a disgrace. I suppose in the interests of "peace" countless thousands of Ukrainians can be killed, exiled, tortured by the "restrained" Putin. No, Roberts is talking total boll*x.
History has shown us time and time again that appeasement doesn't work.
Didn't work with Hitler, didn't work with Russia when they invaded, Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine the first time.....
Maybe 3rd time lucky with Ukraine?
Maybe people like him are ok with genocide in Europe in the 21st century?
The Americans aren’t going to send M1 Abrams tanks. They run on a gas turbine engine that requires special maintenance and repair. The Ukrainians would need loads of training and equipment to be able to support them on the battlefield. From what I’ve read leopard tanks have a lot more in common with the old tanks the Ukrainians are currently using, they have Diesel engines etc so their tank crews and mechanics can figure everything out a lot quicker.
I wouldn't have classified Roberts as Anti Western, he has done some wonderful work on Russia,his books on Molotov and Zhukov are highly recommendable.
His focus on the Soviet Union is very much on the late 30s to 50s and where his best books are.
He may be comparing Putin's more open and softer by comparison modern Russia to the USSR but forgetting that Russia is a pale version of that threat and power, dangerous and brutal as it still is.
Quotes from articles recently where he talks about "Western hardliners" and how Ukraine must grasp peace in an unwinnable war and other points are Wtf moments.
I always thought him a gruff and contrary type in UCC.
Maybe the West will risk war with Russia but that shouldn't be off the table, shouldn't have been from day one.
That was Fianna Fail back scratching and not a Babushka in sight.
The allies should have pushed them back to Moscow when they had the chance after the Germany surrendered. Leaving the job unfinished is what has the hoarde where they are.
They've been overrated since the Soviet collapse and only for weak corrupt politicians taking bribes around the world Russia might have ended up with a working democracy and not a Mafia on steroids.
How could you underestimate them when their claimed 5th generation fighter SU-57 has visible screws and rivets FFS. Rivets in a stealth aircraft lol.
The EU forced it. Germans really. FF should have told them to jump though.
Sanctimonious whataboutery, what did he get paid to write such drivel?
I say we keep killing **** orcs until they leave Ukraine.
"No one can ever have an opinion or analysis that doesn't agree with the status quo" is not journalism, thankfully. Anything that makes people stop and think for a second and give another side, is to be welcomed. Contrary opinions often cause ire but that is exactly why they're needed. What he is saying is that there are consequences for actions for the west too and that tank deliveries, unless they are in massive numbers, are largely symbolic. He is in a roundabout way saying that Russia losing in Ukraine is unlikely and unfortunately, he may be right. Basically don't underestimate them.
I kind of agree. But the west were no match for the soviets in 1945 in terms of sheer numbers. They had something like 800 divisions iirc. Patton was right with his quote!
In some cases they are being used to provide indirect fire artillery buried into trenches,
I'm sure it wouldn't take much to turn one into a VBIED (vehicle Bourne IED).
Bit of a waste of a vehicle I'd repurpose for another use
Good news about the tanks. And so much for the geniuses here who last week were saying Scholz is a Marxist Putin stooge who secretly wants Russia to win. But keep up your own heroic daily contributions from your bedrooms lads, you're making an invaluable difference to the war effort...
The contrary opinions of Geoffrey Roberts always send me off to sleep content with the thought, 'well at least I'm not that d*ckhead'
Ditto Ray Bassett and a few other prize tulips who think themselves edgy contrarians.
The replacement tanks Australia ordered haven't arrived yet. They're not expected to be delivered until 2024, with service entry date 2025. The one battalion of A1s is all they have right now.
They have options from, ship's aircraft to Anti ship missles,
But it wouldn't take much to stop a vessel in the gulf of Finland, especially if other countries take the necessary actions and supports
Is there any downside for Australia if they are without tanks for 1-2 years? Are they really at risk of being invaded during that time?
Haven't seen much of any VBIED's in Ukraine apart from that above.
lol "we" indeed
The Estonian navy consists of six (6!) ships
A minelayer, 2 mineseekers, 3 patrol boats. If a Russian vessel transits through the shipping corridor in Gulf of Finland, the estonians will do nothing. Unlikely that other countries would support such an action either, as it would amount to a blockade of Russian ports in the gulf and would be a massive escalation.
What I'm disputing is that someone's politics when they're 20 years old is proof of them being a secret Putin stooge 35 years years later.
People change. Look at Liz Truss, for god's sake, a lib dem and soft socialist in her youth.
I'm not a fan of Scholz, but to suggest he's basically in the Putin camp as some here were is palabaly nonsense.
Oxfam played a fairly robust role in cheering on the idea of sugar production ceasing in this country. Their argument was to help farmers in Africa. But as you say production increased in Russia.
If Russian money was involved then some in FF must have taken bite. As it was Mary Coughlan was the Ag minister at that time and was pushing for it along with Greencore top management. With what everyone was told was a valuable site in Carlow Town (this was in the Celtic tiger years) for redevelopment but since the factory closed has remained a dump yard.
Have we moved on to Estonia possibly stopping ships as the massive escalation now? Last few days it was tanks. Before that something else. And before that, something else again. Hard to keep up with what isn't an escalation nowadays. Nothing said about the indiscrimiinate bombing of a neighbouring state, the murdering, the raping, the looting. No escalation there.
Z heads
The problem is that he is not balanced. He takes it as a given assumption in his piece that this is a NATO proxy war with russia, it's the premise for all of his appeals. This is a lie, a NATO proxy war would involve NATO preparing a foreign army for the invasion of russia. This was a war of Russia's choosing , the wests role here is providing support for a country's self defense. It's completely disingenuous to claim that NATO risks escalating , when the escalation criteria is simply defending yourself or your ally. And if that is the basis for 'escalation' then we all have no choice but to escalate or be enslaved. It is a right to defend yourself be it a single person or an entire country. He is not balanced here, he clearly has a bias for either controversy(most likely, paper doesn't refuse controversial ink) or Russia itself.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c635d680d76ce16e490d61f21d7a1353.svg)
