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

Could somebody remind me of the response to Putin’s offer to negotiate that was in the news over Christmas?

Understood that this was assumed to be insincere or that nothing would come of it, but if no effort has been made but instead arrangements are put in place to send more sophisticated armaments to Ukraine I don’t call that a good look. But I may have missed something.

And if the way is now clear for Poland and Finland to send their superior tanks why have they not said they are ready to do so?

winterwhite It has been made clear that the only negotiations on offer are a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.

What alternative is there?

If Russia is ramping up its war efforts - and it is, then Ukraine needs the armaments to resist it.

Remember Ukraine was a peaceful country, with clear internationally recognised borders. Russia had no argument with it or dispute, Yet it chose unilaterally to march into te country and try and take it over.

If your next door neighbour knocked a hole in the wall and promptly moved in and added your living rooms to their house. Would you agree to negotiate and let them have half the space or would you say that they had to leave completely and block the doorway, even if you had to call the police to force them out?

(Replying to Monica), if said neighbours claimed that my living rooms had been an integral part of their house for centuries and they were trying to right what they saw as old wrongs, and if I thought the police would be powerless to do anything about it short of destroying the whole house, I think I might be willing to discuss their taking back a small part of it on condition that they undertook to leave the rest alone.

I don’t think the clear boundaries are the point. Breaking treaties is very wrong and the Russian regime is very terrible. But the Russianness of parts of Ukraine, esp Kiev of course can’t be airbrushed out of the picture.

Taking that argument that would justify the British taking back the Republic of Ireland. The Britishnes of much of Ireland cannot be denied and the majority have English as there mother tongue.

As I recall it, Putin's only offer over Christmas was a temporary truce for one or two days to allow their soldiers to observe their Christmas. And it was probably a ploy so they could re-group.
We have to support Ukraine and simply cannot let Putin do what he likes. If he wins where does he invade next. We all hate war but sometimes it's vital to stand up to dictators.
Do you think we should not have fought the first and second world wars,?
Where would we be now if we hadn't?

M0nica

Before WW2, there were people who felt we should appease Germany to keep out of the war, even though he too was just such an aggressor as Putin.

Thank goodness we didn't.

The world order is not comparable to 1940, Britain went into defend France against Hitler, it took 5 more years, 50million lives and nuclear weapons win WW2. NATO could have defended Ukraine but the world order has changed, the threat of nuclear war is a big risk, Russia is quite capable of sustaining the war for years, there has got to be a peace agreement.

Russia is not capable of sustaining the war for years. We have seen just how badly trained and equipped their soldies are and how incompetent their generals are, their equipment is decades behind NATOs. The Russian army has been humiliated in this war.

The Russian economy has been badly hit by this war and sanctions. If the Russians were any good they would have overrun Ukraine in days. they didn't and nearly a year later still haven't.

The nuclear threat is two-sided and just as there was no use of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, when the danger was much higher, so it is very unlikely now. NATO has nuclear weapons as well. No one is likely to use the huge area destruction bombs, like those used on Japan. They will use battlefield nuclear devices, just as terrible in effect, but across a much smaller area.

In Syria the Russians used chemical and biological bombs, easier and cheaper. I agree Putin is capable of anything, but the probabilities are against the use of nuclear.

M0nica

Putin wants to rebuild Russia as it was in 1989. Ruling everywhere from the Baltic to the Pacific. Lands that were given their independence in that year.

He started small supporting rebellions in remote areas of Georgia, and Moldavia, recently he has supported the government in Belorus. It is now a client state. he has done all this with one eye on NATO, to see how it has reacted - and, he saw that NATO was doing nothing.

Then in 2014, he invaded the Crimea and supported pro-russian groups in the Donbas region. Once again he had got away with it. We faced a future of Putin gradually re-occupying and recreating the old Soviet Union and creating another military state. That is why NATO had to say, thus far and no further.

Remember the poem by Martin Niemoller?

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Replace communist, socialist, jew, with Ukraine, Moldavia, Poland, Romania etc.

That is what will happen if we do not support Ukraine.

Well considering the Ukrainian government has integrated the Nazi ASOV battalion. that carried out mass genocide and ethnic cleansing of Russian speaking people, into their mainstream army, I would say that the world has much more to fear from Ukraine than it does Russia.

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.

Correction above, "adjoining territories".

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?

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.

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 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 ?

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....

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

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?

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...

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.......

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.

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 ).

No one has been spouting propaganda, Russian or Ukrainian.

Really?

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

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.

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.

" 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?