Prevent loss, the elevator goes directly to the
safety island Reporter Liu Ya Dong A
Source: Canada and the United States must read
According to media reports, both Germany and the United States will decide to provide Ukraine with Western modern tanks. German Chancellor Scholz is expected to announce assistance for the Leopard 2 tank on January 25 and allow tanks from other countries such as Poland and Poland to be re-exported. At the same time, the United States will announce plans to send M1 Abrams tanks.
Boevaya mashina, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
What changes will these modern behemoths bring to the Ukrainian war? The Economist’s analysis believes that tanks will give Ukraine an advantage, but the risk of war escalation will also expand.
At every stage of the war in Ukraine, there are iconic weapons.
In the battle for Kiev last winter, shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles played an important role. When the fighting moved to the eastern Donbas region in the spring, it was the turn of the 155-mm howitzer. When Ukraine launched its counteroffensive in the fall, the Haimas rocket launcher stole the headlines.
Now as spring approaches and both sides prepare for new offensives, the focus turns to armaments, starting with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles .
After nearly a year of fighting, Ukraine has achieved stunning success in repelling the ostensibly superior invaders, but Russia still occupies about 17% of Ukraine's territory, including the Crimean peninsula it annexed in 2014, raising some of the most difficult questions about the future of the war.
Now the conflict has become a bloody war of constant attrition. In the air, Russia uses a variety of missiles and drones to bombard Ukraine's civilian infrastructure in the hope that Ukrainians will be without power during the winter. On the ground, endless shelling and human wave tactics at all costs allowed the Russian army to achieve some pitiful results in the town of Bakhmut in the eastern Donbas region.
The spring fighting season could prove decisive.
Ukraine's manpower advantage on the battlefield is waning, The Kremlin has mobilized 200,000 to 300,000 troops and may soon order another large-scale conscription. Russian arms factories are operating in three shifts, and Western countries’ depleting ammunition stocks (note, the United States has just announced that it will increase the production of artillery shells needed by Ukraine six times) are unlikely to give Ukraine a decisive advantage in artillery.
As a result, there is a growing sense in the West that Ukraine needs a game-changing strategy to achieve a victory big enough to force Russia to withdraw, or at least negotiate.
This in turn explains the thinking behind the two massive military aid packages the United States launched this month, which roughly you can understand as a shift from the piecemeal provision of weapons to training and equipping entire combat forces. The United States announced the dispatch of more than 100 tracked Bradley fighting vehicles, 90 wheeled Stryker fighting vehicles, 100 M113 armored personnel carriers and more weapons. Together they are equivalent to arming two brigades of mechanized infantry.
American Bradley fighting vehicle. Shane A. Cuomo, U.S. Air Force, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
legal AMX-10RC. davric, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Legal Caesar self-propelled artillery. Sgt. 1st Class Mikki Sprenkle, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Coupled with dozens of tanks from other allies, the German Marders, the French AMX-10RC and the Swedish CV90, the Ukrainians have one or two more brigades of equipment and may be able to assemble a division.
The self-propelled howitzer is an important component of the armored force , providing auxiliary firepower on the move. The United States will provide 18 such artillery pieces, and Denmark will donate all 19 of its French Caesar self-propelled artillery pieces.
To form a combat-ready unit, the United States is training Ukrainian troops, one battalion at a time (usually three or four battalions form a brigade), to conduct combined arms operations.This involves coordinating armor, infantry, engineers and drones to enhance each's strengths and mitigate each's weaknesses.
General Milley , chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley , said the assistance "will greatly enhance Ukraine's ability to resist further Russian attacks and launch tactical and operational offensives to liberate occupied areas."
However, so far, it is clear that what is still lacking is a large number of Western main battle tanks. Only with these tanks can the power of the armored fist be maximized. Britain has promised to provide 14 Challenger tanks, but it can only equip one company, not a battalion, let alone a brigade.
For example, a British armored brigade has 56 Challenger tanks; an American armored brigade has 87 M1 Abrams tanks.
derivative work Dhatfield M1 Abrams-TUSK.svg: *derivative work: DhatfieldOCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg: US Military, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Such an obvious gap is mainly due to the divisions among the Western Allies, especially the anxiety of Germany. The German-made Leopard 2 tank is an optimal military option. Leopard 2 tanks using the diesel engine are plentiful (around 2,000 are in service in Europe) and are easier to operate than the turbine-powered Abrams tanks .
For nearly half a century, this tank has demonstrated outstanding performance in terms of firepower, protection, speed and maneuverability, allowing it to adapt to many types of combat situations.
This 55-ton tank has a crew of four, can travel about 500 kilometers, and has a top speed of about 68 kilometers per hour. There are now four main variants. The earliest version first entered service in 1979. The main weapon is a 120mm smoothbore cannon , with a fully digital fire control system .
Several countries are willing to provide Leopard tanks , but Germany has previously refused to send tanks, and even refused to allow other countries to provide their own Leopard 2 tanks. According to the regulations at the time of export, re-export requires Germany's consent.
This made allies very angry. Poland even said that it would provide it to Ukraine regardless of whether Germany approved it or not.
German officials have found good reasons for their anxiety, saying that whether to provide Leopard 2 tanks depends on whether the United States sends Abrams tanks, and the Pentagon simply do not accept this issue.
Germany's new Defense Minister Pistorius wisely avoided the "you go, you go first" game. He said that Germany just needed more time to decide. It turned out that this time was not long, because at that time he said that the Ukrainians could start to train the Ukrainians to operate the Panther.
Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Podolak. President.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Ukrainian presidential adviser Podolyak was furious at the indecision, tweeting, "Every day of delay is the death of Ukrainians."
Notable Republican Senator Graham urged both the United States and Germany to send tanks, and blamed them, "I'm tired of this bullshit show. Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe through force. The world order is in danger."
Having said that, tanks may not be as important as the political arena suggests.
Ukraine has hundreds of Soviet-era tanks, mainly from pre-war stocks and refurbished tanks provided by Eastern European countries. Many tanks were also involuntarily provided by the Russian invaders. Western tanks are better protected and have more firepower. In the absence of these tanks, however, Ukraine could mix its Soviet-era heavy armor with Western infantry fighting vehicles to great effect.
For example, in the 1991 Iraq War , the Bradley Fighting Vehicle excelled as a tank killer.
Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank, believes that the latest batch of weapons promised by the United States, even without main battle tanks, will create "the most powerful armored force in the Ukrainian army; giving them the ability to move quickly, sustain damage and conduct breakthrough operations.""
Retired general Hodges, who commanded U.S. forces in Europe, added that more important than tanks are longer-range precision weapons to hit Russian command posts and logistics centers deep into the Russian front, which is disappointing.
DVIDSHUB, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The guided missiles fired from the Seamaster launcher had a range of 70-84 kilometers and initially succeeded in causing chaos in Russia's rear areas, but later the Russians learned the lesson and began to reorganize themselves away from the Seamus range. The Pentagon refused to provide Army tactical missiles with a range of 300 kilometers that could be launched from the same launcher. Think this escalates too quickly.
Colin Carr, the Pentagon's deputy secretary for policy affairs, said that the United States and Ukraine have their own reservations on the issue of Army tactical missiles. He admitted that Ukraine needs these means to conduct deep battles.
But the Pentagon has also detained "Gray Eagle" armed drones with a range of hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, and jet fighter jets appear to be impossible for the time being.
Some hope that the latest weapons supply package will include a new 150-kilometer range weapon called the GLSDB missile. This thing can also be launched from the Seamaster, featuring small diameter bombs , laser or GPS guided bombs that can be dropped from aircraft, in Iraq and Afghanistan ht. The ML4 is widely used. It can be mounted on unguided rockets. Because the wings unfold during flight, the GLSDB missile maneuvers by gliding toward the target, increasing the range and options for attacks.
General Hodges said that with more and better armor, and the means to carry out deep missile strikes, Ukraine would have the best chance of retaking Crimea. region.
He believes that by concentrating its armored forces, Ukraine can advance towards the Sea of Azov and cut off the land bridge between the Russian mainland and Crimea. At the same time, long-range precision munitions will allow it to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge to Crimea, which was partially damaged in an October 2022 explosion that Russia cannot explain. l2
Ukraine would then be able to strike at the Russians at will, making the invaders' position in Crimea untenable and forcing them to abandon the peninsula.
Control of Crimea would allow Russia to choke off Ukraine's ports and supply the invading forces in southern Ukraine. General Hodges pointed out that losing the peninsula would be the most serious blow to Putin, perhaps more importantly not military but political.
But this is why some allies are uneasy about Ukraine trying to retake the peninsula, fearing that it may prompt Putin to resort to nuclear weapons.
Are allies willing to take this risk?
The United States claims that Crimea belongs to Ukraine and Ukraine has every right to retake it. But is the United States ready to support Ukraine in practice? The move to seize Crimea is another matter. U.S. officials have always been vague about the ultimate outcome. They acknowledge that at some point, U.S. and Ukrainian war goals may diverge.
But it may be beneficial to at least provide Ukraine with the means to threaten Russia in Crimea. "If you want to negotiate a solution, it may be wise to prioritize Crimea," Watling said.
Talk of retaking Crimea seems premature to some.
"Looking at the current map of Ukraine's front lines," noted Michael Kofman of the think tank CNA, "the Ukrainians must first achieve significant military successes in the south before they can discuss Crimea."
Like General Hodges, he agreed that aid to Ukraine would be a major step forward. The focus should be on precision weapons, equipping new troops and mobile warfare. But he believes that further gains will be more difficult and expensive for Ukraine. Retaking the port city of Kherson in November was already a difficult task, albeit against a Russian garrison that was already semi-isolated with its back on the Dnieper River.
Since the blitz turned into a retreat, the Russians could now defend a shorter overall front with more soldiers and reserves.
What's more, Kofman noted, "If Ukraine's next offensive does not go well, there is a risk of a Russian counterattack and, in the worst case, territory lost rather than gained."
"U.S. combined arms tactics tend to rely on air superiority," Kofman pointed out. "What Ukraine lacks is not Western tanks, but Western air force. When you also have the advantage of the U.S. Air Force, combined arms mobility is much easier."
As an officer commanding Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Iraq, Gian Gentil of the think tank Rand Corporation admitted, "I don't have to worry about anything flying over my head. Now both Russia and Ukraine lack control of the air."
He also admitted that there were risks for the Ukrainians when attacking. Clausewitz, the 19th-century Prussian general and strategist Clausewitz believed that defense was the more powerful form of warfare. But, Colonel Gentil said, "Ultimately, it is the offense that produces the decisive results. The attackers have the initiative, they know when, where and how to attack."
As both sides prepare for the next round of war, people have an ominous premonition.
Even as he asserted that progress could be made in Ukraine, General Milley said, "For this year it will be very, very difficult to militarily drive Russian troops out of every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine."
At some point, he said, the conflict would have to end at the negotiating table, and "it would be a very, very bloody war."
Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Of course, the tension within the Kremlin is also palpable.
Recently, anti-aircraft weapons appeared on the roof of Moscow building. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, posted a warning that "the failure of a nuclear power in a conventional war could trigger a nuclear war." His nuclear threats were not new, but the admission that Russia could be defeated was a fairly new and eye-catching admission of rhetoric that might not be used.
