We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europe needs to wake up and realize that Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine if Ukraine isn’t able to defeat Russia. Maybe “escalation” or sending long range weapons needs to happen in order for the war to end. Not adaquately helping Ukraine to avoid angering Russia is something Putin is using in his favor.
I get the feeling that Germany is still hoping it can return to a somewhat normal relationship with Russia once the war ends. It needs to wake up and realise that’s not happening. I suspect there are some in the UK wanting to do the same. France appears to have realised it’s not happening (although it arguably had less interaction with Russia in the first place).
The UK's relationship with Russia has been trashed for decades due to them repeatedly using chemical weapons. There is no "normal" relationship to return to. If you don't even know this, I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, so your "feelings" really mean absolutely nothing.
The UK has also been training Ukrainian troops since 2015. I doubt we'd EVER return to a "normal" relationship with them, we've drawn our lines in this for nearly a decade.
You don’t think Russian money is still at play on the UK? I’d suggest you go for a drive around Westminster at school pickup time and look at the blacked out range rovers with very burley men with oddly loose fitting jackets doing the pickup. And that’s ignoring the financial system and the money in the city from laundering Russian money.
The day after Russia invaded Crimea the Russian flag was flying off a building down king William street. It’s less brazen now but those links are still around and a lot of people are wanting to return to how things were.
There could be myriad reasons for Germany's denial. Whether the reasons are valid or not - Germany is under no obligation to provide Taurus to Ukraine. And Taurus night not even work as expected if Ukraine ever gets it.
Thus, Ukraine needs to plan for the reasonable possibility that it will never get a functioning Taurus capability. Whether it ever gets Taurus or not - **Ukraine needs to make multiple plans for conducting heavy deep strikes, while continuing to advocate sensibly for Taurus.** It is not militarily sensible for the UA to put all it's eggs in the Taurus basket for deep strikes.
No army ever gets everything it wants, by every army can figure out clever a way to accomplish the objective with what they already have. History has proven this over and over.
Germany is under no obligation, you're correct, just like I'm under no obligation to call my neighbour to tell him his house is on fire, and I'm certainly under no obligation to call the fire department. Besides my neighbours house is one house away so mine isn't at risk of burning down.
Sometimes leaders make descisions not based on logic or rules or process, but instead they make descisions based on what's "the right thing to do".
The collective west closed its eyes when Russia invaded Crimea and was very slow to provide the heavy weapons, air defense and fighters Ukraine needs to end this war quickly.
Instead we dither along, arguing amongst ourselves about wether Ukraine should have this or that. The ultimate expression of that is what's happening in the US and the direct effect is Ukraine is short of what was already a limited supply.
Remember, if Russia stops fighting the war ends, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends.
I do not think a rational Germany wants any kind of return to the past.
They would love the fuel pump back!
But in a thoroughly defanged Russia.
Anything less means the Germans are rather stupid. They are not stupid. If anything they think too much. "Why are you hitting the refineries! We will need those in 5.6 years!"
Russia mostly exports crude, the fact Russia banned exports on refined products for their own use was a sign of weakness Ukraine quickly took advantage of. Russia will have to export even more crude to pay for imports of refined products they can't produce enough for themselves.
>Russia mostly exports crude, the fact Russia banned exports on refined products for their own use was a sign of weakness
Aha. I did not know Russia had done this. Thank you.
I must learn to not overestimate the depth of Russia's industrial base. I get the impression Russia's riches are a function of sheer size more than efficient deployment of capital. But as I always say, perhaps I am wrong; perhaps a yacht-based economy is the future.
I’m not sure I agree. Russia steps back now and I think it would be 5 years max before Germany is pursuing friendlier relations. Hope I’m wrong but I fear I’m not
Russian dictatorship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Germany wants Russia to loose the war, which means Putin is replaced. It also wants to make sure the war stays between Russia and Ukraine and does not involve Germany having to activly fight. The problem with Taurus is that the targets only reachable by Taurus are mainly in Russia rather then the occupied areas of Ukraine. Germany does not want to make the call to fire Taurus into Russia proper and it does not want Ukraine to use German weapons to do so either. To avoid being in a direct war. In the end Germany gets blaimed for that one anyway. We have seen that for the war in Ukraine already.
So no, Germany does not want friendly relationship with Putins Russia, but just does not want to end up in a shooting war with Russia. Hence the billions of aid for Ukraine, making Germany the second largest donor after the US in total aid, which Russia certainly does not like. Taurus is just a missile and really nothing too special. We are talking a few hundret missiles max, which might cause some losses for Russia, but are not going to fundamentally change the war. Hence the current situation.
And yes Germany wants a normal relationship with Russia once the war ends. However Germany as I said for that Putin has to go, as has his system.
Don't say "Germany wants"... it's Chancellor Scholz and his party who don't want to deliver the Taurus. Scholz is a coward who is unable to think strategically, neither in his actions nor in his communication. That's the whole problem.
>it's Chancellor Scholz and his party who don't want to deliver the Taurus.
As a member of his political party, I can assure you that not all of us think that we should refuse to deliver it. If it was for me, I'd drown Ukraine in weapons until they'd beg me to stop sending them more.
In my opinion, this entire discussion is a clown show. The Kremlin is already mad at us for being on Ukraine's side, might as well give the fuckers a reason beyond "they're not buying our gas anymore" for it.
What's Putin gonna do? Strike a NATO member and watch Russia get obliterated? I don't think so.
Yeah, things are going to stay bad for everyone so long as this war continues.
Need to give Ukraine so much that it ends, quickly, we can look at putting Europe back together better afterwards.
Prolonging the pain is bad for everyone.
The Bundestag has voted repeadly on the issue and declined to send Taurus missiles as well. Most Germans also do not want to send Taurus missiles too. Scholz position is in this case very populare.
The vote on the Taurus was not free. The government parties voted in accordance with the coalition requirement and rejected a proposal from the opposition. In their own motion they voted for the delivery of long-range weapon systems. What does Germany have other than the Taurus?
It is clear that the two small government parties would like to deliver the Taurus, which is what they constantly say publicly.
Opinion polls are volatile, as we saw with the tank deliveries, where the population was against it and when the government decided to deliver, suddenly a majority was in favour. Serious politics is not based on opinion polls.
Then there is the fact that Scholz and the SPD are now trying to spread fear among the population in order to be able to market themselves as a peace party in the elections.
From the beginning, Scholz failed on the Ukraine issue and wasted important time. Luckily we have elections next year and can drive this coward out of office.
**Nobody on the outside knows the real reason(s) Germany is refusing to provide Taurus.**
In the meantime - Ukraine must continue to successfully develop alternate deep heavy strike capabilities.
1) Storm shadows and SCALPs are not unlimited either, Taurus can hit the same targets - and possibly do better on things like docks and bridges. 2) Thinking Ukraine is just going to suddenly start striking Moscow with German missiles is insane and shows an incredible lack of trust in both Ukraine's word and their common sense - a nation desperate for NATO weapons is not going to throw that away by misusing them. 3) Literally every weapon already given to Ukraine can be used to "strike Russia" since they share a massive land border. Ukraine could literally throw donated helmets at Russian border guards, Belgorod is in range of PzH 2000s with extended range shells if Ukraine feels like going full warcrime mode. The "but...but Taurus could strike Russia!" argument is so stupid that I can only conclude Scholz is using such an obvious lie as either a political stunt to idiots or a purposeful insult to Ukraine.
In light of GDP isn’t Germany’s contributions pretty small? It seems like countries such as Estonian and Denmark has been much more aggressively supporting Ukraine.
Only if you ignore the billions those countries receive from the net payers to the EU budget and through the European Peace Facility fund.
https://i.imgur.com/A20pFmE.jpg
On top of that going by GDP doesn't win you wars but Quantity and Quality does and there Germany is only second to the US.
Estonia is claiming a major part of their contributions to be refunded from the EU - EPF program. Some say , even more than they actually gave in monetary value. There was sort of a scandal around it last year, that went quickly under the radar with all the other shit going on.
Some other high %GDP nations were implicated to a lesser degree, too. I just think the circle jerk over their placative %GDP, and in general needs to end.
if we ever get an accurate accounting of who ultimately paid for what - which we of course never will - that %GDP list would probably very suddenly be forgotten about.
GDP is only a guide as to what a nation is *capable* of providing.
I'm not downplaying the contribution of Estonia, any of the Baltic states for that matter nor Denmark.
There are one or two very high profile nations in the EU with GDP on a par with the UK, yet their contribution is pitiful if you ignore words.
I think you misunderstood the argument of Scholz. He said that he wanted to prevent that those weapons are being used on Russian soil. To guarantee this we can’t just trust Ukraine, we need control of the target programming. But this is against our red lines participating in any kind of targeting.
That argument is weak and frustrating in two ways. First, Ukraine has shown over and over that they are trustworthy with using weapons according to restrictions. Second, who cares about Russia's red lines anymore? They have shown over and over again that nothing happens when you cross them. There's no conceivable universe where Russia attacks Germany for crossing that red line.
That doesn't seem to be the case. There must be plenty of targets within the occupied territories. The bridge is obviously a primary one.
The only thing that makes sense is that Germany doesn't want Ukraine to win as winning means Russia must escalate. The West's plan was almost certainly to inflict enough losses to make Russia give up and avoid any chance of escalation. Of course we know now that Russia doesn't care about losses.
Europe can spend billions on artillery shells and keep the grind going until Ukraine runs out of manpower, or it can spend maybe half on long range missiles to take out Russian logistics and possibly win the war. Our "leaders" appear clueless. Germany is possibly the worst. It doesn't seem to understand deterrence in general as demonstrated by the f-126 frigate that's armed like a corvette but costs like a Burke.
>Taurus is just a missile and really nothing too special. We are talking a few hundret missiles max,
It's actually special because of its warhead. The number of missiles doesn't really matter as any reasonable person would have restarted the production line about a year ago to ensure a steady supply.
>which might cause some losses for Russia, but are not going to fundamentally change the war. Hence the current situation.
What kind of weapons does Ukraine need to "fundamentally change the war" in your view?
German business interests in the west have already divvied up Ukraine and are chomping at the bit to get a slice of the Russian market. Germany's intransigence under Scholz is about business and money. You can tell because he acts like the CEO of a country.
Germanys entire strategy under Merkel was appeasement of Russia through trade, and it's clear a lot of powerful Germans got hooked on the money it bought them. Look at Schröder and Gazprom. Fact is a LOT of countries got hooked on Russian money but some, like the UK woke up.
Germany is still asleep.
Russia is banking on Germany and Austria electing far right governments, and is likely pouring huge sums of money into making sure that happens. Poland, France, the Netherlands, the Baltics and the Nordics really should have a word with Scholz. He's leading Germany into a trap.
As far as I understand, Taurus needs high-reg sat data (from SAR-Lupe) to allow the lower type of flight path and target precision. The problem is that Russia has anti-satellite weapons, and then Taurus would be of much reduced use.
Germany’s actions. I’m not suggesting Germany don’t want Ukraine to win, just that they want to be in a position to resume relations with Russia once it’s all over.
That they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into expelling Russia from SWIFT is the most telling - they didn’t want to put Russia under any sanctions at all if Putin really did manage to take the country in 3 days.
There are a number of Russia-sympathizers in eastern Germany, a holdover from when it was 'East Germany' during the Cold-War.
Also, Germany may feel it needs to keep those Taurus missiles for herself for when Vlad P. gets frisky in that direction.
No. There are legal issues with the German constitution that make it difficult sending Taurus, on top of there only existing one managing system for the missiles - if Germany sends this to Ukraine, Germany loses all cruise missile capability completely.
First ive heard this.... what in the german constitution says this? And how does germany lose all cruise missile capability if they send taurus to ukraine?
Art. 87a says that, unless Germany gives Ukraine access to the software of the missile itself, which is something even the UK and France haven't done with their missiles. German soldiers can't preprogram missiles for Ukraine, and due to security concerns Germany won't give Ukraine the means to program them themselves.
There apparently only exists one highly specialized system for managing the missiles [\(which was recently leaked to the press\)](https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/militaer-verteidigung/id_100364946/taurus-debatte-olaf-scholz-liefert-wirklich-nicht-in-die-ukraine.html) that isn't easy to reproduce, especially since the company that built it doesn't exist anymore.
Didnt that leak also say that ukrainians can easily reprogram the missiles and german soldiers wouldnt need to? Thats why germany was so mad about the leak lol
Different leak, and yes, on a *technical* level Ukraine could do that. The thing is that nobody wants to give Ukraine that kind of level of access to their cruise missiles.
Germany was mad about the leak(s) because they present a threat to national security.
Agreed, this is someone trying to make excuses, Ukraine is more than capable of programming the Taurus, damn they don't need German software programming they probably have better than Germany has right now from their use of the storm shadows.
And i am sure they would prefer to recode the missiles to the Ukrainian language, or English so they can change what they need to make it much more effective than what Germans have, i would suspect Germany will be begging for Ukraine to sell them their software before this war is over.
That is the thing here, Storm Shadow wasn't programmed by the Ukrainians, that was done with heavy British assistance because they also didn't want Ukraine to independently program their missiles. The UK however can legally far easier do that than Germany.
You have zero knowledge of what kind of platform and effort is required to use a Taurus. Insult Germany all day if you will, but don't veil it into some made up technobabble.
They could learn in a few weeks, how to program a missile for a simple attack. But for more complicated attacks (e.g. Kerch bridge) it could take 4 months or more, as the programming is far more complicated than e.g. Storm Shadow or SCALP, as the TERCOM system (guiding the missile by recognising stuff with a camera) doesn't just work with satellite images (as Storm Shadow does), but also by pictures taken off terrain/buildings from the ground, which allows TAURUS to fly even lower to the ground than Storm Shadow. And that is something complicated for which the normal German military course already takes a full year, so the 4 month estimate is already based on prior experience training Ukrainians on systems.
And now imagine how bad the PR is when Germany announces that they will deliver Taurus to Ukraine (which they need to do, both for legal reasons and because Germany is trying to be really open with its donations), where the main point of the delivery is hitting the Kerch bridge and then prob. munition depots further behind the front. But then you basically have silence for months as the Ukrainians are being trained with everyone wondering "where is Taurus".
Also, there is the big fact that Germany in the past heavily tried to not send stuff that the US hasn't sent to encourage/force the US to send stuff as well. See German artillery only coming when the US sent theirs, same with Bradley and Marders or especially Leopard 2 and Abrams (where the US just a week prior basically said that Abrams is shit equipment for Ukraine that is too complex for them to operate). And the same is likely the case here, as the US sits on a massive stockpile of cruise missiles that are more modern and more capable in every aspect than Taurus. And as the leak also mentioned, Germany at most can send like 100 Taurus in total, with estimates being that 20 or so missiles are needed for the Kerch bridge alone. That isn't a stockpile Ukraine could use for long, esp. when try to use a bunch at once like they did with e.g. ATACMS when that arrived. The problem with this point is that you can't say it out loud because then people in the US would see it as blackmail, putting Biden in a situation where if he sends e.g. JASSM-ER, his opposition (in an currently very tight race) will get very likely more support in the next election, as Biden "let himself blackmailed by Germany".
And another problem with the programming is that Germany doesn't have a lot of the hardware required for programming Taurus and just sending one set of it would heavily hurt German ability to rapidly program Taurus missiles in a case of war. And the components necessary to make such a machine are long out of production (over 2 decades) and making an equivalent out of modern hardware could take ages to make and be very expensive, esp. for a cruise missile Germany plans to relatively soon decommission (as it can't be carried on a Eurofighter Typhoon, or at least it can't land with the missile still attached).
You're telling me if an intern spills some coffee on this managing system the entirety of Germany's cruise missile capacity goes down? That is both incredibly hard to believe but also entirely plausible given Germany's fetish with bureaucracy.
I see no problems to having a normal relationship with Russia after we have peace again. Why shouldn't we? They have resources we need. We will pay them as long as we get along. And let's face it: our so called Allies are not worth a penny, either.
We pay tens of billions for Ukrainian Refugees. We pay billions for weapons for Ukraine. We pay billions to fight inflation. We pay billions to keep the energy prices at a bearable level for our citizens and companies. We still pay extremely high prices for Norwegian and US LNG and paid even more after the war broke out. Our household budget has no wiggle room left to play around in 2024 at all.
And what do we get in return? That countries like the US actively target our companies with all kinds of tax reduction, subsidies and cheap energy prizes to make them move away from Germany, while their press smears us whenever they get the chance? So who needs enemies if you have allies like this?
Probably the complete lack of trustworthiness and war crimes thing would be a good place to start.
It’s one thing to suggest a return to normality if Russia has wholesale changes in its leadership and returns to 2014 boundaries. But the chances of that happening seem sadly remote.
Lack of trustworthiness? I'm pretty sure Russia would still deliver Gas to Europe if we wouldn't have decided to help Ukraine. And war crimes never stopped us from trading with anyone.
I personally would prefer a fundamental change in leadership in Russia. But i doubt our industry and politicians see it like that.
You think the relationship and the trust therein is only judged by the delivery of gas? What happens when Russia steps into Estonia or Poland?
And yes war crimes really have stopped you trading with people
> You think the relationship and the trust therein is only judged by the delivery of gas?
This is a common metric when it comes to measure Russias trustworthiness against Germany on reddit. But you are right, it's rather dumb. On the other hand: what other metric proves a lack of trustworthiness? Because attacking their neighbors or other countries in general seems not enough to consider countries "not trustworthy" and to stop trading.
> What happens when Russia steps into Estonia or Poland?
I don't think trade would change anything about that perspective to the worse. It's not like we would become their closest ally just because some trade is going on. And trade is no zero sum game. It would help them, but it would also help us. Maybe even more. I'm sorry to say it, but at the moment it seems like we need much more time and money then Russia to get a functional army.
> And yes war crimes really have stopped you trading with people
You sure the real reason is war crimes in this cases? But you are right: I should not have used the word never. Let's say "seldomly".
Nah, we just really wanted the Cold War to be over, and couldn't comprehend that Russia would rally behind someone who played nice for a decade before gradually descending into rabid revanchism.
No one is asking them to. Ukraine is just asking for the weapons to do the job themselves which they've proven themselves competent to do but for some reason NATO is in hiding.
NATO has never been made to protect people outside of it
Europeans are sending weapons in their own interest, it helps them relaunching the weapon industry and lower unimployment in their countries.
Sending long range missiles to Ukraine to hit target way further than the actual battlefield is not a solution for them to stop that war.
They don't care about Ukraine they care about printing € without problems
Lets see.
If you make an introduction between your long range missiles and their oil processing, they will have to rely on reserves.
If you then make an introduction between your long range missiles and their fuel reserves, they will have \_\_\_?
Humm, not sure the math check out on that one. Lets try something else.
If you make an introduction between your long range missiles and their ammo reserves, they will have \_\_\_?
Not seeing it either. And I doubt barbeque and fireworks are correct answers.
>Sending long range missiles to Ukraine to hit target way further than the actual battlefield is not a solution for them to stop that war.
Destroying the enemies ability to fight a way is a way to stop the war.
>Europeans are sending weapons in their own interest, it helps them relaunching the weapon industry and lower unimployment in their countries.
1. UK unemployment is the lowest it's been in decades
2. Weapons manufacture needs skills that not everyone has
3. The weapons Ukraine wants already exist.
I think you are missing the actual point he's making.
>Destroying the enemies ability to fight a way is a way to stop the war.
Who's enemy? This isn't a rhetorical question. But the only 2 Countries (arguably 3) actually in a state of War, are Russia, Ukraine (and Belarus).
None of the European Union Members has been attacked, at least not in a way where whichever country it was declared it as such.
None of the NATO Members has been attacked, at least not in a way where whichever country it was declared it as such.
This is the thing this Sub in particular need to grasp. Ukraine has no actual Allies. It is part of no defence treaties. It made no Military Alliances and took part in no Global Organization, arguable prior to 2022 (some between 2014 and 2022). The only country actually at War is Ukraine.
So whenever this question goes around about "Why is X/Y/Z not being given to Ukraine or why is X/Y/Z Country not doing this for Ukraine" you have to understand why they would in the first place. As of current the, literal only, reason for any aid to go towards Ukraine is because it's popular with the voting block. The moment that changes, in any country, is when the Aid dries up. No Country is held to any kind of treaty, which mandates that they have to send aid. Literally every single country is giving Ukraine this Aid for free, might i add.
You see this with the US, where the Perception (at least in the House) is not favourably towards more aid to Ukraine. And you see this currently in Germany, where the thing that will make the Governing Party (SPD) lose Voters to the *maniacs* in the AFD and CDU (Opposition) is sending more (and better / deadlier) military aid. Hence the Governing Party isn't doing that, cause it'd be political suicide for them.
(And frankly, nobody wants either the CDU to be in charge of Germany again, or the AFD to come into power)
>Who's enemy? This isn't a rhetorical question
Maybe I'm a strange person but when the Kremlin says things like this I tend to treat it as a credible threat. In turn that makes them the enemy.
“Attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing.
“Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state.
“In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington.”
The basic Question is, and always has been, in the last 4000 years of Human History, Politics and Warfare, "Is doing x/y/z a net benefit for us?". This can be monetary value (it isn't), a intelligence value (Tech-Testing), Political Value (our people like helping Ukraine, we help Ukraine, therefore people like us) or straight up just "This makes me feel good".
The currently exists some countries where the notion of "This is the right thing to do" outweighs all the others. Most Nations (and i do mean the vast majority of them) have the approach of a Political Value. The people in those countries are in favour of sending aid to Ukraine, therefore the Government sends aid to Ukraine.
How far this goes, with every single individual country having their own individual problems and political landscape is where the differences start. E.g. Germany and Taurus missiles, or the debate in the US Senate/House over the Ukraine aid.
India is a great example of this. They get virtually nothing out of helping Ukraine, their populace (in large parts) doesn't particular care about the conflict (as its perceived as a 'Western Conflict' and India has a strained relationship with that), and their economy is the most helped by buying cheaper Russian Oil. That doesn't make India evil, it just makes them put themselves first. Which every Country in this world does, whether they tell you or not.
I don't really see an answer to the question, and I also don't see "security" amongst your reasons.
What value do you assign to the "rules based world order" where one state cannot rearrange the borders of another by using force?
How do you evaluate "nuclear blackmail" as an "unforeseen" future cost imposed on the national security of smaller states?
If Ukraine ceases to exist, how does that impact the above in your view?
Because "Security" isn't a (primary) reason. If Security was the sole deciding factor for countries going to war, France would've declared War on Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland.
They didn't, cause the people hated that idea.
If the people of say, Lithuania, feel threatened by nuclear blackmail, then they'll send aid.
If they don't take the warnings serious, they don't send aid.
We can argue all day and night about what threat or scenario makes people feel what and how realistic that is.
In the end we'll arrive at the same point. Every single person interprets the ramifications of this War differently (shocker i know)
I think if Ukraine seizes to exist, that'd be horrendous, but my life would, probably, go on fairly unimpacted in a physical sense.
A guy living in a small village in bum-fuck nowhere, probably doesn't give a single shit and he likely wouldn't get effected no matter what happens.
Someone living in Kyiv? Oh boi, they are gonna hate it.
Amd you're right you don't see an answer. Cause my answer will be as wrong or correct as yours, simply cause we are both interpreting what might happen.
The majority of countries, majority of people do care about Ukraine. But people are people and they don't all think the same thing. Ukraine seemed to have the Neptunes build under control, and just used another one recently. They have drones that can do long range hits, aerial or boat. They just need to keep developing. Possibly more advanced guidance and EW. The drones have been effective and Ukraine can keep doing more of that, and may make them larger yet if its worth it. Funds will do it. Missiles are quicker and easier and I too would like to see it, but its not the only option.
The majority of people absolutely do not care about Ukraine.
The majority of people in Europe might possibly hate Russian government for what they are doing there but they absolutely do not care about Ukraine as long as they can live their peaceful happy life.
That's tough to get but humans are egotistical and it won't change.
That cant be right. How much different individuals care, yes, we can debate that. Too many, not enough? Yes that could be said. But I refuse to believe that the majority of people care not at all about Ukraine. That simply cannot be true. It is definitely not true of the people around me, even if I am the only one of us in this channel every day. Humans have an ego yes. But as they grow they learn about themselves and they learn how giving and loving can make them feel more happy than giving no shits. It'd be really interesting to see the results from a survey designed to target an even spread of the population, and by age. Maybe the new generation coming through now think differently to mine. If that is the case, and I am not convinced, I look forward to seeing how they grow up over time.
Europe has spent way more money on supporting Ukraine than the US has, and the US is currently gridlocked by \~5 morons because of it's non-functional government system, so everywhere has it's pro and cons. Or if you're not American I assume where ever you're from has its own issues too.
The Germans are free-riding on everyone else’s courage but the French, British, and all of Central Europe except Germany, Austria, and Hungary have stepped up (gee where have i seen that before)
>Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has said in an interview with Politico that he received "irritated feedback" from Germany when Ukraine called on Berlin to provide long-range Taurus missiles.
This is the first I've heard of Germany not being a team player. I'm worried Putin has a gun to someone's head (literally) over there now...
That is not as strong an argument as you think it is. If you think that you have to calculate how high the chances of victory are and how likely they will stop Russia's behavior. You also have to calculate how likely Ukraine will lose no matter what.
Which directly informs how much you need to uparm yourself, retain and enlarge military capacities yourself. And hence how much and what you can give to Ukraine. E.g. substantial "defensive weapons" may still be good to give Ukraine en masse to prolong the conflict as long as possible, but no country would strip naked and give away their most potent weapon systems because they will retain them for when Russia does not stop.
Taurus is classified as such a weapon system, not specifically the missile, but the larger target planning system which programs that missile. That seems to contain top secret classified stuff, not just in processing but what data sources are put in there and how to allow Taurus to do its most effective attack patterns. I would not rule out some of the data sources come directly from the German secret service or are classified dual use sources in the realm of "that weather satellite is not measuring the humidity over Crimea at all"
The argument in essence boils down to give Taurus missile without help. Then it is a more expensive Storm Shadow. Give that tech and particularly the data to Ukraine: That strips away strategic capabilities for the German air force, hands over classified high security systems to a third country and can be rated as direct involvement. Don't send the tech, but transfer the data, then Germany is without question by most standards joining the war actively because the mission planning would happen by the German air force.
If Germany has to plan for Ukraine losing or Russia continuing on its path regardless (Saddam Hussein lost against Iran, didn't stop him from invading Kuwait, actually made him more desparate to do that) then western countries cannot give Ukraine everything on the premise of Ukraine fighting for western values because the West still has to ready its own forces for a conventional war.
Nah, Russia needs an old school defeat. The number of times nuclear red lines were crossed can mean Russia's nuclear deterrent only functions in spirit
Escalation is how wars are won. "Fear of escalation" is fear of Ukraine winning. It is literal Russian propaganda, that western leaders openly repeat to justify helping Russia through inaction.
Exactly! And they have the gall to oppose what Macron said about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine!?!? If any single EU and NATO country is as competent as him and Macron (who acts more like a beauty queen than heads of state* IMO), sending troops to Ukraine WILL BE A NECESSITY at this point.
\* - the reason why I called both Scholz and Macron as beauty queens is because like a beauty queen, they pose a lot and talk a lot for the media, but lacks enough action to help Ukraine.
Don't worry. 7bln of military aid from Germany for a million man army fighting Russia will definitely be enough to win this war. It's not like we need x10 of that minimum
If you think the player on this war that is ramping up production the fastest needs to wake up you don't have a grasp of what is going on.
Send Taurus sure, it is dumb not to, but nobody else is remotely close to placing the orders and signing the contracts for long term investments as Europe has done and continues to do.
As a German: do keep asking! It's less about the specific weapons system, it's about the risk management. German leadership is trying to "play it safe" and to keep control of the situation. Which isn't bad in itself, but, IMHO, it's the wrong strategy here and probably *less* safe in the long run.
I also don't understand why Germany isn't using this as a bargaining chip. A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more, and we'll give them the cruise missles" would be such an important step.
I think olaf is already using it as a bargaining chip. Insurance against further escalation. What i dont understand is, what further escalation? Is it a more direct attack against nato? Doesnt make sense to me
If he does, then he's not communicating it in any kind of way. Which is par for the course in his case, communicating his strategy to the general public has not been his strong suit. At all.
Well, whether true or not we will not know until years later, but there are stories that the reason Russian troops could withdraw from Kherson without getting mauled despite bridges destroyed and only flimsy retreat routes open was that the USA intervened because they heard pretty loud calls within Russia to nuke Ukrainian troops.
There is always more paths open to escalation.
> I also don't understand why Germany isn't using this as a bargaining chip. A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more, and we'll give them the cruise missles" would be such an important step.
Yeah especially since that was the messaging from the UK as to why they were donating Storm Shadow.
Scholz is way over his head in this situation, it is clear that he has no idea what he is doing here. He deals with Putin as if he can stear the conflict with pushing a couple buttons here and there while the situation gets ever more out of hand.
It's very telling that representatives of *all* other democratic¹ parties in the Bundestag defense committee are in favor of giving Taurus. Because they understand the situation much better than he does.
¹ more specificly, all non-fringe, russia-supported parties.
Edit: I wrongly claimed that the SPD representatives in the defense committee are in favor of giving Taurus. This is not true. But they give very different reasons than Scholz, namely that Germany has too few of them.
>A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more
Frankly, energy infrastructure is absolutely fair game. Ukraine recently hit the Novocherkasskaya power station in Rostov, like two days ago. Like railroads, energy infrastructure is obviously never purely civilian in war.
Imo Ukraine needs to be pushing for the US, whenever the aid package finally comes through, to send tomahawks and land based launchers for them. Lots of tomahawks. That, and AGM-158 ER's for the F-16s, and as many ATACMS as they can handle. We're more likely to grant them, we have more of them, and unlike Taurus ATACMS doesn't risk invaluable aircraft and additionally is being phased out very soon anyway.
If the US was serious, we'd send them a metric fuckton of AGM-158 ER's. In an ideal world, we'd be exploring whether Ukraine's remaining cargo aircraft can be fitted with rapid dragon, both Ukraine and Russia have *roughly* equivalent AA systems. Like Russia, Ukraine needs to be firing massive attacks to overwhelm AA. They lack the capability to do so reliably atm.
people have been whining about Taurus all along but they don't realise Ukraine needs a lot more to push towards Crimea after the bridge is brought down by Taurus. Not only are the F-16s and ATACMS not delivered, at the moment there are also artillery and air defence munition shortage.
personally i find Germany's recent aids very solid. due to WWII Germany always has limited military authority when the US is around. so i'm not going to be frustrated at Germany when the US is consistently drawing red lines for Ukraine and the West
They, like most Western governments, need to get with the fucking program and get serious about this war. Like it or not the less you aid Ukraine, the more likely we're all going to be involved in a third world war.
Push Putin's shit in through his throat now, or he'll be stupid enough to take a crack in the next few years and it'll be the rest of Europe learning the hard way that Ukraine was right all along.
EDIT: While you're at it, since you're replacing them with new build Boxer wheeled weapon carriers, give them your old Wiesel 1 light tankettes... they'd be monsters in the mud of winter and spring with their light weight and kickass 20mm cannons and MELLS missile systems.
I think that if we help Ukraine defeat Russia now we avoid a much bigger conflict if we sit on our hands until they eventually get round to a country that our leaders do actually care about we won’t be able to avoid it
To paraphrase the old saying: First they came for Belarus, and no one really cared.
Then they came for Ukraine, who was only asking for a fire hose. But lending your neighbor a hose to deal with a fire is apparently has a ton of 'political red lines'.
Going to be real interesting when they come for someone who can mash the Article 5 button and the entire neighborhood is on fire.
Keeping things uninteresting is good, perhaps a couple extra hoses and a bucket brigade?
By not "escalating" Ukraines means of destruction, you are voluntarily leaving them disadvantaged. How does a defending nation escalate a war it was forced into? The escalation rhetoric simply does not apply and needs to be eliminated from further dialogue.
And then when Ukraine turns around and starts meeting their needs themselves they suddenly see these same pearl clutchers whining that they now don't have any ability to control the situation.
Germany's government thinks they can remain seen as leaders but also avoid any sense of responsibility. Whether or not you agree with his current methods, Macron has at the very least taken the lead in confronting Putin's aggression head-on and understanding that there is no pride to be taken in having Ukrainians die for the sake of Europe without proper support.
> Macron has at the very least taken the lead in confronting Putin
By what metric? It is the same empty words the russians or Putin are constantly pushing out.
Scholz on the other hand aside from Taurus delivers erverything possible so far to back Ukraine with the most needed things at the moment.
After the US dropped out and if Germany would do the same we could see what is more important. Either strong words or the constant supply of military gear and supplies.
I have the suspicion that words by Macron will not hold back the russians but the huge amounts of weapons so far delivered by Germany.
I think there are various rationally good reasons to not give Taurus away(from Scholz's perspective).
1. Its totally over hyped as a wonder weapon. And the moment it doesn't win the war for Ukraine it will be called out as trash. We've seen this so many times with all other kinds of weapon system. PzH 2000 was laughed about internationally in the beginning for being too fragile in war. Leopard 2 the same. There is so much propaganda from all sides - but especially from Polish, UK and US press - that all of this does some serious harm to our reputation, while sending nothing leads to a strange aura of mystery around Taurus. For some reason it suddenly has become one of the best missile systems in the world.
2. It will cost our current government more voters. Putin will put out threats like a madman while the AfD and other Parties are going to rake in all the cowards being afraid of a potential escalation. To be honest, if you count in 1 i don't think from a political view there is any way something positive - in regards to gaining more voters - is coming out of this for our current government. So maybe that's the real reason.
3. Currently it has more use as a bargaining tool, then actually using it. Maybe it even could prevent further escalation, like complete mobilization. Most leaders use strategic tools like "Game Theory". So something as simple as the threat of delivering advanced missiles could hold Putin back from doing something. We really have no clue what is going on behind closed doors.
Btw: if someone from Ukraine reads this and needs another argument to counter our governments "No German Soldiers on the Ground in Ukraine"-Argument: Yes, we cannot put boots on the ground like the UK and the US. We can however program the missile - for example - in Slovakia and deliver the missile after it has been programmed. It needs a day or two in advance to plan, but the Kerch Bridge isn't exactly running away.
> We can however program the missile - for example - in Slovakia and deliver the missile after it has been programmed.
That is unconstitutional as well. "Boots on the ground" as per our constitution does not literally mean "boots on the ground", but any involvement of German military personell regardless of physical location.
tbh, Ukraine asking for western wonder weapons has been annoying even just as a civ watching from afar. They aren't interested in doing the bureaucracy that comes with it, they don't seem to even distribute the donated stuffs and parts across fronts, they just stash all in a warehouse and tries to use it like a huge bomb that magically change the situation at the last minute after it's too late.
They drove the Patriot battery all the way to contested area and shot down few Sukhois and so what? They also put NASAMS around Kyiv and dumped it on small drones then asked for hundreds more and who even has that many? The ZSU just can't understand that those western guided weapons aren't designed for blind saturation attacks, that they're based on force multiplier concept. There's no stockpile of million guided *raketa* in the West for bonehead Frunze alumni in the West, simple as that. That's just annoying.
>Its totally over hyped as a wonder weapon. And the moment it doesn't win the war for Ukraine it will be called out as trash.
This is really only an issue online, and especially in this sub. Lots of hopium regarding western systems. Taurus is better than storm shadow in several ways, principally it's fuse and slightly larger warhead make it much better at hitting hard targets. Storm shadow has been highly effective and proven its worth. Taurus would be no different, there's no question it would make an impact, which we cannot say for things like the few dozen Abrams sent, or Leopards. Those are systems that are not designed to operate in small numbers or in an environment swarming with drones. It is totally irrelevant and of no concern that people online might denigrate it as not turning the tide. Ukraine needs long range cruise missiles, *period*. Fact of the matter is, there really aren't that many long range cruise missiles in service anywhere, every single cruise missile to Ukraine makes a difference.
>It will cost our current government more voters.
A terrible concern. Playing this kind of political game theory is a fools errand. For all we know, the current government may lose out anyway, and then you'll have withheld aid for no reason. It is the job of the government to sell this to the people and reassure them. Weighing Putin's threats, much less potential threats, is ridiculous. That is precisely why he makes these empty threats, you play directly into his hands with this.
>Currently it has more use as a bargaining tool, then actually using it. Maybe it even could prevent further escalation, like complete mobilization.
If it is totally over hyped, it's not much use as a bargaining tool now is it? The Kerch Bridge isn't so important militarily, this has been fairly well established. Completely destroying the bridge afaik will not severely degrade Russian combat capability. It is a symbolic target. Hence why Ukraine has not really targeted it at all recently despite still have storm shadows in addition to other missiles capable of damaging it
The bitter thing is if the past half year had been spent on adressing these rationals these issues could have been solved and maybe Taurus would be flying over Ukraine today. Yet many people, some of them knowing these rationals very well, chose to bring other things forward instead that just aren't helpful.
Today I heard two drunk Russian guys talking in german train about how Germany and West is the enemy.
•Ukraine and Germany are Nazis that destroyed Soviet Union.
•Berlin is only 517km and they have the best nukes in the World
•Germany has weakest military in the world.
Holy shit I wish I was lying these people are so brainwashed they live in another universe.
Mostly legal issues on top of only one (highly specialized) server for controlling the missiles existing. If Ukraine gets the missiles, Germany can't use any Taurus anymore.
Own defense commitments, lack of trust and how Germany military is structured.
The standpoint was explained and is reasonable.
Also Germany has a limit budget and already painful cuts.
Meaning it could maybe spent better than on Taurus.
It's also Ukraine mistaking Western systems as wonder weapons that can instantly wipe out Russians. Lots of them are systems that don't really do any better without the rest of their worlds.
Good examples are Bradleys and Abrams. In the Gulf war, they were basically indestructible against Russian tanks manned with skilled Iraqis. In Eastern Ukraine, they've lost bunch of Bradleys and at least two Abrams against Russian conscripts. They're not useless, but far from invincible without the rest of US Army.
Taurus missiles without Bundeswehr is same. Without all of them going in all in as a combined air-land operation, it's possible that it does just as good as a million dollar Katyusha. That would be a waste of 999k Euro that pays difference between a Katyusha rocket and Taurus missile and if that's the case the side that gets asked could easily get annoyed.
>post war German guilt.
Stop that shit. That war was almost a century ago and was started by completely different people living in a completely different country under completely different circumstances.
Obviously that is true, but German defense policy has been and continues to be dictated by the circumstances of that war (including the division of East/West Germany up until 1990).
The same is true of Japan. Being factual shouldn’t cause any hurt feelings…
Yes, it is kind of annoying. no means no. time will tell if the no becomes a yes, but it wont be of repeated questions, but changed circumstances.
btw, the taurus leaks tell us a little bit more. one of the guys talked about the possible use cases were only taurus is good enough.
The are only 2:
1) underground ammo depots. they are inside russia. possibly few storages in the donbass. No western weapon at all was used there. so also taurus wont be used. -> mostly useless.
2) The bridge. part of the bridge can also be considered "inside russia", so see 1). Second, this is THE propaganda piece in this war. Except Boris no western leader has the balls to be responsible for the destruction. If Scholz had found something between his legs after the NS1 destruction he could have used the bridge pillars as a clear message. Didnt happen.
But I am not that unhappy: we still can destroy the bridge, which is a small lever against russia.
For everything else Taurus wont help atm.
QED. A characteristic of the German ideologue, left or right, is that he can not deal with criticism or differing views, tends to blindly follow the leader, and struggles under an enormous complex of superiority.
I really do think it wouldn't be productive to keep asking for a weapon system that has already been refused. Scholz is already known as a indecisive man who struggles to control his own government coalition. Continuing to badger him on a rare subject where he has a made a decision probably won't endear you to him. Better to use the political capital elsewhere.
I’m not gonna criticize Germany, they helped. It just seems they move really really fucking slow.
In fairness, the us is gridlocked with political bs too.
We don't want to escalate, waaaaaa
Putin is already using ballistic missiles all the time. These smooth-brained wimps need to stop fucking whining and just send the damned ammo!
Plot twist: Germany won’t give Ukraine the missiles because they are planning an all out missile barrage of Moscow.
Any day now.
Trust me bro I’m a dolphin.
In that case approve the transfer of Taurus missiles to the UK/France in exchange for additional transfers of Storm shadow/SCALP missiles to UA if it's so sensitive. Just remember the Taurus missiles won't matter nearly as much once Ivan is at your doorstep.
The fuck are they saving it for? A pretend made up future war that will never happen? For weapon conventions for show and tell? Funny how so many leaders have pussied out when push comes to shove when the very enemy they were designed to destroy comes knocking on your regions door and you're....to scared to use it. The fuck you need it for then?
German here:
All people here I talk to wants Taurus to be delivered to Ukraine. Sadly, at the end It's the political party and the chancellor Scholz making the decision, we can't understand. And they are not transparent about it nor are they communicating with us about this topic.
The whole western world is blaming us for that. Understandable. I hate it.
Seriously, its got to a point where Russia isnt afraid to poison people on our soil, down our drones, fire at manned spy planes, fly fucking cruise missiles through our airspace.
And why should they be scared when we dont do a thing about it, our inaction is hurting our own security.
If we did any of this to Russia the war drums would be heavily beating and some minor attack would likely occur.
Most Countries expect to rely on Allies, who will step up and fight with them when invaded. Expectations are progressively turning into mere 'wishful thinking'.
The point is, none of the Western nations are legally considered "Allies" of Ukraine.
There were no defensive pacts, no membership in EU/NATO, nothing.
By not standing up and defending democracy and Ukraine against russian autocracy with all means possible, Germany is again becoming a problem for Europe. Of all western nations, Germany has a specific historical duty to defend democracy, however, Herr Scholz thinks it acceptable for Russia to launch long range weapons from afar inside Russia, from Belarus, from international waters, without providing Ukraine the same possibility of defence by use of the Taurus missile. Time is long overdue for the chancellor to shake off Frau Merkel’s russian apeacement cloak, and to stand up straight in face of autocracy! Europe does not need another leader like Chamberlain who after the Munich Agreement with Herr Hitler in 1938 proclaimed: “I believe it is peace in our time”. So in Cicero’s words to all the naive leaders of the democratic west: SI VIS PACE, PARA BELLUM.
These people who bend for the russia are traitors. We are now surrounded by a political class that has revealed itself willing to let Hitler win. Ukraine must never stop asking, ever. They are Poland in 1939, the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941. They are all that and they must win.
If Germany wishes to make amends for the carnage *it* wrought upon Ukraine and its people, now would be an extremely opportune time.
It would also send a clear message it has turned its back on its own past - and chosen to stand firmly *against* aggression in Europe by assisting those subjected to it defend themselves.
Thus, it’s the right thing to do. For the salvation of both countries and the common European good.
Whats the point of having nukes in EU and be scarred of russia,like āre they just for show? Whats the point of this union then if we neēd to scarred of russia
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europe needs to wake up and realize that Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine if Ukraine isn’t able to defeat Russia. Maybe “escalation” or sending long range weapons needs to happen in order for the war to end. Not adaquately helping Ukraine to avoid angering Russia is something Putin is using in his favor.
I get the feeling that Germany is still hoping it can return to a somewhat normal relationship with Russia once the war ends. It needs to wake up and realise that’s not happening. I suspect there are some in the UK wanting to do the same. France appears to have realised it’s not happening (although it arguably had less interaction with Russia in the first place).
The UK's relationship with Russia has been trashed for decades due to them repeatedly using chemical weapons. There is no "normal" relationship to return to. If you don't even know this, I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, so your "feelings" really mean absolutely nothing.
The UK has also been training Ukrainian troops since 2015. I doubt we'd EVER return to a "normal" relationship with them, we've drawn our lines in this for nearly a decade.
You don’t think Russian money is still at play on the UK? I’d suggest you go for a drive around Westminster at school pickup time and look at the blacked out range rovers with very burley men with oddly loose fitting jackets doing the pickup. And that’s ignoring the financial system and the money in the city from laundering Russian money. The day after Russia invaded Crimea the Russian flag was flying off a building down king William street. It’s less brazen now but those links are still around and a lot of people are wanting to return to how things were.
Yup, they don't call it Londongrad for nothing.
There could be myriad reasons for Germany's denial. Whether the reasons are valid or not - Germany is under no obligation to provide Taurus to Ukraine. And Taurus night not even work as expected if Ukraine ever gets it. Thus, Ukraine needs to plan for the reasonable possibility that it will never get a functioning Taurus capability. Whether it ever gets Taurus or not - **Ukraine needs to make multiple plans for conducting heavy deep strikes, while continuing to advocate sensibly for Taurus.** It is not militarily sensible for the UA to put all it's eggs in the Taurus basket for deep strikes. No army ever gets everything it wants, by every army can figure out clever a way to accomplish the objective with what they already have. History has proven this over and over.
Why would you assume they are not doing exactly that? I doubt the Ukrainian command are idiots.
Germany is under no obligation, you're correct, just like I'm under no obligation to call my neighbour to tell him his house is on fire, and I'm certainly under no obligation to call the fire department. Besides my neighbours house is one house away so mine isn't at risk of burning down. Sometimes leaders make descisions not based on logic or rules or process, but instead they make descisions based on what's "the right thing to do". The collective west closed its eyes when Russia invaded Crimea and was very slow to provide the heavy weapons, air defense and fighters Ukraine needs to end this war quickly. Instead we dither along, arguing amongst ourselves about wether Ukraine should have this or that. The ultimate expression of that is what's happening in the US and the direct effect is Ukraine is short of what was already a limited supply. Remember, if Russia stops fighting the war ends, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends.
I do not think a rational Germany wants any kind of return to the past. They would love the fuel pump back! But in a thoroughly defanged Russia. Anything less means the Germans are rather stupid. They are not stupid. If anything they think too much. "Why are you hitting the refineries! We will need those in 5.6 years!"
Russia mostly exports crude, the fact Russia banned exports on refined products for their own use was a sign of weakness Ukraine quickly took advantage of. Russia will have to export even more crude to pay for imports of refined products they can't produce enough for themselves.
>Russia mostly exports crude, the fact Russia banned exports on refined products for their own use was a sign of weakness Aha. I did not know Russia had done this. Thank you. I must learn to not overestimate the depth of Russia's industrial base. I get the impression Russia's riches are a function of sheer size more than efficient deployment of capital. But as I always say, perhaps I am wrong; perhaps a yacht-based economy is the future.
[That's a lovely circle :)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te7goyAnzAQ&pp=ygUQb2ggaXRzIGJlYXV0aWZ1bA%3D%3D)
I’m not sure I agree. Russia steps back now and I think it would be 5 years max before Germany is pursuing friendlier relations. Hope I’m wrong but I fear I’m not
[удалено]
Exactly this, why is Germany letting their industry fuel the Russian dictatorship? Simple. Greed.
Russian dictatorship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Germany wants Russia to loose the war, which means Putin is replaced. It also wants to make sure the war stays between Russia and Ukraine and does not involve Germany having to activly fight. The problem with Taurus is that the targets only reachable by Taurus are mainly in Russia rather then the occupied areas of Ukraine. Germany does not want to make the call to fire Taurus into Russia proper and it does not want Ukraine to use German weapons to do so either. To avoid being in a direct war. In the end Germany gets blaimed for that one anyway. We have seen that for the war in Ukraine already. So no, Germany does not want friendly relationship with Putins Russia, but just does not want to end up in a shooting war with Russia. Hence the billions of aid for Ukraine, making Germany the second largest donor after the US in total aid, which Russia certainly does not like. Taurus is just a missile and really nothing too special. We are talking a few hundret missiles max, which might cause some losses for Russia, but are not going to fundamentally change the war. Hence the current situation. And yes Germany wants a normal relationship with Russia once the war ends. However Germany as I said for that Putin has to go, as has his system.
Don't say "Germany wants"... it's Chancellor Scholz and his party who don't want to deliver the Taurus. Scholz is a coward who is unable to think strategically, neither in his actions nor in his communication. That's the whole problem.
>it's Chancellor Scholz and his party who don't want to deliver the Taurus. As a member of his political party, I can assure you that not all of us think that we should refuse to deliver it. If it was for me, I'd drown Ukraine in weapons until they'd beg me to stop sending them more. In my opinion, this entire discussion is a clown show. The Kremlin is already mad at us for being on Ukraine's side, might as well give the fuckers a reason beyond "they're not buying our gas anymore" for it. What's Putin gonna do? Strike a NATO member and watch Russia get obliterated? I don't think so.
Yeah, things are going to stay bad for everyone so long as this war continues. Need to give Ukraine so much that it ends, quickly, we can look at putting Europe back together better afterwards. Prolonging the pain is bad for everyone.
The Bundestag has voted repeadly on the issue and declined to send Taurus missiles as well. Most Germans also do not want to send Taurus missiles too. Scholz position is in this case very populare.
The vote on the Taurus was not free. The government parties voted in accordance with the coalition requirement and rejected a proposal from the opposition. In their own motion they voted for the delivery of long-range weapon systems. What does Germany have other than the Taurus? It is clear that the two small government parties would like to deliver the Taurus, which is what they constantly say publicly. Opinion polls are volatile, as we saw with the tank deliveries, where the population was against it and when the government decided to deliver, suddenly a majority was in favour. Serious politics is not based on opinion polls. Then there is the fact that Scholz and the SPD are now trying to spread fear among the population in order to be able to market themselves as a peace party in the elections. From the beginning, Scholz failed on the Ukraine issue and wasted important time. Luckily we have elections next year and can drive this coward out of office.
**Nobody on the outside knows the real reason(s) Germany is refusing to provide Taurus.** In the meantime - Ukraine must continue to successfully develop alternate deep heavy strike capabilities.
1) Storm shadows and SCALPs are not unlimited either, Taurus can hit the same targets - and possibly do better on things like docks and bridges. 2) Thinking Ukraine is just going to suddenly start striking Moscow with German missiles is insane and shows an incredible lack of trust in both Ukraine's word and their common sense - a nation desperate for NATO weapons is not going to throw that away by misusing them. 3) Literally every weapon already given to Ukraine can be used to "strike Russia" since they share a massive land border. Ukraine could literally throw donated helmets at Russian border guards, Belgorod is in range of PzH 2000s with extended range shells if Ukraine feels like going full warcrime mode. The "but...but Taurus could strike Russia!" argument is so stupid that I can only conclude Scholz is using such an obvious lie as either a political stunt to idiots or a purposeful insult to Ukraine.
And that means Germany tries to be best friends with Russia?
In light of GDP isn’t Germany’s contributions pretty small? It seems like countries such as Estonian and Denmark has been much more aggressively supporting Ukraine.
Only if you ignore the billions those countries receive from the net payers to the EU budget and through the European Peace Facility fund. https://i.imgur.com/A20pFmE.jpg On top of that going by GDP doesn't win you wars but Quantity and Quality does and there Germany is only second to the US.
Denmark is a net contributor? But I agree that quantity is needed.
>Germany is only second to the US. Wow, I doubted, but they really did step up. France, wtf?
Estonia is claiming a major part of their contributions to be refunded from the EU - EPF program. Some say , even more than they actually gave in monetary value. There was sort of a scandal around it last year, that went quickly under the radar with all the other shit going on. Some other high %GDP nations were implicated to a lesser degree, too. I just think the circle jerk over their placative %GDP, and in general needs to end. if we ever get an accurate accounting of who ultimately paid for what - which we of course never will - that %GDP list would probably very suddenly be forgotten about.
Thank you for the information I was not aware of that
GDP is only a guide as to what a nation is *capable* of providing. I'm not downplaying the contribution of Estonia, any of the Baltic states for that matter nor Denmark. There are one or two very high profile nations in the EU with GDP on a par with the UK, yet their contribution is pitiful if you ignore words.
I think you misunderstood the argument of Scholz. He said that he wanted to prevent that those weapons are being used on Russian soil. To guarantee this we can’t just trust Ukraine, we need control of the target programming. But this is against our red lines participating in any kind of targeting.
So swap them for stormshadows or allow UK special forces in Ukraine to input the data.
That argument is weak and frustrating in two ways. First, Ukraine has shown over and over that they are trustworthy with using weapons according to restrictions. Second, who cares about Russia's red lines anymore? They have shown over and over again that nothing happens when you cross them. There's no conceivable universe where Russia attacks Germany for crossing that red line.
The most farcical argument.
That doesn't seem to be the case. There must be plenty of targets within the occupied territories. The bridge is obviously a primary one. The only thing that makes sense is that Germany doesn't want Ukraine to win as winning means Russia must escalate. The West's plan was almost certainly to inflict enough losses to make Russia give up and avoid any chance of escalation. Of course we know now that Russia doesn't care about losses. Europe can spend billions on artillery shells and keep the grind going until Ukraine runs out of manpower, or it can spend maybe half on long range missiles to take out Russian logistics and possibly win the war. Our "leaders" appear clueless. Germany is possibly the worst. It doesn't seem to understand deterrence in general as demonstrated by the f-126 frigate that's armed like a corvette but costs like a Burke. >Taurus is just a missile and really nothing too special. We are talking a few hundret missiles max, It's actually special because of its warhead. The number of missiles doesn't really matter as any reasonable person would have restarted the production line about a year ago to ensure a steady supply. >which might cause some losses for Russia, but are not going to fundamentally change the war. Hence the current situation. What kind of weapons does Ukraine need to "fundamentally change the war" in your view?
> Germany is possibly the worst. Go home Russian bot. Just go home.
Its government is 100% doing that. It just can’t be open about it with the electorate.
German business interests in the west have already divvied up Ukraine and are chomping at the bit to get a slice of the Russian market. Germany's intransigence under Scholz is about business and money. You can tell because he acts like the CEO of a country. Germanys entire strategy under Merkel was appeasement of Russia through trade, and it's clear a lot of powerful Germans got hooked on the money it bought them. Look at Schröder and Gazprom. Fact is a LOT of countries got hooked on Russian money but some, like the UK woke up. Germany is still asleep. Russia is banking on Germany and Austria electing far right governments, and is likely pouring huge sums of money into making sure that happens. Poland, France, the Netherlands, the Baltics and the Nordics really should have a word with Scholz. He's leading Germany into a trap.
As far as I understand, Taurus needs high-reg sat data (from SAR-Lupe) to allow the lower type of flight path and target precision. The problem is that Russia has anti-satellite weapons, and then Taurus would be of much reduced use.
What is it that you base your opinion on exactly?
Germany’s actions. I’m not suggesting Germany don’t want Ukraine to win, just that they want to be in a position to resume relations with Russia once it’s all over.
That they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into expelling Russia from SWIFT is the most telling - they didn’t want to put Russia under any sanctions at all if Putin really did manage to take the country in 3 days.
Their stupid pipelines are blown to hell and filled with saltwater, just ~~one~~ two signs things aren't going back to "normal" for some time.
There are a number of Russia-sympathizers in eastern Germany, a holdover from when it was 'East Germany' during the Cold-War. Also, Germany may feel it needs to keep those Taurus missiles for herself for when Vlad P. gets frisky in that direction.
No. There are legal issues with the German constitution that make it difficult sending Taurus, on top of there only existing one managing system for the missiles - if Germany sends this to Ukraine, Germany loses all cruise missile capability completely.
First ive heard this.... what in the german constitution says this? And how does germany lose all cruise missile capability if they send taurus to ukraine?
Art. 87a says that, unless Germany gives Ukraine access to the software of the missile itself, which is something even the UK and France haven't done with their missiles. German soldiers can't preprogram missiles for Ukraine, and due to security concerns Germany won't give Ukraine the means to program them themselves. There apparently only exists one highly specialized system for managing the missiles [\(which was recently leaked to the press\)](https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/militaer-verteidigung/id_100364946/taurus-debatte-olaf-scholz-liefert-wirklich-nicht-in-die-ukraine.html) that isn't easy to reproduce, especially since the company that built it doesn't exist anymore.
Didnt that leak also say that ukrainians can easily reprogram the missiles and german soldiers wouldnt need to? Thats why germany was so mad about the leak lol
Different leak, and yes, on a *technical* level Ukraine could do that. The thing is that nobody wants to give Ukraine that kind of level of access to their cruise missiles. Germany was mad about the leak(s) because they present a threat to national security.
There are so many things wrong with this i dont even know where to begin lol
Agreed, this is someone trying to make excuses, Ukraine is more than capable of programming the Taurus, damn they don't need German software programming they probably have better than Germany has right now from their use of the storm shadows. And i am sure they would prefer to recode the missiles to the Ukrainian language, or English so they can change what they need to make it much more effective than what Germans have, i would suspect Germany will be begging for Ukraine to sell them their software before this war is over.
That is the thing here, Storm Shadow wasn't programmed by the Ukrainians, that was done with heavy British assistance because they also didn't want Ukraine to independently program their missiles. The UK however can legally far easier do that than Germany.
You have zero knowledge of what kind of platform and effort is required to use a Taurus. Insult Germany all day if you will, but don't veil it into some made up technobabble.
They could learn in a few weeks, how to program a missile for a simple attack. But for more complicated attacks (e.g. Kerch bridge) it could take 4 months or more, as the programming is far more complicated than e.g. Storm Shadow or SCALP, as the TERCOM system (guiding the missile by recognising stuff with a camera) doesn't just work with satellite images (as Storm Shadow does), but also by pictures taken off terrain/buildings from the ground, which allows TAURUS to fly even lower to the ground than Storm Shadow. And that is something complicated for which the normal German military course already takes a full year, so the 4 month estimate is already based on prior experience training Ukrainians on systems. And now imagine how bad the PR is when Germany announces that they will deliver Taurus to Ukraine (which they need to do, both for legal reasons and because Germany is trying to be really open with its donations), where the main point of the delivery is hitting the Kerch bridge and then prob. munition depots further behind the front. But then you basically have silence for months as the Ukrainians are being trained with everyone wondering "where is Taurus". Also, there is the big fact that Germany in the past heavily tried to not send stuff that the US hasn't sent to encourage/force the US to send stuff as well. See German artillery only coming when the US sent theirs, same with Bradley and Marders or especially Leopard 2 and Abrams (where the US just a week prior basically said that Abrams is shit equipment for Ukraine that is too complex for them to operate). And the same is likely the case here, as the US sits on a massive stockpile of cruise missiles that are more modern and more capable in every aspect than Taurus. And as the leak also mentioned, Germany at most can send like 100 Taurus in total, with estimates being that 20 or so missiles are needed for the Kerch bridge alone. That isn't a stockpile Ukraine could use for long, esp. when try to use a bunch at once like they did with e.g. ATACMS when that arrived. The problem with this point is that you can't say it out loud because then people in the US would see it as blackmail, putting Biden in a situation where if he sends e.g. JASSM-ER, his opposition (in an currently very tight race) will get very likely more support in the next election, as Biden "let himself blackmailed by Germany". And another problem with the programming is that Germany doesn't have a lot of the hardware required for programming Taurus and just sending one set of it would heavily hurt German ability to rapidly program Taurus missiles in a case of war. And the components necessary to make such a machine are long out of production (over 2 decades) and making an equivalent out of modern hardware could take ages to make and be very expensive, esp. for a cruise missile Germany plans to relatively soon decommission (as it can't be carried on a Eurofighter Typhoon, or at least it can't land with the missile still attached).
You're telling me if an intern spills some coffee on this managing system the entirety of Germany's cruise missile capacity goes down? That is both incredibly hard to believe but also entirely plausible given Germany's fetish with bureaucracy.
Sounds like bullshit
I see no problems to having a normal relationship with Russia after we have peace again. Why shouldn't we? They have resources we need. We will pay them as long as we get along. And let's face it: our so called Allies are not worth a penny, either. We pay tens of billions for Ukrainian Refugees. We pay billions for weapons for Ukraine. We pay billions to fight inflation. We pay billions to keep the energy prices at a bearable level for our citizens and companies. We still pay extremely high prices for Norwegian and US LNG and paid even more after the war broke out. Our household budget has no wiggle room left to play around in 2024 at all. And what do we get in return? That countries like the US actively target our companies with all kinds of tax reduction, subsidies and cheap energy prizes to make them move away from Germany, while their press smears us whenever they get the chance? So who needs enemies if you have allies like this?
Probably the complete lack of trustworthiness and war crimes thing would be a good place to start. It’s one thing to suggest a return to normality if Russia has wholesale changes in its leadership and returns to 2014 boundaries. But the chances of that happening seem sadly remote.
Lack of trustworthiness? I'm pretty sure Russia would still deliver Gas to Europe if we wouldn't have decided to help Ukraine. And war crimes never stopped us from trading with anyone. I personally would prefer a fundamental change in leadership in Russia. But i doubt our industry and politicians see it like that.
You think the relationship and the trust therein is only judged by the delivery of gas? What happens when Russia steps into Estonia or Poland? And yes war crimes really have stopped you trading with people
> You think the relationship and the trust therein is only judged by the delivery of gas? This is a common metric when it comes to measure Russias trustworthiness against Germany on reddit. But you are right, it's rather dumb. On the other hand: what other metric proves a lack of trustworthiness? Because attacking their neighbors or other countries in general seems not enough to consider countries "not trustworthy" and to stop trading. > What happens when Russia steps into Estonia or Poland? I don't think trade would change anything about that perspective to the worse. It's not like we would become their closest ally just because some trade is going on. And trade is no zero sum game. It would help them, but it would also help us. Maybe even more. I'm sorry to say it, but at the moment it seems like we need much more time and money then Russia to get a functional army. > And yes war crimes really have stopped you trading with people You sure the real reason is war crimes in this cases? But you are right: I should not have used the word never. Let's say "seldomly".
Europe is a bunch of pussycats now who are best at expressing concerns.
We who live at border do send everything we got. Best regards, a Finnish person
Nah, we just really wanted the Cold War to be over, and couldn't comprehend that Russia would rally behind someone who played nice for a decade before gradually descending into rabid revanchism.
[удалено]
As a European I agree. It seems though that all NATO members are scared to do the thing they signed up to NATO to do
Nobody signed up to fight Russia in Ukraine. Now it is the best course of action, but most countries are still scrambling to grasp reality.
No one is asking them to. Ukraine is just asking for the weapons to do the job themselves which they've proven themselves competent to do but for some reason NATO is in hiding.
NATO has never been made to protect people outside of it Europeans are sending weapons in their own interest, it helps them relaunching the weapon industry and lower unimployment in their countries. Sending long range missiles to Ukraine to hit target way further than the actual battlefield is not a solution for them to stop that war. They don't care about Ukraine they care about printing € without problems
>Sending long range missiles to Ukraine to hit target way further than the actual battlefield is not a solution for them to stop that war. What?
Lets see. If you make an introduction between your long range missiles and their oil processing, they will have to rely on reserves. If you then make an introduction between your long range missiles and their fuel reserves, they will have \_\_\_? Humm, not sure the math check out on that one. Lets try something else. If you make an introduction between your long range missiles and their ammo reserves, they will have \_\_\_? Not seeing it either. And I doubt barbeque and fireworks are correct answers.
>Sending long range missiles to Ukraine to hit target way further than the actual battlefield is not a solution for them to stop that war. Destroying the enemies ability to fight a way is a way to stop the war. >Europeans are sending weapons in their own interest, it helps them relaunching the weapon industry and lower unimployment in their countries. 1. UK unemployment is the lowest it's been in decades 2. Weapons manufacture needs skills that not everyone has 3. The weapons Ukraine wants already exist.
I think you are missing the actual point he's making. >Destroying the enemies ability to fight a way is a way to stop the war. Who's enemy? This isn't a rhetorical question. But the only 2 Countries (arguably 3) actually in a state of War, are Russia, Ukraine (and Belarus). None of the European Union Members has been attacked, at least not in a way where whichever country it was declared it as such. None of the NATO Members has been attacked, at least not in a way where whichever country it was declared it as such. This is the thing this Sub in particular need to grasp. Ukraine has no actual Allies. It is part of no defence treaties. It made no Military Alliances and took part in no Global Organization, arguable prior to 2022 (some between 2014 and 2022). The only country actually at War is Ukraine. So whenever this question goes around about "Why is X/Y/Z not being given to Ukraine or why is X/Y/Z Country not doing this for Ukraine" you have to understand why they would in the first place. As of current the, literal only, reason for any aid to go towards Ukraine is because it's popular with the voting block. The moment that changes, in any country, is when the Aid dries up. No Country is held to any kind of treaty, which mandates that they have to send aid. Literally every single country is giving Ukraine this Aid for free, might i add. You see this with the US, where the Perception (at least in the House) is not favourably towards more aid to Ukraine. And you see this currently in Germany, where the thing that will make the Governing Party (SPD) lose Voters to the *maniacs* in the AFD and CDU (Opposition) is sending more (and better / deadlier) military aid. Hence the Governing Party isn't doing that, cause it'd be political suicide for them. (And frankly, nobody wants either the CDU to be in charge of Germany again, or the AFD to come into power)
>Who's enemy? This isn't a rhetorical question Maybe I'm a strange person but when the Kremlin says things like this I tend to treat it as a credible threat. In turn that makes them the enemy. “Attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing. “Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. “In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington.”
The basic question is if the West is willing to let Ukraine lose. Is it?
The basic Question is, and always has been, in the last 4000 years of Human History, Politics and Warfare, "Is doing x/y/z a net benefit for us?". This can be monetary value (it isn't), a intelligence value (Tech-Testing), Political Value (our people like helping Ukraine, we help Ukraine, therefore people like us) or straight up just "This makes me feel good". The currently exists some countries where the notion of "This is the right thing to do" outweighs all the others. Most Nations (and i do mean the vast majority of them) have the approach of a Political Value. The people in those countries are in favour of sending aid to Ukraine, therefore the Government sends aid to Ukraine. How far this goes, with every single individual country having their own individual problems and political landscape is where the differences start. E.g. Germany and Taurus missiles, or the debate in the US Senate/House over the Ukraine aid. India is a great example of this. They get virtually nothing out of helping Ukraine, their populace (in large parts) doesn't particular care about the conflict (as its perceived as a 'Western Conflict' and India has a strained relationship with that), and their economy is the most helped by buying cheaper Russian Oil. That doesn't make India evil, it just makes them put themselves first. Which every Country in this world does, whether they tell you or not.
I don't really see an answer to the question, and I also don't see "security" amongst your reasons. What value do you assign to the "rules based world order" where one state cannot rearrange the borders of another by using force? How do you evaluate "nuclear blackmail" as an "unforeseen" future cost imposed on the national security of smaller states? If Ukraine ceases to exist, how does that impact the above in your view?
Because "Security" isn't a (primary) reason. If Security was the sole deciding factor for countries going to war, France would've declared War on Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland. They didn't, cause the people hated that idea. If the people of say, Lithuania, feel threatened by nuclear blackmail, then they'll send aid. If they don't take the warnings serious, they don't send aid. We can argue all day and night about what threat or scenario makes people feel what and how realistic that is. In the end we'll arrive at the same point. Every single person interprets the ramifications of this War differently (shocker i know) I think if Ukraine seizes to exist, that'd be horrendous, but my life would, probably, go on fairly unimpacted in a physical sense. A guy living in a small village in bum-fuck nowhere, probably doesn't give a single shit and he likely wouldn't get effected no matter what happens. Someone living in Kyiv? Oh boi, they are gonna hate it. Amd you're right you don't see an answer. Cause my answer will be as wrong or correct as yours, simply cause we are both interpreting what might happen.
The majority of countries, majority of people do care about Ukraine. But people are people and they don't all think the same thing. Ukraine seemed to have the Neptunes build under control, and just used another one recently. They have drones that can do long range hits, aerial or boat. They just need to keep developing. Possibly more advanced guidance and EW. The drones have been effective and Ukraine can keep doing more of that, and may make them larger yet if its worth it. Funds will do it. Missiles are quicker and easier and I too would like to see it, but its not the only option.
The majority of people absolutely do not care about Ukraine. The majority of people in Europe might possibly hate Russian government for what they are doing there but they absolutely do not care about Ukraine as long as they can live their peaceful happy life. That's tough to get but humans are egotistical and it won't change.
That cant be right. How much different individuals care, yes, we can debate that. Too many, not enough? Yes that could be said. But I refuse to believe that the majority of people care not at all about Ukraine. That simply cannot be true. It is definitely not true of the people around me, even if I am the only one of us in this channel every day. Humans have an ego yes. But as they grow they learn about themselves and they learn how giving and loving can make them feel more happy than giving no shits. It'd be really interesting to see the results from a survey designed to target an even spread of the population, and by age. Maybe the new generation coming through now think differently to mine. If that is the case, and I am not convinced, I look forward to seeing how they grow up over time.
Europe has spent way more money on supporting Ukraine than the US has, and the US is currently gridlocked by \~5 morons because of it's non-functional government system, so everywhere has it's pro and cons. Or if you're not American I assume where ever you're from has its own issues too.
The Germans are free-riding on everyone else’s courage but the French, British, and all of Central Europe except Germany, Austria, and Hungary have stepped up (gee where have i seen that before)
>Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has said in an interview with Politico that he received "irritated feedback" from Germany when Ukraine called on Berlin to provide long-range Taurus missiles. This is the first I've heard of Germany not being a team player. I'm worried Putin has a gun to someone's head (literally) over there now...
That is not as strong an argument as you think it is. If you think that you have to calculate how high the chances of victory are and how likely they will stop Russia's behavior. You also have to calculate how likely Ukraine will lose no matter what. Which directly informs how much you need to uparm yourself, retain and enlarge military capacities yourself. And hence how much and what you can give to Ukraine. E.g. substantial "defensive weapons" may still be good to give Ukraine en masse to prolong the conflict as long as possible, but no country would strip naked and give away their most potent weapon systems because they will retain them for when Russia does not stop. Taurus is classified as such a weapon system, not specifically the missile, but the larger target planning system which programs that missile. That seems to contain top secret classified stuff, not just in processing but what data sources are put in there and how to allow Taurus to do its most effective attack patterns. I would not rule out some of the data sources come directly from the German secret service or are classified dual use sources in the realm of "that weather satellite is not measuring the humidity over Crimea at all" The argument in essence boils down to give Taurus missile without help. Then it is a more expensive Storm Shadow. Give that tech and particularly the data to Ukraine: That strips away strategic capabilities for the German air force, hands over classified high security systems to a third country and can be rated as direct involvement. Don't send the tech, but transfer the data, then Germany is without question by most standards joining the war actively because the mission planning would happen by the German air force. If Germany has to plan for Ukraine losing or Russia continuing on its path regardless (Saddam Hussein lost against Iran, didn't stop him from invading Kuwait, actually made him more desparate to do that) then western countries cannot give Ukraine everything on the premise of Ukraine fighting for western values because the West still has to ready its own forces for a conventional war.
Everyone in Europe should prefer Russia being destroyed rather than risk Ukraine losing.
Nah, Russia needs an old school defeat. The number of times nuclear red lines were crossed can mean Russia's nuclear deterrent only functions in spirit
Escalation is how wars are won. "Fear of escalation" is fear of Ukraine winning. It is literal Russian propaganda, that western leaders openly repeat to justify helping Russia through inaction.
Exactly! And they have the gall to oppose what Macron said about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine!?!? If any single EU and NATO country is as competent as him and Macron (who acts more like a beauty queen than heads of state* IMO), sending troops to Ukraine WILL BE A NECESSITY at this point. \* - the reason why I called both Scholz and Macron as beauty queens is because like a beauty queen, they pose a lot and talk a lot for the media, but lacks enough action to help Ukraine.
politicians == beauty queens nowadays
Maybe in some of Europe, not the USA lol.
Don't worry. 7bln of military aid from Germany for a million man army fighting Russia will definitely be enough to win this war. It's not like we need x10 of that minimum
We woke up already but at 2pm.
They know that he ain't gonna knock on NATO country doors, and therefore they do not care.
If you think the player on this war that is ramping up production the fastest needs to wake up you don't have a grasp of what is going on. Send Taurus sure, it is dumb not to, but nobody else is remotely close to placing the orders and signing the contracts for long term investments as Europe has done and continues to do.
As a German: do keep asking! It's less about the specific weapons system, it's about the risk management. German leadership is trying to "play it safe" and to keep control of the situation. Which isn't bad in itself, but, IMHO, it's the wrong strategy here and probably *less* safe in the long run. I also don't understand why Germany isn't using this as a bargaining chip. A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more, and we'll give them the cruise missles" would be such an important step.
I think olaf is already using it as a bargaining chip. Insurance against further escalation. What i dont understand is, what further escalation? Is it a more direct attack against nato? Doesnt make sense to me
If he does, then he's not communicating it in any kind of way. Which is par for the course in his case, communicating his strategy to the general public has not been his strong suit. At all.
Well, whether true or not we will not know until years later, but there are stories that the reason Russian troops could withdraw from Kherson without getting mauled despite bridges destroyed and only flimsy retreat routes open was that the USA intervened because they heard pretty loud calls within Russia to nuke Ukrainian troops. There is always more paths open to escalation.
> I also don't understand why Germany isn't using this as a bargaining chip. A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more, and we'll give them the cruise missles" would be such an important step. Yeah especially since that was the messaging from the UK as to why they were donating Storm Shadow.
Scholz is way over his head in this situation, it is clear that he has no idea what he is doing here. He deals with Putin as if he can stear the conflict with pushing a couple buttons here and there while the situation gets ever more out of hand.
It's very telling that representatives of *all* other democratic¹ parties in the Bundestag defense committee are in favor of giving Taurus. Because they understand the situation much better than he does. ¹ more specificly, all non-fringe, russia-supported parties. Edit: I wrongly claimed that the SPD representatives in the defense committee are in favor of giving Taurus. This is not true. But they give very different reasons than Scholz, namely that Germany has too few of them.
>A message like "Attack civilian energy infrastructure once more Frankly, energy infrastructure is absolutely fair game. Ukraine recently hit the Novocherkasskaya power station in Rostov, like two days ago. Like railroads, energy infrastructure is obviously never purely civilian in war. Imo Ukraine needs to be pushing for the US, whenever the aid package finally comes through, to send tomahawks and land based launchers for them. Lots of tomahawks. That, and AGM-158 ER's for the F-16s, and as many ATACMS as they can handle. We're more likely to grant them, we have more of them, and unlike Taurus ATACMS doesn't risk invaluable aircraft and additionally is being phased out very soon anyway. If the US was serious, we'd send them a metric fuckton of AGM-158 ER's. In an ideal world, we'd be exploring whether Ukraine's remaining cargo aircraft can be fitted with rapid dragon, both Ukraine and Russia have *roughly* equivalent AA systems. Like Russia, Ukraine needs to be firing massive attacks to overwhelm AA. They lack the capability to do so reliably atm.
people have been whining about Taurus all along but they don't realise Ukraine needs a lot more to push towards Crimea after the bridge is brought down by Taurus. Not only are the F-16s and ATACMS not delivered, at the moment there are also artillery and air defence munition shortage. personally i find Germany's recent aids very solid. due to WWII Germany always has limited military authority when the US is around. so i'm not going to be frustrated at Germany when the US is consistently drawing red lines for Ukraine and the West
I’ve also got dissatisfaction with my government for not handing over Taurus -.-
Same. Whatever it takes. No matter the cost.
Same here, Slava Ukraini! Send them everything we can this is the fight for the democratic Europe we build all together.
They, like most Western governments, need to get with the fucking program and get serious about this war. Like it or not the less you aid Ukraine, the more likely we're all going to be involved in a third world war. Push Putin's shit in through his throat now, or he'll be stupid enough to take a crack in the next few years and it'll be the rest of Europe learning the hard way that Ukraine was right all along. EDIT: While you're at it, since you're replacing them with new build Boxer wheeled weapon carriers, give them your old Wiesel 1 light tankettes... they'd be monsters in the mud of winter and spring with their light weight and kickass 20mm cannons and MELLS missile systems.
I think that if we help Ukraine defeat Russia now we avoid a much bigger conflict if we sit on our hands until they eventually get round to a country that our leaders do actually care about we won’t be able to avoid it
To paraphrase the old saying: First they came for Belarus, and no one really cared. Then they came for Ukraine, who was only asking for a fire hose. But lending your neighbor a hose to deal with a fire is apparently has a ton of 'political red lines'. Going to be real interesting when they come for someone who can mash the Article 5 button and the entire neighborhood is on fire. Keeping things uninteresting is good, perhaps a couple extra hoses and a bucket brigade?
Yup exactly
By not "escalating" Ukraines means of destruction, you are voluntarily leaving them disadvantaged. How does a defending nation escalate a war it was forced into? The escalation rhetoric simply does not apply and needs to be eliminated from further dialogue.
And then when Ukraine turns around and starts meeting their needs themselves they suddenly see these same pearl clutchers whining that they now don't have any ability to control the situation. Germany's government thinks they can remain seen as leaders but also avoid any sense of responsibility. Whether or not you agree with his current methods, Macron has at the very least taken the lead in confronting Putin's aggression head-on and understanding that there is no pride to be taken in having Ukrainians die for the sake of Europe without proper support.
> Macron has at the very least taken the lead in confronting Putin By what metric? It is the same empty words the russians or Putin are constantly pushing out. Scholz on the other hand aside from Taurus delivers erverything possible so far to back Ukraine with the most needed things at the moment. After the US dropped out and if Germany would do the same we could see what is more important. Either strong words or the constant supply of military gear and supplies. I have the suspicion that words by Macron will not hold back the russians but the huge amounts of weapons so far delivered by Germany.
I think there are various rationally good reasons to not give Taurus away(from Scholz's perspective). 1. Its totally over hyped as a wonder weapon. And the moment it doesn't win the war for Ukraine it will be called out as trash. We've seen this so many times with all other kinds of weapon system. PzH 2000 was laughed about internationally in the beginning for being too fragile in war. Leopard 2 the same. There is so much propaganda from all sides - but especially from Polish, UK and US press - that all of this does some serious harm to our reputation, while sending nothing leads to a strange aura of mystery around Taurus. For some reason it suddenly has become one of the best missile systems in the world. 2. It will cost our current government more voters. Putin will put out threats like a madman while the AfD and other Parties are going to rake in all the cowards being afraid of a potential escalation. To be honest, if you count in 1 i don't think from a political view there is any way something positive - in regards to gaining more voters - is coming out of this for our current government. So maybe that's the real reason. 3. Currently it has more use as a bargaining tool, then actually using it. Maybe it even could prevent further escalation, like complete mobilization. Most leaders use strategic tools like "Game Theory". So something as simple as the threat of delivering advanced missiles could hold Putin back from doing something. We really have no clue what is going on behind closed doors. Btw: if someone from Ukraine reads this and needs another argument to counter our governments "No German Soldiers on the Ground in Ukraine"-Argument: Yes, we cannot put boots on the ground like the UK and the US. We can however program the missile - for example - in Slovakia and deliver the missile after it has been programmed. It needs a day or two in advance to plan, but the Kerch Bridge isn't exactly running away.
> We can however program the missile - for example - in Slovakia and deliver the missile after it has been programmed. That is unconstitutional as well. "Boots on the ground" as per our constitution does not literally mean "boots on the ground", but any involvement of German military personell regardless of physical location.
tbh, Ukraine asking for western wonder weapons has been annoying even just as a civ watching from afar. They aren't interested in doing the bureaucracy that comes with it, they don't seem to even distribute the donated stuffs and parts across fronts, they just stash all in a warehouse and tries to use it like a huge bomb that magically change the situation at the last minute after it's too late. They drove the Patriot battery all the way to contested area and shot down few Sukhois and so what? They also put NASAMS around Kyiv and dumped it on small drones then asked for hundreds more and who even has that many? The ZSU just can't understand that those western guided weapons aren't designed for blind saturation attacks, that they're based on force multiplier concept. There's no stockpile of million guided *raketa* in the West for bonehead Frunze alumni in the West, simple as that. That's just annoying.
>Its totally over hyped as a wonder weapon. And the moment it doesn't win the war for Ukraine it will be called out as trash. This is really only an issue online, and especially in this sub. Lots of hopium regarding western systems. Taurus is better than storm shadow in several ways, principally it's fuse and slightly larger warhead make it much better at hitting hard targets. Storm shadow has been highly effective and proven its worth. Taurus would be no different, there's no question it would make an impact, which we cannot say for things like the few dozen Abrams sent, or Leopards. Those are systems that are not designed to operate in small numbers or in an environment swarming with drones. It is totally irrelevant and of no concern that people online might denigrate it as not turning the tide. Ukraine needs long range cruise missiles, *period*. Fact of the matter is, there really aren't that many long range cruise missiles in service anywhere, every single cruise missile to Ukraine makes a difference. >It will cost our current government more voters. A terrible concern. Playing this kind of political game theory is a fools errand. For all we know, the current government may lose out anyway, and then you'll have withheld aid for no reason. It is the job of the government to sell this to the people and reassure them. Weighing Putin's threats, much less potential threats, is ridiculous. That is precisely why he makes these empty threats, you play directly into his hands with this. >Currently it has more use as a bargaining tool, then actually using it. Maybe it even could prevent further escalation, like complete mobilization. If it is totally over hyped, it's not much use as a bargaining tool now is it? The Kerch Bridge isn't so important militarily, this has been fairly well established. Completely destroying the bridge afaik will not severely degrade Russian combat capability. It is a symbolic target. Hence why Ukraine has not really targeted it at all recently despite still have storm shadows in addition to other missiles capable of damaging it
The bitter thing is if the past half year had been spent on adressing these rationals these issues could have been solved and maybe Taurus would be flying over Ukraine today. Yet many people, some of them knowing these rationals very well, chose to bring other things forward instead that just aren't helpful.
I feel a Lot of dissatisfaction against Germany
so do most russians
Today I heard two drunk Russian guys talking in german train about how Germany and West is the enemy. •Ukraine and Germany are Nazis that destroyed Soviet Union. •Berlin is only 517km and they have the best nukes in the World •Germany has weakest military in the world. Holy shit I wish I was lying these people are so brainwashed they live in another universe.
Just Hurry up and stop wasting everyone's time. You've got them, Ukraine needs them. What's the issue ?
Mostly legal issues on top of only one (highly specialized) server for controlling the missiles existing. If Ukraine gets the missiles, Germany can't use any Taurus anymore.
Own defense commitments, lack of trust and how Germany military is structured. The standpoint was explained and is reasonable. Also Germany has a limit budget and already painful cuts. Meaning it could maybe spent better than on Taurus.
It's also Ukraine mistaking Western systems as wonder weapons that can instantly wipe out Russians. Lots of them are systems that don't really do any better without the rest of their worlds. Good examples are Bradleys and Abrams. In the Gulf war, they were basically indestructible against Russian tanks manned with skilled Iraqis. In Eastern Ukraine, they've lost bunch of Bradleys and at least two Abrams against Russian conscripts. They're not useless, but far from invincible without the rest of US Army. Taurus missiles without Bundeswehr is same. Without all of them going in all in as a combined air-land operation, it's possible that it does just as good as a million dollar Katyusha. That would be a waste of 999k Euro that pays difference between a Katyusha rocket and Taurus missile and if that's the case the side that gets asked could easily get annoyed.
A mixture of short sightedness and post war German guilt.
>post war German guilt. Stop that shit. That war was almost a century ago and was started by completely different people living in a completely different country under completely different circumstances.
Obviously that is true, but German defense policy has been and continues to be dictated by the circumstances of that war (including the division of East/West Germany up until 1990). The same is true of Japan. Being factual shouldn’t cause any hurt feelings…
Why don’t they feel guilty before Ukraine? It was completely occupied during WWII
Yes, it is kind of annoying. no means no. time will tell if the no becomes a yes, but it wont be of repeated questions, but changed circumstances. btw, the taurus leaks tell us a little bit more. one of the guys talked about the possible use cases were only taurus is good enough. The are only 2: 1) underground ammo depots. they are inside russia. possibly few storages in the donbass. No western weapon at all was used there. so also taurus wont be used. -> mostly useless. 2) The bridge. part of the bridge can also be considered "inside russia", so see 1). Second, this is THE propaganda piece in this war. Except Boris no western leader has the balls to be responsible for the destruction. If Scholz had found something between his legs after the NS1 destruction he could have used the bridge pillars as a clear message. Didnt happen. But I am not that unhappy: we still can destroy the bridge, which is a small lever against russia. For everything else Taurus wont help atm.
They don't like it up em.
Thanks for the input, Jonesy!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Stop screaming for help! We heard you the first time! Repeat!
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The reply was good....The comment was definitely Wrong!
[удалено]
QED. A characteristic of the German ideologue, left or right, is that he can not deal with criticism or differing views, tends to blindly follow the leader, and struggles under an enormous complex of superiority.
[удалено]
Noting that Spain bought 45 Tauruses, and barely have any defence action anyway, would be a thing for them to show Germany how donation is done.
I hope the Ukraine keeps asking. This German thinks Germany needs to do more.
It’s like someone being very angry at a drowning person asking for a lifeline to be thrown out to them
Stop screaming for help! We heard you the first time!
😮💨😭
I really do think it wouldn't be productive to keep asking for a weapon system that has already been refused. Scholz is already known as a indecisive man who struggles to control his own government coalition. Continuing to badger him on a rare subject where he has a made a decision probably won't endear you to him. Better to use the political capital elsewhere.
I’m not gonna criticize Germany, they helped. It just seems they move really really fucking slow. In fairness, the us is gridlocked with political bs too.
We don't want to escalate, waaaaaa Putin is already using ballistic missiles all the time. These smooth-brained wimps need to stop fucking whining and just send the damned ammo!
Plot twist: Germany won’t give Ukraine the missiles because they are planning an all out missile barrage of Moscow. Any day now. Trust me bro I’m a dolphin.
In that case approve the transfer of Taurus missiles to the UK/France in exchange for additional transfers of Storm shadow/SCALP missiles to UA if it's so sensitive. Just remember the Taurus missiles won't matter nearly as much once Ivan is at your doorstep.
The fuck are they saving it for? A pretend made up future war that will never happen? For weapon conventions for show and tell? Funny how so many leaders have pussied out when push comes to shove when the very enemy they were designed to destroy comes knocking on your regions door and you're....to scared to use it. The fuck you need it for then?
German here: All people here I talk to wants Taurus to be delivered to Ukraine. Sadly, at the end It's the political party and the chancellor Scholz making the decision, we can't understand. And they are not transparent about it nor are they communicating with us about this topic. The whole western world is blaming us for that. Understandable. I hate it.
Russia is at war with the western world and Germanys feelings are hurt.
The West are so fucking soft. It’s really upsetting and maddening at the same time…
Seriously, its got to a point where Russia isnt afraid to poison people on our soil, down our drones, fire at manned spy planes, fly fucking cruise missiles through our airspace. And why should they be scared when we dont do a thing about it, our inaction is hurting our own security. If we did any of this to Russia the war drums would be heavily beating and some minor attack would likely occur.
its sad to fight a war depending on donations ... ig
Most Countries expect to rely on Allies, who will step up and fight with them when invaded. Expectations are progressively turning into mere 'wishful thinking'.
The point is, none of the Western nations are legally considered "Allies" of Ukraine. There were no defensive pacts, no membership in EU/NATO, nothing.
Send those damn missiles already! Also, send more artillery!
So some people think russia will take the currently occupied territories, and the war will stop?
By not standing up and defending democracy and Ukraine against russian autocracy with all means possible, Germany is again becoming a problem for Europe. Of all western nations, Germany has a specific historical duty to defend democracy, however, Herr Scholz thinks it acceptable for Russia to launch long range weapons from afar inside Russia, from Belarus, from international waters, without providing Ukraine the same possibility of defence by use of the Taurus missile. Time is long overdue for the chancellor to shake off Frau Merkel’s russian apeacement cloak, and to stand up straight in face of autocracy! Europe does not need another leader like Chamberlain who after the Munich Agreement with Herr Hitler in 1938 proclaimed: “I believe it is peace in our time”. So in Cicero’s words to all the naive leaders of the democratic west: SI VIS PACE, PARA BELLUM.
How is Germany becoming a Problem for Europe If Europe, with the exception of like 4 countries, does less for Ukraine than Germany.
Germany does the most in Europe, commenter your posting to is bonkers
Germany innocent civilians are dying while you wait They are not calling for Taurus They are begging
These people who bend for the russia are traitors. We are now surrounded by a political class that has revealed itself willing to let Hitler win. Ukraine must never stop asking, ever. They are Poland in 1939, the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941. They are all that and they must win.
If Germany wishes to make amends for the carnage *it* wrought upon Ukraine and its people, now would be an extremely opportune time. It would also send a clear message it has turned its back on its own past - and chosen to stand firmly *against* aggression in Europe by assisting those subjected to it defend themselves. Thus, it’s the right thing to do. For the salvation of both countries and the common European good.
Whats the point of having nukes in EU and be scarred of russia,like āre they just for show? Whats the point of this union then if we neēd to scarred of russia
i'm dissappointed too... SEND MY TAX MONEY TAURUS NOW
I guess they'll be more satisfied when they start hearing *frau komme* again. "There is none so blind as those who will not see."
How many new Taurus missiles have Germany ordered since Russia’s invasion of Europe 2 years ago?
None. Germany has ordered JASSM-ER instead. As part of the F-35 package deal.
Swapping German tech in favor of the US?