Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It’s not ideal but there are mitigating factors here, including:
1. Ukraine is literally in an existential fight (not of it’s own making).
2. Ukraine will be using them on its own territory.
3. Russia itself isn’t a signatory.
4. Russia is using cluster bombs (and worse) in Ukraine.
So whilst it would be lovely to be able to claim that the West and Ukraine are squeaky clean, this is really a minor “indiscretion”. We need to be careful not to do Putin’s bidding for him here when he’s committed war crime after war crime from day one.
Pretty much where I stand on this. Am not condoning the use of these weapons, but apart from anything else, Ukraine is kinda in a fight for it's very survival here and will appreciate any and all assistance it can get, even if it's in the form of weapons like this. I really wish alternatives were in place and ready to go by now so that the use of these things wasn't even considered as @Annetts key notes above, but we are where we are unfortunately.
The idea that there is a shortage of, say 155mm ammunition, is largely an artefact of questionable reporting practices by the media. If more shells are being used than are being produced, then we are technically 'running out' even if there is a large supply that will not be exhausted for many years. Recently a contract was signed to make about $522 million worth of shells.
The idea that there is a shortage of, say 155mm ammunition, is largely an artefact of questionable reporting practices by the media. If more shells are being used than are being produced, then we are technically 'running out' even if there is a large supply that will not be exhausted for many years. Recently a contract was signed to make about $522 million worth of shells.
I think there are two main issues really (reporting practices aside).
Firstly, a lot of NATO members don’t have large stocks of munitions, or indeed the means to produce them quickly (I suspect they could if they really needed to, but supplying a third party doesn’t meet the criteria). They also need to maintain sufficient stocks of their own for obvious reasons.
Secondly, Ukraine is fighting a war NATO/the West would never fight. In spite of the training and equipment they’ve received, they can’t fight using our combined arms approach as they’re missing the (critical) air power element. As a result, it’s always going to be a slugging match on the ground, to an extent at least.
I expect the ongoing supply of arms and munitions to Ukraine will be a hot topic at the NATO summit!
There's pressure on South Korea to release some of its huge stockpile of shells. It may be OK for some of the Western powers to do this on the grounds that their likely enemy (Russia) is unlikely to be able to strike anywhere else. But that isn't true on the Korean peninsula, unless the North has depleted their own resources to transfer to Russia.
I believe from what I've been reading that they're being sent 155mm DPICM (Dual-purpose improved conventional munitions) shells. So basically an artillery shell with cluster bomblets packed into it rather than a slab of high explosive. I suspect there might be some consideration to sending the rocket equivalent that could be used by M270 and HIMARS rocket launchers but I've not seen any suggestion that those are actually being supplied and Ukraine might consider that those assets are more valuable for precision strike and so keep them for using GMLRS rather than saturation bombardment.
Still waiting for the completion of training I would presume. I've not see anyone suggest that they'd be ready this summer so I'm not quite sure that we can particularly read anything into them not flying for Ukraine as yet.
Because the "West" has spent the last three decades disarming itself and divesting ourselves of the capability to produce large amounts of munitions in short time scales. The failure to substantially ramp production up in the last 500 days (the US and funnily enough Bulgaria excepted I believe, though even they're struggling) speaks to the complete atrophy of the defence industrial base and then the policy and political failure to take steps to correct it. I imagine there's plenty of resistance in the Treasury (and equivalents throughout the West) to actually spending the money needed to recapitalise these capabilities.
It also has to be said, why has the U.S.A. been keeping these old cluster munitions? Especially as they are supposed to be developing new weapons to replace conventional cluster munitions.
Because they're not a signatory to the relevant treaty and why dispose of munitions that work whilst you're waiting for their replacements to enter service in sufficient quantities to replace what you've got on hand? One of the things that this war has exposed (though it's been obvious to anyone paying attention) is that the Western military power (with the exception of the US) is incredibly brittle. We have extraordinary firepower and capabilities but they are all thin. There is little to no reserve and so once what's on hand is gone. That's it.
Thank heavens the US has kept a stockpile of DPICM to try and keep Ukraine in the fight and avoid an even worse shortage of ammunition.
I'm not convinced that we do you know. The defence industrial base has seriously atrophied across NATO and even if the outcome of the upcoming NATO conference was a decision for every NATO member to ramp up production as quickly as possible to a higher level as possible I'm not convinced we'd see production rising to the levels required anytime soon.
I read a report (the source annoyingly I now can't remember) that Ukraine's minimum requirement is something like 110,000 rounds per month and allied production should reach around 107,000 per month on what's currently been announced, whilst what Ukraine actually needs is more on the order of 300,000 rounds per month. Obviously our production capacity is increasingly significantly but I'm fairly sure, personally, that even if it had been NATO that had been directly attacked we wouldn't have been able to ramp up much quicker than we already have.
The thing that frustrates me is that, at least publicly (so I still hold a hope that this is being discussed behind closed doors), that there seems precious little move to significantly deepen the ammunition stockpiles of NATO nations and the industrial base so that it is able to ramp up production. Even though this will make the spreadsheets unhappy because it isn't the most "cost efficient" way of doing things.
Whatever one's opinion of the conflict in Ukraine, you would have hoped we'd all agree that this would have been a line we would not cross. The damage caused by these awful weapons persists well beyond the conflict they are deployed in - children in Laos are still losing limbs to this day due to cluster bombs dropped there in the 1970s by the USA. They are illegal in most countries for very good reasons.
I'm not sure how it is apparently the case that using these things are a 'war crime' if/when Russia uses them, but somehow is perfectly acceptable if we do (albeit 'reluctantly', of course...) Other than it being hypocrisy of the highest order, that is - but then anyone familiar with US foreign policy over the last 75 years shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.
Whatever one's opinion of the conflict in Ukraine, you would have hoped we'd all agree that this would have been a line we would not cross. The damage caused by these awful weapons persists well beyond the conflict they are deployed in - children in Laos are still losing limbs to this day due to cluster bombs dropped there in the 1970s by the USA. They are illegal in most countries for very good reasons.
I'm not sure how it is apparently the case that using these things are a 'war crime' if/when Russia uses them, but somehow is perfectly acceptable if we do (albeit 'reluctantly', of course...) Other than it being hypocrisy of the highest order, that is - but then anyone familiar with US foreign policy over the last 75 years shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.
I read a report (the source annoyingly I now can't remember) that Ukraine's minimum requirement is something like 110,000 rounds per month and allied production should reach around 107,000 per month on what's currently been announced, whilst what Ukraine actually needs is more on the order of 300,000 rounds per month. Obviously our production capacity is increasingly significantly but I'm fairly sure, personally, that even if it had been NATO that had been directly attacked we wouldn't have been able to ramp up much quicker than we already have.
it’s worth considering how one specific weapons system fits within our doctrine as well. What is a major weapons system for Ukraine is realistically a small part of a wider capability for us.
Whatever one's opinion of the conflict in Ukraine, you would have hoped we'd all agree that this would have been a line we would not cross. The damage caused by these awful weapons persists well beyond the conflict they are deployed in - children in Laos are still losing limbs to this day due to cluster bombs dropped there in the 1970s by the USA. They are illegal in most countries for very good reasons.
Though of course Ukraine intends to use them on their own territory and, more to the point, in areas that are already riddled with mines and Russian unexploded ordinance (including cluster bomblets). The inclusion of a few more US originated cluster bomblets is a drop in the ocean.
I'm not sure how it is apparently the case that using these things are a 'war crime' if/when Russia uses them, but somehow is perfectly acceptable if we do (albeit 'reluctantly', of course...) Other than it being hypocrisy of the highest order, that is - but then anyone familiar with US foreign policy over the last 75 years shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.
It's a war crime to use them on civilian populations just as it is to target civilians with any other weapon. The use of cluster bombs otherwise is not a war crime. That's the difference between Russian usage and proposed Ukrainian usage.
it’s worth considering how one specific weapons system fits within our doctrine as well. What is a major weapons system for Ukraine is realistically a small part of a wider capability for us.
True true but then we'd struggle to sustain the usage of even the gucci stuff that is a fundamental to our way of war. There were serious shortage of precision guided munitions during the Libyan air operations for example. I also think it's mistake to assume that should we get involved in a major conventional war that we wouldn't also end up needing to use far more tube and rocket artillery than we think we might do right now. The Ukraine war is a demonstration that artillery still plays an important role on the battlefield.
I believe from what I've been reading that they're being sent 155mm DPICM (Dual-purpose improved conventional munitions) shells. So basically an artillery shell with cluster bomblets packed into it rather than a slab of high explosive. I suspect there might be some consideration to sending the rocket equivalent that could be used by M270 and HIMARS rocket launchers but I've not seen any suggestion that those are actually being supplied and Ukraine might consider that those assets are more valuable for precision strike and so keep them for using GMLRS rather than saturation bombardment.
I'm not convinced that we do you know. The defence industrial base has seriously atrophied across NATO and even if the outcome of the upcoming NATO conference was a decision for every NATO member to ramp up production as quickly as possible to a higher level as possible I'm not convinced we'd see production rising to the levels required anytime soon.
I read a report (the source annoyingly I now can't remember) that Ukraine's minimum requirement is something like 110,000 rounds per month and allied production should reach around 107,000 per month on what's currently been announced, whilst what Ukraine actually needs is more on the order of 300,000 rounds per month. Obviously our production capacity is increasingly significantly but I'm fairly sure, personally, that even if it had been NATO that had been directly attacked we wouldn't have been able to ramp up much quicker than we already have.
The thing that frustrates me is that, at least publicly (so I still hold a hope that this is being discussed behind closed doors), that there seems precious little move to significantly deepen the ammunition stockpiles of NATO nations and the industrial base so that it is able to ramp up production. Even though this will make the spreadsheets unhappy because it isn't the most "cost efficient" way of doing things.
I've found it frustrating over the past twenty or so years listening to politicians claim that we no longer need various capabilities due to a lack of state threats. I've always believed this to be incredibly short sighted, and sure enough we now have a major war in Europe, albeit contained within Eastern Ukraine.
Whatever one's opinion of the conflict in Ukraine, you would have hoped we'd all agree that this would have been a line we would not cross. The damage caused by these awful weapons persists well beyond the conflict they are deployed in - children in Laos are still losing limbs to this day due to cluster bombs dropped there in the 1970s by the USA. They are illegal in most countries for very good reasons.
I'm not sure how it is apparently the case that using these things are a 'war crime' if/when Russia uses them, but somehow is perfectly acceptable if we do (albeit 'reluctantly', of course...) Other than it being hypocrisy of the highest order, that is - but then anyone familiar with US foreign policy over the last 75 years shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.
We don't know what exactly is being provided, but there are several types of cluster munition.
The most problematic type are the ones that only detonate when disturbed for obvious reasons. These can indeed cause a great deal of damage long after a conflict has ended. Others denotate on impact (or very shortly afterwards) so pose less of a long term risk (I expect this will be the type given to Ukraine). Crucially, the failure rate of modern cluster munitions is much lower than in the 60s and 70s as well.
I regard to the hypocrisy of giving them to Ukraine, apart from the fact that the US isn't a signatory to the CCM, Ukraine will be using them against military targets on it's own territory. The ethics of this, versus dropping them indiscriminately on another country, is very different in my opinion. If they help Ukraine remove the Russian invaders, lives will be saved. Clearly they believe the risk to be worthwhile under the circumstances. It's also worth noting that the areas in which they will be used are already riddled with landmines, and will need to be subjected to a thorough "clean up" before they can be re-inhabited in any case.
As I stated previously, their use is far from ideal but there are several mitigating factors in my opinion.
Though of course Ukraine intends to use them on their own territory and, more to the point, in areas that are already riddled with mines and Russian unexploded ordinance (including cluster bomblets). The inclusion of a few more US originated cluster bomblets is a drop in the ocean.
The most problematic type are the ones that only detonate when disturbed for obvious reasons. These can indeed cause a great deal of damage long after a conflict has ended. Others denotate on impact (or very shortly afterwards) so pose less of a long term risk (I expect this will be the type given to Ukraine). Crucially, the failure rate of modern cluster munitions is much lower than in the 60s and 70s as well.
We know that these have a failure rate of initial detonation of at least 1%. As I understand it, the longer they are kept the higher that failure rate gets, and these date from pre-2008 when George Bush's administration (!) decided that a rate of 1% was unacceptable given the damage they cause later, and they needed to be phased out in favour of ones with a lower failure rate. Even the USA have a law prohibiting the use or transfer of cluster munitions with failure rate greater than 1%, without any allowed exceptions, but Biden is using some legal slight-of-hand to get around this.
As I stated previously, their use is far from ideal but there are several mitigating factors in my opinion.
I can't agree I'm afraid. Some things are simply wrong whoever does it - and using weapons that we know will continue to maim and kill, well after the conflict is long over, is one of those.
I'm sure that's true. But they're far more likely to step on a Russian landmine or cluster bomblet than they are a US cluster bomblet fired from a Ukrainian artillery piece. I also wonder how many Ukrainian's would consider that a price worth paying for not living under a genocidal Russian regime? A price that only they can weigh but if they want the munitions I'm inclined to provide them even with the misgivings that people justifiably (including myself) hold about them.
But, again, the massive clean up operation required anyway following the massive use of Russian cluster bombs and landmines means that having to clear up a some unexploded US cluster bomblets is a drop in the ocean. If Russia had not used, in massive quantities, cluster bombs against civilian targets as well as military there might be a much more compelling argument for Ukraine to not be given them. But they have and so Ukraine already faces a massive clean up operation.
My comments on this are based on reports like this:
Zelensky concerned over delayed F-16 pilot training
by The Kyiv Independent news desk
July 1, 2023 7:15 PM
President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his frusration with Western allies who he said were delaying the start of the promised training of Ukrainian pilots to operae F-16 fighter jets.
"We agreed and emphasized that we have a coalition of countries ready to start training for Ukrainian pilots. There is no schedule of training missions, this is being delayed. I don't know why they are doing it," Zelensky said in a joint conference with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on July 1.
Because they're not a signatory to the relevant treaty and why dispose of munitions that work whilst you're waiting for their replacements to enter service in sufficient quantities to replace what you've got on hand? One of the things that this war has exposed (though it's been obvious to anyone paying attention) is that the Western military power (with the exception of the US) is incredibly brittle. We have extraordinary firepower and capabilities but they are all thin. There is little to no reserve and so once what's on hand is gone. That's it.
Thank heavens the US has kept a stockpile of DPICM to try and keep Ukraine in the fight and avoid an even worse shortage of ammunition.
I’m well aware that the U.S.A. is not a signatory to the treaty. However, they have their own laws. See the post from MikeWM (#7181) who speaks briefly about it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Further to my existing post, here’s more about the situation with regards to cluster munitions in the U.S.A.
Biden approves cluster munition supply to Ukraine
Transfer will bypass legal limits on dud rates for the controversial weapons
By Karen DeYoung, Alex Horton and Missy Ryan
Updated July 7, 2023 at 1:03 p.m. EDT|Published July 6, 2023 at 8:15 p.m. EDT
President Biden has approved the provision of U.S. cluster munitions for Ukraine, with drawdown of the weapons from Defense Department stocks due to be announced Friday.
The move, which will bypass U.S. law prohibiting the production, use or transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent, comes amid concerns about Kyiv’s lagging counteroffensive against entrenched Russian troops and dwindling Western stocks of conventional artillery.
The principal weapon under consideration, an M864 artillery shell first produced in 1987, is fired from the 155mm howitzers the United States and other Western countries have provided Ukraine. In its last publicly available estimate, more than 20 years ago, the Pentagon assessed that artillery shell to have a “dud” rate of 6 percent, meaning that at least four of each of the 72 submunitions each shell carries would remain unexploded across an area of approximately 22,500 square meters — roughly the size of 4½ football fields.
“We are aware of reports from several decades ago that indicate certain 155mm DPICMs have higher dud rates,” said a defense official, one of seven Pentagon, White House and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive decision. The defense official used the acronym for Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions.
The Pentagon now says it has new assessments, based on testing as recent as 2020, with failure rates no higher than 2.35 percent. While that exceeds the limit of 1 percent mandated by Congress every year since 2017, officials are “carefully selecting” munitions with the 2.35 percent dud rate or below for transfer to Ukraine, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said Thursday.
The defense official said details of the new assessments were “not releasable,” including how, when and where the tests were done, and whether they included actual firing exercises or virtual simulations. Military manuals say these weapons cannot be fired in training because they are part of war reserve stockpiles.
There is no waiver provision in the 1 percent limit Congress has placed on cluster munition dud rates, written into Defense Department appropriations for the last seven years. Biden would bypass it and Congress, according to a White House official, drawing down the munitions from existing defense stocks under a rarely used provision of the Foreign Assistance Act, which allows the president to provide aid, regardless of appropriations or arms export restrictions, as long as he determines that it is in the vital U.S. national security interest.
The final U.S. decision to provide them to Ukraine was first reported Thursday by the Associated Press.
Although the United States has used cluster munitions in every major war since Korea, no new ones are believed to have been produced for years. But as many as 4.7 million cluster shells, rockets, missiles and bombs, containing more than 500 million submunitions, or bomblets, remain in military inventories, according to estimates by Human Rights Watch drawn from Defense Department reports.
A 2022 Congressional Research Service report to lawmakers noted “significant discrepancies among failure rate estimates” of cluster weapons in the U.S. arsenal, with some manufacturers claiming 2 to 5 percent, while mine clearance specialists have reported rates of 10 to 30 percent.
Nonproliferation experts said that the Pentagon’s assessed 2.35 percent dud rate most likely refers to aging shells with updated fuses designed to improve their ability to self-destruct, but that it was impossible to know without access to the testing data.
Advocates who have warned against using cluster munitions say the claimed lower dud rates are the result of testing in idealized and unrealistic conditions that don’t account for real-world scenarios. The Army’s artillery manuals have said even the military’s own dud rates can increase depending on the angle of impact and type of terrain in which they fall.
“It’s dismaying to see the long-established 1 percent unexploded ordnance standard for cluster munitions rolled back as this will result in more duds, which means an even greater threat to civilians, including de-miners,” said Mary Wareham, advocacy director of the arms division of Human Rights Watch.
“The lack of transparency on how this number was reached is disappointing and seems unprecedented,” Wareham said.
Still waiting for the completion of training I would presume. I've not see anyone suggest that they'd be ready this summer so I'm not quite sure that we can particularly read anything into them not flying for Ukraine as yet.
I couldn't find the source, but I believe there was news that Portuguese Air Force pilots and engineers were helping with training on the F-16 fleet in Lithuania. Alongside the NATO patrolling missions, the crew is possibly aiding with Ukrainian Air Force elements, as authorised by the United States in May 19.
No further announcement was given, although it's been said already that Portugal will not provide any of its F-16.
The Nato chief says President Erdogan will drop opposition to Sweden becoming the alliance's 32nd member.
www.bbc.co.uk
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to support Sweden's bid to join Nato, the military alliance's chief Jens Stoltenberg has said.
At a briefing, he said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would forward Sweden's bid to the Turkish parliament and "ensure ratification".
Earlier, he had appeared to suggest Turkey would back Sweden if the EU re-opened membership talks with Ankara.
Turkey has criticised Sweden for hosting Kurdish militants.
opposed and discourage re different words and not chosen by accident.
It is being condoned imo.
I also dont see any issue with it, Russia uses them indiscriminatly in civilian locations.
Using a hopefully more accurate more reliable western weapon, which usage can be better tracked for clean up, and also to shorten the war is a best hope Scenario..
The alternative being a frozen front for a prolonged period whilst the russians plant even more minefields, with random unitions that are unknown and impossible to track.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where is all the pilot training that has been promised?
More long distance missiles are needed. Okay the U.K. and France are providing Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG, but it’s taking far too long for the U.S.A. to provide ATACMS and GLSDB.
Why is it that the “West” has been unable to ramp up production of conventional and precision artillery munitions? They’ve had 500 days.
If all of the above had been sorted out sooner, there would, most likely, not have been a need to even consider supplying cluster munitions.
It also has to be said, why has the U.S.A. been keeping these old cluster munitions? Especially as they are supposed to be developing new weapons to replace conventional cluster munitions.
I think too many in the west think this war was going to be over soon…
now a year later they are feeling comfortable that the Russians wont be knocking on their backdoor soon.
lethargy kicks in, no one wants to pay the bill, politics and polls looming etc..
intersting the Prigozhin remains “in”, but Surovkin has vanished.
Surovkin knows a thing or two about Coups… he was part of the 1991 Russian coup.
Prigozhin doesnt get to be Putins chef (including serving GW Bush) without collecting a few influential phone numbers, probably a lot more than Surovkin and many others in the ministry. There will be a lot of very wealthy Russians, that Prigozhin and Putin share, but maybe too afraid or detached to speak out, against the war, so leave Prigozhin as the conduit for the message, but they can influence Putin as to Prigozhin being messenger to trust.
Theres a saying in Eastern Europe “Forgive but dont forget”… Prigozhin is an enemy, and Putin keeps him closer than his friends, but it is very possible Prigiozhin has Putins trust as the only one calling it as it is, rather than smiling BS from the rest of the ministry, backed by his restaurant friends network saying Prigozhin is calling it right.
Wagners current fight may be over, but there is still a war going on.. General Patton also found himself on the outside in WW2 but played a good fear and propoganda role scaring the Germans… this maybe what Prigozhin does in Ukraine for a while, whilst still sharing his thoughts to the military on how to proceed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Its a shame Biden doesnt support Ben Wallace to replace Jens Stoltenberg.
However politics trumps military when it comes to influencing commerce.
Ben may well guide NATO successfully through Ukraine and be an effective leader against the Russian threat long term.
However this is about money.
Ursula Von Der Leiden can influence the EU military spend, guide the EU / NATO faithful and ultimately be the USAs sales person with a stronger voice than a non-EU member leader, and therefore a stronger voice than a Franco-German politician also seeking that competing $bn spend with suggestions of an EU army.
Had we remained in Europe, I think the outcome may have been different, as our EU political capital would have been the salesman in the EU, with Ben as the “bad guy” leading at the front… alas.
Will Ursula lead NATO from the front, probably not. Russia would approve the choice, and see her as soft, but this positioning is about post Ukraine war, and influencing military spend… not defence and strategy… Still she is no friend of Turkey either, and i’m not sure Eastern Europe holds her dearly either.
Its a shame Biden doesnt support Ben Wallace to replace Jens Stoltenberg.
However politics trumps military when it comes to influencing commerce.
Ben may well guide NATO successfully through Ukraine and be an effective leader against the Russian threat long term.
However this is about money.
Ursula Von Der Leiden can influence the EU military spend, guide the EU / NATO faithful and ultimately be the USAs sales person with a stronger voice than a non-EU member leader, and therefore a stronger voice than a Franco-German politician also seeking that competing $bn spend with suggestions of an EU army.
Had we remained in Europe, I think the outcome may have been different, as our EU political capital would have been the salesman in the EU, with Ben as the “bad guy” leading at the front… alas.
Will Ursula lead NATO from the front, probably not. Russia would approve the choice, and see her as soft, but this positioning is about post Ukraine war, and influencing military spend… not defence and strategy… Still she is no friend of Turkey either, and i’m not sure Eastern Europe holds her dearly either.
Whilst Macron is clearly allowing petty Anglophobia to cloud his judgement, it’s the US calling the shots here.
My take is that the UK has led from the front and the US doesn’t like it. Whether they genuinely think we’re too gung ho, or whether they simply don’t like other countries making the big decisions I honestly couldn’t say, but ultimately I think this has been Wallace’s undoing.
On the face of it I agree that von der Leyen would be Putin’s choice, however I suspect she will be a US poodle, which in reality probably isn’t a good thing if you’re Putin.
If the above sounds anti-US (or generally cynical!) it isn’t intended to be; it’s just the realpolitik as I see it.
Whilst Macron is clearly allowing petty Anglophobia to cloud his judgement, it’s the US calling the shots here.
My take is that the UK has led from the front and the US doesn’t like it. Whether they genuinely think we’re too gung ho, or whether they simply don’t like other countries making the big decisions I honestly couldn’t say, but ultimately I think this has been Wallace’s undoing.
On the face of it I agree that von der Leyen would be Putin’s choice, however I suspect she will be a US poodle, which in reality probably isn’t a good thing if you’re Putin.
If the above sounds anti-US (or generally cynical!) it isn’t intended to be; it’s just the realpolitik as I see it.
Contrary, I think Biden likes the UK leading from the front here.
He needs political capital in the US to suggest he’s not in this alone.
(But our decisions are almost certainly not being taken in isolation).
Europe is running down its old ammo stockpiles.
its also changing priorites when it comes to defence spending.
The next decade is going to be fantastic for the arms industries.
Its not just the EU upgrading. India especially, and other African and South American nations that have bought Russian kit are going to reconsider their inventories.
Iran looks to be the front runner to replace Russia as cheap kit supplier. If China gets more dedicated, then it risks becoming a threat to all of us, if they put precision accuracry with chinese wages and mass production.
The big money will be in Europe, but will be bulk purchases by the collective “EU“ or by collective “NATO“ alliances ?
Bringing von der leyden into the NATO fold carries much more potential from EU spend than a Wallace leadership will.
Indeed Wallace could see the EU move more towards an EU purchase approach, given the anti-UK sentiment in Western Europe.
As for us… were just running down our stockpiles. unless we rearm, we risk not being more than an armchair supporter in the next conflict, then we really are politically diminished. But without the EU our bargaining power is reduced, the US will be eyeing larger European spend, so we become a “tag on“ order, unless we go back to our garden sheds and start coming up with some new revolutionary stuff.
Coming back to Ukraine… rebuilding contracts… thats also the next biggest oppourtunity in Europe. Outside the major cities Ukraine isnt much different in lifestyle and infrastructure to world war 2. Even then much of its destroyed.
Ukraine is going to modernise at a pace that will surpass Eastern Europe joining the EU in 2003… everything will happen at once and the country will see rebuilding at a scale not seen since ww2.
Thats what this war is about… who rebuilds, and who owns those businesses, services and infrastructure afterwards...
The EU will wave the membership carrot to get those contracts.
The US will wave its military support and influences to get those contracts.
Both will come with cheap loans, tied to companies from their own territories.
what are we going to offer ? Parties hosted by Boris with plans to open a nationwide selection of nailbars and kebab shops in Ukraine ?
Contrary, I think Biden likes the UK leading from the front here.
He needs political capital in the US to suggest he’s not in this alone.
(But our decisions are almost certainly not being taken in isolation).
I agree that it provides useful political capital, but the UK (and others to be fair) are making some fairly big decisions that I'm not convinced the US is comfortable with (see the procurement of F-16s for example). Whilst there's clearly US buy in (there needs to be in that particular example), I get the impression that they're being dragged along at times.
Europe is running down its old ammo stockpiles.
its also changing priorites when it comes to defence spending.
The next decade is going to be fantastic for the arms industries.
Its not just the EU upgrading. India especially, and other African and South American nations that have bought Russian kit are going to reconsider their inventories.
I think it's fair to say that the reputation of Russian kit has taken a bit of a battering, but for some of these countries it's probably adequate or is all they can get (plus not all Russian kit is actually rubbish remember). India is an interesting one. It's obviously a BRICS country, but is also a serious rival to China and has ties to the West. They're buying at least 36 (IIRC) Rafales which I suspect is a sign of things to come.
Iran looks to be the front runner to replace Russia as cheap kit supplier. If China gets more dedicated, then it risks becoming a threat to all of us, if they put precision accuracry with chinese wages and mass production.
What can Iran actually supply though? I think China will be the new source of "cheap kit" to be honest, if Countries do indeed stop buying from the Russians.
The big money will be in Europe, but will be bulk purchases by the collective “EU“ or by collective “NATO“ alliances ?
Bringing von der leyden into the NATO fold carries much more potential from EU spend than a Wallace leadership will.
Indeed Wallace could see the EU move more towards an EU purchase approach, given the anti-UK sentiment in Western Europe.
In all probability the big purchases will be by member states (see Poland for example) as the EU doesn't have an army (that's a conspiracy theory remember!). Interestingly, Poland have looked to South Korea for aircraft and (some) tanks so very much appear to be going their own way in terms of procurement. In reality I don't get how von der Leyen will have much influence; everyone that matters will bang the "2% minimum" drum and if they achieve it they'll have done well IMO.
As for us… were just running down our stockpiles. unless we rearm, we risk not being more than an armchair supporter in the next conflict, then we really are politically diminished. But without the EU our bargaining power is reduced, the US will be eyeing larger European spend, so we become a “tag on“ order, unless we go back to our garden sheds and start coming up with some new revolutionary stuff.
This sounds rather pessimistic in regard to the UK to be honest (apologies if that wasn't your intention). This "European spend" is entirely hypothetical, and the main military powers within Europe have their own arms industries or their own procurement strategies; it has little if anything to do with the EU.
The RAF and Royal Navy will continue to be among the best equipped in the world, and the Army will soon get Challenger 3. In the meantime we're working with partners on projects such as Tempest. I would very much like to see our capability gaps filled don't get me wrong, but it's a stretch to claim we're isolated and diminished in this regard as result of leaving the EU. The other thing to consider is the very real possibility that there's a power shift within the EU itself. The likes of Poland, the Baltic States and maybe even Ukraine have no axe to grind with the UK; quite the opposite in fact.
Coming back to Ukraine… rebuilding contracts… thats also the next biggest oppourtunity in Europe. Outside the major cities Ukraine isnt much different in lifestyle and infrastructure to world war 2. Even then much of its destroyed.
Ukraine is going to modernise at a pace that will surpass Eastern Europe joining the EU in 2003… everything will happen at once and the country will see rebuilding at a scale not seen since ww2.
Thats what this war is about… who rebuilds, and who owns those businesses, services and infrastructure afterwards...
The EU will wave the membership carrot to get those contracts.
The US will wave its military support and influences to get those contracts.
Both will come with cheap loans, tied to companies from their own territories.
Whilst there will obviously be opportunities, I think we need to see how this plays out. I don't think we'll see a Chinese approach to this, which is what you appear to be suggesting.
Again this smacks of "poor old insignificant UK" which isn't the case. We're never going to get in front of the US when it comes to rebuilding contracts etc. but I see no reason why we can't be involved. The Ukrainians may well choose to remember who their friends are; they have their own minds as Putin has found out to his expense....
When I was in the PRO 30-odd years ago, there were some interesting looking closed files that could have distracted me from my project. Judging by the titles on them, I suspect they would give the lie to that cliche.
There are repeated murmurings that the Russian Lancet drones are proving themselves in battle, whereas the US Switchblades have turned out to be overcomplicated and ineffective. It's a small win for Russia if it's true, and perhaps points at the future battlefield not being quite as sophisticated as we assume.
India and China will find it increasingly difficult to coexist in years to come, I suspect. And with China treating their Muslims rather badly, Pakistan will be in no hurry to help the Chinese. Certainly one to watch, although whether the infamously bureaucratic India can really compete with China is another question.
Although the terms of the deal appear to be quite honestly terrible for Poland. It's involved decimating the domestic arms industry, just so the government can play with shiny weapons. There are also serious questions about where the money is coming from, while the Polish navy has also been gutted to nothing. So, while there are big PR tickets, the general state of the Polish forces is questionable at best.
What purpose would that serve that destroying the bridge tomorrow wouldn't serve? The land route from Crimea to Russia via Southern Ukraine is still in Russian control, so anyone who wanted to 'escape' (if you consider entering Russia as 'escaping') could presumably still do so even without the bridge.
Although the terms of the deal appear to be quite honestly terrible for Poland. It's involved decimating the domestic arms industry, just so the government can play with shiny weapons. There are also serious questions about where the money is coming from, while the Polish navy has also been gutted to nothing. So, while there are big PR tickets, the general state of the Polish forces is questionable at best.
The Polish Navy are getting three new Miecznik frigates from PGZ in Gdansk and Gdynia based on the Type 31 design Babcock are building for the Royal Navy itself an update of the Iver Huitfeldt frigates of the Danish Navy.
The Polish Navy are getting three new Miecznik frigates from PGZ in Gdansk and Gdynia based on the Type 31 design Babcock are building for the Royal Navy itself an update of the Iver Huitfeldt frigates of the Danish Navy.
Announcements are one thing, but reality is another. This government is very fond of making grand announcements and then it turns out that nothing is built, or that something else has been completely neglected in the process.
One issue with this contract is that it involves PGZ, which is not a well run company. It's very likely that unless Remontowa have a lead role, the money will simply vanish into a black hole at PGZ. The company is massively in debt, and there was a comment recently by one of their representatives that they need roughly 2 billion Euro just to stabilise the company.
It would take a lengthy essay to explain it all, but PGZ is not by any means an effective company. It's rather a company created to mask the terrible situation in many of their subsidiaries, most of which are in government hands simply for the purposes of providing jobs for political cronies.
So in short, press conferences are one thing, but reality is another. We'll see if anything actually gets built, or if it just turns into another disaster like the new car ferries that never materialised on the Baltic Sea.
Russian-installed authorities halt railway services in Crimea and say Ukraine was behind a drone strike.
www.bbc.co.uk
A drone attack on an ammunition depot in Crimea has led to civilian evacuations and disrupted transport, Russian authorities have said.
Sergei Aksyonov, the Russian-installed governor of occupied Crimea, said Ukraine was behind the attack, without providing evidence.
Mr Aksyonov said local residents living within five kilometres of the blast were being evacuated.
Rail services across the Kerch bridge have also reportedly been halted.
Earlier on Saturday, Russian authorities stopped traffic on the bridge, but then swiftly reopened it to cars.
A later update from the Moscow-installed government said road traffic was again halted until further notice.
Mr Aksyonov said infrastructure facilities in the Krasnogvardeysky district in Crimea were the target.
"According to preliminary data, there were no damages or casualties," Mr Aksyonov wrote on a Telegram post.
The BBC has not been able to independently verify the attack.
The Kerch bridge, often referred to as the Crimea bridge, was opened in 2018 and it enables road and rail access between Russia and Crimea - Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia in 2014.
The bridge has become a symbol of Russian occupation and is also an important re-supply route for Russian forces in southern Ukraine.
On Monday, a blast on the bridge killed two people and damaged the road but the railway line, which runs parallel to it, was not damaged.
The Kremlin blamed Kyiv for Monday's attack and said Ukraine had carried out a "terrorist" act. Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to retaliate and accused Ukraine of launching a "senseless" and "cruel" attack.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
