War on Terrorism (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

We must analyse the vexed question of tanks-for-Ukraine. First of all: is it important? Maybe, maybe not. Although tanks can be decisive on the modern battlefield it is unlikely, in the Ukrainian war, that one side possessing a few hundred extra (and better) tanks than the opposition will make much difference to the current balance of military power. So why the furore?

Well... politically, it has exposed a fair amount of hypocrisy on the NATO side. The best tank of the modern era is the German Leopard II tank, which consequently was adopted as NATO's main battle tank. Eleven NATO countries have stacks of these excellent (but now outmoded) tanks which would certainly give a good account of themselves up against the Soviet-era T-72's which both sides are mostly using currently. No Leopard II tank can be sent to Ukraine without Germany's permission.

So why haven't they been? The Germans have been havering all year -- and were still havering at the NATO arms-for-Ukraine meeting yesterday -- offering a variety of soppy excuses why not now, but which all amount to the governing Social Democrats being a bunch of drips, worried about Russian reactions (either now or after the war). Meanwhile...

[Mick Harper]

The US has even more stacks of even better tanks but refuses to send them to Ukraine because they are a bunch of drips too. This has not stopped them criticising the Germans for not allowing Leopard II's to be sent.

The British have some spare Challenger II tanks which are so bad they only managed to persuade Abu Dhabi (or somesuch) to purchase any of them. The British are also drips, but opportunist drips, and realised they could earn some brownie points by sending eleven of them to Ukraine without the Russians minding -- or probably the Ukrainians using them.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

The UN is holding an emergency aid summit because 'nine in ten Afghan families are going hungry'. I should think so too. They might take the Americans to task for unilaterally confiscating Afghanistan's national bank reserves but that wasn't mentioned.

What was mentioned was that Afghani families will continue to suffer because their government is refusing to allow women to attend university or work for aid organisations. What business is this of the UN? If national governments (or indeed aid organisations) wish to punish the Afghani people for this shortcoming that is at least their right but as far as I know the UN Charter does not mention either policy with any specificity.

Let me repeat, for the record, that it is Afghanistan's right to follow whatever domestic policies it wishes and nobody, I repeat nobody, has the right to interfere in it. I accept that common decency might override this principle if they were doing things of such gross obloquy as, say, perpetrating genocide or introducing slavery, but women not going to university or working for aid agencies does not qualify. Not even nearly. Not even remotely.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

This is all rubbish. Like all sovereign nations, Afghanistan has reserves of gold and convertible currencies that it holds in its central bank. Like many sovereign countries, it actually stashes the cash somewhere more convenient (and safer) than its own building in its own national capital. Like many other sovereign nations, Afghanistan holds its reserves in the New York Federal Reserve. Or at least they did until the Yanks performed what can only be called a bank heist.

It is open to the Americans to claim not to recognise the present regime in Kabul, and to hold the reserves in escrow while that is sorted out, but just to confiscate it -- for whatever purpose -- is straightforwardly criminal.

[Wile E. Coyote]

They haven't confiscated it, roughly half was put in a type of trust fund to support Afghanistan, the other half was frozen pending the court cases. There is in fact Da Afghanistani Bank (DAB) funds held frozen in Europe and the Middle East.

[Mick Harper]

A half plus a half equals all. It is not for America to decide how Afghanistan is 'to be supported', nor is it for the Americans to use other people's money (the Afghanis) to settle court cases between a third party (the Taliban) and a fourth party (victims of 9/11). If I know anything about pay-outs in American courts, there won't be much left over.

I should like to hear more about these 'frozen funds'. I do not approve of this -- unless the relevant countries in Europe and the Middle East are actually at war with Afghanistan -- but it is a step up from purloining them.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Germany has two choices: yes, Leopards shall go to Ukraine or two, no, they won't. The one choice they don't have is "We haven't made up our minds yet." Not after eleven months of deliberation because it takes roughly an afternoon to make the yes/no decision. Call it a week to be on the safe side. All right, it's a real toughie so we'll say ten months tops. So we know the German government is composed of half yesses and half noes. That's fair enough -- it's strictly their business -- but they must say (because it's also everybody else's business), "We dare not say yes, we dare not say no because if we say either, the government will fall. I hope you understand our position."

Although this appears to be tantamount to a 'no' position, it isn't. Because all the other Leopard countries can say, "We appreciate you can't either give us permission or deny us permission, as per the original purchasing agreement*, so you are in default and the decision devolves on us. Naturally if you do come together sufficiently to say 'yes' or 'no' we will respect that but otherwise we're sending them or not sending them depending what our individual governments decide."

* This is why contracts are always subject to a 'reasonable' test that overarches any expressed terms and conditions.

[Mick Harper]

Tanks, an Expert Speaks

[Wile E. Coyote]

I really don't know, but common sense tells me that if you have many types all functioning and fuelled differently, Russian, American, German, British, that will be a nightmare to support logistically and train crews. And that is the bit people forget........

[Mick Harper]

But not something a tank expert forgets. Forget Challengers and Abrams (and French Leclercs now the surrender-monkeys can come out of hiding). Pure penny packets -- use 'em as mobile artillery. Just concentrate on the one to three hundred Leopards that are going to be crossing the border anytime soon. By WWII standards that's only a single armoured division but by Ukrainian standards it's an entire 'front'.

They're the same generation as T-72's so they should present no great difficulties training-wise. Dunno what they run on but Ukraine will have plenty of it. Ammunition is not a problem since, reportedly, the Ukrainians are running out of T-72 shells and NATO has shedloads of prepositioned NATO standard ordinance. Spares and battlefield recovery are always a problem but nobody (on either side) seems to bother much with that kind of thing anyway.

Chocks away! It won't make any difference but that's another story.

[Mick Harper]