We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Challenger tanks are no panacea Like many Brits the fact that we were the first to promise to supply Ukraine with modern main battle tanks was a source of tremendous pride. And Jingoism. Let Putin eat British lead, depleted uranium, HESH etc,. Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the steppes etc,.
Luckily, the YouTuber Matsimus has come along to pour a bucket of cold water – mixed in with a few unpleasant substances that one wouldn’t want to mention on a family blog – over any triumphalism that might be in the air. Sure, the Challenger 2 can be a very capable tank, but it is not invulnerable – especially in the configuration that the Ukrainians will receive – and keeping it in the field will be no cakewalk.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I have seen it mentioned that the Challenger/Leopard/Abrams are not intended to be the spearhead of the current campaign. The training isn’t done, the mechanics particularly. Supply will be a major problem.
What they will do is give the Ukrainians confidence that if they attack with their current tanks that they won’t end the war without any tanks to defend themselves.
It’s about after the war, not present day.
I keep mentioning this to people in my daily life, but nobody seems to care: does it occur to anyone that providing war materiel to a belligerent party engaged in a war is itself an act of war?
Obviously it is not in Putin’s interest to widen the conflict, but he certainly has casus belli to do so if he chooses. Both the US and the UK are parties to the conflict now, by any reasonable view of the traditions on the subject.
I would guess the reason no one cares is that they believe that aggression should not be allowed to succeed. Also we’ve been doing it for the best part of a year now so it is reasonable to assume that if it was an act of war that war would have begun by now.
I doubt supplying a party to a conflict is an act of war in international law or has traditionally been deemed to be so but I am happy to be corrected. It also leads to the perverse situation in which you would be allowed to supply a country with anything up until the beginning of a war and nothing thereafter.
The West haven’t deemed Iran a party in the Ukrainian war. Yet they, and Belarus and the Norks, have been supplying Russia.
Supplying weapons to a belligerent has never been a real causus belli.
If Russia were to deem NATO as belligerents, then so is Belarus, by the same token. Russia even invaded out of their territory! And, let’s face it, Belarus would last 5 minutes if the Poles were to invade. So Russia is basically is screwed with regards to this.
Hard luck. You piss everyone off, you bear the consequences.
Ferox wrote:
I keep mentioning this to people in my daily life, but nobody seems to care: does it occur to anyone that providing war materiel to a belligerent party engaged in a war is itself an act of war?
It wasn’t in Korea, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or Africa, or Central America, or any of a hundred other places when the US and Russia played their proxy war games.
How quaint. Putin didn’t need casus belli to invade Ukraine or Georgia, he did it anyway. Moreover, ponder the Soviet Union providing SAMs & aircraft to North Vietnam. Did that make them a belligerent in that war?
Does a nation trying to defend itself count as a “belligerent party”? Only one party wanted this war.
Perry – as you may know the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China did a lot more than send arms to the Marxists in IndoChina, they also sent personal.
However the American government deliberately suppressed that information – due to their “limited war” doctrine. Even in the 1960s the great enemy of the American people was Washington D.C. – with its endless game playing, even treating war as a game (with VICTORY being strictly forbidden – yes forbidden by Washington D.C.).
As for Mr Putin’s war – even if he “won” tomorrow, the war has been an utter disaster for Russia, killing vast numbers of Russians and Ukrainians, and poisoning relations.
Paul:
You are right. In Korea many of the “Chinese” pilots were Russians. They were ordered to kill themselves rather than be captured. In Vietnam many of the SAM batteries were controlled by Russian officers. The Americans knew this of course, I was told this years back by a US Navy pilot who flew there, but the Americans did not want it to become public information.
It is believed that many of the US aircrew who were shot down ended up in the USSR for interrogation. Once there, they could never be released.
With regard to our Challenger 2 tanks, a big problem is that the special ammunition for their 120mm guns is no longer produced. In true British fashion we closed down the production line years ago as part of the “peace dividend”. We can only hope that there are still sufficient shells in stock to supply the Ukrainians. Whatever happens, the tanks being delivered from the west will not be operational for some months at best. The war will not be over soon.
Tanks could be a game changer if we sent enough. My thoughts here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pCIOtpcaaw
Selling weapons to a belligerent is not an act of war. We did that for years before entering the WW1 and the Germans didn’t complain. What is an act of war are the sanctions, not that Putin needs and excuse.
Modern western tanks are all ‘difficult to keep in the field’. They have long and heavy logistical requirements, Chal2 is no different in that regard to M1s or cats. Cats have a closer base support to Ukraine and are the best choice, The chal2 offer was just to prompt (and cover) the German decision. Russian tanks generally have good guns and they’ll hurt or kill any western MBT if they can get a shot, but western MBTs have better vision and will normally fire first and therefore will likely live much longer than their opponents
I doubt most people are taking time out from their sportsball or video games to think that deeply.
IIRC it was carefully and deliberately NOT made public knowledge at the time.
I occasionally run into a guy while walking my dog who was a Marine in western Vietnam. He’s told me that occasionally they’d put on bluejeans and go “over the fence” to assist SOG types. Which means he’s probably killed one or two Soviets in the “illegal” war in Laos.
But AIUI, it is Mr Putin’s case that he is not at war, but only in a special military operation, so if he’s not at war, how can supplying someone who he isn’t at war with be a causus belli?
As others point out, it’s not as if he needs one anyway.
Yes Mr Ed – Mr Putin does not have the legal authority to declare war, and relying on the Puppet Russian Parliament is risky, it might decide it is not puppet at some point in the future. The Puppet King and the Puppet Grand Council of Fascists suddenly decided they were no longer going to be puppets at a very difficult moment for Mussolini – Mr Putin is NOT Hitler, Mr Putin is far more like Mussolini. A fact Mr Putin himself knows very well – and which scares him.
John K. and William O. B’livon – yes some of the men on the ground knew the truth, but Washington and the “rebel” Corporate media never told the truth.
No victory (even the word was banned) and the legend pushed that the enemy was a few peasants.
Just endless “limited war” – lots of lives and money spent, without any intention of winning, just a vicious game. Robert McNamara and co never had any intention of allowing American servicemen to win.
The “rebel” media were always in-the-tank (and not a Challenger tank) – for example “journalist” Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was United States military (with a very high security clearance) and the “confidential source” was the Deputy Director of the FBI. Watergate was not “uncovered” – it was spoon fed.
I do not care for Richard Nixon, in fact I oppose his policies – foreign and domestic, but there was no “resistance” against him – the “journalists” and so on were acting on the instructions of the Deep State that had decided to get rid of Mr Nixon.
The lies did not start in the last few years – the lies just became obvious in the last few years (with Covid and so on). The establishment elite have been lying for a very long time indeed.
“With regard to our Challenger 2 tanks, a big problem is that the special ammunition for their 120mm guns is no longer produced.”
The C2 uses most standard NATO shells.
Challenger 2 uses a rifled 120mm because UK is hot for HESH, everyone else uses smoothbore 120mm, so sadly not.