Do the pros of sending tanks to Ukraine outweigh the cons?

What compromise do you think should be brought into effect Eloethan?
Would that compromise mean Ukraine giving over part of its territory to Russia?
That may be acceptable to you, but probably not to most Ukrainians.
Which part of the the UK would you be willing to away if we were invaded by an aggressive bully intent on occupying the UK?
For compromise read appeasement.
Appeasement never works. If it did, Russia would have been satisfied with Crimea.

Providing tanks, weapons, military training, etc, etc, will extend the war, leading to even more lost and ruined lives and destruction of vital infrastructure and the natural environment. The only people who will ultimately benefit will be arms manufacturers - as they always do when there is armed conflict. They made a fortune out of the invasion of Iraq, and millions of dollars meant for the re-building of Iraq's ruined infrastructure and businesses went missing too. The invasion resulted in a state of political and economic chaos, with violence between various armed factions continuing to this day. Ditto Libya.

It is an unpopular view I know but my understanding is that there was some sort of an agreement that Ukraine would not become part of NATO and that no steps would be taken to encourage it to seek membership. The Ministry of Defence's own website reports that in 2015 there was a deployment of UK armed forces in Ukraine for the purpose of training the Ukrainian armed forces.

As with all wars, it is the ordinary people who suffer on both sides. Providing more and more weapons to Ukraine will only escalate an already dangerous situation.

I don't see the Ukraine/Russia situation as in any way akin to what happened in Germany where a power mad, deranged man used the underlying frustration and dissatisfaction of the majority population to scapegoat and dehumanise already victimised groups within the German population, leading ultimately to the systematic murder of large numbers of not soldiers but defenceless men, women and children.

As with Iraq, there are virtually no mainstream media voices to express anything other than support for this ever-expanding Ukrainian military operation.

The UK has many very serious issues to deal with - a crisis situation across all of our public services, a government that cannot be trusted to behave ethically or effectively, a care crisis which the government had long ago promised to deal with as a matter of urgency, many families facing extreme hardship and living in seriously sub-standard accommodation, etc. etc. We are spending millions of pounds to ensure the continuance of a bloody war that is destroying Russian and Ukrainian lives, rather than trying to encourage some sort of compromise, with the hope that it will lead towards peace. We involve ourselves in these wars but leave a trail of chaos and misery behind us. We have not fulfilled our obligations towards those UK-supporting Afghan people left in Afghanistan fearing for their lives- nor have we fulfilled the promise to provide adequate accommodation for those few Afghan people who did manage to get out.

I have just found the link below. It puts what I have said above more clearly and specifically and with better corrobarative detail than I have given.

news.sky.com/story/how-faster-deadlier-tanks-could-turn-the-tide-in-the-ukraine-war-12791057

Totally correct M0nica

Thanks MOnica. I hadn’t realised that. A sensible clause made when no one foresaw what was going to happens. Difficult.

Maybee&). The day of the tank is fast drawing to a close. They are slowly moving targets for battlefield drones and only useful in places like Ukraine because the Russian army and equipment is so outdated. They are having to buy ther drones in from iran and North Korea, a gathering of the pariahs of the world.

The tanks being refused access to Ukraine are not German army tanks, but tanks made in Germany, but sold to other countries like Poland, with a clause in the sales agreement that they can only be used defensively within the purchasing countries borders.

By the way, why on earth is the under investigation disgraced former PM Johnson swanning around in Ukraine again lapping up the adulation?

I think we’ve only got a couple of hundred tanks, all of which are pretty old so I’m not sure what condition they’re in. It was decided years ago that any future wars would be cyber wars. I assume that Germany, having, unlike us, borders with other countries, feel that their tanks are needed to protect them. But that’s me probably putting two and two together and making five.

GrannyGravy13

Germany has so far blocked other countries from sending the German manufactured Leopard Tanks.

If these Countries decide to ignore Germany and ship the Tanks to Ukraine they will immediately be put on a list and unable to purchase any armaments from German for the foreseeable future, which would/could result in a big downturn in Germanys Arms Manufacturing Industry.

I think it’s about time to call Germany’s bluff.

They are not stupid NATO either supplies together or not at all Putin would just love for NATO to fall apart. the UKs Challengers will be useful in defence until a larger army is assembled - or not as the case may be.

Germany has so far blocked other countries from sending the German manufactured Leopard Tanks.

If these Countries decide to ignore Germany and ship the Tanks to Ukraine they will immediately be put on a list and unable to purchase any armaments from German for the foreseeable future, which would/could result in a big downturn in Germanys Arms Manufacturing Industry.

I think it’s about time to call Germany’s bluff.

Isn’t Germany’s chancellor Olaf Schultz a friend of Putin? Am sure I’ve read that in the past.

GrannyGravy13, Sending arms and equipment will always be preferable to boots on the ground

Indeed, send arms, equipment and money, not troops.

Katie59

Germany suffers from post WW2 reluctance to get involved in any military activity, Japan is similar, it policy is entirely defense. However as part of NATO they provide by far the largest amount of conventional weaponry notably over 2000 modern Leopard tanks.
In my opinion they should not get involved in a major confrontation in Ukraine unless the US is fully backing them, the risk of Putin striking targets outside Ukraine is a real one, and the threat of a nuclear strike should not be ruled out. It takes time to assemble and train an effective army and they are not likely to publicize what is going on.

President Putin will not knowingly/willingly strike targets outside of Ukraine.

Russian would be vulnerable to multiple strikes from Allied Forces.

It’s impossible to negotiate with President Putin as he is in the mindset that he has done nothing wrong, which is the line being broadcast on all Russian State Media.

The world has to arm Ukraine, it has been invaded and systematically destroyed by an aggressor.

Sending arms and equipment will always be preferable to boots on the ground

www.express.co.uk/news/world/1723253/Russia-war-Ukraine-tanks-T-14-Ramstein-putin-Volodymyr-Zelensky

A reminder not to get “gung-ho” over Ukraine

maddyone

The original question was

Do the pros of sending tanks to Ukraine outweigh the cons?

In my view, yes, certainly. Putin is an aggressor. He has invaded a sovereign country and smashed it to bits. Hitler did the same. Appeasement doesn’t work, if it did , WW2 would never have happened because Neville Chamberlain would have secured peace in our time after his negotiations with Hitler. Putin is an aggressive bully and he will not negotiate unless he is given a large slice of Ukraine. That may be acceptable to the British public, and the populations of other countries in the EU or America, or elsewhere, but I very much doubt it would be acceptable to the Ukrainians. It wouldn’t be acceptable to British people if an aggressive bully invaded Britain and would only negotiate when given a large slice of Britain would it? Which bit would be given away? The bit you live in or the bit I live in? No! You cannot appease a bully.

Excellent answer, maddyone.

The Germans play a big part in NATO. Sixteen out of twenty seven C in C’s of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command in the Netherlands have been German. It makes me wonder, if push came to shove, and we had another German commander, how much autonomy in decision making he would have from his dithering government. The current incumbent is Italian; we have held it once. Just musing.

All this dithering from Germany is worrying me, whilst the inhabitants of Ukraine are being ruthlessly murderer by that mad man Putin.

Ukraine needs the help of ALL the NATO members NOW!

Germany suffers from post WW2 reluctance to get involved in any military activity, Japan is similar, it policy is entirely defense. However as part of NATO they provide by far the largest amount of conventional weaponry notably over 2000 modern Leopard tanks.
In my opinion they should not get involved in a major confrontation in Ukraine unless the US is fully backing them, the risk of Putin striking targets outside Ukraine is a real one, and the threat of a nuclear strike should not be ruled out. It takes time to assemble and train an effective army and they are not likely to publicize what is going on.

What a 3 ring circus the German defence ministry is. No wonder it’s taking so long. I expected better from the Germans

carnegieeurope.eu/2023/01/19/new-german-defense-minister-s-biggest-challenge-isn-t-ukraine-pub-88847

Sparklefizz

As Zelensky poignantly said "We are doing the dying - please just send us the weapons."

We must bear in mind that Kyiv is only 1,200 miles from London and no, a bully can't be appeased, especially one who seems to have gone mad.

This and what maddyone says

It’s our recent history, let’s remember learn and face up to psychopaths

Excellent post, maddyone.

History has shown that you can't appease a bully.

Look what happened after the Allies beat Hitler.
In his wake comes another bully marching across Europe.

As Zelensky poignantly said "We are doing the dying - please just send us the weapons."

We must bear in mind that Kyiv is only 1,200 miles from London and no, a bully can't be appeased, especially one who seems to have gone mad.

maddyone

The original question was

Do the pros of sending tanks to Ukraine outweigh the cons?

In my view, yes, certainly. Putin is an aggressor. He has invaded a sovereign country and smashed it to bits. Hitler did the same. Appeasement doesn’t work, if it did , WW2 would never have happened because Neville Chamberlain would have secured peace in our time after his negotiations with Hitler. Putin is an aggressive bully and he will not negotiate unless he is given a large slice of Ukraine. That may be acceptable to the British public, and the populations of other countries in the EU or America, or elsewhere, but I very much doubt it would be acceptable to the Ukrainians. It wouldn’t be acceptable to British people if an aggressive bully invaded Britain and would only negotiate when given a large slice of Britain would it? Which bit would be given away? The bit you live in or the bit I live in? No! You cannot appease a bully.

Excellent. Can't appease a bully.

No fighting here, we want to send equipment to the Ukraine.

The US also has to consider the Taiwan situation, part of that is not antagonizing the aggressor so that he lashes out disastrously.

The USA is in a difficult postion like it or not, its size and past mean that it is seen as the lead aggressor country, with a history of trying to dominate the world - just like Russia.

Russia at the moment would do absolutely anything to get the US really actively involved in the Ukraine situation because it can then lever the war up a level by presenting it as not a local unjustified invasion but a wholescale war of the superpowers. with the US on its borders and threatening the government of Russia.

Throughout this conflict the US has stood back and let the other NATO countries do the supplying and ensuring that everything done with those supplies is defensive only.

A lot of the hoo ha about tanks is about shouting up the odds. Tanks are largely yesterday's weapon, they are bulky and slow and as we have seen so clearly in this war so far, they can readily be skewered and blown up by a drone. However, against a badly trained and equiped army like that of the Russians, they are having to buy in drones from Iran and North Korea. They can be very useful.