Battle tanks are able to crack open static frontlines under the right circumstances. That's the main reason why ww2 was characterized by dynamic, motorized battles as opposed to the static artillery-on-artillery trench warfare from ww1.

Ancient cold war era artillery is probably the area in which Russia has the strongest numbers advantage, allowing the Russians to deploy them is inherently bad for Ukraine.

you have not missed anything in fairness.

But not with 20-30 leopards, you'd need close to 1000.

I think a few hundred would of been decent to try to break through 1-2 key fronts and move troops and artillery up but even 1000+ they wouldn't be able to completely drive the Russians out. Tanks and other hardware are high value targets. In modern warfare with satellites and drones you know tank formations are coming at you well ahead of time and it's not like the Russians don't have ample anti-armor weapons.

Yeah, I think this whole debate about the Leos is kinda overblown. They're not gonna turn the tide of the war on their own. What Ukraine would really need is the capability to carry out airstrikes against Russia's entrenched positions, against their artillery, against their supply lines. But giving them Western jets or cruise missiles would of course be a huge escalation, particularly if Ukraine uses them to attack (genuine) Russian territory.

Which makes me wonder why all of the media and outside sources are attacking Scholz/Germany.. Us, French and the Italians are the parties who are burdened with the most economical consequences.

They were asking for about 300 tanks last I saw so that would line up.



NATO would go to war with Russia before sending Ukraine any western jets, that isn't even on the table. The US has no interest in giving Ukraine long range strike capability, they don't trust Ukraine not to hit Russia, which is why they modified the HIMARS sent to Ukraine.

I don't know about attacking Scholz, but when your the leader of an important country like Germany, every decision or lack of a decision will be scrutinized.

I agree that Germany and Italy are most exposed to economic consequences. There is a whole debate about economic interest vs humanitarian interest; As in when is it okay to take make an economic sacrifice to potentially avoid more Ukrainian civilians dying and further destruction of Ukraine.
But also an economic argument around allowing Russia to control the resources of eastern Ukraine, and what that could mean for Europe economically.

There is no quick normalization of relations between Russia and the US/EU.
I'm interested what you think Russian reaction/retaliation would be towards Germany for supplying heavier weapons, eg Leopards to Ukraine?



There is a general decline, however there is no military alliance/force that even compares to the US and its allies; China may get there, but not in any of our lifetimes.
Keep in mind that China is coupled and reliant on the US. China's economy is built on the back of global shipping. The US maintains the security of global shipping.

It appears the most limiting factor of the US is the divided nature of US politics/society; In comparison with authoritarian systems, Western democracy is slow, reactive and less agile.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 21 2023 11:54am

thats easy to agree with.

Not all along: When we need citizens to be creative, to have initiatives, then democracies have a decisive advantage. Because the individual has been preserved instead of crushed...
This can help for the implementation of large projects maybe...