@bobgonzales9680 And those Russian weapons are expendable lives of soliders 😅 If you run against a defense line long enough with enough people, then you eventually gain some ground...
Remember also the Abrams? They were suppose to be a game changer too. Now there is one confirmed Abrams destroyed in Ukraine and now another with a Abrams chassis severely damaged.
No single system by itself is a game changer, only combined. Albeit HIMARS and Patriots have saved thousands of Ukrainian lives, prevented russian missiles to hit schools, hospitals, kindergartens, etc...
No tank can be a game changer in a war like the one being waged in Ukraine. However, Himars and Patriot have proven to be real game-changers. And Taurus would also be a game-changer if only Chancellor Scholz dared to give this powerful weapon to Ukraine. I do not understand why Mr Scholz has not already done so.
@@ristoikonen6957Let me get this straight.. Storm Shadows from the UK couldn't help Ukraine win, in fact they've lost significant territory since recieving them.. but a similar German-made cruise missile will do what the British-made one couldn't? 😂
taurus has one urgent task; slowing down material movement over land bridge. the pressure on taurus will get more focus upon impasses globally. specifically, falcon with limited munitions.
No single military asset is a game changer. Rather, supplying Ukraine with the right weapons at the right time and in the right quantity is the game changer. The West can't seem to do any one of these three things right. But you put every country's timely contribution together and then the game beings to change. Hopefully the West wakes up before they have to pay with more than meagre contributions of supplies.
@@WingkKong Russia was defeated in 1905, 1920, 1941, 1988 (Afghanistan), 1989 (cold war). It's a great power only in insane minds of Russians. And it must respect others interests, especially neighbours.
The pubic support to gear up Euro economy for wartime is not there. That's the issue your opinion has. Also it's been a problem with EU and the US for a long time, they are bureaucrats, everything takes months and years to decide. Where as a country like Russia just send an order to their industry to make X amount of munitions and it gets done...
@@justmynickname "Russia defeated in 1941" By that logic, the British defeated the American revolution in 1776, never you mind what happened by 1778... 😂🤷♂️
Taurus cruise missiles are not game changers. But they could disrupt supply lines of the Russian army and thus take the pressure off the front until the Ukraine can be supplied with sufficient artillery ammunition again.
As I know tauris is similar to that of storm shadow which macron provided and Britain provided. Russian successfully start tracking it. Initial it will give ukraine some good hand but again same situation will prevail. Ammunition can't replace soldiers. Ukrainian are laking soldiers,. Let Europe provide them with it. It will be game changer
the world admire and love dictator Putin who never colonised,enslave,destroys Africa,Latin America,Asia, Iraq,Libya,Afganistan to say the least and he is not funding the killing of babies in Gaza,Glory to Russia.@@leneanderthalien
It would not be a gamechanger because the game is to permit the partition of Ukraine and the appeasement of Russia. Leopards without air cover could not be a gamechanger either and air assets have not been supplied.
Leopards can;t have air cover because Russia has a huge anti air defense network. If you think that Ukraine receives f16 they would be supporting the tanks, you're incorrect. At best the f16 would be used to launch long range missiles from far away.
@@Writeous0ne No NATO country woud have attempted what Ukraine has acheived without air cover. There can be no doubt that they would have been able to do more with air support. It is obvious from the unconscionable delay in supplying such support that the concern was not that air support would be ineffective but that it would be too effective. Note the matching delay in suppying any "offensive" weaponry and the resulting freezing of the frontlines.
@@Onequietvoice NATO countries wouldn't have a choice to use air support because they wouldn't be able to suppress Russias air defense either. Case and point - The bombing of Serbia. NATO air force could not destroy Serbias air defenses and had to fly very far away and launch long range missiles. Serbia only had 30-40 air defense systems and NATO destroyed 1. but Russia has 1000+ SAM systems, plus a huge air force. Ukraine would also have to train their pilots and build up an infrastructure of maintenance. The US air force employs 25% of its whole servicemen in air force maintenance and command. Unfortunately military aircrafts are not plug and play, you cannot just give them and use them immediately. Also there comes the problem that Ukraine must have air bases to launch these crafts from, considering Russia can hit anywhere in Ukraine with missiles these air bases would be targeted very, very quickly.
Taurus would put pressure on the Russian supply lines behind, as would atacms. But, the absence of these weapons would make Russia put more ammo and troop in the frontline, which would threaten frontline battlefield leverage and dominance.
Of course it's a game changer just like the Patriots, the Abraham's, the Leopard 2 , the storm shadows were before them. That's why Ukraine is winning...
This missiles are less and less effective because of russian air defence. They improve their air defence by day and shoot more and more targets. If they shoot 10 taurus, they would be lucky to get one trough. Russia also wrecked ukrainian air defence and their jets are working more freely nowdays. If a jet lifts to shoot taurus, russia starts the hunt immediately. Also dont underestimate Russia, they might cut loose if aggregated enough. Just because they dont use it does not mean they cant, they have stuff in their arsenal makes taurus look like a toy.
Yes, A may not be a game changer, and B may not be a game changer and C, D, and E may not be game changers, on their own, but when you put them all together... There's a reason that all the world's militaries have more than one weapon system.
We´ve send 18 Leopard 2A6 but the effect is still the same. Ukraine wanted to get 900 Leopard 2 from the West, and they know very well what they are talking about and what they need. Then the west told them that they only need 300 Leopard 2... and what did they get so far??? It´s really shamefull.
@@klausberfelde-je2ye don't you know that the British Challengers and American Abrams are superior in every way to the German Leopard 2? Only one Challenger and one Abrams have been destroyed so far, and countless Leopard 2s.
@@Cecil-yc6mc biden: do we have hypersonic missiles? Military expert: No sir, we are not that advanced sir. biden: But we have more money. Military expert: I understand sir, but the Russians have more brains.
@@Cecil-yc6mc During WW2, the US sat safely across the ocean and it's industrial base was untouched. They could produce weapons without being hit by the Germans. Every industrial country, except the US, came out of the war with its resources, agriculture, and manufacturing largely destroyed. The US was lucky because of its geographical location. After the war the US became an empire because of its fortunate circumstances. While the Europeans had to rebuild their infrastructure and industries, the US took advantage of their huge lead in development. However, due to very poor management and extremely immature foreign policies the US managed to squander their advantage in a very short period of time. We are witnessing the decline of the US empire. The US needs to give up its delusions of grandeur and agree to mutually beneficial cooperation with the rest the world. I'm not sure if they have such wisdom. I'm worried that they might be schizophrenic. The world has changed. Today the US doesn't sit safely across the ocean.
Zelensky admitted that Ukraine had no intention to honor the Minsk agreements. Who didn't want peace? Who advised against the 2022 peace talks in April? Hint: someone visited Zelensky in Kiev at that time
@@Cecil-yc6mc US publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment". Hence, you should complain to the US.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to "force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will".
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia argued that the US broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the democratically elected Yanukovych government.
Something specific about a weapon cannot be a game changer. Only a combination of different types of weapons can turn the tide of war. Therefore Taurus is necessary for Ukraine.
@@bobgonzales9680 as in the war in Afghanistan. The ussr had much better weapons and personnel, and they took over most of afghanistan. But the war on the territory of a foreign country over the years led to a complete defeat and the withdrawal of all troops from the territory of Afghanistan. Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan in the 80s (in the corresponding ratio), as is its economy. Although it does not have perfect support, the West still supports it financially and with weapons. Therefore, the victory will definitely be for Ukraine, and the "game changer" that Russia possesses will not help it. I am sure of this because I am Ukrainian, I am currently in Ukraine, actively helping the military even before the start of a full-scale war. And we all confidently go to victory, no matter what it costs, because we have no other way.
Germany: "We've given you enough, we can't afford to give you our limited stock of Taurus missiles." Ukraine supporters: "Germany is a Russian bot!" 😂🤷♂️
Taurus missiles could alter the war by its ability to destroy the bridge connecting Crimea and Russian land, thus cutting the supply route for the Russian army !
Taurus has a range of 500 km, so its inclusion into Ukraine's arsenal would force Russia to move their logistic hubs and command HQs by several hundred kilometers from the range that Ukraine currently has with British Storm Shadow and French SCALP.
This isn't about a "gamechanger" or "escalation" it's nothing more than more delays from Germany at a critical time in the war. We've seen this before, Sholtz will wait around until America steps up, and then they will do something. It's getting rather tiresome to see such cowardly tactics from the largest country/economy in the EU. Germany should be leading on this conflict at their doorstep, not waiting for others to act during this very important conflict.
Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world). Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile). Russia has Poseidon nuclear capable super torpedoes. Only Russia has this capability. World's largest submarine K-329 Belgorod, unlimited range, carrier of 2M39 Poseidon nuclear torpedoes. Russia successfully test-launched a new missile defense system A-235 PL-19 Nudol Russia successfully tested the new S-550 air defense system. Russia has powerful anti-satellite weapons (if used, nato will be blind).
@@PerceivedREALITY999 How do you explain all the old junk used in Ukraine? Do you think all this junk will keep Russia going another two years in this ridiculous war of aggression?😸
It is funny that Germany would ride on the back of the US in making certain decisions. Britain took the initiative when helping Ukriane in the beginning and later on others followed.
I have the impression that Berlin wants to know the fate of Hiroshima with its Taurus Missiles. Zelinsky will be tempted to launch them at Moscow, or an order from the CIA.
@@erichert1001 One should at least try it instead of rejecting it categorically. If there is no outcome that the majority of the Ukrainian people can live with, they will have to take up arms again. If you check the news section of the official presidential website of Zelensky from March 29, 2022 you see that there was already something on the table.
I seriously believe over time there is no "one" thing that will be a game changer, unless the war goes nuclear. Again and again, I see seasoned veterans of war say it is a combination and proper use of many things in combination which will change the game. They have convinced me.
It is called combined arms. Without combined arms it's just an infantry/artillery/drone battle. But the problem is Ukraine can never have air superiority because Russia has way too much anti air systems. This war won't be decided by Western technology, it will be decided by production of munitions and manpower - and sadly there is only one winner... Russia. Ukraine cannot get volunteers to fight anymore after 2 years, it's a big problem
If all these war money were directed to the alleviation of poverty and infrastructure development projects in poor countries !!! Or to fight poverty in their own countries !!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
All these supposedly game changers, eg M777, SwitchBlade 300 and 600, HIMARS, M2Bradley, Leopards 2, Challenger 2, M1 Abrahams, Patriot SAMs, now F16s +/- Taurus. What is next? 🤣🤣🤣
Taurus themselves would not be a game changer, but using together all the different weapons that you guys always call "not a game changer", would really change the game.
LOL *We're* not scared Boris but you sound like you are. If you have to keep mentioning nukes then you obviously know that your conventional forces are weak.
@@stephenhill545 Autocracy and democracy are merely ideologies. Each has benefits & demerits although some have paraded democracy to be the blue print of good governance. I wouldn't die for any of them. My law is to have love for God and love for fellow mankind.
Does the Taurus missile have the range to hit the Kerch bridge? If so, then they would definitely make a difference. Russia's Achillies heal concerning Crimea is logistical support. Crimea could be a repeat of Kherson, if the Ukrainian's interrupted Russia's logistic supply to Crimea. There are definite choke points beside the Kerch bridge that could be exploited.
what some dumbos dn't understand is that russia already has a landbridge with crimea so why does it need the kerch bridge for military support ? when you can transport more using the landbridge than the kerch bridge why would anyone limit themselves with the kerch bridge ? you also have massive ships to transport military cargo using azov sea .crimea cannot be choked when russia has ascess to land bridge and azov sea
WE GOT IT. STOP WITH THE "GAMECHANGER" ALREADY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GAMECHANGER." IT'S A MATTER OF COMBINED ARMS, NOW STOP IT ALREADY, WE GOT IT.
biden: do we have hypersonic missiles? Military expert: No sir, we are not that advanced sir. biden: But we have more money. Military expert: I understand sir, but the Russians have more brains
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world). Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile). Russia has Poseidon nuclear capable super torpedoes. Only Russia has this capability. World's largest submarine K-329 Belgorod, unlimited range, carrier of 2M39 Poseidon nuclear torpedoes. Russia successfully test-launched a new missile defense system A-235 PL-19 Nudol Russia successfully tested the new S-550 air defense system. Russia has powerful anti-satellite weapons (if used, nato will be blind).
Ukraine’s top negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia: Russia was “prepared to end the war if we agreed to... neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO.” But the US and UK stood in the way.
Ah yes, let's trust Russia who broke the Belgrade Convention, instigated civil war in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, shot down a passenger aircraft and invaded Crimea. After decades of neutrality, Finland and Sweden have joined NATO because Russia can't be trusted.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Last year, the EU approved 12 sanction packages against Russia and the Russian economy grew 3%. Meanwhile, the EU economy is in "tatters". The EU sanctioned itself.
Making wespons, which you are not selling, it not sound economics. You get growth, but no revenue. Russia does not have access to the capital markets. It risks bankruptcy if there is no peace deal. That may not come in time.
It really is starting to look like Germany is being over cautious about starting a war with Russia. The question I have is how Germany can state it recognizes the threat Russia poses, but at the same time it is too afraid of doing anything about it? Is the German concern valid when Russia is using weapons from Iran/N. Korea/China? The only thing Germany's slow response has achieved to date is to enable the Russian threat it has publicly acknowledged.
The glossed over fact is that Russia has Iskander missiles with nuclear warheads stationed in Kaliningrad - And In the event they detect cruise missiles heading to Moscow the default position that has been explained countless times by Putin, is that they will not wait for the arrival of these taurus cruise missiles to strike before determining if it they are armed with nuclear warheads. Immediately nuclear armed Iskander missiles will fly from Kaliningrad to Berlin and arrive before the Taurus has reached Moscow. The Russian military doctrine makes that explicitly clear and can be searched and read via google. In the circumstances you can hardly blame Scholz who feels the warm breath of German history down his neck.
According to the Taurus manufacturer, it will take at least 6 months to adapt Taurus to the Su-24, if it will be possible at all. The Eurofighter for example can't use it.
But F-16 and Gripen are able to carry them to the front. So if western fighter jets where send to Ukraine within the next 3 to 6 month, there is no need developing an adapter for SU-24. Hopefully Scholz gets enough pressure to change his mind within this period of time till the first jets are being delivered.
@@klausberfelde-je2ye yes and no. Yes -- F16/Gripen will use all Rich features of west munition. But on other side - we have limited amount of NATO-sertified arifields suitable for F16 langind/liftoff (AFAIK - only one..). So SU-24 will be more flexible from mission start point of view AND better for securing this munition from russ air attacks (drones/rockets/ballistics).
Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world). Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile).
I'm finding it hard to believe that after two years now, Germany and the UK alone can't match and exceed Russian artillery and ammunition production. Seems to be a problem of will not one of capability.
@o those numbers are with whole nato maximazing production and using max production. Russia dont make many planes, but they make shells more than everyone combined
@o >what do u think happens if Europe maxes production? Yeah German industry for example just buming right now! You can't just wish and start produce. You even can't if you have payloads of money that Europe doesn't. It's not a computer game where you push button and got a shell plant. "9 womens can't born child in one month"
@@emaluboniface3402 Considering the EU as a whole averages below 2% military spending and the EU has a whole can't provide Ukraine with enough ammunition... yeah Russia would have a cakewalk
No the storm has a time fuze Design. The Taurus Are better. How can we improve on this less accurate time fuze design? One way would be to count the layers and “void spaces” the FTB penetrates, in order to time the ignition. In doing so, we no longer rely on an estimated penetration time, which is bound to be inaccurate. Coincidentally, this is exactly what the fuze of Taurus’ MEPHISTO warhead system does. Taurus’ warhead is equipped with a “void sensing and layer counting” fuze called PIMPF (Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze).This fuze counts the layers and void spaces the follow through bomb penetrates to ignite the payload at exactly the right moment. By measuring the speed of deceleration, PIMPF can also recognize different types of layers (concrete, rock, soil, etc.).This fuze design also offers benefits when engaging bridges. Rather than relying on an estimated time of penetrating the bridge’s first layer (the bridge deck), you can tell the fuze to ignite the follow through bomb once it penetrates the second layer (the pillar). In doing so, you not only damage the deck of the bridge, but you can also damage its foundations. One missile equipped with a void sensing & layer counting fuze can therefore cause the damage that previously could only be achieved with two or more accurately dropped bombs.
The Macron statement: Wise. Of course you do keep all your options open. He left it to the russians to guess in what case French troops might come to help Ukraine. If it might be when they make the mistake of setting foot on nearly uninhabited Norwegian Svalbard Island, to test NATO invoking article 5 over that. It’s just powerplay diplomacy. Something which Scholz unfortunately failed to understand.
If Germany doesn't help Ukraine, they have no reason to expect the US to help them when Putin is on their doorstep. We've already got one of our major parties talking about leaving NATO. Imagine Germany having to pay for an actual military and over here we could get healthcare and higher education.
Germany first said not gonna send tanks in Ukraine. And now we are talking for German rockets. And tomorrow we gonna see German boots on the ground. Reason: Putin’s final target is Berlin not Kiev. To win Europe you have to defend Germany.
what was the point of picking up a fight with Russia if the stockpile of the entire planet was not enough to fight them Europe relied on the policy of the USA.
It would not be the first game changer that was introduced in Ukraine. That being said , the question is, why this game changer will be THE REAL game changer, since the previous game changers did not change the game?
Sorry but you don’t know whether the US has supplied longer range because the President said he will not be announcing it. However I'm sure the Chancellor knows.
Of course not. Being able to hit remote Command and Control posts and ammo depos is not a game changer, it's pure useless. Like it wasn't in 2022, when Ukraine was able to liberate half the occupied territories with HIMARS, until russkies adapted and moved the depos further in the rear. Not to mention the ability to hit remote airfields etc. Yeah, no strategic advantage at all.
A random person from the street is more knowledgable than this "expert"...US already provided a limited number of ATACMS and Sweden just agreed to provide Gripen jets to Ukraine...DW, next time ask a kindergardener instead..
Neither would rifle ammo or artillery shells alone. The point is they'd be useful and they're doing nothing right now, just sitting in a warehouse.
Noticing that the game changing weapons are in the Russian side....More territories gained....
so are all the ICBMs sitting in the silos or warehouses doing nothing right now.
@bobgonzales9680
And those Russian weapons are expendable lives of soliders 😅
If you run against a defense line long enough with enough people, then you eventually gain some ground...
So are all the Russia’s Nuclear warheads sitting in their silos doing nothing now
Correct.
The title is misleading. The expert said NO SPECIFIC WEAPON IS A GAME CHANGER
Wasnt so many things game changers when asked about?
@@nenadmitrovicMedia framed it like that, but i never heard military experts saying that.
@@nenadmitrovic just like the twist the words of Macron.
@@pithikoulisMakes me Think that
there are Pro-Russian Elements
embedded in the German Media. 🤷🏻♂️
@@Schmudini just like the rinse and repeat narrative that putin said take ukriane in 3 days.... still havent seen the source of thst claim
Dear heavens, fourteen Challengers were going to be a “game changer”, as were HIMARS and Patriot, and the Ukrainians are reeling backwards.
they simply Dont have enough soider，unless EU join the war. But that will be a big win for US and loose for both EU and Russia
Remember also the Abrams? They were suppose to be a game changer too. Now there is one confirmed Abrams destroyed in Ukraine and now another with a Abrams chassis severely damaged.
No single system by itself is a game changer, only combined. Albeit HIMARS and Patriots have saved thousands of Ukrainian lives, prevented russian missiles to hit schools, hospitals, kindergartens, etc...
No tank can be a game changer in a war like the one being waged in Ukraine. However, Himars and Patriot have proven to be real game-changers. And Taurus would also be a game-changer if only Chancellor Scholz dared to give this powerful weapon to Ukraine. I do not understand why Mr Scholz has not already done so.
@@ristoikonen6957Let me get this straight.. Storm Shadows from the UK couldn't help Ukraine win, in fact they've lost significant territory since recieving them.. but a similar German-made cruise missile will do what the British-made one couldn't? 😂
taurus has one urgent task; slowing down material movement over land bridge. the pressure on taurus will get more focus upon impasses globally. specifically, falcon with limited munitions.
No single military asset is a game changer. Rather, supplying Ukraine with the right weapons at the right time and in the right quantity is the game changer. The West can't seem to do any one of these three things right. But you put every country's timely contribution together and then the game beings to change. Hopefully the West wakes up before they have to pay with more than meagre contributions of supplies.
You do not play with a great power
Russia is a independent great power
You must respect its interest
Yeah? Like what? Russia is going to roll tanks to the English channel? Just like boomer's delusional Cold War fantasies..? 😂
@@WingkKong
Russia was defeated in 1905, 1920, 1941, 1988 (Afghanistan), 1989 (cold war). It's a great power only in insane minds of Russians.
And it must respect others interests, especially neighbours.
The pubic support to gear up Euro economy for wartime is not there. That's the issue your opinion has. Also it's been a problem with EU and the US for a long time, they are bureaucrats, everything takes months and years to decide. Where as a country like Russia just send an order to their industry to make X amount of munitions and it gets done...
@@justmynickname "Russia defeated in 1941" By that logic, the British defeated the American revolution in 1776, never you mind what happened by 1778... 😂🤷♂️
yes gamechanger like every gamechangers before
Like T-14 Armata, Kinzhal,Terminator tank or the mighty russian fleet? Both sides have their own Wunderwaffen. Some work - some don't.
Calibar fly too
@@gluteusmaximus1657
Russia also has SU-57 DIVEBOMBS. 😀
@@gluteusmaximus1657Russia is winning territory and getting bigger by the way, alk Ukrainian game changers failed
@@gluteusmaximus1657 Noticing that the game changing weapons are in the Russian side....More territories gained....
No single weapon is a “game-changer” but taken together it ensures the “game” is lost…
Taurus cruise missiles are not game changers. But they could disrupt supply lines of the Russian army and thus take the pressure off the front until the Ukraine can be supplied with sufficient artillery ammunition again.
when will that be, in 15-20 years if ever.
@@maxsmith3580The dictator Putin is not immortal…
@@leneanderthalienlet's see what last longer, The dictator or the nation?
BTW everyone knows the answer 😂
As I know tauris is similar to that of storm shadow which macron provided and Britain provided. Russian successfully start tracking it. Initial it will give ukraine some good hand but again same situation will prevail. Ammunition can't replace soldiers. Ukrainian are laking soldiers,. Let Europe provide them with it. It will be game changer
the world admire and love dictator Putin who never colonised,enslave,destroys Africa,Latin America,Asia, Iraq,Libya,Afganistan to say the least and he is not funding the killing of babies in Gaza,Glory to Russia.@@leneanderthalien
It would not be a gamechanger because the game is to permit the partition of Ukraine and the appeasement of Russia. Leopards without air cover could not be a gamechanger either and air assets have not been supplied.
Leopards can;t have air cover because Russia has a huge anti air defense network. If you think that Ukraine receives f16 they would be supporting the tanks, you're incorrect. At best the f16 would be used to launch long range missiles from far away.
@@Writeous0ne No NATO country woud have attempted what Ukraine has acheived without air cover. There can be no doubt that they would have been able to do more with air support. It is obvious from the unconscionable delay in supplying such support that the concern was not that air support would be ineffective but that it would be too effective. Note the matching delay in suppying any "offensive" weaponry and the resulting freezing of the frontlines.
@@Onequietvoice NATO countries wouldn't have a choice to use air support because they wouldn't be able to suppress Russias air defense either. Case and point - The bombing of Serbia. NATO air force could not destroy Serbias air defenses and had to fly very far away and launch long range missiles. Serbia only had 30-40 air defense systems and NATO destroyed 1. but Russia has 1000+ SAM systems, plus a huge air force.
Ukraine would also have to train their pilots and build up an infrastructure of maintenance. The US air force employs 25% of its whole servicemen in air force maintenance and command.
Unfortunately military aircrafts are not plug and play, you cannot just give them and use them immediately. Also there comes the problem that Ukraine must have air bases to launch these crafts from, considering Russia can hit anywhere in Ukraine with missiles these air bases would be targeted very, very quickly.
Taurus would put pressure on the Russian supply lines behind, as would atacms. But, the absence of these weapons would make Russia put more ammo and troop in the frontline, which would threaten frontline battlefield leverage and dominance.
The storm shadows have same capabilities but making no big difference
Of course it's a game changer just like the Patriots, the Abraham's, the Leopard 2 , the storm shadows were before them. That's why Ukraine is winning...
LOL you say that when Patriots have shot down Kinzals and Russia has lost 10 jets in 9 days. 2 years and Russia still doesn't have air superiority.
The Anglo-saxons ignited this proxy war to harm Russia while sacrificing Ukraine....
Don’t forget f16 😂
@@Blodhelm
Germany to frightened to send Taurus, even though the U.K. and France have sent cruise type missiles.
Nice, so you have your "game changer" already?🎉
This missiles are less and less effective because of russian air defence. They improve their air defence by day and shoot more and more targets. If they shoot 10 taurus, they would be lucky to get one trough. Russia also wrecked ukrainian air defence and their jets are working more freely nowdays. If a jet lifts to shoot taurus, russia starts the hunt immediately. Also dont underestimate Russia, they might cut loose if aggregated enough. Just because they dont use it does not mean they cant, they have stuff in their arsenal makes taurus look like a toy.
Yes, A may not be a game changer, and B may not be a game changer and C, D, and E may not be game changers, on their own, but when you put them all together... There's a reason that all the world's militaries have more than one weapon system.
Shure if you send 8 leopards it’s not gonna change the course of the war
We´ve send 18 Leopard 2A6 but the effect is still the same.
Ukraine wanted to get 900 Leopard 2 from the West, and they know very well what they are talking about and what they need. Then the west told them that they only need 300 Leopard 2... and what did they get so far??? It´s really shamefull.
It is really crazy. It’s the US trickle approach and it’s a terrible, terrible way to do anything.
@@klausberfelde-je2ye don't you know that the British Challengers and American Abrams are superior in every way to the German Leopard 2? Only one Challenger and one Abrams have been destroyed so far, and countless Leopard 2s.
@@klausberfelde-je2yepolitic is a very very butal thing
Ukraine people select a leader who bring destruction To themself
@@AbcDino843 That's because they've been hiding the Abrams and challenger tanks probably on orders from US and UK 😂
Game changer? It's not being sent to Ukraine.
Germany: You can't win a war against Russia.
Zelensky: Why?
Germany: Because we already tried and it didn't end well for us.
Russia hasn't got the USA helping it this time.
@@Cecil-yc6mc biden: do we have hypersonic missiles?
Military expert: No sir, we are not that advanced sir.
biden: But we have more money.
Military expert: I understand sir, but the Russians have more brains.
@@Cecil-yc6mc During WW2, the US sat safely across the ocean and it's industrial base was untouched. They could produce weapons without being hit by the Germans.
Every industrial country, except the US, came out of the war with its resources, agriculture, and manufacturing largely destroyed.
The US was lucky because of its geographical location. After the war the US became an empire because of its fortunate circumstances.
While the Europeans had to rebuild their infrastructure and industries, the US took advantage of their huge lead in development.
However, due to very poor management and extremely immature foreign policies the US managed to squander their advantage in a very short period of time.
We are witnessing the decline of the US empire. The US needs to give up its delusions of grandeur and agree to mutually beneficial cooperation with the rest the world.
I'm not sure if they have such wisdom. I'm worried that they might be schizophrenic.
The world has changed. Today the US doesn't sit safely across the ocean.
@@PerceivedREALITY999 2024 will be a special year
Read about 1917.
Everything west claims 'gamechanger' proved useless against Russia 😂
The real game changer weapon is peace talking..
Zelensky admitted that Ukraine had no intention to honor the Minsk agreements. Who didn't want peace? Who advised against the 2022 peace talks in April?
Hint: someone visited Zelensky in Kiev at that time
did Russia honor the 1994 Budapest Memorandum?
@@Cecil-yc6mc US publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment". Hence, you should complain to the US.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to "force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will".
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia claims that the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum and describes the Euromaidan as a US-instigated coup.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia argued that the US broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the democratically elected Yanukovych government.
Germany have been pitiful.
The Anglo-saxons ignited this proxy war to harm Russia while sacrificing Ukraine....
Something specific about a weapon cannot be a game changer. Only a combination of different types of weapons can turn the tide of war. Therefore Taurus is necessary for Ukraine.
Noticing that the game changing weapons are in the Russian side....More territories gained....
@@bobgonzales9680 as in the war in Afghanistan. The ussr had much better weapons and personnel, and they took over most of afghanistan. But the war on the territory of a foreign country over the years led to a complete defeat and the withdrawal of all troops from the territory of Afghanistan. Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan in the 80s (in the corresponding ratio), as is its economy. Although it does not have perfect support, the West still supports it financially and with weapons. Therefore, the victory will definitely be for Ukraine, and the "game changer" that Russia possesses will not help it. I am sure of this because I am Ukrainian, I am currently in Ukraine, actively helping the military even before the start of a full-scale war. And we all confidently go to victory, no matter what it costs, because we have no other way.
Russia is mush stronger now than in the eighties !@@anthonyminchenko3109
Too many game changers..
so many that im not sure what game are we in, it changed so many games, are we in Warcraft, minesweeper or pacman
Think about it.. If an army has additional weapons - when they don't have enough.. THEN IT'S A GAME CHANGER 🤦♂🤦♀🤦
Germany: "We've given you enough, we can't afford to give you our limited stock of Taurus missiles."
Ukraine supporters: "Germany is a Russian bot!"
😂🤷♂️
Taurus missiles could alter the war by its ability to destroy the bridge connecting Crimea and Russian land, thus cutting the supply route for the Russian army !
Leopard 2 was said to be game changer
And chalanger and abrams and everything sent before it
Where's Ukraine?
Oh, there it is.....
on the pages of history.
is that a fly on my tv screen? Swat, history!!
Taurus has a range of 500 km, so its inclusion into Ukraine's arsenal would force Russia to move their logistic hubs and command HQs by several hundred kilometers from the range that Ukraine currently has with British Storm Shadow and French SCALP.
This isn't about a "gamechanger" or "escalation" it's nothing more than more delays from Germany at a critical time in the war. We've seen this before, Sholtz will wait around until America steps up, and then they will do something. It's getting rather tiresome to see such cowardly tactics from the largest country/economy in the EU. Germany should be leading on this conflict at their doorstep, not waiting for others to act during this very important conflict.
Ukraine received a limited number of ATACMS months ago because Germany promised to send Taurus missiles if USA sent ATACMS.
Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world).
Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile).
Russia has Poseidon nuclear capable super torpedoes. Only Russia has this capability. World's largest submarine K-329 Belgorod, unlimited range, carrier of 2M39 Poseidon nuclear torpedoes.
Russia successfully test-launched a new missile defense system A-235 PL-19 Nudol
Russia successfully tested the new S-550 air defense system.
Russia has powerful anti-satellite weapons (if used, nato will be blind).
do you realise that the USA will strike FIRST?
What is your point?
@@asynchronicity NATO needs to understand that playing Russian roulette with a nuclear superpower is never a good idea.
@@asynchronicity Never use inferior nato equipment to fight a Bear. The mighty Bear wins every time.
@@PerceivedREALITY999 How do you explain all the old junk used in Ukraine? Do you think all this junk will keep Russia going another two years in this ridiculous war of aggression?😸
How giving the ability to destroy a tank factory in Russia is not a game changer ? Really shallow thinking here.
Imagine shaming a country with a notoriously underequipped army for not sending them all their equipment.
Taurus missiles would have the dubious honour of being the umpteenth game changer that fails to change the game.
It is funny that Germany would ride on the back of the US in making certain decisions. Britain took the initiative when helping Ukriane in the beginning and later on others followed.
I think Germany is the USs little brother that cannot make a move without first ensuring permission.
I have the impression that Berlin wants to know the fate of Hiroshima with its Taurus Missiles. Zelinsky will be tempted to launch them at Moscow, or an order from the CIA.
The Ukrainian army used the game changer weapons and the game changed in favor of Russia.
BUT: Ceasefires and serious peace negotiations would be a game changer.
So would Russia unilaterally withdrawing from Ukraine.
@@erichert1001 One should at least try it instead of rejecting it categorically. If there is no outcome that the majority of the Ukrainian people can live with, they will have to take up arms again. If you check the news section of the official presidential website of Zelensky from March 29, 2022 you see that there was already something on the table.
@@erichert1001why would russia do that? Lmao! 😂, is Ukraine winning? They can demand Russian withdrawal? 😂
How dare you to stop meat grinder!
I seriously believe over time there is no "one" thing that will be a game changer, unless the war goes nuclear. Again and again, I see seasoned veterans of war say it is a combination and proper use of many things in combination which will change the game. They have convinced me.
It is called combined arms. Without combined arms it's just an infantry/artillery/drone battle. But the problem is Ukraine can never have air superiority because Russia has way too much anti air systems. This war won't be decided by Western technology, it will be decided by production of munitions and manpower - and sadly there is only one winner... Russia. Ukraine cannot get volunteers to fight anymore after 2 years, it's a big problem
nothing and no one can defeat Russians in european threater.
If all these war money were directed to the alleviation of poverty and infrastructure development projects in poor countries !!! Or to fight poverty in their own countries !!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
All these supposedly game changers, eg M777, SwitchBlade 300 and 600, HIMARS, M2Bradley, Leopards 2, Challenger 2, M1 Abrahams, Patriot SAMs, now F16s +/- Taurus. What is next? 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe not a game changer. But maybe a significant game modifyer
New weapon supplies will prolong the war but not change the outcome
Taurus themselves would not be a game changer, but using together all the different weapons that you guys always call "not a game changer", would really change the game.
Scholz has no spine. He is a chicken. If Ukrain can operate Patriot why not a Taurus misile.
Pointless escalation.
Ukraine cannot be trusted not to target Russian cities.
@@univeropa3363thanks for the comment, Captain Obvious Russian Bot
@@infinitelo_op He is working overtime. It is way past normal office hours in St. Petersburg.
@@univeropa3363Ruzzia invading Ukraine was the escalation.
NATO needs to understand that playing Russian roulette with a nuclear superpower is never a good idea.
LOL *We're* not scared Boris but you sound like you are. If you have to keep mentioning nukes then you obviously know that your conventional forces are weak.
I couldn't put this any better.
Most European citizens think freedom is worth dying for. Do you think tyranny is worth dying for?
@@stephenhill545 Autocracy and democracy are merely ideologies. Each has benefits & demerits although some have paraded democracy to be the blue print of good governance. I wouldn't die for any of them. My law is to have love for God and love for fellow mankind.
We have nuclear weapons as well, do not forget.
Game changers do not exist and no one ever claimed Taurus to be a game changer, just like Leo2, IRIS-T, Patriot, Javelin, N-LAW etc....
Scholz would look good in a skirt
Does the Taurus missile have the range to hit the Kerch bridge? If so, then they would definitely make a difference. Russia's Achillies heal concerning Crimea is logistical support. Crimea could be a repeat of Kherson, if the Ukrainian's interrupted Russia's logistic supply to Crimea. There are definite choke points beside the Kerch bridge that could be exploited.
Yes, stormshadow doesn't have the same explosive force.
what some dumbos dn't understand is that russia already has a landbridge with crimea so why does it need the kerch bridge for military support ? when you can transport more using the landbridge than the kerch bridge why would anyone limit themselves with the kerch bridge ? you also have massive ships to transport military cargo using azov sea .crimea cannot be choked when russia has ascess to land bridge and azov sea
Sure Einstein. Cos everyone know that there was no Russia before Kerch brige was built.😂
Yeah, but Germany's initial offer was only HELMETS. That wasn't any gamechanger either. Damn Germany is just dithering.
WE GOT IT. STOP WITH THE "GAMECHANGER" ALREADY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GAMECHANGER." IT'S A MATTER OF COMBINED ARMS, NOW STOP IT ALREADY, WE GOT IT.
Oh Great warmongers
Send your wunderwaffe, Deutschland!
Negotiation for peace will be the real game changer. These war hawk will not give any solution.
Capitulation is not acceptable. And not necessary.
Aren't they claiming that it would '' not be a game changer'' just because Germany eventually refused to sned them to Ukraine?
biden: do we have hypersonic missiles?
Military expert: No sir, we are not that advanced sir.
biden: But we have more money.
Military expert: I understand sir, but the Russians have more brains
how is the Russian nuclear powered missile going? LOL
@@Cecil-yc6mc Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world).
Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile).
Russia has Poseidon nuclear capable super torpedoes. Only Russia has this capability. World's largest submarine K-329 Belgorod, unlimited range, carrier of 2M39 Poseidon nuclear torpedoes.
Russia successfully test-launched a new missile defense system A-235 PL-19 Nudol
Russia successfully tested the new S-550 air defense system.
Russia has powerful anti-satellite weapons (if used, nato will be blind).
Ukraine’s top negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia: Russia was “prepared to end the war if we agreed to... neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO.”
But the US and UK stood in the way.
Ah yes, let's trust Russia who broke the Belgrade Convention, instigated civil war in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, shot down a passenger aircraft and invaded Crimea. After decades of neutrality, Finland and Sweden have joined NATO because Russia can't be trusted.
The globalists wanted to make a fool out of Russia. But instead, the globalists ended up making fools of themselves. Let that be a lesson
enjoy driving your Lada. LOL
@@Cecil-yc6mc I think your cranium is collapsing on its empty void.
@@PerceivedREALITY999 Russia was a backwater before the sanctions. I expect that you'll be back to 19th feudalism by the time that this is over.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Last year, the EU approved 12 sanction packages against Russia and the Russian economy grew 3%. Meanwhile, the EU economy is in "tatters". The EU sanctioned itself.
Making wespons, which you are not selling, it not sound economics. You get growth, but no revenue. Russia does not have access to the capital markets. It risks bankruptcy if there is no peace deal. That may not come in time.
Macron is a weasel. Macron is for Macron.
It really is starting to look like Germany is being over cautious about starting a war with Russia. The question I have is how Germany can state it recognizes the threat Russia poses, but at the same time it is too afraid of doing anything about it? Is the German concern valid when Russia is using weapons from Iran/N. Korea/China? The only thing Germany's slow response has achieved to date is to enable the Russian threat it has publicly acknowledged.
Give Taurus und Atacms to Ukraine!
Ukraine received ATACMS months ago because Germany promised to send Taurus missiles if USA sent ATACMS. USA called Germany's bluff.
The glossed over fact is that Russia has Iskander missiles with nuclear warheads stationed in Kaliningrad - And In the event they detect cruise missiles heading to Moscow the default position that has been explained countless times by Putin, is that they will not wait for the arrival of these taurus cruise missiles to strike before determining if it they are armed with nuclear warheads. Immediately nuclear armed Iskander missiles will fly from Kaliningrad to Berlin and arrive before the Taurus has reached Moscow. The Russian military doctrine makes that explicitly clear and can be searched and read via google. In the circumstances you can hardly blame Scholz who feels the warm breath of German history down his neck.
The EU is joking
is ukraine still winning 🤔
The Anglo-saxons ignited this proxy war to harm Russia while sacrificing Ukraine....
No and unless NATO countries send their own armies, Ukraine will lose.
According to the Taurus manufacturer, it will take at least 6 months to adapt Taurus to the Su-24, if it will be possible at all. The Eurofighter for example can't use it.
it can be pre-programmed on the ground. this is how stormshadow is used right now.
@@TheLordWeiderUA lol same stormshadow was captured by the russians? hahahaha
But F-16 and Gripen are able to carry them to the front. So if western fighter jets where send to Ukraine within the next 3 to 6 month, there is no need developing an adapter for SU-24.
Hopefully Scholz gets enough pressure to change his mind within this period of time till the first jets are being delivered.
@@juamu1132 so what?
@@klausberfelde-je2ye yes and no. Yes -- F16/Gripen will use all Rich features of west munition. But on other side - we have limited amount of NATO-sertified arifields suitable for F16 langind/liftoff (AFAIK - only one..). So SU-24 will be more flexible from mission start point of view AND better for securing this munition from russ air attacks (drones/rockets/ballistics).
***eg ***eil and here we have a defence expert Erich von Manstein
Russia successfully tested the modern RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (most powerful ICBM in the world).
Russia successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
Russia successfully tested 9M730 Burevestnik (nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile).
the Burevestnik test failed and it ended up in the White Sea. LOL
@@Cecil-yc6mc The most recent test was a success.
Nothing alone would be a "game-changer" DUH.
I'm finding it hard to believe that after two years now, Germany and the UK alone can't match and exceed Russian artillery and ammunition production. Seems to be a problem of will not one of capability.
Russia in a month makes more than whole nato can make in a year, when they max their production
@@nenadmitrovicyou believe that a country with 150 million people can outproduce an alliance with almost 1 billion people?
@o those numbers are with whole nato maximazing production and using max production. Russia dont make many planes, but they make shells more than everyone combined
@@Schmudini yes, only fans workers and billions of Taylor Swift dont make shells
@o >what do u think happens if Europe maxes production?
Yeah German industry for example just buming right now!
You can't just wish and start produce.
You even can't if you have payloads of money that Europe doesn't. It's not a computer game where you push button and got a shell plant.
"9 womens can't born child in one month"
Remember when Germany needed help.
Europe is so weak, its actually sad. If it wssnt for the U.S Russia would have steamrolled the continent by now
Do you have evidence for this generalisation?
@@emaluboniface3402 Considering the EU as a whole averages below 2% military spending and the EU has a whole can't provide Ukraine with enough ammunition... yeah Russia would have a cakewalk
@@rennydesu This awful narrative of Russia attacking the whole of Europe is lousy and baseless.
The Russians this time will not only change the map of Germany but also its demographics.
It looks like Russia is already changing their own demographics, and the prices of Russian mail order brides are dropping like bricks.
It is the same as Storm Shadow..It is not hypersonic weapon that is with nuclwar engine.
No the storm has a time fuze Design. The Taurus Are better.
How can we improve on this less accurate time fuze design? One way would be to count the layers and “void spaces” the FTB penetrates, in order to time the ignition. In doing so, we no longer rely on an estimated penetration time, which is bound to be inaccurate.
Coincidentally, this is exactly what the fuze of Taurus’ MEPHISTO warhead system does. Taurus’ warhead is equipped with a “void sensing and layer counting” fuze called PIMPF (Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze).This fuze counts the layers and void spaces the follow through bomb penetrates to ignite the payload at exactly the right moment. By measuring the speed of deceleration, PIMPF can also recognize different types of layers (concrete, rock, soil, etc.).This fuze design also offers benefits when engaging bridges. Rather than relying on an estimated time of penetrating the bridge’s first layer (the bridge deck), you can tell the fuze to ignite the follow through bomb once it penetrates the second layer (the pillar).
In doing so, you not only damage the deck of the bridge, but you can also damage its foundations. One missile equipped with a void sensing & layer counting fuze can therefore cause the damage that previously could only be achieved with two or more accurately dropped bombs.
The Macron statement: Wise. Of course you do keep all your options open. He left it to the russians to guess in what case French troops might come to help Ukraine. If it might be when they make the mistake of setting foot on nearly uninhabited Norwegian Svalbard Island, to test NATO invoking article 5 over that. It’s just powerplay diplomacy. Something which Scholz unfortunately failed to understand.
Thomas stop giving people lectures about how they should sit on the chair on the Sbahn bro
The Chancelor should be aware that if things go bad for Germany, our partners talking about "not to escalate" the situation.
If Germany doesn't help Ukraine, they have no reason to expect the US to help them when Putin is on their doorstep. We've already got one of our major parties talking about leaving NATO. Imagine Germany having to pay for an actual military and over here we could get healthcare and higher education.
@@Blodhelmmaybe you could start by voting to have healthcare and higher education, have you tried? Since you are the land of "Democracy "...
Scholz does not speak for NATO nor the EU.Who does he think he is?
Lmao we know what happened to the last "game changers". And the ones before that. And the ones before that, and even the ones before that.
what a non argument for not sending this help.
We had some many game changers in this war but results 0.
How about the German and French troops in Ukraine ? Are these countries so intelligent that they know the history ?
Germany first said not gonna send tanks in Ukraine. And now we are talking for German rockets. And tomorrow we gonna see German boots on the ground. Reason: Putin’s final target is Berlin not Kiev. To win Europe you have to defend Germany.
😂😂😂😂
Ahhhhh! That's why we wear go fasters in unform at bootcamp. Lol Technically! Not boots! 😂
If Taurus wouldn't be a game changer then there is little risk of 'escalation'. So what is the excuse for not providing them to Ukraine?
Noticing that the game changing weapons are in the Russian side....More territories gained....
Nothing beats the mighty Russian shovel!!!
what was the point of picking up a fight with Russia if the stockpile of the entire planet was not enough to fight them
Europe relied on the policy of the USA.
It would not be the first game changer that was introduced in Ukraine.
That being said , the question is, why this game changer will be THE
REAL game changer, since the previous game changers did not change
the game?
FYI, the UK and France provide the nuclear deterrent for Europe.
In this war at front of 1000km scale long range missiles can be realy useful only and only like PR stunt after some defeat on the ground.
Macron has done it again a "dog balls diplomacy"🤣🤣🤣
How many game changers till date ? Anyone...
That's why Germany for decades lost credibility in central and eastern Europe.
In mass a single system absolutely could be a game changer - get on with it! 🇺🇦
Leopard 🐆 where said to be the game changer.
The only chenge we noticed so far has been the Russian advance
Not a game changer , but a situation escalator ...
Sorry but you don’t know whether the US has supplied longer range because the President said he will not be announcing it. However I'm sure the Chancellor knows.
Can't listen to Henry Kissinger's voice any more.
Enough is enough.
Of course not.
Being able to hit remote Command and Control posts and ammo depos is not a game changer, it's pure useless. Like it wasn't in 2022, when Ukraine was able to liberate half the occupied territories with HIMARS, until russkies adapted and moved the depos further in the rear. Not to mention the ability to hit remote airfields etc.
Yeah, no strategic advantage at all.
A random person from the street is more knowledgable than this "expert"...US already provided a limited number of ATACMS and Sweden just agreed to provide Gripen jets to Ukraine...DW, next time ask a kindergardener instead..
Yup Ukraine received ATACMS months ago because Germany promised to send Taurus missiles if USA sent ATACMS. USA called Germany's bluff.