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

No.

I prefer war to be fought foreign soil. Send money and equipment.

there was also the banning of ethnic Russian people to speak their own language, including in their schools that had previously taught in Russian. Russia rightly or wrongly, felt duty bound to protect the people in these regions.

Well, as you ask, *Normandygirl, Russia wrongly thought it could interfere in the affairs of another independent sovereign country.

As to the truth of the claim: Ukraine’s language law, which has been implemented in phases, establishes Ukrainian as the country’s sole state language. The law requires Ukrainian to be primarily used in business, school and media settings. However, it does not ban the use of Russian or other languages. segeiLvrov's claim, which you repeat has been checked and found to be incorrect. Here is the source for this information. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/08/sergey-lavrov/russian-has-not-been-banned-ukraine-despite-repeat/#sources

We must help them, such brave people it could be you or I. Who will Russians go for next anyway.

MaizieD

^Don’t be ridiculous, after WW2 we couldn’t hold any of the countries, starting with India, the jewel in the crown and we certainly couldn’t hold anything now.^

Oh, FGS, Katie59, you don't think I was being serious, do you?

Because of defence cuts the UKs ability is greatly degraded and the US is not much better. We have promised 14 Challenger 2 tanks, we have around 200 very few are usable because the cash isn’t available to maintain them. There are no plans to replace them with a new British design

MaizieD

^" He set out to annexe Ukraine"^
There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. If that had been the aim, he could have taken Kiev on day one very easily.

So what was the point of the 'Special Operation', then, Normandygirl?

The point of the 'Special Operations' was because Russia believed from the actions of Ukraine [ ASOV battalions genocide} against the Russian speaking people in the Donbass region that Ukraine was developing into a Neo Nazi state with Russia phobic policies. Besides the genocide, there was also the banning of ethnic Russian people to speak their own language, including in their schools that had previously taught in Russian. Russia rightly or wrongly, felt duty bound to protect the people in these regions. That is why it has been these regions specifically targeted and not the northerly regions. Putin has stated many times that there is no intention of annexing Ukraine but a determination that the Russian speaking people in the Ukraine are given what was promised and can live free from fear. Nothing that Putin has done so far has shown that he was not being truthful about his intentions.
The further encroachment of NATO since 1991 was seen by Russia as proof of the USA's intention to go against any idea of putting the cold war behind them.
I agree that the Minsk agreements have been broken by both sides but no side can take the moral high road here. The post cold war agreements that stopped Russia from being threatened by the US led NATO from moving ever closer to Russia's borders, have all been disregarded by the west, resulting in NATO troops being present on 4 of it's borders. It is no surprise that Russia is not happy about this.
The OP's question was whether the UK should continue to supply arms to Ukraine and my view is NO. Not because of taking sides, but because every bomb, every bullet is another innocent life lost to a war that can only have one outcome and that is a peace agreement. Continuing to supply weapons is just prolonging the pain and suffering of all the citizens in this conflict and serves only to increase the profits of the war machine and those invested in them.

MOnica of course the time since independence is irrelevant to the country's right to keep it, but it is relevant to the motivation of the aggressor. There are two sides to every war, and IMO best to try to understand both. That's all I mean.

This thread has wandered far from my first post, which was about the Challenger tanks. That's fine but I think I shall withdraw now.

Don’t be ridiculous, after WW2 we couldn’t hold any of the countries, starting with India, the jewel in the crown and we certainly couldn’t hold anything now.

Oh, FGS, Katie59, you don't think I was being serious, do you?

can we recolonise the British Empire.

Don’t be ridiculous, after WW2 we couldn’t hold any of the countries, starting with India, the jewel in the crown and we certainly couldn’t hold anything now.

Russia is easily capable of holding onto the Donbas and Crimea
and do a lot of damage to the rest of Ukraine if they don’t agree to a ceasefire. Of course “IF” Ukraine were to raise an army of half a million men and “IF” NATO supply 500 tanks and all the other hardware Russia would have a big headache.

We will see, so far NATO has been drip feeding defensive weapons not arming them properly.

" He set out to annexe Ukraine"
There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. If that had been the aim, he could have taken Kiev on day one very easily.

So what was the point of the 'Special Operation', then, Normandygirl?

The independence of Ukraine is very recent. That has its relevance in understanding the conflict but IMO parallels with Australia and Ireland are beside the point.

winterwhite what on earth has the length of time a country has had its independence got to do with whether it is entitled to keep that independence and not be invaded and recolonised?

What length of time do you think is needed to guarentee a countries independence? the country has been independent for nearly 32 years. If that is too short what time is OK 50 years, 100years?

This is a key question that requires answering. If Russia can recolonise its nation because they have only been independent 32 years, can we recolonise the British Empire.

Exactly how does the situation in Ukraine, differ from Ireland, the situation has so many factors in common and Ireland has been independent for only just over 100 years, after nearly a millenium of being part of the UK in its many forms. Ukraine didn't become part of the Russian empire until 1792, just 231 years ago.

Putin did not occupy Ukraine in 2008 because he was unsure how NATO would react. The Minsk Agreements were not fully adhered to by either side, and gave Putin hope that if he played his cards slowly and surely he could take over Ukraine without any serious repercussions.

In 2014, he invaded and annexed the Crimea there were alot of Western protests, but little was done, so Putin, who is both a cat as well as a rat. decided to continue to play a waiting game until he felt confident that he could strike at Ukraine and occupy the whole country in a couple of days, then dare Nato and its allies to do something about it, feeling confident that they wouldn't.

One of the many things that last February's invasion showed as well as the incompetence of the Russian army was the incompetence of its intelligence services as well. Or rather, that they are not incompetent but that Putin and his immediate supporters were not listening to them.

Like so many dictators Putin is convinced that they are out to get him and he has cut himself off from all but a small group of yesmen, who know their position close to him, depends on their agreement with him, so they do.

He was convinced that Ukraine would be a walk-over, although intelligence suggested that was no longer true. He was convinced NATO would do nothing. He was wrong again.

Now he is stuck, he cannot go forward, but cannot go back, which brings us back to how rats behave when cornered.

No one has been spouting propaganda, Russian or Ukrainian.

Really?

There's a Russian apologist's post directly above yours, winterwhite

Easy on the oars!

No one has been spouting propaganda, Russian or Ukrainian.

The independence of Ukraine is very recent. That has its relevance in understanding the conflict but IMO parallels with Australia and Ireland are beside the point.

Upthread I wondered what difference the year’s delay in the readiness of the Leopard tanks will make to what happens now (not to the moral argument ).

M0nica

Nothing can save Putin's face, and he knows it. He set out to annexe Ukraine and he has signally failed, nibbled round the edges, done a lot of damage, but little else. His army has been shown to be badly trained, badly equipped and his generals are incompetent.

His mission was always to recreate the Greater Russia of the Czars. He wanted to go down in history as being the second Peter the Great. Ukraine was first on the list because of its size and proximity. he would then have moved on to Belorus, the Baltic states and probably into central Asia, all the 'stan' countries.

His plan is in shreds, no matter how he looks at it, he is going to go down in history as a failure, and he knows it. read this link www.gzeromedia.com/putin-ukraine-and-the-rat-story He is now the rat at bay.

Maizie I completely agree with you

" He set out to annexe Ukraine"
There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. If that had been the aim, he could have taken Kiev on day one very easily. If his sole aim had been to take over the whole of Ukraine he would have done so in 2008 when Ukraine didn't have much in the way of military power and would have been an easy take.
Instead he signed the Minsk agreement in the misguided belief that it would be adhered to by Ukraine. He was wrong to trust Ukraine, the EU and USA as he now publicly admits.
Even Angela Merkel in a recent interview admitted that when the Paris accord was signed they knew it was only to " buy time" for Ukraine. There was never any intention to abide by the agreement in the long run.
If anyone is hellbent on world domination, look no further than the USA who are the ones making a fortune from the mess that they have provoked in Ukraine. Just as they have done countless times all over the globe. Ask the people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc what improvements their " help" has done for them. Of course the USA doesn't have to deal with the millions of refugees their interference causes do they, Europe does.

MaizieD

Australia is bigger and has more natural resources

Once we've got Australia we could move on to New Zealand...

I think that trying for the USA would be a bit ambitious at the moment...

But Canada could be a possibility.......

Australia is bigger and has more natural resources

Once we've got Australia we could move on to New Zealand...

I think that trying for the USA would be a bit ambitious at the moment...

Lots of English people live in the Republic and many families live both sides of the borde. Not to mention the number of full and part Irish people living in England (I am one).

Ireland was part of the UK until 1921. Why aren't the British army already on the move to reclaim it?

Maizie Republic of Ireland is even nearer, and we have a common border in Northern Ireland.

nanna8

I still wonder what is the take on all the thousands of Russians that live there. Are they happy about their mother country moving in ? Are they ashamed of Putin’s aggression ? Some of them seem to welcome the Russian troops but perhaps they are scared to do otherwise? Do we really know what they want ?

Tell you what, nanna8, we'll send an army out to invade Australia and take it back under our direct control. After all, it was part of our Empire and a very large proportion of its population is of British descent, so I'm sure they'd be happy to lose their sovereignty and independence in order to rebuild the British Empire...

We'll torture and murder your civilians and raze your cities to the ground. Steal your children to re-educate them to be good little Britishers...

Of course, you all speak English, too, so that's another justification for invading you...

Hmm....

I still wonder what is the take on all the thousands of Russians that live there. Are they happy about their mother country moving in ? Are they ashamed of Putin’s aggression ? Some of them seem to welcome the Russian troops but perhaps they are scared to do otherwise? Do we really know what they want ?

Nothing can save Putin's face, and he knows it. He set out to annexe Ukraine and he has signally failed, nibbled round the edges, done a lot of damage, but little else. His army has been shown to be badly trained, badly equipped and his generals are incompetent.

His mission was always to recreate the Greater Russia of the Czars. He wanted to go down in history as being the second Peter the Great. Ukraine was first on the list because of its size and proximity. he would then have moved on to Belorus, the Baltic states and probably into central Asia, all the 'stan' countries.

His plan is in shreds, no matter how he looks at it, he is going to go down in history as a failure, and he knows it. read this link www.gzeromedia.com/putin-ukraine-and-the-rat-story He is now the rat at bay.

Maizie I completely agree with you

I really don't think that Putin does 'face saving'. He is bent on annexing Ukraine and I don't think that retaining little bits of it would satisfy him in the slightest.

He has invaded a sovereign country which was no threat to Russia. There is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever and posters who are throwing Russian propaganda at us should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

It seems to me that what Ukraine desperately needs is some effective anti-missile systems to eliminate Putin's bombardment of civilians and clear policy of destroying as much of Ukraine's infrastructure as possible, including centres of population. Ukraine is doing well on the ground but is so vulnerable to attack from the air.

Well said, Wyllow.

If we accept the arguments that Russia has done badly in this war so far isn't it likely that after a face-saving settlement in the Ukraine (if it can be achieved) Putin would retire to his cave to lick his wounds before attempting further annexations. In that time the West could help threatened states to develop their own defence capabilities.

It is finding the face-saving truce that is the difficulty.

Btw this morning we learn that the much talked-up German Leopards won't be ready for another year. How significant a difference does that make? Why was that not made clear earlier I wonder?

Correction above, "adjoining territories".

Unfortunately unless we supply the Ukrainians with overwhelming forces they cannot win. Russia knows this and know the dilemmas the West face, ie getting pulled into major war situations.

I have always thought that what the Russians are really after are the valuable tactical areas to the East and south where there is sea access and therefore further control of the adjoining, and there are most Russian speakers.

But should the Ukraine secede them to get peace? Not at all sure, as it gives en excuse for further annexation, into Georgia for example.

Yet we will remain at an attritional deadlock unless overwhelming force or his compromise is reached. I'm afraid a few Challenger tanks are really neither here nor there.

The Russians are using mercenary forces and presumably can buy more in.