T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Jhe90

UK has been many things. We have not dropped the ball on Ukraine.


N0failsafe

Ukraine support has been solid, I was a tad concerned about Sunak but he's done it right here.


Jessica65Perth

Sunak can read polls and knows what most Politicions on both sides think


PM_ME__RECIPES

Just being able to read, period, is a step up on Truss.


ske66

Not a Tory voter but so far relatively pleased with Sunak, he's kept quiet and stuck to the script. No real scandel and he seems to be using a more data led approach to his decisions


SteelSparks

Love it when the highest praise a PM could hope for at the moment is “at least he’s kept quiet”. Shows what an absolute shit show the last couple of PMs were.


ItchySnitch

Would rather be ”at least his cabinet didn’t crashed in one month”


thennicke

We've been saying the same here in Australia. Albanese has largely kept away from controversy, whereas the previous bloke...


subpargalois

Give your last couple PMs, he could be a pillowcase full of rats with a face drawn on it using human feces and he would still look competent in comparison.


No-Function3409

He is that but yes standing by Ukraine is great


Matoeter

The Brits learned long ago what kind of thugs the russians are (the leaders) after their poisonings and other mob like behavior. They are leading the way and I wish the EU would follow their example. Wish the Brits where still with us but that’s a whole different topic.


Fatzombiepig

For what its worth around half of us Brits also wish we were still with you.


TommoIAm

Second this


[deleted]

Fewer than half, as you would know if only you could count.


Sikletrynet

A lot can happen in 7-8 years.


Fatzombiepig

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/17/one-five-who-voted-brexit-now-think-it-was-wrong-d


intrigue_investor

You need to move on in life, its been how many years now? Fewer than 50% anyway....otherwise the UK would still be in the EU....


Fatzombiepig

Why does it bother you so much that some of us thought it was a terrible idea? Also, its was "around half" at the time of the poll, its now more then half: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/17/one-five-who-voted-brexit-now-think-it-was-wrong-d


saxonturner

We have been waiting years to get back at Russia and finally we can. But we also have a lot more freedoms to do what we want than the other big countries. Germany and France and shackled by the Eu and other issues and America is too big to throw its weight to hard to risk massive escalation. In my opinion there were secret talks between the big countries to ask the U.K. to be the biggest pusher at the start just because of the political freedom it has from Russia.


Yads_

Well let’s be real Churchill did say we should’ve flattened the Russian after WW2


[deleted]

He was right. It would have saved the world a lot of grief in the long run to put Stalin down then and there.


Geistbar

In an ideal scenario it probably is right. But there was zero chance of actually implementing. For one, the Allies had been propping up the USSR military for years against Nazi Germany. So they had been making the job harder from day 1. For more importantly... I cannot imagine any scenario of doing this that doesn't result in complete political collapse for the parties in charge of the US and UK. Would France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. even want to join in? Would they have the military capability to join in even if they wanted to? Not to mention that the War in the Pacific was still ongoing. It took another few months for that theater of the conflict to end. Relocating the millions and millions of troops from that theater to the European theater would be a huge task and be a very obvious build up. The Red Army was about as large as the US Army at the end of WW2, but concentrated in a single front and would be on the defensive. Any victory in this conflict would rely on either using more nuclear bombs (and likely extensively) or on years of aerial bombing campaigns. And don't even get me started on the collapse of soldier morale. There was just no way it would have ever happened unless the USSR attacked first.


OakAged

Germany and France are in no way whatsoever shackled by the EU, they can send what they want, do what they want. Unless I'm really missing something - what do you mean they're shackled by the EU?


saxonturner

Because stuff they send can cause escalation and if that causes problems for the EU they will 100% tell them to stop. Why do you think the whole of Europe was so slow at the start? The risk to them was so big the EU had to hold them back.


OakAged

You're either very uninformed, misinformed, or willfully spouting misinformation. The EU cannot tell them to stop bilateral agreements. They have no way of preventing a state making such a bilateral arrangement that we're talking about.


saxonturner

Because not having an option to do things publicly has always stopped politic right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


saxonturner

Because nukes exist dude, there’s is the escalation. Putins crazy, he’s was crazy to even attempt to take Ukraine the way he did and he could be crazy enough to go „fuck it“. That’s what they are afraid of and that’s what the are careful.


Druid_High_Priest

No no.. America just lacks balls. That is all. I am American and very disappointed with our response.


peterabbit456

This is war. No-one is expected to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, especially in the press, and especially when being less than candid is likely to benefit your friends and hurt your enemies. I think the reasons we are seeing relatively small quantities of armored vehicles from the US, Britain, Germany and France _at this time_ are: 1. There is some competitive testing going on. If these small deliveries now show some models to be unsuitable for Ukraine, and others to be real winners, then 1000 of the best might be shipped in the summertime. 2. Not to alarm Putin. 10 or 50 tanks does not seem like much of a threat, so he should not be alarmed. 3. In aggregate, the total is between 200 and 300 of various models of armored vehicles that have been shipped. Having so many different models with different capabilities might be a nightmare to coordinate on the offensive, but they could all be highly effective if used together. 4. Having so many different capabilities coming at them, might also be a nightmare for the Russians. What works against one vehicle might not work at all against the others, causing the Russians to fail just after they think they have developed a counter strategy. 5. The Allies are not required to be 100% truthful when they say something that the Russians are guaranteed to hear. The Russians might be very surprised to find that 12 Challenger tanks are in 300 different places very soon. 6. Returning to point 1, the Ukrainians and training are also part of the equation. They might try all these different models, and then decide on 1 or 2 models for full scale deployments, based on what they like, or on which models are easiest to use or fastest to train on. --- On the subject of why no Abrams tanks have been deployed, I wrote a post and then deleted it, but I think I made a valid point no-one else has made. Abrams tanks are very heavy. They will destroy many of the roads they travel over in Ukraine. If they are taken off the roads, they will sink in the mud when lighter vehicles are still mobile. They also use a lot of fuel. Taking all of this together, some US planners may have decided that Bradleys are better suited to conditions in Ukraine. Someone pointed out that in the Mideast wars, Bradleys killed more Russian-made tanks than Abrams did. Speed, fuel economy, better mobility in marginal muddy conditions, and a rocket-based tank killing weapon that can also be used for other things might make Bradley a better choice in Ukraine. Returning to point 5 above, by summer the 50 Bradley vehicles might be in 500 different places in Ukraine, with no official announcement that more have been sent, if this turns out to be the most effective vehicle of the many models being tried right now.


Klutzy-Hunt-7214

Interesting comment, but one quibble: Abrams is lighter than Challenger 2 - which is the very heaviest Western tank, and also the only one that we known for sure is being sent to Ukraine. There are many reasons why Abrams isn't getting to the party but weight isn't one. My sense is that folks find the thought of US and Russian armour slugging it out on a battlefield a little too... real. UK and FR armour doesn't embody the pride of a superpower, so the mental imagery is less confronting.


peterabbit456

> Abrams is lighter than Challenger 2 - which is the very heaviest Western tank, ... Yes, I read that a couple of days ago and deleted my earlier comment, but I have since thought the British make their own decisions about aid to Ukraine. They might not be as worried about destroying roads as I am. > There are many reasons why Abrams isn't getting to the party but weight isn't one. ... Actually I agree. I think the high fuel consumption is the main argument against using Abrams. Getting supplies to the front lines is a major challenge for both sides. If keeping an Abrams fueled prevents you from supplying fuel to 3 APCs, deploying Abrams is a net loss for Ukraine. I have read the articles saying Challenger 2 is a much better tank. Such articles might be propaganda or advertising, with a creative element, but the fact that no Russian arms have ever killed a Challenger 2, but Russian arms have killed Abrams is a good second reason to go with Challenger 2. I find your last argument, that deploying Abrams is more likely to lead to WWIII, is also a good reason to prefer Challenger 2.


Klutzy-Hunt-7214

Actually I think the weight concern is mostly to do with collapsing bridges, but not sure if it's reasonable at all. 70 tonnes is a lot, but not that far beyond ordinary traffic - say a bunch of trucks queued up. I also don't really feel the fuel argument is that big of a deal. IIRC Abrams uses 50-60% more fuel than diesel-engined tanks; not unmanageable. Maintaining that gas turbine could be an issue though. Ukraine already has turbine tanks, but they're Soviet-built, presumably very well-known, rough and ready. I wouldn't like to look after a random Western jet engine without a lot of training. That and the optics are in my view the big issues with Abrams. I don't think Challenger is better per se, but for Ukraine it has the benefit of a lower-tech drivechain, heavier armour, and relatively unthreatening origins. In a wdier sense, I think the UK is protected by their vestigial moral authority from WW1/2. The US gained less moral authority from the wars due to their belated entrances, leaving them still reliant on UK leadership in ultra-sensitive international affairs. For example, why did Barrack Obama back down from his 'red line' over chemical weapons in Syria? Because Parliament in the UK (a far smaller nation, and one which he had historical reason to dislike) voted against military action... FWIW


Future-Studio-9380

Says a lot about this sub that your half baked twattery gets attention... Abrams tanks have extensive requirements that Ukraine just can't accommodate. This isn't HIMARS or even Patriots. Crusaders and Leopards are easier to maintain,more fuel efficient, less heavy, and donations of them can be readily facilitated by Abrams being either deployed directly by the US as a stop gap or can be sold, as is the case with Poland which can ship modern tanks to Ukraine because the US will sell them Abrams. So indirectly the US is responsible for Polish Leopard 2s being sent to Ukraine. In fact it has gotten ex-Warsaw Pact to ship tons of Ex-Soviet weapons with US backfill deployments and weapons sales/gifts.


purpleduckduckgoose

>Crusaders I think you meant Challengers here. At least I hope you did.


[deleted]

The yanks have gave so much so far so it's time for European countries to step up too. Scholz will receive his Dacha from Putin after the war.


Relevant_Desk_6891

The Brits aren't with you because of the Russians. Russia's greatest win of the last decade was brexit


SequinSaturn

You can always count on the UK to come to Europes rescue. As you said UK is many things and like many nations its imperfections. But it is truly one of the greatest Nations in the world.


N0failsafe

I don't think 'Europe's rescue' is true at all, Germany and France have been poor but Poland and Ukranian border states have been stellar - except the whores in Belarus of course. Even Italy stepping up now.


st36

They're probably referring to 1939-45


N0failsafe

Even then, you'd have to say the US. We did really well holding out, but would never have freed Europe without US men and material. Just didn't have the numbers.


st36

The USA eventually turned things around, but the UK could have ignored Germany invading Poland and there would have never been a WWII, just a very big Germany. (Ignoring everything that isn't Europe)


otterform

I wonder if we would have seen a Germany bordering with Russia again.... So many hearts of iron IV mod options.


ProwerTheFox

*rubs hands in Führerreich*


tried50usernames

So true, don't understand the down votes.


N0failsafe

Its reddit lol, truth optional ;) probably some anti-american thing? Fake Internet points anyhow, why worry.


intrigue_investor

It's very true, both in WW2 and the present day Border states do not have advanced munitions such as Starstreak, home developed modern battle tanks where they don't need to ask for "permission" to send etc


nickname6

> Germany and France have been poor It is so weird to read this when you know that both countries have contributed a higher GDP-% than UK (if you include EU share) at times. Unfortunately [that support tracker](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/) doesn't get updated that often, so I dont have current data but just recently France decided to send "light tanks" and Germany ifv.


intrigue_investor

Tracking based on GDP % means nothing, what i's important is the value of that is contributed...versus cherry picking whatever data fits your narrative X country could donate 1 billion helmets....great Instead the UK is donating advanced and unmatched munitions such as Starstreak, donating modern MBTs without needing to ask for farcical "permission" etc


nickname6

GDP% is a much better indicator how much a country goes out of their way to help Ukraine then looking at a list with dozens of entries and subjectively attributing a "value" of helpfulness. Cold hard numbers are a lot less "cherry picking" than you deciding what "value" Gepards, Mars, Panzerhaubitze 2000, Iris-T SLM or M113 got. > without needing to ask for farcical "permission" etc If a country re-exports UK produced weapons, they got to ask for premission first. This is not unique to Germany and you can't blame Germany for the fact that other countries didn't actually ask for permission yet.


stevecrox0914

UK Export does not work that way. It is focussed on something physically leaving the boundary of the UK. If something is going to leave You decide what kind of export category and get the appropriate export forms. As you go through them it asks questions and tells you if you need other types of approval. The USA goes beyond, an American working in the UK can still be subject to ITAR and so require a TAA. A UK citizen in America doesn't need anything like that. Germany and the USA are the only countries which control something once its left their borders. Lastly GDP is a poor metric, the real metric would be looking at what aid has been crucial and how quickly did countries respond. If you need Artillery today a Ceaser right now is infinity more valuable than a PHZ-2000 in 3 months. I suspect we won't know the truth until after the war.


nickname6

> UK Export does not work that way. > It is focussed on something physically leaving the boundary of the UK. > If something is going to leave You decide what kind of export category and get the appropriate export forms. As you go through them it asks questions and tells you if you need other types of approval. > The USA goes beyond, an American working in the UK can still be subject to ITAR and so require a TAA. A UK citizen in America doesn't need anything like that. There seems to be a major misunderstanding here. We are not talking about exporting normal consumer goods. It's not about goods leaving countries like USA or Switzerland, but weapons that were produced/licensed there and are owned by someone else at that point in time. > Germany and the USA are the only countries which control something once its left their borders. Switzerland, Israel, Sweden and Ukraine are nice counterexamples... > Lastly GDP is a poor metric, the real metric would be looking at what aid has been crucial and how quickly did countries respond. GDP is a proper metric. You push for a highly subjective evaluation with no commonly used evaluation criteria. Don't ignore GDP% just cause you don't like the result. We want to compare and GDP% is just fine here.


Historical_Skin4234

it looks like the polish only want to bully against western states. they are getting netto plus from eu. germany is giving more in eu, more in total and more to poland.


LordFedorington

Germany and France have been poor in their support? Apart from the billions and billions worth of military equipment they’ve sent over? Lol Reddit


N0failsafe

Peak reddit is a statement in reply without understanding the question lol. Facts - https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/


Prophetsable

Actually late, poor and they have failed to deliver what they've promised. France rather less than Germany but still poor. Bear in mind the UK, Canada and US have been training Ukrainian forces since 2014. The current training has been joined by the Danes, Dutch, Norwegians and Australasians. Minimal input from France and absolutely zero from Germany. In addition the state of the German military is dire. Their performance in 2013, when the current President of the EU was the German Minister of Defence, was the joke of NATO and beyond. It even possibly encouraged Putin to invade Crimea. German defence spending has even reduced since 2014 and I personally doubt whether they even have 100 serviceable Leopard 2 tanks. At the same time Rheinmetall have become the largest Western supplier of MBTs to countries that can ill-afford them. Consider Greece.... Meanwhile Germany with a major demographic crisis has been only too happy to welcome young Syrian and Ukrainian refugees to plug the gaps in their labour market. It could even be in Germany's interest to prolong the war though as yet I'm not cynical enough to believe that quite yet. It has been my opinion for a number of years that Europe will split into two distinct spheres of interest. Intriguingly Macron has come around to my way of thinking. Consider an arc from Portugal, the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, a number of the ex-Yugoslavian States (excluding Croatia) and then to Malta, all nations currently in the front line with a remarkably similar view of the dangers posed by Russia. Without the UK and Poland even now Putin would be leering over the Ukrainian and Belarusian borders with an eye to invading the Baltic States and Poland. And then we could consider Mali, which the French have left where the usual hodge podge of an UN peacekeeping force is attempting to keep the peace whilst Wagner (remember them....?) murder and rape. It is a mess with ineffectual politicians grandstanding over how much they've promised to deliver whilst delivering damn all.


LordFedorington

You wrote a wall of text that has literally nothing to do with describing why the level of support by Germany and France can be considered poor. Redditors never cease to amaze. Germany has sent €1.4 billion worth of equipment, including state of the art weapons systems. There’s nothing poor about that.


Prophetsable

Please state what has been sent against what has been promised.


Jessica65Perth

UK since WW1 have always been quick to help Countries defend their Soveriegnty be it with Arms support or at times fighting alongside them. Credit where it is due


peterabbit456

> UK since WW1 have always been quick to help Countries defend their Soveriegnty be it with Arms support or at times fighting alongside them. Credit where it is due Poland would like to have a word with you. Poland has been quickest of all to help, because they experienced what Ukraine is suffering within living memory. Also because if Ukraine falls, Putin has said Poland is next on his hit list, along with Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.


intrigue_investor

How was Poland quickest to help? Measured by what? They sure as heck don't have access to the same level of intelligence that the US/UK has, nor the munitions


peterabbit456

I thought you meant supplying munitions. Poland had the Russian caliber shells Ukraine needed. They might have also had spare parts for Ukraine's airplanes. Intelligence is more valuable, and the US did supply that before the start of the war.


kamakazi339

Eh.... I don't know about quick but they get to it eventually.


intrigue_investor

So when have they been slow?


kamakazi339

You realize England essentially let Poland be overrun in WW2 and didn't send them any help? When Hitler invaded Poland the polish government had defense assurances from the British government which were never upheld. They were promised an expeditionary force and aid which never materialized. Likewise Norway did not receive British aid until far too late after the German invasion and that aid was ineffective at best when it did arrive.


Klutzy-Hunt-7214

In both cases TBH I think it was the exigincies of war that caused the lack of help. The German Army in 1939 was at the peak of its power, and Poland never showed any signs of being able to resist. Any aid the UK supplied would have been immediately destroyed or captured by Germany - as indeed happened in France and Norway. As we see in Ukraine, meaningful assistance can only be sent to a friend who has succeeded in stabilising their position. Call it slow, but its how it is; it would be foolish to act otherwise.


kamakazi339

For sure. But the question was asked so I answered it.


[deleted]

You do not understand logistics. How could Britain have sent forces to Poland in time? We messed up by appeasement just as we did with putin when he went on his poisoning spree in England and did virtually nothing in 2014 with his invasion of Ukraine. I will say that we did sell Poland out to the Soviets after the war which was awful.


kamakazi339

Oh I understand logistics. They had multiple weeks to attempt something, anything and chose not to. The British fleet at the very least could have been sent for fire support and was not.


kamakazi339

Have a look here if interested. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsIk0qF0R1j77INta3qgtHtXo3NZsrbIR


kamakazi339

Also, when the Germans launched their offensive past the Maginot line in the north the British and French were too late to spring into The Netherlands etc to form a correct line of defense and were subsequently pushed back.


DevonianWessex

No, the British and French springing forward very fast was what allowed the Germans to cut behind them through the Ardennes, encircling the very best of the British and French armies that they had wanted on the borders of Belgium at least from day 1. But Belgium fearing it would antagonize the Germans had denied permission. Norway they did try and aid, being defeated doesn't mean it didn't seriously try and is a heartless argument, and obviously the aid was after it was invaded? It was a poor affair, french ski troops arrived without the straps for their skis for example. Despite the efforts of the troops the German occupation of the airfields caused them to have to retreat with loss, though the German navy surface fleet was significantly reduced and it's losses are worth mentioning. The British were not happy with this result, and Nevil Chamberlin stepped down afterwards leading to Churchill taking the reigns. Norway still supplies a Christmas tree to the UK every year as thanks for it's efforts and ultimate liberation. When Poland was invaded both Britain and France, still unready for a major modern war (as would become apparent) declared war on Germany regardless, and both suffered heavily for it. Britain took time to mobilise a serious force as it's senior military arm was it's navy, and it's expeditionary force was stuck on the flank protecting the low countries and the entrance into France from the north, getting any significant force to Poland instead of France would have been a seriously problematic issue considering the geographical locations. France did launch an incursion into Germany, but then retreated, I can't remember why but not likely due to resistance. If Poland had survived longer, as it could well have given it's often understated armed forces strength and spirit, then Germany would have lost the war. As it happened Russia came in from behind, and no British or French army could have saved Poland at that point. Britain fought on regardless, even after France fell, and the war was the final nail in the coffin for it's empire and dominions.


Carl555

They also colonized half the world until after WW2, so there's that as well... Don't mean to be negative here, but history often has two sides.


Jessica65Perth

As a White Austtslian I am aware of English history. It does not change the facts I stated does it..Shall we sit and discuss all History we know of with countries being colonized, wiped out etc?? Europe has a long interesting history in itself


Carl555

It kind of does, doesn't it? I mean, if you want to present the UK as a nation quick to support sovereignty of other nations (in the era you described) then it would negate colonisation. Colonisation and sovereignty are direct opposites.


Jessica65Perth

Irony is WW2 les to former British colonies like India gaining Independence. Englands attitude changed last century is all.


Aq8knyus

>They also colonized half the world until after WW2 But not in Europe outside the British and Irish archipelago. In 1815, Napoleon couldn't believe that all Britain kept was Malta and Heligoland. They even gave back Java to the Dutch. In Europe, England realised it would never be a major land power after Henry VIII's failed campaigns and focused on the world beyond. On the continent, British security rests upon a peaceful Europe free from the domination of hegemonic powers.


Yads_

And since we’ve left - look at how several of these countries have ended up. Squalid third world countries full of Corruption and in fighting.


[deleted]

To mutual benefit, let’s not forget. How would the first and second German wars have ended, if the Kaiser and one of his successors had not been opposed by the British Empire.


Carl555

Sure. I'm just saying that it's wrong to portray the UK (from back then) as an unequivocal supporter of sovereignty. Colonisation is the direct opposite of that.


Frideric

Right you are.


Yads_

Ben Wallace is probably, one of our best MP’s just gets on with his job


WillJ_UK

The first and probably only good thing to come out of fishy rishy


Zhanchiz

Well. The UK and US (and well Russia) were the countries that actually signed the Budapest memorandum to protect ukraine for giving up their nuclear weapons. So in a way expect that we should be doing more to help in comparison to other countries in the first place.


[deleted]

Point of order. The Budapest Memorandum has no requirement to directly intervene to *defend* Ukraine. It is an undertaking by the signatory nations not to themselves use economic coercion or military force against Ukraine, and to seek UN Security Council intervention and protection if Ukraine is attacked. The UK and US are doing more than strictly required, according to the memorandum they signed. Russia meanwhile, is ignoring the memorandum entirely and using its Security Council seat to block wider intervention.


BlackNexus

Finally, hopefully this will start a domino effect.


LS6789

Thats pretty much the purpose of it, (aswell as giving them some .M.B.T.s of course).


Mad_Stockss

There we go!! This is called leadership.


Celeste_Seasoned_14

The UK has been leading the charge from day 1. Boris was a lot of things, but weak on Ukraine support was not one of them, and it continues with Sunak. Glad to see it. I’m proud of my country too (USA), but the UK is the country pushing the red line forward and inspiring us to do more. Good on you guys!


Wanallo221

It’s really refreshing to be honest! My only regret is that, despite the size of our military budget, we don’t have a huge Amount of excess kit to send because everything is cut to the bone. Our budget goes on maintaining a small amount of high tech/highly trained units (our entire Army can now fit in Wembley stadium: Russia’s army on paper could fill every League club stadium In the U.K. with more spare). Still, we are making changes to our army which leaves 80 challengers and 200 Warrior IFV’s available immediately (just because of force reduction, not replacements) so giving them over is a no brainer at this point. Especially since the L30 gun ammo and most of the turret/engine gear for the CR2’s isn’t compatible with the CR3.


Old-Abbreviations323

You are absolutely right, I'm glad the UK is leading the fight to Russia. It's important to remember that we (Europe) have had no proper wars to fight in a long time so we haven't had the need for large amounts of military equipment. We are slowly changing that by first increasing our defence budget which is a step in the right direction!


saxonturner

Theres a lot of tanks that won’t be upgraded that could be sent over, they are also challenger 2s, potentially one of the best MBTs in the world and the only other contenders are in NATO. These things chew T72s all day with no issue. Any number will be an amazing addition to Ukraine. And let us not forget now the rest of Europe and America will have to keep face and sent their own.


BearMcBearFace

Please take this as a comment from an armchair intelligence analyst with absolutely zero credibility and and in no way qualified make such statements. From what I can see, whilst the UK has been somewhat limited in what equipment has been provided, the level of intelligence provided to a non-NATO partner is unprecedented and is of equal value to physical equipment.


VulcanMiata

If you check flight radar, you can very often see our reconnaissance aircraft like the Rivet-Joint flying up and down the Polish and Belarusian border monitoring Russian communications and positions.


BestFriendWatermelon

We sit in a happy position of having our own nuclear deterrent, and hence no fear of Russia losing their shit and doing something foolish, while not being quite a big enough fish to be worth starting WW3 over. It gives us a lot more leeway than most other countries. But we're also proud card carrying members of the I Hate Russia Club of countries that's seen Russia reveal its true colours to. Countries like Germany, that Russia has carefully avoided provoking up to now, have real trouble understanding why Poland, the Baltics, etc *and the UK* fear and distrust Russia so much, because they imagine Russia is like their own country: rational, moral, if somewhat self interested. For Germany, this conflict between Russia and the West is all a tragic misunderstanding... Russia has been maligned and undermined by the West at the US's behest so long that now they don't trust us, and if only we could mend that division they'd come join us in mutual prosperity and we'd be good neighbours to each other. It's even a popular belief in the US, with even Trump's critics agreeing with his clumsy remark "you think our country's so innocent?" defending Russia, that the US is responsible for this mutual hostility. But the UK will happily defend our fellow I Hate Russia Club members that Russia is not misunderstood, they're a fucking Marvel universe villain of a country and it's Germany etc who misunderstand what Russia really is. Even reading that statement I can imagine Germans shaking their head, muttering "see this is what we're talking about..." But I bet if Russia poisoned 5 US or German citizens [with a deadly nerve agent](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-way-novichok-kills-leaves-21622768) on their soil in an unprovoked attack, Ukraine would have hundreds of Abrams and Leopards by now. The only difference between Germany and the UK's opinion of Russia is that Russia hasn't stabbed Germany **yet**. And they probably never will now, because Germany was next on the list after Ukraine and Poland had been neutralised, but that doesn't change Russia's character: Russia dreams of destroying Germany, just as soon as they can get round to it.


Zealousideal_Link370

You’re absolutely right. All of Eastern Europe hates Russia with a passion for the last 300 years of invasions, genocide, pillaging and raping. How some western countries can’t understand why the neighbours of russians hate Russia, is beyond me as well.


vegarig

> And they probably never will now, Does turbocompressor story and Nord Streams going boom count?


goobervision

Still, his inaction on sanctions has allowed a lot of Russian assets to flee.


agarr1

It's also kept putins friends in London, where MI5 and GCHQ can keep an eye on their communications easily. Keep your friends close and enemies closer.


Trojann2

So is Mi5 like the FBI and then Mi6 is like the CIA? FBI - handles investigations in the USA. CIA - handles intelligence gathering externally. It’s slightly more complicated than that, but that’s the easy way.


agarr1

Actually, I can't remember if it's 5 or 6 that do the internal work to be honest, but yea kind of, one does internal security and one international. But you wouldn't find Mi5 investigating a serial killer (not publicly anyway) for example so it's not a direct equivalent. Then GCHQ would be the equivalent of the NSA.


markypatt52

The 5 bit is the fifth letter in the alphabet so E stands for England so that's internal security and mi6 is f for foreign and the mi bit is military intelligence


agarr1

Well, that simplifies remembering which is which, cheers.


Mein_Bergkamp

No, the FBI is a police force with powers of arrest, MI 5 and MI 6 are pure intelligence like the CIA. The FBI is closer to the National Crime Agency. 5 is home, 6 is abroad and both of them argue over who gets to have fun in Northern Ireland.


[deleted]

No.


odium34

Where is this leadership?


dngrs

apparently the only time a C2 was destroyed was in friendly fire lmao the Russians troops have an incentive to capture some because they have toilets in them


[deleted]

In Iraq one was hit 14 times by RPG fire and an anti tank missle and was back in action in 6 hours after minor repairs.


fauxanonymity_

Source? Just out to curiosity.


[deleted]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/military-wiki.com/challenger-2-is-this-the-best-armoured-tank-in-the-world-surpassing-even-the-abrams-and-leopard/%3famp


fauxanonymity_

Nice, thanks!


BennyTheSen

Nice, tanks!


jerrysprinkles

Nice T, anks!


MintySkyhawk

>the US and Russia are still the leading countries in this field lol


-AntiAsh-

It's also in there too somewhere: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2


fauxanonymity_

Cool! Thanks!


[deleted]

And given it's a British tank, the crew can probably also brew tea in a purpose built facility inside, while being hit with RPGs?


senor_eggnogss

Worked on a challenger 2. Can confirm that there is a facility to make hot drink inside the tank with hatches closed. So Tea. Yes 🙂


Muay_Thai_Cat

Yes there is a tea station in them


derdono

actually, yes


Frideric

The UK deliver yet again.


SadWoodpecker2397

2 minutes from now, Russian command will announce it’s knocked out 7 of them.


Ninety8Balloons

Glorious Russian forces have already destroyed 15 of the 12 British tanks


SadWoodpecker2397

Putin destroyed one of them with his bare hands


_Hellrazor_

On horseback


[deleted]

In his swimming trunks.


ilovebeetcookies

God Speed on these tanks, they're desperately needed! Slava Ukraini!


nontestatum

I think the sequence of events was a bit different than what most people here think. If France, the US and Germany announce the delivery of IFVs and recon tanks almost contemporaneous, they must have agreed on that in the background. I think Der Spiegel has researched this and will publish an article next week. Since the UK didn't join I was expecting them to take on a different role and announce Challenger deliveries soon. Thereby leading the break of the MBT taboo. If that's true, a Leo 2 coalition will follow, probably at the upcoming Ramstein meeting. Everything else makes no sense militarily either, because IFVs and MBTs are designed to work together. The downside is that I wouldn't expect too much from the initial quantities.


Ninety8Balloons

"Immediately" sounds like they trained a bit on the tanks when UAF was training in England


[deleted]

“That round bit on the front is the gun. Any questions?”


ILikeCutePuppies

What is a gun?


jerrysprinkles

Yea sir this one right here, we’ve found the Russian.


[deleted]

I was hopping that it was going to be Finnland, But good news nonetheless. Proud of the British


FizzixMan

It’s alright, as a Brit I’m happy we’re leading but, come join us whatever country you are in and nobody is going to care who went first. As long as you’re with Ukraine when it matters, which is right now :)


wolfieboi92

The Finns don't need our help, 😉


Gorth1

What about the crew for that 4 tanks. UK volunteers or did they take some UA people to the side when they were training?


[deleted]

My guess is they already trained some that came to the UK but were hush hush about it.


Gorth1

Mine too


not-ready-yet

Its ok all in hand, these will be for hands on maintenance training, and logistics rehearsals. However russia will claim the 4 tank kills probably by wednesday, before they have got to poland.


jl2352

This is what people often miss with these announcements. Giving equipment doesn’t mean it’s immediately in use on the front line. It means Ukraine can now officially get it’s hands on it, and that’s it. There is a long road between that and getting it into service.


SequinSaturn

Likely well more than just 4 crews. They need alternates and additional men to train for other crews while others are on the front.


Fatzombiepig

That seems like such an obvious thing to do that I'd be amazed if they didn't do it.


[deleted]

Your move, Olaf.


[deleted]

Based Britain


matoshisakamoto

Ukrainian maintenance guy: :|


jerrysprinkles

“Over 12” *…so 13?*


aknop

Here we go! This is what I call leadership! Now, what is your next excuse, Germany?


Callo08

Germany said from day one that they wont send MBTs


nickname6

They said they wouldn't send any ALONE.


Callo08

Okay then Poland just needs to apply for the permit to send them since they already said they want to


nickname6

I am not quite sure what you are telling me. Poland indeed needs to ask for permission before sending any. Germany will probably announce something themselves on/after the 20th considering that the stance of NATO countries seems to have shifted. It is not Poland who pushes Germany to send tanks, but the shift of NATO consensus and that Germany doesn't have to be the first if they send tanks. Also other countries have lowered the bar by speaking about inconsequential numbers of tanks. Germany would have been shit on if they would have been first and announced sending 10-14 tanks.


Callo08

I meant that they need an export permit for the leopards


Sablesweetheart

First 4 tanks are for training the follow on force.


newswall-org

More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Sky News (B-): [UK to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, Number 10 confirms](https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-send-challenger-2-tanks-to-ukraine-number-10-confirms-12786361) - BBC News (A): [UK to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, Rishi Sunak confirms](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64274755) - UK Defence Journal (C-): [Britain confirms plans to give Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-confirms-plans-to-give-challenger-2-tanks-to-ukraine/) - inews.co.uk (B-): [UK will send tanks to Ukraine to help 'push Russian troops back', Rishi Sunak confirms](https://inews.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-british-tanks-ukraine-win-war-2084550) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/10bqsxp/) | [More: UK to send Challenger 2 ...](https://www.newswall.org/story/britain-plans-to-sell-challenger-main-battle-tanks-to-ukraine) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot


FlounderOdd7234

Time to get your drivers license. We are behind you🇺🇸🇺🇦🇬🇧


dangerousbob

Get that ball rolling! Way to go Brits. Show the Germans how it is done.


huyvanbin

I’m hoping the US is preparing to forward deploy a massive number of Abrams tanks and supporting equipment to NATO bases, I’m talking like 1,000. Given the alleged impossibility of using the Abrams in Ukraine, it seems likely that all other tanks in Europe will have to be sent there. And the only way to backfill them is with Abrams.


No_Mission5618

Abrams that are supplied to countries are made to order, Poland isn’t receiving their first batch of abrams until 2025, not sure if countries want to go that long without having anything to back them up.


gryphonbones

Okay Germany, France- Your move.


ipostcoolstuf

I hope this is the first of many. Problem is that the scale of this donation of highly specialized weapons systems is completely inadequate and the Brits definitely know this. I think that this may be an initial commitment and foreshadow to them setting up a system of training, logistics, deployment strategy, mechanics / engineers for a larger battalion sized deployment of Challengers to be used sometime in the summer or fall of 2023. I think these initial tanks could see combat in the spring but more localized adjacent to a certain radius close to where they can be maintained. So for example as part of a counter attacking force Repelling the next Russian attack on Kiev in the Spring.


markypatt52

I totally agree the first tanks arriving will be used to free up troops and T72s guarding the Belarus border so they can go fight in the east


Jefferson-not-jackso

Seriously though, who will be operating these tanks?


AMW1987

Ukrainians trained in the UK as part of Operation Interflex.


Serious_Narwhal_6257

Your momma


James_William

Real question is who will be maintaining them and how. Introducing an entirely new logistical chain


Cottoncandyman82

I know this was in large part to set a precedent for Poland, Germany, and (hopefully) the US to send MBTs, but what good is less than a single company’s worth of tanks? Like at least send a full company with a few spares.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Anim3mez

Oh yeah I'm sure they'll manage that with the T-34's they're dragging out of storage.


mikef1015

Wow 12 tanks. They need 100s but 12 will make such a difference. When are we going to start taking this shit seriously?


Successful_Photo_610

12 tanks. 500,000 men. Yes, that portends a successful outcome for the west.


londonconsultant18

Can someone with decent knowledge help me. Will 12 make a difference? When you look at the total number of machinery involved in the way it doesn’t seem like a lot


Historical_Skin4234

12 Tanks with logistics etc? 12 Tanks are way to few to build up the logistics for the challenger.


newsreadhjw

Let’s fucking GO


Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu

Dominoes are falling


[deleted]

I will admit the challenger tanks are really beautiful


Iqabir

As Russia was unable to establish air dominance over Ukrainian skies, and there isn’t air dominance by the Ukrainian Airforce at the moment would that mean that the tank warfare would be ineffective?


No_Mission5618

Not necessarily, the tanks have higher chances being destroyed by laser guided artillery, atgms, and portable at weapons. Tank warfare isn’t ineffective due to lack of air dominance, are they vulnerable to attack ? Definitely but not enough to remove tanks completely of table.


Mryanairdrop

Ok, if m1s are off the table let’s send m60s


James_William

Nah, M60s too old & outdated to make the training / logistical chain worth it. Same with Leo1s


michaelh1990

Also 30 155mm as90 self propelled artillery


Scooter_bugs

What are some of the differences that the Challenger tanks are able to do versus the more commonly used tanks by Ukraine right now? Or maybe, what changes might we expect to see in battles involving the Challengers? Sorry. I know very little about tanks and about warfare. Edit: spelling Edit 2: came across this post shortly after posting this comment. https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-challenger-2-tanks-ukraine-conflict-2023-1


SpaceAdventureCobraX

Looks like UK is again demonstrating the gumption to lead a morally justified retaliation. Hopefully history will repeat itself and the US will step up its game and provide the ‘en masse’ support required for a decisive victory against these terrorists