09:57
We heard – We will donate advanced weapon systems in line with what Ukraine wishes for.
Ukraine wants – LV, Archer, Gripen and CV90.
Nice bluff, could be interpreted as plural but it was singular and old LV can be considered advanced compared to a ping pong table.
10:21
This can drive you completely crazy.
We have sold weapons to Saudi, India, Carl Gustaf or anti-tank weapons fired at PBV302 during the Balkan war, we have had UN missions since Congo. We are among the 15 largest arms manufacturers in the world but in weapons to Ukraine we inflate the value through various accounting tricks so we appear as a big donor but bang for the buck we are almost the worst.
Greece has sent armored vehicles and Portugal artillery – do we feel that we stand below them in generosity and empathy as a country or do we have a self-image that we are better?
(yes I understand that anti-tank weapons and grenade launchers are better than BMP1 and old artillery)
10:41
Only 5 Gepards that Germany sent have performed well against the drone threat.
The first 6 Cesars France sent created chaos near Kherson.
When the artillery radar came, the artillery went down faster than you could count, the first 3-6 HIMARS created total chaos.
No huge quantities are needed to make a difference, the Russians hyped their two Terminator companies incredibly and there were about 10-15 TOS-1s?
09:53
You have to be careful where you comment today, soon there will probably be daily updates.
If I have missed any laughing emojis, whoever it was can post them here, or in the next thread or everywhere.
No more commenting on the daycare class and the slot car track.
We have the following systems that would be of great help to Ukraine – Archer, Arthur, CV90-40, Leo2, LVKV, Arthur, LV systems, anti-ship missiles, Gripen, SOF and surely something more.
We are in a situation where it is safe to invest in Ukraine, Russia cannot and will not win, it is only a matter of time.
The time to kick the Russians out of the hole and push them back to the border is directly correlated with which weapon systems are sent. UA has the infantry, they have the will, they have the capability but they need weapons.
We could win – positive PR as a country, marketing for some of the world’s best weapon systems (jobs), make a good effort, feel proud as Swedes (as the Portuguese can now) and not least take out Russian capability which our weapon systems are built for. I only see upsides with this, not even realpolitik needs to be worried about.
There are symbolic packages and then packages that make a difference. If Sweden did not consider itself able to afford sending a support package that makes a difference, we could have sent a symbolic package – 2 companies CV90-40, 1 company 122, one battery Archer+Arthur, one platoon LVKV. (not entirely sure if we can spare Leo2 but everything else absolutely).
No one could convince me that we could not send this and maintain a high level of our defense.
This whole discussion is nonsense, money and soft packages are given to soothe one’s bad conscience and if you cannot spare 3 of 48 Archers or 18/20 of 500 CV90s then you are just stingy and lack empathy.
That will be the conclusion – the entire decision chain in this is stingy and lacks empathy, they are the guys you never became friends with because they never helped when it mattered and never brought alcohol to the party but drank the most and took all the dip.