ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

SO.....in thirty words or less....is anybody going to win this war, or is it going to end like a school yard fight with somebody stepping in and calling it off and both countries claiming they would have won if they'd been given another 30 days.

Sam: "to say that it's meaningless without exemplary behavior on Russia's part is illogical."

Only person making that argument is you, Sam.

The adults are suggesting that we have both obligations and motives to be involved. I strongly disagree with some of the actions, and especially the cost, but it's absurd to insert a false claim just because you dislike the real argument.

Not saying I support any particular action, but I am a little surprised Vlad P is still breathing air and making speeches. That suggests its own set of motives for what's going on.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

If American statehood or NATO membership mean anything at all, they mean that we could not.

---

Absent a respect and/or recognition of sovereignty, they really don't mean anything.

---

Then we should withdraw from NATO immediately. It's not our business to enforce some abstract principle of sovereignty in every corner of the world.

---

Territorial sovereignty is a pretty basic idea to understand. But feel free to make your argument against alliances.

---

You've just made it for me. There's no need for alliances if we're already obligated to defend everyone on general principles. In reality that's not the case. NATO is based on the assumption that Russia may not respect other nations' sovereignty and that we have a special interest in defending certain allies. That's the reason why the alliance exists. So to say that it's meaningless without exemplary behavior on Russia's part is illogical.

---

We make decisions such as this with or without an alliance all the time. Let's not pretend this is something new. Of course all participants are signed parties to the UN Charter if you need an instrument in place. NATO is simply a direct defense agreement that we can choose to participate or not. We have many examples of fellow members not participating with others who were called to action.

But you're making the illogical argument that because someone was under the previous influence/reign of someone else that somehow we shouldn't care about their sovereignty, or it doesn't matter as much as others, and should be more acceptable if it's violated, or that we shouldn't care.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

If American statehood or NATO membership mean anything at all, they mean that we could not.

---

Absent a respect and/or recognition of sovereignty, they really don't mean anything.

---

Then we should withdraw from NATO immediately. It's not our business to enforce some abstract principle of sovereignty in every corner of the world.

---

Territorial sovereignty is a pretty basic idea to understand. But feel free to make your argument against alliances.

---

You've just made it for me. There's no need for alliances if we're already obligated to defend everyone on general principles. In reality that's not the case. NATO is based on the assumption that Russia may not respect other nations' sovereignty and that we have a special interest in defending certain allies. That's the reason why the alliance exists. So to say that it's meaningless without exemplary behavior on Russia's part is illogical.

---

We make decisions such as this with or without an alliance all the time. Let's not pretend this is something new. Of course all participants are signed parties to the UN Charter if you need an instrument in place. NATO is simply a direct defense agreement that we can choose to participate or not. We have many examples of fellow members not participating with others who were called to action.

But you're making the illogical argument that because someone was under the previous influence/reign of someone else that somehow we shouldn't care about their sovereignty, or it doesn't matter as much as others, and should be more acceptable if it's violated, or that we shouldn't care.

---

It can be in our interest to assist without being part of a treaty.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

If American statehood or NATO membership mean anything at all, they mean that we could not.

---

Absent a respect and/or recognition of sovereignty, they really don't mean anything.

---

Then we should withdraw from NATO immediately. It's not our business to enforce some abstract principle of sovereignty in every corner of the world.

---

Territorial sovereignty is a pretty basic idea to understand. But feel free to make your argument against alliances.

---

You've just made it for me. There's no need for alliances if we're already obligated to defend everyone on general principles. In reality that's not the case. NATO is based on the assumption that Russia may not respect other nations' sovereignty and that we have a special interest in defending certain allies. That's the reason why the alliance exists. So to say that it's meaningless without exemplary behavior on Russia's part is illogical.

---

We make decisions such as this with or without an alliance all the time. Let's not pretend this is something new. Of course all participants are signed parties to the UN Charter if you need an instrument in place. NATO is simply a direct defense agreement that we can choose to participate or not. We have many examples of fellow members not participating with others who were called to action.

But you're making the illogical argument that because someone was under the previous influence/reign of someone else that somehow we shouldn't care about their sovereignty, or it doesn't matter as much as others, and should be more acceptable if it's violated, or that we shouldn't care.

---

It can be in our interest to assist without being part of a treaty.

---

Exactly.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

It's almost as if we've lost the concept of national interest. Invading Alaska wouldn't just be a violation of "a nation's" sovereignty. It would be a violation of American sovereignty, which means America would have a direct interest in it. I'm not saying it's okay for Russia to violate Ukraine's sovereignty. I'm questioning the nature of our interest in it.

The point is exactly as you said. We make decisions, and we make them all the time. If a country violates the UN charter, the UN makes a decision what to do or not do. It doesn't just happen automatically. The problem is that these decisions are often ill considered because we don't talk about the real reasons. What is our actual interest and motivation in Ukraine? That's what we should be talking about--coldly, realistically, and without all the horse**** about "war on autocracy," universal respect, or unicorns that fly through the air farting rainbows and freedom.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia actually has nukes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Great job of missing my point. I wasn't claiming Iran would start a nuclear war. Just that people said Trump was going to start a nuclear war OR (separate thought now) a war with Iran. I don't even remember the incident now but there were numerous articles after an incident with Iran declaring that Trump had just started WW3. There were also numerous articles from the day he was elected claiming he would start a nuclear war.

And yet neither came true.

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Great job of missing my point. I wasn't claiming Iran would start a nuclear war. Just that people said Trump was going to start a nuclear war OR (separate thought now) a war with Iran. I don't even remember the incident now but there were numerous articles after an incident with Iran declaring that Trump had just started WW3. There were also numerous articles from the day he was elected claiming he would start a nuclear war.

And yet neither came true.

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Ok,

So you have just proven that liberal journalists lie.

They lied about the danger Trump posed because they wanted him out of office.

Iran does NOT actually have nuclear weapons.

But you know who does have nuclear weapons? Russia and China

Russia has 5,900 nuclear weapons...China has over 500 active war heads.

Iran is currently trying to build a grand total of....1

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

Indeed, we of all countries should be glad the principle of sovereignty isn't self-enforcing. Otherwise we would have been invaded and our leaders deposed a long time ago.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Great job of missing my point. I wasn't claiming Iran would start a nuclear war. Just that people said Trump was going to start a nuclear war OR (separate thought now) a war with Iran. I don't even remember the incident now but there were numerous articles after an incident with Iran declaring that Trump had just started WW3. There were also numerous articles from the day he was elected claiming he would start a nuclear war.

And yet neither came true.

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Ok,

So you have just proven that liberal journalists lie.

They lied about the danger Trump posed because they wanted him out of office.

Iran does NOT actually have nuclear weapons.

But you know who does have nuclear weapons? Russia and China

Russia has 5,900 nuclear weapons...China has over 500 active war heads.

Iran is currently trying to build a grand total of....1

---

No I have proven that journalists make sensationalist claims to get headlines. Like the one about sending takes will lead to Nuclear war.

I never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons. I was only using them as an example because there were numerous articles about how Trump was starting a war with them or starting WW3. Not nuclear. Just a war.

So good job of missing what I said just to draw your own conclusions and keep arguing with yourself.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Great job of missing my point. I wasn't claiming Iran would start a nuclear war. Just that people said Trump was going to start a nuclear war OR (separate thought now) a war with Iran. I don't even remember the incident now but there were numerous articles after an incident with Iran declaring that Trump had just started WW3. There were also numerous articles from the day he was elected claiming he would start a nuclear war.

And yet neither came true.

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Ok,

So you have just proven that liberal journalists lie.

They lied about the danger Trump posed because they wanted him out of office.

Iran does NOT actually have nuclear weapons.

But you know who does have nuclear weapons? Russia and China

Russia has 5,900 nuclear weapons...China has over 500 active war heads.

Iran is currently trying to build a grand total of....1

---

No I have proven that journalists make sensationalist claims to get headlines. Like the one about sending takes will lead to Nuclear war.

I never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons. I was only using them as an example because there were numerous articles about how Trump was starting a war with them or starting WW3. Not nuclear. Just a war.

So good job of missing what I said just to draw your own conclusions and keep arguing with yourself.

---

Come on.. I basically agree with you.

But its important to point out that the sensationalist headlines about Iran were not based in fact....because Iran does not yet have functional/deployable tactical nuclear weapons...but Russia and China do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine


[The Pentagon has confirmed active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have "resumed on-site inspections...."]

And lets no kid ourselves. That is just the ones they are willing to tell us about.

We had troops in Syria when our government was telling us we did not have any Americans in country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Great job of missing my point. I wasn't claiming Iran would start a nuclear war. Just that people said Trump was going to start a nuclear war OR (separate thought now) a war with Iran. I don't even remember the incident now but there were numerous articles after an incident with Iran declaring that Trump had just started WW3. There were also numerous articles from the day he was elected claiming he would start a nuclear war.

And yet neither came true.

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Ok,

So you have just proven that liberal journalists lie.

They lied about the danger Trump posed because they wanted him out of office.

Iran does NOT actually have nuclear weapons.

But you know who does have nuclear weapons? Russia and China

Russia has 5,900 nuclear weapons...China has over 500 active war heads.

Iran is currently trying to build a grand total of....1

---

No I have proven that journalists make sensationalist claims to get headlines. Like the one about sending takes will lead to Nuclear war.

I never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons. I was only using them as an example because there were numerous articles about how Trump was starting a war with them or starting WW3. Not nuclear. Just a war.

So good job of missing what I said just to draw your own conclusions and keep arguing with yourself.

---

Come on.. I basically agree with you.

But its important to point out that the sensationalist headlines about Iran were not based in fact....because Iran does not yet have functional/deployable tactical nuclear weapons...but Russia and China do.

---

There you go again with ignoring what I am typing.

So I will try to explain it carefully for you. There are basically 2 types of war.

Conventional and nuclear.

The mentioning of Iran was in terms of a conventional war. That is what people were claiming Trump started. Nuclear was not the concern. Just that he started a war with Iran. The headlines then said NOTHING about nuclear war. Just war.

The only reason I brought it up was to point out the sensationalism that the journalists were claiming a war was started.

Which is very similar to today with the journalists claiming that aid to Ukraine will cause a nuclear war.

They did it when countries sent surface to air missiles and other weapons last spring/summer. Now they are doing it with talks of tanks being sent.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine


[The Pentagon has confirmed active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have "resumed on-site inspections...."]

And lets no kid ourselves. That is just the ones they are willing to tell us about.

We had troops in Syria when our government was telling us we did not have any Americans in country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

---

I guess I should have used different wording since you are being so literal and not reading what I am meaning.

Sam made a claim of the US driving Russia out of Ukraine. I was saying I did not know we were actively fighting to push them out. As in our troops doing the fighting. Not just sending weapons, advisors, etc.

Because if Russia gets pushed out of Ukraine it is not BY the US but rather by the Ukrainian troops with weapons/supplies from the US, Poland, England, Germany, etc.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine


[The Pentagon has confirmed active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have "resumed on-site inspections...."]

And lets no kid ourselves. That is just the ones they are willing to tell us about.

We had troops in Syria when our government was telling us we did not have any Americans in country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

---

I guess I should have used different wording since you are being so literal and not reading what I am meaning.

Sam made a claim of the US driving Russia out of Ukraine. I was saying I did not know we were actively fighting to push them out. As in our troops doing the fighting. Not just sending weapons, advisors, etc.

Because if Russia gets pushed out of Ukraine it is not BY the US but rather by the Ukrainian troops with weapons/supplies from the US, Poland, England, Germany, etc.

---

We certain have a media-military complex in D.C. who wants to have troops in Ukraine fighting to drive out the Russians.

Thankfully we have a few cool heads/sober folks in the Senate preventing that right now.

But the idea we have any American troops in Ukraine is outrageous. We are actively taking part in a bloody war.

The American people were never asked...and we certainly would not have agreed to get involved in this Ukrainian-Russian war...or the Syrian civil war.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine


[The Pentagon has confirmed active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have "resumed on-site inspections...."]

And lets no kid ourselves. That is just the ones they are willing to tell us about.

We had troops in Syria when our government was telling us we did not have any Americans in country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

---

I guess I should have used different wording since you are being so literal and not reading what I am meaning.

Sam made a claim of the US driving Russia out of Ukraine. I was saying I did not know we were actively fighting to push them out. As in our troops doing the fighting. Not just sending weapons, advisors, etc.

Because if Russia gets pushed out of Ukraine it is not BY the US but rather by the Ukrainian troops with weapons/supplies from the US, Poland, England, Germany, etc.

---

The author wasn't necessarily talking about large-scale fighting by US troops. Russia would not likely allow the conventional engagement to reach that point, as their defeat would be guaranteed and their borders immediately threatened.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

Except that this is the closest it has been because of "journalists" saying it is close. Nothing from governments or leaders.

Heck in case you forgot just a few short years ago there were "journalists" here who kept thinking Trump was going to start a nuclear war or war with Iran.

And yet it NEVER happened.

---

I would argue that it's somewhat more likely to happen with Russia, given that Russia has nukes.

---

Again right now the only people claiming we are close to a nuclear war are the "journalists." Many of the same ones that made the above two claims.

---

Well, that's certainly not true. I read an article a while back, and I can't remember the author's name, but he was a former military officer who had experience with computerized war simulations. In his opinion there is no known scenario in which the US drives Russia out of Ukraine without a nuclear exchange. The concern is real. The fact that some journalists may have overreacted on some other occasion really has nothing to do with it.

---

Opinion.

Opinion.

Sigh. More sensationalism from a former person. Not someone who has current knowledge of the situation. And he talks about a scenario where the US drives Russia out? I did not know we had troops on the ground.

So this guy was nothing more than a contributor to a "journalist" or basically a journalist himself.

So again no politicians have said anything about nuclear war. Just random people claiming it.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine


[The Pentagon has confirmed active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have "resumed on-site inspections...."]

And lets no kid ourselves. That is just the ones they are willing to tell us about.

We had troops in Syria when our government was telling us we did not have any Americans in country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

---

I guess I should have used different wording since you are being so literal and not reading what I am meaning.

Sam made a claim of the US driving Russia out of Ukraine. I was saying I did not know we were actively fighting to push them out. As in our troops doing the fighting. Not just sending weapons, advisors, etc.

Because if Russia gets pushed out of Ukraine it is not BY the US but rather by the Ukrainian troops with weapons/supplies from the US, Poland, England, Germany, etc.

---

We certain have a media-military complex in D.C. who wants to have troops in Ukraine fighting to drive out the Russians.

Thankfully we have a few cool heads/sober folks in the Senate preventing that right now.

But the idea we have any American troops in Ukraine is outrageous. We are actively taking part in a bloody war.

The American people were never asked...and we certainly would not have agreed to get involved in this Ukrainian-Russian war...or the Syrian civil war.

---

Technically, the American people did speak on this in the mid-terms and will manage it via their representatives in Congress, who will again be held accountable in 2024.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

The reason we shouldn't care is not that they've been under Russian influence before. It's that they've been under Russian influence before and we were not harmed by it, at least not significantly. If you think that's changed, it's up to you to make the argument. "But but sovereignty" is not an argument in itself, or else we'd never have tolerated Russian influence in the first place.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

The reason we shouldn't care is not that they've been under Russian influence before. It's that they've been under Russian influence before and we were not harmed by it, at least not significantly. If you think that's changed, it's up to you to make the argument. "But but sovereignty" is not an argument in itself, or else we'd never have tolerated Russian influence in the first place.

---

Spectacularly obtuse.

Ever heard of Reforger Exercises?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

The reason we shouldn't care is not that they've been under Russian influence before. It's that they've been under Russian influence before and we were not harmed by it, at least not significantly. If you think that's changed, it's up to you to make the argument. "But but sovereignty" is not an argument in itself, or else we'd never have tolerated Russian influence in the first place.

---

Ukraine has been seeking independence from Russia since long before the Soviet Union, and has been independent from the former empire since the late 80's. This isn't an effort to influence, it's an active territorial acquisition, and Russian expansion.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

The reason we shouldn't care is not that they've been under Russian influence before. It's that they've been under Russian influence before and we were not harmed by it, at least not significantly. If you think that's changed, it's up to you to make the argument. "But but sovereignty" is not an argument in itself, or else we'd never have tolerated Russian influence in the first place.

---

Ukraine has been seeking independence from Russia since long before the Soviet Union, and has been independent from the former empire since the late 80's. This isn't an effort to influence, it's an active territorial acquisition, and Russian expansion.

---

Wrong...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#:~:text=A%20referendum%20on%20the%20Act,Rada%20on%2024%20August%201991.

Do you even look things up before you come on this thread and spout off inaccurate info?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

---

No.

And Russia has no right to conquer and force Ukraine to become part of the Russian Federation.

But here is another thought exercise:

Texans wanted to be free of the rule of Mexico City. Did Mexico have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

Donbass and Crimea want to be free of the rule of Kyiv. Does Ukraine have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

---

Donbass and Crimea want to be free of the rule of Kyiv. Does Ukraine have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

---

Debatable, even then, and especially today.

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

---

Donbass and Crimea want to be free of the rule of Kyiv. Does Ukraine have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

---

Debatable, even then, and especially today.

---

8 years of fighting against the central government would tend to show serious commitment to independence from Ukraine.

For reference to Texas....we fought for 6 months against Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)

Donbass separatists have put at least 40,000 men into the field and taken casualties of 16,000 with almost 7,000 killed.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

---

Donbass and Crimea want to be free of the rule of Kyiv. Does Ukraine have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

---

Debatable, even then, and especially today.

---

8 years of fighting against the central government would tend to show serious commitment to independence from Ukraine.

For reference to Texas....we fought for 6 months against Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)

---

I'm well aware. One was an actual popular uprising, the other one was a "secret" invasion stoked by RU and massively supported by RU army units and equipment once RU saw there was no popular uprising at all in the Donbas and those few that did were getting beat.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[This was the moment at which we began the unstoppable descent into terrible danger which so many of us will bitterly regret in times to come.

I won't waste time here going over the question of who started the Ukraine war, or even why. Most people don't want to know and refuse to think about it, or to look up the facts. They defame and abuse anyone who tries to tell them. So to hell with that. I'm bored with trying...

the Government and its tame thinkers are not in favour of free debate on crucial national policy, and nor is anyone else much.

When the Defence Secretary announced that British tanks were going to Ukraine, not one MP raised any doubts or opposed the move. Not one. To read the record of the non-debate is like reading the proceedings of some Communist fake parliament, supine and brain-dead. The country where political freedom was born has decided not to bother being free any more.

So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.
I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.
Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.]

Sending tanks to Ukraine could turn Europe into a big radioactive graveyard: https://t.co/GyRbEQennr via @MailOnline

— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) January 22, 2023

---

As to the article it seems like a lot of hypotheticals and conjecture and worst case scenarios.

---

Anyone pushing us toward nuclear war without seriously considering worst case scenarios is insane. And these people are ****ing insane.

If you thought the Iraq war was a huge success, just keep trusting them. What could go wrong?

---

1. There is no guarantee that supplying tanks to Ukraine from Poland, Germany, England, etc. will lead DIRECTLY to nuclear war.

2. Going from giving Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive to retake their own territory to them having the ability to invade Russia and drive to Moscow is a huge jump.

3. Ukraine seems to only want to drive Russia out of it's territory, not to invade Russia (other than to perhaps force Russia out of Ukraine)

4. There is no guarantee that the person that could replace Putin is worse (as this article suggests)

5. These same cries about pushing towards nuclear war were made with other weapons being supplied to Ukraine. (Go back to the start of this thread for some evidence)

6. No one mentioned Iraq.

7. What them are you referring to trust? This article is about English tanks/politicians. Not American

8. Again no one mentioned Iraq so not sure what that has to do with anything here.

---

These are not the arguments of a person who takes the nuclear threat seriously. Are we really supposed to take comfort in the fact that Europe or the US could be destroyed as an INDIRECT and not a DIRECT result of our actions? Please.

---

So you have no answer to anything I said so you ignore and go on about the nuclear threat.

We lived with a nuclear threat for 50+ years with it at times much, much closer than now.

Sending tanks to Ukraine from any country does NOT increase the risk of nuclear war anymore than sending any of the other weapons did. Just like many claimed earlier in this thread that it would.

---

This is certainly the closest it's been in my lifetime. I wasn't around for the Cuban crisis and can't think of anything else similar.

We did live for a long time with Ukraine under Russian rule. No one I know seems to have been terribly harmed by it.

---

While we're at it, we could give them the Baltics and Alaska….

---

The Baltic republics are in NATO and enrolled treaty allies of the United States.

And Alaska is a constituent state of the Union.

Is the Ukraine a state within the United States or a member of NATO?

---

Should we not care, or is it okay for Russia to violate a nations sovereignty because they had greater influence before? It shouldn't matter whatever alliance or sovereign status exists today under the idea Sam posited.

---

You can care. And in fact we did care.... a lot.

We moved a UN resolution against Russia for their actions and basically black balled them from half the trade on earth. We imposed massive economy crushing sanctions on Russia for their actions.

And lets not get on our high horse about violating other countries sovereignty.

How often has the USA invaded other countries and imposed our will on smaller states....

---

I was mocking the idea that we shouldn't care because Sam, you, and others point to Ukraine being under Russian influence before. It's an absurd argument that ignores the EXISTENCE of sovereignty. Feel free to make your other arguments, including US whataboutism.

---

Exactly. Texas USED to be part of Mexico. So did California and parts of other states. Does Mexico have the right to go take them back?

(power differentials matter….)

---

Donbass and Crimea want to be free of the rule of Kyiv. Does Ukraine have a right to engage in war to prevent their leaving?

---

Debatable, even then, and especially today.

---

8 years of fighting against the central government would tend to show serious commitment to independence from Ukraine.

For reference to Texas....we fought for 6 months against Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)

Donbass separatists have put at least 40,000 men into the field and taken casualties of 16,000 with almost 7,000 killed.

---

How many of those "separatists", which they aren't, are RU army volunteers, non-volunteers, Wagner PMC, forced conscription?