British and German weapons are responsible for 30% of Ukraine’s success in the east, say Ukraine.
In an exclusive, a Ukrainian commander told Sky’s Deborah Haynes that around 30% of Ukrainian successes in the east are thanks to British and German weapons.
You can check out the exclusive by clicking here.
EXCLUSIVE: @SkyNews is 1st to film UK #MLRS firing at Russian targets in Ukraine. A commander says around 30% of successes by 🇺🇦 in counter-offensive in east were thanks to 🇬🇧 + 🇩🇪 rocket launchers
w/ @AndrewTravel_UA @sophiacmcbride @marchofer @artlysakhttps://t.co/awzxkKa4Zv
— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) October 5, 2022
Many already know that Britain has sent tens of thousands of anti-tank munitions and thousands of missiles, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The table is constantly being updated, and if something isn’t here, it’ll be added soon.
I’m currently helping to produce the table below for this Wikipedia page as part of efforts to have information collated in one place, the table is being shared here under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0.
- Trained 22,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015 as part of Operation Orbital. This operation was suspended following the full-scale Russian invasion; a new British-led multinational operation commenced on 9 July 2022 as part of Operation Interflex.
- Sale of two Sandown-class minehunters.
- £1.7 billion sterling agreement to support the acquisition of eight missile craft and one frigate.
- Deployment of RC-135W Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to provide information on size and position of Russian forces.
- ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) support, both standalone and in partnership with the United States.
- Delivered “thousands” of NLAW anti-armour weapons and Javelin anti-tank missiles.[456] The total amount was stated to be over 6,500 as of 3 June 2022.
- £25 million in financial backing for the Ukrainian military.
- Unspecified further military aid, on 28 February 2022.
- Unspecified number of Javelin anti-tank missiles, on 10 March 2022.
- The UK announced a further 6,000 defensive missiles will be sent to Ukraine, on 24 March 2022.
- Starstreak man-portable air-defense systems.
- UK announced the supply of an unspecified amount of “armoured vehicles and long-range artillery” to Ukraine, on 31 March 2022, on 9 April a figure of 120 armoured vehicles was given along with an unspecified number of anti-ship missiles. A 14 April interview gave the following partial breakdown:
- 40 CVR(T) derived vehicles including the Stormer HVM SHORAD, FV104 Samaritan armoured ambulance, FV106 Samson armoured recovery vehicle & FV107 Scimitar Tracked Recon Vehicle.
- 35 FV103 Spartan APCs.
- 80 protected mobility vehicles including Mastiff protected patrol vehicles, Wolfhound heavy tactical support vehicles and Husky light tactical support vehicles.
- British Army donates 84,000 helmets to Ukraine.
- UK announced an additional £100 million in military aid, on 8 April. This includes further Starstreak missiles, 800 NLAW, Javelin anti-tank missiles and precision loitering munitions. Further military helmets, nightvision equipment and body armour will be provided on top of 200,000 pieces of non-lethal military equipment supplied so far.
- UK announced further unspecified amount of lethal military aid to Ukraine on 23 April. “The Prime Minister confirmed that the UK is providing more defensive military aid, including protected mobility vehicles, drones and anti-tank weapons.” The UK announced a further £300 million in military aid to Ukraine. Boris Johnson made this announcement in a videolink address to the Rada, on the 3 May.
- Electronic warfare equipment.
- Counter battery radar.
- GPS Jammers.
- ‘Thousands’ of Night Vision devices.
- 13 bulletproof Babcock Toyota Landcruiser for civilian officials such as mayors and evacuation operations.
- Heavy lift cargo drones.
- The UK has been supplying an unspecified number of British made Brimstone missiles into Ukraine.
- The UK announced a further £1 billion in military support to Ukraine. The total sum was £1.3 billion (US$1.6 billion), however, this included the £300 million that was pledged on 3 May.
- 30 March, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provided £20 million to the Ukrainian Armed Forces for salaries through a deposit in the National Bank of Ukraine, followed by a further £5 million on 18 May
- 6 June, the United Kingdom confirmed it would provide an unspecified number of M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System along with M31A1 ammunition and provide training to the Ukrainian operators in the UK.
- 16 June, confirmed 20 used M109 howitzer ad been bought from a Belgian arms dealer, refurbished and partially delivered to Ukraine.
- 17 June, the UK offered to set up and administer a program to provide three weeks general infantry, first aid, cyber security, and counter explosive tactics training to 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every four months hosted by a neighbouring country. This would better equip Ukraine to replace battlefield casualties.
- 27 June, From this week, 200 Ukrainian soldiers are set to arrive in the UK every day to receive training from the UK’s Armed Forces, the Chief of the Defence Staff said.
- 28 June, during the NATO summit in Madrid the UK committed to providing Ukraine a further £1 billion of military support towards the acquisition of “sophisticated” Air Defence Systems, Electronic Warfare Equipment, Drones and Ammunition for Long Range Rocket Artillery.
- 29 June, The UK has facilitated the transfer of 3 Norwegian MLRS systems. The Norwegian systems will need upgrading, so the UK will receive and upgrade the Norwegian MLRS pieces, to backfill upgraded British pieces already being sent to Ukraine.
- 30 June, The UK revealed it had been training hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers on British Artillery Systems on Salisbury Plain (UK). The UK also stated it had purchased 50 L119 Howitzers from a British company and will be deploying these weapons to Ukraine imminently.[483] The New Zealand Army has deployed personnel who are training Ukrainian soldiers on L119 artillery pieces in the UK (see NZ entry above).
- On the 21 July British Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallance, announced the UK will send “50,000 artillery shells, counter-battery radar systems and hundreds of drones” and “scores” of artillery guns over the coming weeks along with 1,600 anti-tank weapons.
- 11 August The UK confirmed it was delivering an additional three M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System and M31A1 rockets, the previous day Ukraine had announced that the equipment had been received.
- 24 August UK announced a £54m package including 850 Black Hornet Nano drones, 200 surveillance drones and ~1000 anti-tank loitering munitions.
- 27 August the British MoD announced it would provide six mine hunting UUVs to Ukraine along with training Ukrainian naval personnel in their use.
You can read more by clicking here.
TBF that’s a comment from a commander of an MLRS unit, and it is afaik only the UK and Germany who have supplied M270s to Ua. Arguably also Norway via backfilling the UK, perhaps.
The Germans are very much the key to victory in this and they have turned things around massively. Merkle’s policies have been recognized as a massive failure and she is now gone.
The Ukrainian ambassador was on Sky today stating that the UK along with the US is the core of the contributions.
The UK’s real role in this has been working in the background keep Crimea on the agenda. Realistically the US has little reason to care about the threat from Russia or Eastern Europe anymore. Its only real focus is China.
Its the UK working in the background that has kept the coalition in the fight. Its the UK intelligence that had such a massive impact at the start. Its the UK sending carrier strike groups to the pacific that keeps it relevant to the US that keeps them interested. The people of Ukraine know what we are doing and we don’t need any credit for it from the fan boys. If sticking a German or a US or a French flag on twitter keeps them in the fight then so be it.
So you agree with my assessment that Germany is the key to winning the war.
So Germany is key to winning the war then.
Germany is the key to keeping Putin and his stooges in the money like they have been doing the past 20+ years.
My former French employee DIDNT withdraw from Russia on the basis that it provided “key services” to the French diplomatic mission globally. So if it was going to continue to operate in Russia it may as well continue supplying business customer as well
No, Germany couldn’t have stopped the war on the 25th of Feb. Like it or not the German, and European economy was tied into Russian gas and both needed time to build up stocks and create alternatives.
Meanwhile Germany hasn’t been providing the bear minimum, they’ve actually been a major contributor to the Ukranian War effort, remind me how many challengers and warriors the UK has sent?
Sorry but I’m not laughing at your racist comments here.
Germans aren’t a race. Just like the Chinese aren’t a race. It’s a nationality. Jeez.
Germany as the number 1 economy in the EU has donated very little and most of it they have done while kicking and screaming and after being shamed in the media and by other EU officials. They themselves have said they barely have enough equipment for their own defense. Trump told them years ago to start spending more on defense and Merkel ignored him. They should have listened to him.
Well most countries carried on a normal after 2014. Nobody thought Russia would invade the rest of Ukraine until 2021.
One of the reasons Ukraine has received so many weapons is by lots of countries giving a little. It all adds up to a lot.
Just the other day France sent Ceaser truck mounted artillery meant for Denmark to Ukraine instead.
Germany has to balance its own risks. It’s economy was/is very dependent on Russian energy just now. Everyday that goes past it’s getting less dependent.
The uk and the world are dependent on EU countries not going into economic turmoil.
Germany has sent valuable stuff to Ukraine and gave its defence spending a good boost as well as reducing dependence on Russian energy.
They are not a country sitting back waiting for the dust to settle and go back to business as usual.
Merkel literally made the EU a slave to Russian energy. Fact. She never cared about spending money on Germany’s defense instead she continued to leech off the American and British taxpayers for that. I blame the German voters the same way I blame the American voters for electing Biden. Since taking office in 2021 Russia has invaded Ukraine, the American economy has tanked, inflation at a historic high, gas almost 7 dollars a gallon, ect, ect. Yet the mainstream media ignores all this. Voters have zero common sense.
Much as we like to bash our Army, Just look at the effect of 20 or so MLRS and HIMARS has had on the Russians, imagine what the British army battery of 40 and soon to be 80 would have done to mad Vlad and his Orcs.
I tend to agree. Ukraine is also stating precision 155mm rounds are very effective. These along with HIMARs are very much force multipliers.
Quite
Then add Apache
Then add Typhoon
Then add Predator
Then add Chally2
Then add a few other bits and pieces we gave which we don’t talk about.
The Orcs are crumbling in the face of a small % of what NATO could throw at them. Putin knows that if he oversteps that line he gets squished like a fly.
Tactical nucs from the 8” will be fly paper for long range missile that I think, reading between the lines that the, US has given Ukraine a few of in the understanding this is their only use.
Tactical ballistic would be shot down with Ceptor/Patriot.
Which really only leaves any ‘presents’ the Orcs left behind.
Yeah brimstone on a typhoon would be devastating in a conflict like this, imagine if we had given the Ukrainians our Tonkas a few years back armed with brimstone. Would have been perfect for a war with this especially with the last EW upgrades we gave them.
Brimstone on anything!
But the take home is that we overmatch in both tech and capabilities never mind logistics, command and control oh and motivation/morale as well as having a moral compass!
Brimstone in threes on the new heavy lift VTOL drone Bae is developing would/will be lethal against the Orcs. A drone of this nature, though range is limited compared to things like Bayratas are far less vulnerable if used sensibly. They are relatively small and can operate like mini Apaches using trees and natural landscapes to hide from detection and will be very difficult to target yet can pop up fire 3 Brimstones around 25 km ( depending on launch height obviously) plus their own range. Imagine the lethality of such a weapon. Bae is supposed to have pre production units available early next year but there is talk this may have been brought forward and that Ukraine might just get first use. In Kherson Oblast in particular these would be the perfect offensive weapon to weaken and demoralise relatively static defenders if you can locate them when we’ll dug in, which with Harm seems to be easier again.
In generations to come I can see these types of drones even being very useful on warships in particular tasks.
Not to mention professionalism and sheer determination to win. Something the Russians are distinctly lacking
Thats good news, I’d not heard about an additional 40 MLRS, any idea when they should be coming into service?
There is no news on that. At the moment they are trying to work out how many old platforms they can get their hands on. One would assume we have some in storge given we bought more than 44 originally. Then there is Norway, the US, and any more we can scrounge. We will also buy any that are in museums and used as gate guards. All to be updated to the same standard our current inventory will be.
The stated aim is for an uplift in numbers of between 50% and 100%, so up to between 66 and 88 as far as I understand it.
If it isn’t possible to get enough M270 launchers I’d hope we’d go for a mix fleet of M270 and HIMARS, perhaps on Supacat platforms.
So is the M270 not able to be made new? I think it’s made on a Bradley chassis but I don’t know if Bradley’s are made anymore.
I remember a Middle Eastern country made a truck pulled mlrs that had 3 pods trailers on it.
Jorbidia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobaria_Defense_Systems_Multiple_Cradle_Launcher
The M270 production line ended almost 20 years ago. It would most likely be prohibitively expensive to remake it, even if you used Bradley IFV chassis, which, as you right say, it is based on.
getting as many as we can and augmenting with HIMARS seems like the way to go.
Ahh thanks for the info, I’m guessing when they say it’s based on the Bradley it’s not as simple as getting a normal Bradley chassis and putting the cab, launcher on top.
Simple solution seems to be truck mounted or boxer mounted then.
I wonder if the UK proposal for mounting them on Supacat chassis could be revived, the vehicles are made and recently new versions offered. I suspect an ice cube chance in hell, I fear increases in military spending will be as much promotional as real until Truss’s imaginary growth kicks in.
But with HIMARS in short supply with its current success and subsequent order increases it would be interesting to see what the relative cost/ benefit for a Supacat version might be and what the timescale might be. I wonder if it might be worth investigating what interest the Poles might have in joint Development and production, though they seem to be considering a Korean alternative but then one wonders what opportunities might exist there. We need to be far more proactive in spotting and exploiting opportunities if we are truly to operate as Global Britain and though there has been good signs in the military sphere at least, plenty of room to do far more. This might not be one of those but would be good to explore every possibility Poland and Japan (perhaps Australia as a slow burner) offer the greatest opportunity for us to reverse our decline in projects in this area and no such opportunities of this scale are likely to present themselves any time soon.
Thats a very very big rig. Cant imagines its very mobile or able to shot and scoot very quickly.
There’s an article on janes that says a British army officer says they have aspirations to increase by 50% and ideally double the size.
We will wait and see I guess but aspirations are just that. I don’t have access to full janes.
https://www.janes.com/amp/dvd-2022-british-army-seeks-100-uplift-in-mlrs-numbers/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
Given the almost universal view among pundits before the invasion, to the effect that the Russians outgunned us, it’s been quite a pleasant surprise to see what the actual situation is.
Looking at it from a slightly different angle it is perhaps wise for the Ukrainians to highlight the German contribution to the war effort. They are not sitting on the fence & are doing the right thing. Perhaps now they are seen to be committed it will encourage them to do more.
This conflict is the route cause of current issues we face today. It is worth the effort & will be another nail in the coffin of regimes around the world who oppress their population & cause problems for others. We are right to help the Ukrainians in their fight for freedom & should never resist the urge to support others where necessary.
Yes. We cannot give in to threats and tyranny.
Now is not the time to ignore or shy away.
The precedent it would set if Russia took what it wants unopposed would be awful.
I agree, whether enough others do so this winter is the big question. Fact to anyone with any remote insight is that the Ukraine ‘special operation’ was purely the first step in a long war to break Europe, separate it from the US and destroy the whole World Order. In reality it is the only way that Russia can stay relevant as a ‘great power’ in the new approaching World. In reality real or effective control of Europe is their only road to this and people in the West have to understand it. Actual ‘war’ is just a strategic move to better place it in this particular case with no doubt had it gone to plan, the absorption of Moldova and Georgia next on the list no doubt making it look powerful and scary and the west weak and impotent under increasing threats, a recipe for cracks and break up.
Putin’s recent threat of those with us will survive while all who oppose will die would have looked anything but hollow in those circumstances while Eastern European countries would have been even more susceptible to Putin’s mafia operating within them which is why he wanted NATO to move its infrastructure back to the Cold War borders, a demand he knew wouldn’t be accepted and reality he didn’t really want other than it making it even easier to walk into those territories he was always going to walk into anyway. But Cyber and resource control was going to be the main weapons, he has been preparing for that for years and we have fallen into the trap as we are with China. Sadly OPECs decision has helped preserve his faltering plan and inevitably put greater stress on the poor and weak in Europe Africa and indeed even in the US. Was it deliberate to benefit Russia or was it just exploitative for their own benefit it’s going to add fuel to the fire ( if that’s an appropriate term) and I note that the HofR has already fielded a bill to withdraw troops and defence supplies to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Well even if some have to take Russian fuels this winter to get through I don’t think it’s a huge issue so long as the direction of travel is to use other sources. Also reducing fossil fuel needs to be a big priority. Increasing greener energy and other sources needs greater attention. Modular nuclear reactors should be getting a big boost if they are viable.
As this conflict has shown fossil fuels are difficult to secure especially in the long term.
If economies could even be 50% reliant on renewable energy then at least if there’s an interruption to supplies it’s not catastrophic
Agreed, it was good to hear Zahawi talk up the modular RR reactor technology on QT last night, they look a good option as things stand.
Just to elaborate my concerns on those ‘others’ are more focused on populations in and around Europe ( even here) than regimes who I think with a few exceptions (Hungary) are well aware of Putin’s real long term aims and need to bite the bullet, might start short sightedly getting war weary and just wanting energy and their life back, without any real awareness or consideration for the far worse longer term implications. I was quite shocked to read that a Slovak poll suggested that it was pretty evenly split on who they want to win this war, surely that must be influenced purely on short term restoration of their energy supply and personal costs, if not then we all really are headed to hell in a creaky wheel barrel.
On renewable energy we have done well in this Country but when you see our advantages I start to think we should have done better. A few new reactors should have been commissioned this past 20 years if only to replace those going out of service, instead of the great rush to gas which is far too valuable to be wasted that way, and I do wonder now the difference if either the Humber or Severn proposals had been followed through, the cost/benefit balance looks immeasurably different now as does wind.
I can’t help but remember back in the day all those short sighted people arguing about the expense of wind power and it being a waste of money. Does one laugh or cry on that one now, sadly those on exclusive green energy deals aren’t benefitting of course. If only a similar effort had been made with wave power mind, which is beginning to belatedly happen now but still sadly far off making an impact. All just shows personally and collectively we need to think 20+ years ahead and hopefully this war has shown us all that. If only many had got the message of prospective danger in 2014 rather than just what’s popular in the moment. Oh well on to China eh.
Nuclear has to play an important part in securing our future energy requirements…its just a pity our leading nuclear industry of the 80’s has been allowed its demise due to successive governments cotowning to the greens…Hopfully there will be significant investment in this area over the next few decades to reverse this demise.
Rolls Royce SMR.
Each able to power 500,000 homes for 25+ years for £150 million each. Whats not to like.
We just need to get dozens of them built and hey presto. Cheaper than 30 billion hinkley point. More resilience and base load. SMR really gives the UK the opportunity to acheive energy security
I live in Derby which is where RR Nuclear is based, and RR SMR is their offshoot.
Since early 2022 our Government seems to have woken up and opened the purse strings, and I can assure you that RR are leveraging their expertise and “working at pace”.
The “Hey” happened in July when RR identified and shortlisted the sites for the 1st of 3 U.K. SMR factories.
The “Presto” is the construction of the SMR in the new factories which takes 3 to 5 years.
However between those the factory needs to be built and a workforce recruited and trained. RR Nuclear itself is really stretched at the moment with SSN, SSBN and possible AUKUS work.
So fingers crossed we should start to see the 1st results in the mid 2030s.
That may seem a long time but it is really lightening fast compared to building a full scale PWR power station.
The intended Factory built SMR will produce 470 MWe which would power 1 million homes. The idea is to put 6/8 at each location and when 1 becomes time expired it is just replaced with a new one.
For comparison Hinckley C got the OK in 2010 and may be commissioned in 2027 at a cost of £26/27 billion pounds.
If anyone is interest then read https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/
I was thinking the same. Ukraine war was just opening gambit of a Sino-Russian strategy to reshape the world order. Divide the Western alliance and put them on top by 2040.
China must be peeved. Their Russian allies efforts are bogged down in a failing quagmire and losing ground, troops and vital irreplaceable military equipment at a rate of knots.
China will look at how a small ish number of high tech western long range systems have taken out and pulled apart Putins frankly mediocre army.
The strategy for world hegemony is not going to happen. The West has been awoken. Is reinvigorating its defence posture and should emerge deadlier and stronger than ever.
Demographics are against China. By 2040s they have a falling birth rate and reducing numbers of adults entering into serviceable military age.
If the West can face China down and ensure numerical parity but qualitative superiority through to the 2040s we will be fine.
Russia is losing and will lose the war in Ukraine.
Their hoped for spring offensive (once 300k conscripts ready) will only deliver a massive blood toll and huge casualty list. I cant see 300,000 middle aged fat Russian blokes able to turn the tide in Ukraine.
The way I see things is all of Europe has chipped in, yes Germany may has started off more slowly, but they had more to lose and they have helped more in nonmilitary areas. But regards the recent military reversals Moscow has suffered inside Ukraine and from watching a number of videos of Ukrainian forces especially their tactics, I do wonder how much Western Military tactics (As taught by the Uk/US) has effected things, one such vid I watched was of a Ukr section advancing into contact through a wood into open ground, I was most impressed with the section commander (must have been wearing a go pro) on how he remained back and controlled his lads, which for those people who have led sections will know, is damn hard (esp when you have a know it all in the squad) , but he did . Heres one such vid (from today) of a BMP2 surrendering .
This is leadership as taught by the Uk/US, which is lacking across the Russian forces and if this is what we can see happening at the bottom rung of the leadership ladder, how much have those in the middle and the top learnt.
I mean lets be serious, even now, even with all the weapons the West (and others) have handed over to Ukraine, Moscow even after all its losses , still retains a huge military overmatch . But then they do say:
“All the gear, no idea”
Germany is taking possibly the biggest hit on the sanctions, for their own stupid fault but they are now making amends.
I watched that same video. Classic Western style squad tactics. Proved devastating against those poor Orcs who had no night vision goggles and got splattered.
Don’t get too fooled by the constant Germany bashing. This is mainly a political move from the far right Polish PIS government which needs Germany as Main enemy for the next elections.
While there is a lot of rightful criticism on Germany, what they Did deliver was very useful. The Mars MLRS, Panzerhaubitze 2000 with Smart 155 shells, Panzerfaust 3 anti Tank weapons and the Gepard anti air Tank are very helpful assets.
The PZH2000 was used so much it wäre Out and needed maintenance. Poland declined germanys wish to Set up a repair Shop so they needed to be brought to Lithuania.
Not to forget Germany assisted a lot with medical evac to Germany and backfilling Material to greece and slovenia.
Yes this was all a bit slow but dont forget where we came from.
Germany is an appeaser of Russia, and the French are (once again) cowards in the face of aggression – both should be condemned
Evidence?
It’s not needed, you’re just being obtuse. Suffice to say pushing for diplomacy with a fascist regime is not a good look. Nor for that matter is being completely outstripped in terms of weapons contributions by much smaller countries, as well as countries which aren’t even in the region. Especially so when both France and Germany see themselves as leaders as Europe.
No Jim’s right. Those are nasty accusations and if you can’t back them up it’s just racist drivel.
Racist. Give me a break. I just told you exactly how in completely factual terms
Yeah, racist, seems to be a lot of that going on in this thread actually.
Hilarious
It really isn’t.
Oh I’m quite aware! I think everyone can see for themselves what a clown this person is
Since when did France and Germany have a ‘race’ attached to them please?
Without getting into the entire sordid history of using the word “Race” on the European continent (Yes plenty of references have been made over the years to the “German Race” or the “French Race” and none of that is pleasant) ; Race is a Social Construct that is variously used to describe social groups, or percieved biological groups and is largely seen as bunk by modern science because it doesn’t have a single definition that nobody can nail down.
Meanwhile the actual definition of Racisim is:
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group.”
Note the “or Ethnic Group” at the end. Allow me to define an Ethnic Group for you:
“A community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.”
Which French, German, British, English, Polish, American all fit under.
Technically we are all humans from a biological standpoint so only 1 actual race exists.
If idiots wish to subdivide race into ‘social’ groups to not offend anyone then fine but that is an infinite amount of groups.
France is not a race, Germany is not a race, England is not a race unless its being used to either appease the moron brigade or attempt to divide further.
It helps if you actually read the post and pay attention to what it says. 😂
👍 People may like it or not, (often not which I even understand to a degree) but that is indeed the real definition. In terms of race there is only one actual race on Earth so clearly the term racist, is meaningless if used without nuance and with wider meaning.
Indeed! Shame we killed off all the other members of our Genus, but then, looking at how much we hate our own species, maybe it’s a good thing we’re the only ones left.
Dern,
Just posted what Berlin has sent below, but the website (Is here) Its in English, and hopefully will allow you to show that actually Germany has helped the Ukraine a lot more than what some people think. As mentioned I cut and pasted it below if you dont wish to follow a link.
Thanks Faruk, I’m tracking already which is why I’m backing their corner, but it’s nice to see.
Yes I think we have to understand (and not always for positive reasons) Britain is far more ‘verbal’ about what it does than some other Countries. Germany for very good historical reasons and faced with a very big re assessment like Japan, on its military stance now and moving forward, does not go about boasting about such things. If they did the anti German instincts in this Country ( and many others). would ironically take off again, so they can’t win.
France is more of an enigma and less on the surface understandable, but I can, seeing what’s threatening now, appreciate Macron’s (often ridiculed) attempts to prevent this war and even bring it to an end. The relative lack of direct military support I am less impressed by, though again they seem to not expressly publish what they give so overtly as us. Whether they think their position will make them less of a target than us or Poland I don’t know, or whether it’s a sign of not really caring or that Ukraine is not really worth it, or that whatever priority the equivalent of France plc and national economic/political concerns is dictating their approach who knows. A combination I suspect.
Support of Ukraine was/is vital for reasons I often express but seeing that Putin may eventually see his choice as personal elimination or use of nuclear weapons we all have to study the best options even if morally and the gut doesn’t find them particularly palatable. The latter choice for Putin may well eliminate him anyway certainly greatly damage Russia’s position but a condemned man will do anything to survive a little longer and at little consideration for others and a limited use of nuclear weapons is a distinct possibility some say probability. Pandora’s box after that, so not being so overt in your cheerleading in expressing your support might be seen as the sensible option, but for Britain due to past experiences before all this developed has probably made us prime target anyway even prior to Johnson’s and others bravado so it’s unlikely to have made us more of a target in reality.
I think Macron is playing the long game.
Let me explain.
France prior to Feb 2022 aspired to be the military leader of the EU.
Other countries werent certsin knowing full well that it is NATO not the EU that guarenteed their safety and security.
France gains from the energy crises. Germany is now reliant on imports of lng and electricity from France. LNG until Germanys own terminals are built.
Spain wanted to build a gas pipeline into Europe via France to supply North African gas and portugese/Spanish LNG imported from Africa and North America. France declined this request.
France sees Germany’s export based industries and wants some of those industries. So by withholding power and prolonging the wnergy crises they hope production will be moved to France.
LNG imports are climbing massively in price so each shipment now costs many times what it did in 2021.
Therefore Germany longer term is going to either have to move energy hungry industries abroad or build more electricity production quickly, something they cant do without SMR technology. They cant control gas prices which currently stand at 6x pre war cost £592.56 per therm (source Ofgem this morning)
So by France prolonging the crises they should gain traction, leverage, prestige and power within Europe.
I think if we have a cold winter you can bet the interconnector flows between uk and Europe will be shut from the European side dedpite the fact we have supplied 10% of all of Europes replenished gas storage capacity from North Sea gas. Which by the way is at +26% on the year.
Your making some bold claims with nothing to back them up. Evidence is needed.
Everyone is urging compromise and peace the only question is who compromises. The Ukrainians are not going to take Moscow so at some point peace talks will have to take place and it will be turkey then Germany and France pushing more for some of Russias aims and the US and UK for Ukraine. That’s the power of NATO different members can have slightly different positions which can facilitate peace talks.
Are they-who is urging compromise & peace and what Russian aims will Germany & France be pushing for exactly…The continued occupation of The Donbas , Donetsk, Luhanks, The Crimea,? The Ukrainians have no desire to take Moscow..they have the desire to repatriate Ukraine territories Putin & Russia have illegally invaded occupied & annexed.
So yes if (note I say IF) they propose those sorts of compromises & peace talks I would posit they would indeed be appeasers.
To end a war you either need to take the enemy capital and cause complete capitulation or negotiate some form of peace. It’s basic logic. The Ukrainians can’t and won’t take Moscow so at some point they have to negotiate.
What that negotiation settlement looks like is what they are fighting over now.
Precisely.
I disgree – its not only the Ukrainians that may need tonegotiate soo to may the Russians….unless you believe they will just continue to attack Ukraine with no consideraitons. So when you say Ukraine is fighting for the negotiations thats not stictly true is it – they are fighting to kick Russia out of their territory…whatever comes out of that remains to be seen. Personally I hope they kick Russia out of all their territories – including The Crimea but lets wait and see shall we.
Peace talks yes. Agreeing any of Putins territorisl clsims on Ukraine soverign territory and peoples no.
All NATO can give Russia are security guarentees written in treaty to the fact we have zero territorial claims on Russia.
Russia has a historic fear of invasion from the west courtesy of Germany x2 World Wars so understandably is not going to be very tolerant of any armed force up along their border.
Putin needs to go. Then we might be able to have peace if Russia can find a moderste sensible leader.
Dude, Ukraine is unlikely to exist in its current state after the winter.
France? A selfish hypocrtical disgrace – nothing new there. Evidence. Look up the stuff on Politico EU berating both France and Germany and praising US and UK ( Poland Baltics and Aus and NZ should be mentioed as well).
For figures check out Kiel Institute reports – shows it how it is.
What about the Ceaser guns France sold to Denmark but have diverted to Ukraine just recently on top of the guns already sent.
I don’t remember seeing Germany and France supplying Russia with there latest weapons since conflict began.
I completely disagree with your view they are appeasing Russia. You are entitled to your view but I think your wrong.
If France or Germany or anyone could of got Russia to stop attacking when they tried at the beginning that would of been a good thing. Now it’s too late and Ukraine will not stop even if Russia does.
I agree. I for one won’t bash Germany as I understand both the sensitivities and the strategic error of being so reliant on a potential enemy for energy and the pickle that put them in. And, Russia Ukraine of all places, where so many battles took place 41-44.
France, no such sympathies.
I suspect with France, it’s down to the fact they simply don’t have large stockpiles of kit to give away, not NATO standard kit anyway. They run stockpiles down massively in the 90’s, and like many things with French capability, it’s pretty Mirage jets and glossy sales pitches, and numbers that look good on paper, but not a lot of real substance.
No. They are just misely. One French officer early on didn’t even want to give Ukraine LMG’s!
The French always talk big but when it comes to money they want to spend everyones but themselves. Look at Macron and Lebanon most of that cash came from international donors including the EU not France directly. And remember the EU bailout of Greece. French banks were by far the most exposed so by getting an EU bailout French banks were subsidised by Italy and Spain etcwhose banks had low exposure but the bailout was on their contribution size to EU.
I can only assume (beyond cheap energy) that Germany thought creating a reliance on energy would solidify the belief war would not be in either Countries interests, mutual benefit strategy that damages each to much to threaten encouraging in theory political interaction and links. Looks stupid now but the West has followed these sort of strategies everywhere with mixed results. Worst error mind was firstly not seeing unexpected but predictable developments in this case China giving Russia new options (and indeed demands on their future strategy to survive as a power) and Germany not seeing this strategy as one of many strings in creating self sufficiency in energy or a temporary one on the road to that. That truly is unforgivable and will haunt the way history of Angela Merkel as Chancellor is written I think. The stupidity is beyond belief and in reality has been an enabler of this invasion and what happens now. Putin thought he had a stranglehold because of this reliance and now realises that is likely not in fact the deciding factor he had banked on in enabling military and political victory, but not having something he can call victory is not an option. Should never have allowed this very dangerous scenario to develop in reality.
I think what’s missing is how the domestic German market saw the energy situation. While there always was a movement within Germany that raised an eyebrow at the increasing reliance on Russian Gas, it was always seen as a temporary price that had to be paid to reduce reliance on Coal and Nuclear, Germany has a very strong Green movement and a very strong anti-nuclear movement that only gained strength after Chernobyl.
Ultimately the idea, naive and idealistic, was that conflict on the European mainland was a thing of the past and, even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t happen any time soon, so Russian Gas was the easiest (Especially for Schroeder who got the ball rolling on this) option to keep Germany going until the eventual transition to 100% green energy could be completed.
Undoubtedly without active Putin’s help it would have been much harder to defeat the Orcs.
Putin pathing Hitler…..
Who was the Nazi?
Hate being mentioned in the same sentence as the Germans!
But if the figures are genuine I feel a warmth from knowing that for once my taxes have been well spent.
Keep slaying those orcs ukraine.
All the equipment we have sent ukraine is really good it’s getting put to use,in my book it raises the question, our own ability to protect our country, our army is to small,navy to small, airforce not enough planes ,missile systems to protect our cities ,our coast line ,ukraine is a wake up call for us in Britain ,but the shambolic governments in the past ,cut ,cut cut,it will be our throats that get cut ,reliance on allies is good but we must be strong again ourselves, get the personnel numbers up big time in all the forces ,reserves numbers must increase dramatically, but wait and see if these degenerate idiots wake up and smell the coffee
Barry, absolutely correct in your reply ,this country defence forces need bigger numbers ,people and equipment, our coastline is vulnerable, being ex navy a very senior officer I was on exercise with years ago ,pointed to a certain idiot prime John major about the concerns he had proved right but that idiot laughed at him ,the Royal marines exercise proved it would happen but times move but its still there that very real threat
For numbers to increase in personnel some massive changes in recruitment would be needed. No more long waits (12 months+) from asking to join to beginning training. Better integration of reserve and all employers. More incentives to actually join or stay part of the forces. Regular and reserve.
The army hasn’t been able to recruit enough people for years. Perhaps calm down on the instant dismissal for smoking cannabis. If 25% of youngsters do use it that’s 25% who won’t apply.
I do hope enough can be done to turn around recruitment/retainment.
It’s actually even more profound than that as an island it’s actually impossible for the U.K. to fight a major land campaign without an Allie, unless we somehow decide we need to undertake an apposed amphibious landing of another major nation we are only ever going to be backing up allies.
It does therefore mean that U.K. forces need to be able to:
1) fight a major air campaign to defend British sovereign possessions from air attack.
2) fight a major navel campaign to protect British access to trade and resources or defend British sovereign possessions
3) support an alliance in a major land campaign or proved stabilisation forces.
This basically means we do need an airforce and navy that can fight a war with a peer on their own. But our army does not need to be set up to fight a major land war on its own, we just need to be able to provide stabilisation forces to areas of interest ( marine or air mobile brigade level forces) and provide a high quality armoured division with all required support in the case of an Friendly nation needed to fight a land war as well as providing the component battle groups for NATO deployments.
We no longer need the BAOR to go out and fight to its death against the Warsaw Pact hoards in the hope giving time to staving off nuclear Armageddon.
BAOR folded in 1994 and was replaced by the much smaller BFG.
We are very used to not having BAOR, but its spiritual successor would be that single, networked and modernised armoured division.
However we also need other army assets too for tasks other than facing down a peer/near-peer/not-even-peer opponent warmongering with armoured/mechanised forces.
I think some people still think we should have an army the size needed to generate a new BOAR just incase we decide to fight a major land campaign against land power,,,just because.
Definitely not saying that, the BAOR only existed to fight in North West Germany until TA, Regular Reserve, and Conscription could relieve them. Even when Gulf War 1 happened the BAOR could only really muster 2 brigades.
The British Army needs to be properly funded, but it needs to keep the Regular Army as a fully deployable force.
(Although bring back the Regular Reserve please)
That’s not exactly true. Britain at the time was the single largest and wealthiest nation on earth at the time of WWI. We’d simply chosen not to institute a system of conscription and reserves like the other powers did, nor did we count the imperial forces, which a nation like Imperial Germany or Tsarist Russia lacked. Britain could have easily maintained a large land army for fighting on the continent, it simply chose not too.
Warfighting on the Continent was clearly not something we wanted to do (or needed to) as a default once we had defeated Napoleon.
Then it made sense to revert to a maritime-centric approach, until the emergence of Kaiser Bill.
Agreed with the sentiment, however I always think the British Maritime focus really screws us over when wars on the continent go awry. Instead of having maintained a army capabale of swinging the balance, we always cut it to have a navy that acts as a back stop.
We end up with long wars that we leave weaker than we started because with a good navy we end up in long stalemates, where a good army might end the war quickly. But that’s a personal bug bear I’ve had with the way Britain as a whole looks at history and one I’ve gone into too often on here before.
I think you have a good point. Having a small army when we go into combat against a large peer opponent is anything but a recipe for success.
The BEF in WW1 in 1914 could only hold 20 miles of the front and was exhausted after just 4 months fighting, and had to be massively reinforced.
The BEF in WW2 had to withdraw from the combat zone being encircled by more powerful German forces.
In more recent times, the army in Afghanistan and Iraq was woefully short-handed – I contend that the army needed a division in Helman not a Brigade group – this paucity of manpower contributed to a lack of decisive effect – and led the Americans to consider our performance poor.
I’d add a small caveat to that, because I’m so contrarian I disagree with my own points. Or I just want to highlight nuance. take your pick with how generous you want to be.
It’s not just about size, but priorities. The BEF in WW2 wasn’t exactly small, but it had been forced to grow very quickly, had virtually no industrial base to support it (because nobody though “What if we want to crank out a load of tanks quickly”), and had been chronically under invested over the interwar years. So, for example, during the 1930’s the British Army had experimented heavily with mechanised combined arms warfare, decided it worked… then didn’t have enough money to put it into practice. So despite deploying 9 Infantry Divisions into the BEF (and another 3 “eh” TA divisions that where not seen as fit for combat), it only had a single Armoured Brigade.
When 1st Armoured Division was eventually sent to France it was short of pretty much everything. E.g. Somehow it deployed to France with exactly zero organic artillery.
By comparison, at the outset of WW2 the Western Allies had:
HMS Iron Duke
HMS Centurion
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Warspite
HMS Valiant
HMS Malaya
HMS Barham
HMS Royal Sovereign
HMS Revenge
HMS Royal Oak
HMS Resolution
HMS Ramillies
HMS Renown
HMS Repulse
HMS Hood
HMS Nelson
HMS Rodney
Condorcet
Voltaire
Courbet
Jean Bart
Paris
Bretagne
Provence
Lorraine
Dunkirque
Starsburg
(With 6 more UK Battleships and 3 more French ones on the way)
Against:
Scharnhorst
Gneisenau
(With 2 more on the way)
Thanks Dern, interesting that a very strong navy in WW1 and WW2 did not deter Germany from initiating war, or bring Germany to her knees, or really even shorten the war.
Before I get attacked, I am clearly not saying that our navy in the world wars did not do much or achieve much – just that a large strong navy is no guarantor of peace or of concluding warfighting.
Many think we do not need a strong army and are fixated on a European war, suggesting that the continental nations should major on the continent’s land defence. Maybe. But that is not what NATO is about – no role specialisation has been mooted.
As global Britain we should have strong armed forces of every service.
I’m afraid you’ve misread my point.
My point is: We could afford to put large numbers of men in uniform. We were by far the wealthiest nation in the world at the time. We *chose* not too, and that choice meant that we suffered a long and disasterous war that ruined our economy and ended our position as the #1 economy in the world.
Exactly, and as I say above this has long historical and cultural reasons behind it.
Interesting but even at the time of Waterloo, Britain had already reduced its forces substantially having believed the war was over, indeed it’s why it was such a damn close thing and only with the Dutch and Prussian’s etc could we have actually got away with it. It was intended as a holding battle in essence till bigger forces could be employed and British forces re-enlisted.
Barry, we certainly had a small professional army before WW1 (247,000 regulars) but grew it dramatically, augmenting with wartime volunteers, conscripts and reservists:
Wikipedia: “By the end of 1918, the British Army had reached its maximum strength of 3,820,000 men and could field over 70 divisions.
You are right that for major conflicts we fight with Allies, and have done so for centuries. That will not change.
The European powers always had a tendency to raise and train large bodies of men just to turn them into large numbers of bodies of men. Even at the hight of imperial power when we ruled huge continental land masses we never went in for that particular Euroasian habit of raising large armies to murder each other.
Even the peninsula campaign was about a smaller high quality professional army out manoeuvring an extended and vulnerable aggressor. WW1 was an aberration really in so many ways.
By the end of WWI the British Army was arguably the best Army in the World, qualitatively, and in very strong contention for being the largest as well, while Britain maintained a fleet so large that no other nation on earth, even with allies could think of challenging it.
What would have been the result if the RN had been defeated by the Imperial German Navy during WW1. What would have been the result if the British Army had been defeated by the German Army during WW1. WW2 Battle of the Atlantic or Battle of Britain or actual Battle of France. Or even further back what would have been the result if we had lost the Battle of Trafalgar or the Battle of Waterloo.
Baisically my argument is: If you win the Battle of the Frontiers in 1914 as the British Army, what the Imperial German Navy does is irrelevant because you’ll be marching into their ports. Same with France in 1940 (the loss of France made the RN’s position MUCH worse btw thanks to the access to their ports and the loss of the RN’s biggest naval ally.
Baisically: There’s no denying that prioritising the navy has been a useful backstop. But doing so has meant we are much more likely to have to rely on it, and a long war where we hold out behind a naval screen building an army at great cost, ruining our economy, is to me a worse outcome than having a world class army and ending the war in six months.
So it would have been better if the Army had been prioritised over the RN in WW1 and the RAF and RN in WW2.
… and of course the RAF was the most powerful air force in the world on its creation, in the final year of World War 1, with over 20,000 aircraft and over 300,000 personnel.
A lot of the reason however is political/cultural and as an island the importance given to the navy to protect us. Large standing armies have for hundreds of years back to later Norman times indeed, been anathema to the English. First politically for it was seen as a threat to power so a sort of unwritten rule between central power and the Barons, indeed the City of London too, vital in both the conquest, later control and administration or wealth of England. So all being vital as they all were to prosperity and control to keep the peace a certain balance of powers grew and was kept to ensure the various power brokers were not a threat to the others or the populous a danger generally, at least without substantial warning of it developing.
The people over time themselves at all levels became culturally tied to this concept too and treasured it so even when central Govt became more dominant and the other factors faded, a powerful standing army was not deemed politically sensible internally or vital to defence e tenally. So troops were generated through the regions as dangers presented themselves and abroad they were predominantly hired locally or through mercenaries, especially once the George’s were on the thrown, the Scots too were of course greatly utilised once the Union arrived. It allowed this Country to develop politically and industrially the way it did, generally different to our competitors. The military generally became an adjunct to trade not vice versa.
A lot of smaller Countries in population had/have far bigger standing armies than us through either necessity or different traditions. You are right alliances have been vital at all levels to our success on the grand scale but sometimes that’s been through choice so as not to break those long held traditions regarding a standing army.
Just for the info, here is what Germany has sent (off the Federal Germany Government website in English)
Delivered military support to Ukraine:
(Changes compared to the previous week in bold)
Military support to Ukraine in planning/in execution
(due to security concerns, the Federal Government abstains from providing details on transportation modalities and dates until after handover)
The total value of individual licenses issued by the Federal Government for the export of military goods in the period from January 1, 2022 to October 3, 2022 amounts to 774.740.971 Euro. The total license value includes the goods listed above insofar as their export is subject to licensing requirements under German foreign trade laws. This is not the case for all of the goods listed above. In order to speed up the processing of certain deliveries, the Federal Government has also eased certain licensing processes, e.g. with regard to military protective goods. These deliveries are also not included in the total license value. The values stated for used material from the German Armed Forces are also based on current values which can be significantly lower than the corresponding values for new or replacement goods. The total license value includes the goods regardless of how their procurement and delivery were financed. For security reasons, the Federal Government does not provide further details until the goods have been delivered.
* Deliveries from industry stocks financed by German funds for security capacity building. Some of the deliveries require upgrades or productions is ongoing; also training measures take place.
Wednesday, 5 October 2022
As the list shows Farouk Germany has done nothing😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Working with our friends and allies has made everyone’s contributions tie in together and making sure the right stuff is given for maximum effect.
I saw the Czech Republic population did a fundraiser and bought a T72 tank for Ukraine. Cost a €1m and a bit.
.
Who wants to bet if this makes any of the mass media like the Guardian or Independent? Or even the BBC.
I for one am super proud of our help for Ukraine.
The media just can’t stand the UK taking its place in the world, and making a success out of it.
Makes me sick.
This is the level of political debate in our country at the moment.
The Independent
‘This is getting weird’: Russell T Davies responds as Liz Truss wears same dress as Years and Years fascist
While the technology is superior, it is still how you use it that matters most. The UK/US have substantial (recent) ground combat experience from Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Libya that no other country can match. The Anglo-Alliance mastery of communications and logistics is what really sets it apart from the rest of the world.
Germany and France have both done very, very little compared to the Brits and the Americans. Thank goodness the Ukrainians don’t have to depend on Germany and France during this war.
There is no way the UK can say, it’s neutral in this conflict
I wonder if any retired Rapier batteries are in good enough condition to be given to Ukraine?
I second this.
This should be the most readily available Western SAMs right now…
Seacat was obsolete in the 1982 Falklands conflict, but it was still a useful “scare” weapon that put Argentine pilots off their bomb run. A line of Rapier batteries could deter the threatened Invasion from Belarus, or at least their helicopters.
There’s something that I’ve been wondering since yesterday’s Russian missile attack and I’m sure that the expertise to answer my question is here.
Reuters reports “General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, had earlier said on Twitter that Russia had fired 75 missiles at Ukraine and that 41 of them had been intercepted.”.
My question is – what weapons system (or maybe more than one?) was likely used to intercept those 41 Russian missiles? I realise they might not have been British weapons but since this article is talking about Ukrainian weapons my question isn’t 100% off topic if I post it here vs posting it on an article about training RAF pilots (for instance).
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/10/06/ukraines-military-success-is-reshaping-russia-as-well-as-the-war
The racist language on show in this forum really shows the nick of those who use it. Sad really.
Nope, your understanding of the term shows your lack of knowledge of the subject.
One could just as soon argue that the n-word just describes colour.
You/they use a racist epithet, you/they know it and yet you/they continue to use it. You use it as you perceive yourself and your race to be better than the russians. You see them as primitive and so you use it as a derogatory term to describe their primitive-ness.
it was used above as a derogatory racist term. The users of it in this context are therefore racist. Those who defend it are racist.
Oh dear, the subject matter seems beyond your understanding! No matter, it’s expected as you have admitted to being a Nazi! More effort required please.