Hate to tell y'all this, but defense spending is not what's driving budget deficits.

Steven Seagal threatens to make new movies if US keeps arming Ukraine pic.twitter.com/cUVaXLaPUz

— Sputnik Not (@Sputnik_Not) January 21, 2023

[In the news report from which that image above of a German tank was taken, the reporter leads with, "Who would have thought Germany would be criticized for not sending tanks to fight Russia?" Indeed.

Here in Budapest, I'm hearing a sense of dark resignation around the Russia-Ukraine war. A Hungarian said to me the other night, "The Americans want a war. And they're going to get one." He meant that the US, in his view, is bound and determined to fight a war with Russia, and is going to do whatever it needs to do to make that happen.

Maybe he's right about that. But if he's not right about the US's motivations, he is certainly right about the effects of US policy. And the US is going to generate a lot of resentment from Europeans as more people come to understand that America's supposed interests in fighting Russia do not line up with European interests. Few Europeans, in my experience, have any sympathy for the Putin regime and its invasion of Ukraine. But they are quite worried that the war could easily spiral out of control, and cost them immensely.]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/tanks-but-no-tanks/

The next 2 weeks will be very interesting

Ground is frozen

New moon

Do da maths

Redbrickbear said:

---

[In the news report from which that image above of a German tank was taken, the reporter leads with, "Who would have thought Germany would be criticized for not sending tanks to fight Russia?" Indeed.

Here in Budapest, I'm hearing a sense of dark resignation around the Russia-Ukraine war. A Hungarian said to me the other night, "The Americans want a war. And they're going to get one." He meant that the US, in his view, is bound and determined to fight a war with Russia, and is going to do whatever it needs to do to make that happen.

Maybe he's right about that. But if he's not right about the US's motivations, he is certainly right about the effects of US policy. And the US is going to generate a lot of resentment from Europeans as more people come to understand that America's supposed interests in fighting Russia do not line up with European interests. Few Europeans, in my experience, have any sympathy for the Putin regime and its invasion of Ukraine. But they are quite worried that the war could easily spiral out of control, and cost them immensely.]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/tanks-but-no-tanks/

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The next 2 weeks will be very interesting

Ground is frozen

New moon

Do da maths

Redbrickbear said:

---

[In the news report from which that image above of a German tank was taken, the reporter leads with, "Who would have thought Germany would be criticized for not sending tanks to fight Russia?" Indeed.

Here in Budapest, I'm hearing a sense of dark resignation around the Russia-Ukraine war. A Hungarian said to me the other night, "The Americans want a war. And they're going to get one." He meant that the US, in his view, is bound and determined to fight a war with Russia, and is going to do whatever it needs to do to make that happen.

Maybe he's right about that. But if he's not right about the US's motivations, he is certainly right about the effects of US policy. And the US is going to generate a lot of resentment from Europeans as more people come to understand that America's supposed interests in fighting Russia do not line up with European interests. Few Europeans, in my experience, have any sympathy for the Putin regime and its invasion of Ukraine. But they are quite worried that the war could easily spiral out of control, and cost them immensely.]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/tanks-but-no-tanks/

---

---

conditions are not dissimilar to the eastern front last year. Mostly static line of conflict, sustained attacks by Russia with enormous expenditures of artillery and human wave attacks, resulting in very small incremental Russian gains, yards rather than miles, pushing Ukrainian troops back slowly at enormously disproportionate cost of men and materiel. As Russia exhausts its already strained lines of supply, it becomes ever more vulnerable to Ukrainian counter-attack, particularly an armored assault that pierces the line and slices thru to cut off Russian units, forcing their retreat. THAT's why Ukraine is begging for more tanks. And I think they will get them. They have enough tanks to make that push, but know they will lose many and will need replacements. They can't spend the tanks until they know more are coming.

Ukraine will attempt to punch toward the Sea of Azov, close enough to make overland resupply of the Kherson front and Crimea untenable. That will force Russia to abandon the Kherson front and withdraw into Crimea. Then, Ukraine can occupy the approaches to Crimea and start formal bombardment of Sebastopol. They will attempt to interdict the rail lines across the Kerch bridge, but leave the highway lanes open to give Russia an avenue of retreat.

The thing to watch on the Russian side is whether or not they can open up a second front. Can/will they invade from Belarus. Logistically, it would be difficult. But it would greatly relieve pressure in the south, even if largely ineffective.

I subscribe and can't tell if this is behind a paywall or not, ergo the copy/paste. Biden's early "gaffe" about regime change was not a gaffe. That appears to be the plan:

Russia risks becoming ungovernable and descending into chaos
There is growing opposition to President Putin at home

Nov 18th 2022

By Arkady Ostrovsky Russia editor, The Economist
WHEN RUSSIA'S president, Vladimir Putin, invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022, he set out to grab territory, deprive it of sovereignty, wipe out the very idea of its national identity and turn what remained of it into a failed state. After months of Ukraine's fierce resistance, its statehood and its identity are stronger than ever, and all the things that Mr Putin had intended to inflict on Ukraine are afflicting his own country.

Mr Putin's war is turning Russia into a failed state, with uncontrolled borders, private military formations, a fleeing population, moral decay and the possibility of civil conflict. And though confidence among Western leaders in Ukraine's ability to withstand Mr Putin's terror has gone up, there is growing concern about Russia's own ability to survive the war. It could become ungovernable and descend into chaos.

Consider its borders. Russia's absurd and illegal annexation of four regions of UkraineKherson, Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhiabefore it could even establish full control over them, makes it a state with illegitimate territories and a fluid frontier. "The Russian Federation as we know it is self-liquidating and passing into a failed-state phase," says Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist. Its administration, she notes, is unable to carry out its basic functions. The annexation will not deter Ukrainian forces, but it will create precedents for Russia's own restive regions, including the north Caucasus republics, which are likely to head for the exit if the central government starts loosening its grip.

Another feature of a failing state is a loss of monopoly on the use of physical force. Private armies and mercenaries, although officially banned in Russia, are flourishing. Evgeny Prigozhin, a former convict nicknamed "Putin's chef" and a front man for the Wagner Group, a private mercenary operation, has been openly recruiting prisoners and offering them pardons in exchange for joining his forces. Wagner, he says, has no desire to be "legalised" or integrated into the armed forces. The same could be said of the force controlled by Ramzan Kadyrov, a Chechen former warlord and now Chechnya's president. Even Russia's government security agencies are increasingly serving their own corporate interests.

The Russian state is failing in the most basic function of all. Far from protecting the lives of its people, it poses the biggest threat to them, by using them as cannon fodder. On September 21st, faced with military defeat on the battleground in Ukraine, Mr Putin ordered a mobilisation of some 300,000 people. Ill trained and ill equipped, their only function is to stand in the way of the advance of the Ukrainian forces. Many are unlikely to be alive this time next year.

There is growing concern about Russia's own ability to survive the war

The mobilisation caused a shock in Russia far greater than the beginning of the war itself. Some of its effects are already visible: recruitment centres were set ablaze, and at least 300,000 people fled abroad (on top of the 300,000 who left in the first weeks of the war). Most of them are young, educated and resourceful. The full impact of their departure on the country's economy and demographics is yet to show, but social tension is rising.

While urbanites flee, tens of thousands of their poorer compatriots are being rounded up and sent into the trenches. By bringing his "special military operation" home Mr Putin has broken the fragile consensus under which people agreed not to protest against the war in exchange for being left alone. Now they are being told to fight and die for the sake of his regime.

Mr Putin cannot win, but he cannot afford to end the conflict either. He may hope that by making so many people collude in his war, and subjecting them to more of his poisonous, fascist propaganda, he will be able to drag things out. Whether he succeeds, or whether the flow of body bags, coupled with the discontent of the elite, results in his downfall, will determine how many more people will die and how far Russia falls.

As Alexei Navalny, Russia's jailed opposition leader, said in one of his court hearings: "We have not been able to prevent the catastrophe and we are no longer sliding, but flying into it. The only question will be how hard Russia will hit that bottom and whether it will fall apart." The coming year will give some indication of an answer to that grim question.

Arkady Ostrovsky Russia editor, The Economist

[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

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

---

Who started the war??? Umm Russia. HE could have stated that better by saying who allowed it to happen or something. But there is no arguing who started the war.

And how is he claiming England is the country where political freedom was born???? Or is he just looking at a modern era for that definition?

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

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

---

Who started the war??? Umm Russia. HE could have stated that better by saying who allowed it to happen or something. But there is no arguing who started the war.

And how is he claiming England is the country where political freedom was born???? Or is he just looking at a modern era for that definition?

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

---

He is claiming the creation of the modern English parliament and its ideals of political representation and free debate as the beginning of modern political freedom.

Certainly hard to argue against that when you analyze the rest of the world in the 1600s-1700s.

Redbrickbear 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

---

Who started the war??? Umm Russia. HE could have stated that better by saying who allowed it to happen or something. But there is no arguing who started the war.

And how is he claiming England is the country where political freedom was born???? Or is he just looking at a modern era for that definition?

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

---

He is claiming the creation of the modern English parliament and its ideals of political representation and free debate as the beginning of modern political freedom.

Certainly hard to argue against that when you analyze the rest of the world in the 1600s-1700s.

---

True if you are discounting other periods of time/history, even some just a few hundred years before then.

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?

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear 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

---

Who started the war??? Umm Russia. HE could have stated that better by saying who allowed it to happen or something. But there is no arguing who started the war.

And how is he claiming England is the country where political freedom was born???? Or is he just looking at a modern era for that definition?

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

---

He is claiming the creation of the modern English parliament and its ideals of political representation and free debate as the beginning of modern political freedom.

Certainly hard to argue against that when you analyze the rest of the world in the 1600s-1700s.

---

True if you are discounting other periods of time/history, even some just a few hundred years before then.

---

Athenian democracy or the complex constitutional and feudal systems of the Holy Roman Empire or the "constitutional monarchy" of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth have little relevance to modern democratic nation-states.

While 65 nations are descended from the British empire and most of them are still democratic with Parliamentary style systems of government derived from the English parliament.

Including the worlds most populous nation India (1.3 billion people). And the USA as a English common law nation.

The UK and its system of government has the best claim as the mother of modern democracy.

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.

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.

---

9. Ukraine is already actively liberating their territory Russia "claims": Kherson, Luhansk, etc. with no RU changes of any kind in nuclear posturing.

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.

Not many people realize Ukraine has already lost 3x total US losses in Vietnam( over 15 years).

Will be interesting to see who was believed and who should have been believed.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Not many people realize Ukraine has already lost 3x total US losses in Vietnam( over 15 years).

Will be interesting to see who was believed and who should have been believed.

---

"But Ukraine is liberating Kherson and driving these ruskies back to Moscow!"

Yes, the Ukrainians are pushing Russian forces around right now because the Russians are incompetent and didn't put enough troops, tanks, and artillery into the fight in the first place. (Another failure of Russian military leadership under Putin).

But that is being changed by the mass call up of Russian conscripts, a mobilization of the entire armed forces, and a massive increase in their production of state weapons.

They have already called up 300,000 reservists and are about to call up another 500,000 conscripts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/06/russia-preparing-mobilise-extra-500000-conscripts-claims-ukraine

And while these troops will be undertrained, underpaid, and underfed...they will eventually make a difference on the battle field by sheer force of numbers.

While the Ukraine is running out of men to fight this war:

"The Achilles heel of this strategy is manpower. Ukraine started the war with 43 million citizens and 5 million military-aged males, but according to the U.N., 14.3 million Ukrainians have fled the war, and a further 9 million are in Crimea or other Russian-occupied territories. This means Ukraine is down to about 20 to 27 million people. At this ratio, it has less than 3 million draftable men. A million have been drafted already, and many of the rest are either not physically fit to serve or occupy a vital position in the nation's economy. In short, Ukraine might be running out of men,"

A blood war of attrition favors Russia in the end.

Much like the situation between the Union and the Confederacy in 1865. Every Russian solider who dies can be replaced, while the Ukrainians can not replace their loses.

"But even if Russia has the numbers, said the US military expert Rob Lee, it does not automatically mean that its units will be effective leadership, ammunition and training are problems right now in the Russian army.

It remains an open question as to how well Russia can integrate the newly mobilised forces as there has not been a comparative war in recent times, said Lee.

"If you mobilise 500,000 guys those problems don't go away, you just kind of have similar issues with just more manpower," said Lee, noting that less well-trained troops were better for defending territory than offensive operations.

To compensate for the heavy combat losses over 10 months of the war, Russia has also recruited tens of thousands of prisoners to fight as part of the private military group Wagner."




Nor do they have the industry to replace and modernize their current tank losses at the moment:

🧵New footage suggests the Russian tank industry is struggling to roll out modernized tanks!

Manufacturers can't keep up with the demand of the war so Russia uses older tech to desperately modernize its tank fleet.

1/6#Ukraine️ #UkraineRussianWar #UkraineRussiaWar #sanctions pic.twitter.com/wW4Zq7Fr1K

— Kontakt6 (@Kontakt642) January 23, 2023

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.

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.

---

So you admit sending weapons has increased the threat.

You just think tanks keep it at the same previous level…

How about we just don't fund a ruinously expensive proxy war on the far edge of Europe?

Bear8084 said:

---

"But even if Russia has the numbers, said the US military expert Rob Lee, it does not automatically mean that its units will be effective leadership, ammunition and training are problems right now in the Russian army.

It remains an open question as to how well Russia can integrate the newly mobilised forces as there has not been a comparative war in recent times, said Lee.

"If you mobilise 500,000 guys those problems don't go away, you just kind of have similar issues with just more manpower," said Lee, noting that less well-trained troops were better for defending territory than offensive operations.

To compensate for the heavy combat losses over 10 months of the war, Russia has also recruited tens of thousands of prisoners to fight as part of the private military group Wagner."




Nor do they have the industry to replace and modernize their current tank losses at the moment:

🧵New footage suggests the Russian tank industry is struggling to roll out modernized tanks!

Manufacturers can't keep up with the demand of the war so Russia uses older tech to desperately modernize its tank fleet.

1/6#Ukraine️ #UkraineRussianWar #UkraineRussiaWar #sanctions pic.twitter.com/wW4Zq7Fr1K

— Kontakt6 (@Kontakt642) January 23, 2023

---

None of the inherent problems of the Russian military go away once they call up 300,000 reservists or 500,000 conscripts.

It was an incompetent corruption fueled military before and will continue to be so in the future.

But in the end manpower (even poorly trained man power) changes the ground game.

China proved that against us in the Korea war. Lots of poorly trained peasants and using substandard/crap equipment at the end of the day is still effective on the battle field.

My latest post for Comment is Freed, asks whether this is a proxy war. The claim that Ukraine is acting to serve American interests does not withstand scrutiny. The aims are set by Kyiv, which means there could be issues with future Western support. https://t.co/31eiuk8YQI

— Lawrence Freedman (@LawDavF) January 21, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

"But even if Russia has the numbers, said the US military expert Rob Lee, it does not automatically mean that its units will be effective leadership, ammunition and training are problems right now in the Russian army.

It remains an open question as to how well Russia can integrate the newly mobilised forces as there has not been a comparative war in recent times, said Lee.

"If you mobilise 500,000 guys those problems don't go away, you just kind of have similar issues with just more manpower," said Lee, noting that less well-trained troops were better for defending territory than offensive operations.

To compensate for the heavy combat losses over 10 months of the war, Russia has also recruited tens of thousands of prisoners to fight as part of the private military group Wagner."




Nor do they have the industry to replace and modernize their current tank losses at the moment:

🧵New footage suggests the Russian tank industry is struggling to roll out modernized tanks!

Manufacturers can't keep up with the demand of the war so Russia uses older tech to desperately modernize its tank fleet.

1/6#Ukraine️ #UkraineRussianWar #UkraineRussiaWar #sanctions pic.twitter.com/wW4Zq7Fr1K

— Kontakt6 (@Kontakt642) January 23, 2023

---

None of the inherent problems of the Russian military go away once they call up 300,000 reservists or 500,000 conscripts.

It was an incompetent corruption fueled military before and will continue to be so in the future.

But in the end manpower (even poorly trained man power) changes the ground game.

China proved that against us in the Korea war. Lots of poorly trained peasants and using substandard/crap equipment at the end of the day is still effective on the battle field.

---

Remains to be seen in this conflict.

Redbrickbear 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.

---

So you admit sending weapons has increased the threat.

You just think tanks keep it at the same previous level…

How about we just don't fund a ruinously expensive proxy war on the far edge of Europe?

---

How did you get to that? I literally said the opposite.

Every time a country talks about sending weapons or money the opposition is that it will lead to nuclear war.

None of it has.

On your last sentence I agree. We should not be sending billions to them when it is needed here.

But the tanks are not coming from us so the US doesn't really have say in it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Without the international private army of The Wagner Group, this conflict would already be over.

And capitulating to the, "Hey, if you help this country we're invading we're going to blow up the world" is idiotic on multiple levels. If real, it is in existential threat beyond the current conflict. If merely a tactic, it presents an escalation factor to bring about eventual peace talks.

The argument against the US sending tanks is a pragmatic one. Can we afford to lose the stock pile in the face of our ability (or lack thereof) to replace? In other words, do we risk weakening ourselves in assisting Ukraine?

---

From what I understand we would not be sending our own Abrams tanks to Ukraine but getting the UK to send their challenger 2 tanks and Germany/Poland to send their leopards.

Be interesting to see if those counties agree to do it.

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.

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.

---

No no no….we must spend billions of taxpayer dollars (essentially stealing money from our poorest citizens) to fund this war while possibly risking a larger nuclear war that would kill our children…all to prevent an area of the world that has been under Moscow's hegemony since the 1650s from continuing to be under Moscow's control.

Somewhere somehow it was decided that this can not be allowed to stand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.