sending a BIT OF KIT to Ukraine

It is noticable how many newsreaders have been using that term ‘BIT OF KIT’
The BITS OF KIT in question are mostly Leopard II tanks (made in germany) and also Challenger II tanks made in UK and Abrams tanks made in the USA.

Surely the thing we should be thinking of is a) the decisions to send these ‘BITS OF KIT’ have been politically triggered (once one country has decioded to send them other countries have followed suit (I realise that there was a slight delay after the UK committed to less than a score of challenger II, as Leopard II operators had to wait until germany gave the go ahead, but once they had allowed it I notice that the USA also then ‘followed suit’.
The reason that it is important to not trivialise this is that Putin will no doubt emphasise the fact that they are ‘German tanks’ (even if they are sent by other countries) on ‘Russian soil’ …I realise that Putin is a bastard, but it does give him ammo in one of his own battles, that of propganda against other russians.
What MY immediate question would be is ‘what will the UKs’ , the US, other eurp countries reaction be, to if he employs neutron or other small nuclear devices in Ukraine, BECAUSE sending tanks does bring that prospect closer.
SOOO that is my demand, I want an answer on hpw my countrys government would respond.
I am not expecting an answer, and I think that the attack on Ukraine by PUTIN (lets not say Russia) was the most dreadful and unnecessary thing…but we are now in a position where PUTIN will find it more necessary to do something as a response to the tanks (if not now, then when the impact of them might be felt).
i.e. What does our government say about what they think Putins response will be if a Ukraine counter offensive does roll back Russian land grabs beyond the ones that occured in 2022.
WHY the fuck isnt the BBC asking the government about that? rather than talking like baby techies about ‘bitsokit’

(of course It is perfectly understandable if the government then says ‘of course we have a position on this. But we couldnt possible let the people know as this might constrain our position and give away vital information’)

I enjoyed the news yesterday referring to them as ‘Battle Tanks’.

I’m guessing to avoid confusion with us sending ‘fish tanks’ to Ukraine :face_with_hand_over_mouth:


yes, perhaps its just today that they are using ‘bitsokit’ I wasnt listening to the news yesterday…to be fair, I would understand it more if the were referring to MBTs ‘Main Battle Tank’ as that is a term that is used to define what you mean (Challenger II, T72, Leopard II, Abrahms, Merkava, AMX (whatever they’ve got up to) as opposed to say a light or recon tank.
But yeah if they were just saying battle tank (as opposed to main battle tank) then that is just babyish and they need to immediately sack their editor

Long story short, he won’t hit the nuclear button. It sounds dismissive but it would mean certain death for him, his cabinet / all his generals and advisors and all of their families. It just isn’t viable unless we were literally storming Moscow with pitchforks. That being said, the conclusion of this war seems out of reach for either party - particularly with who will end up taking the contested areas as can’t see either side backing down.
Is the decision a propaganda piece for Putin, possibly, but the material wins of the Ukrainian army in the spring will far outweigh that.


It is a bit odd how an no fly zone was a big no no “we couldn’t possibly do that!” but very publicly sending vehicles of war to be used against Russia is deemed ok…
I mean, I’m all for sending arms to Ukraine to defend themselves but having such a distinction between the two seems slightly pointless. I guess there is a difference between a british pilot in a british plane shooting down a Russian tank, versus a Ukrainian soldier doing the same in a british tank, but still…don’t think old Putin will take it very well.

There’s an absolutely huge difference in this.

NATO planes with NATO pilots getting shot down would be a huge escalation as well the other way

Funding and supplying arms has always been fair game getting your armed forces involved other than a bit of snidy training here and there isn’t.

Loads of nonsense long-standing norms stopping the end of civilisation is a bit worrying like but it’s how it’s been for decades

Thats what worries me, of course what you say applies logic for our mindsets. But he obviously has a different mindset, why else invade in the first place (other than to make himself ‘more relevent’ which is not sane to our mindset). Im not suggesting he would just ‘hit a nuclear button’ but that he might retaliate with escalation by using small tactical nukes in ukraine, with him always thinking that he is less weak and frightened of danger, than the western leaders. (something I agree on, the problem is, just because the western leaders might be more frightened, doesnt mean they wont re-respond with more escalation or matching it, they might be locked into a pattern. There needs to be de-escalation routes, some of which might have to include very very unpalatable ideas of allowing Putin to save some face…a difficult idea, i Know, but one that rationalists must discuss, given that countries have such vast destructive arsenals that could be the end of us and are designed to threaten us to irrational horrible choices.

Two fish are in a tank when one turns to the other and says, “Do you know how to drive this thing?”

Second time today I’ve posted ^that joke on DiS…

1 Like

Also worth pointing out that logistically tanks will require far less training for them to be used by Ukrainian soldiers. A no-fly zone would most likely be need to be actively enforced by NATO members or whoever it was who was leading the initiative because the training times required for the kind of planes available is generally assumed to be much longer.

1 Like

I guess the thing I’d question here is 1. How much foreign intervention is actually fueling continuous escalation in Ukraine beyond what the Kremlim themselves are saying, because Putin already announced additional mobilization months before tanks were sent.

  1. What allowing Putin to save some face actually looks like, I’d be…somewhat concerned about the idea of the UAF going into Crimea largely for strategic reasons, but even prior to the recent referendum the area that Putin wanted to annexe amounted to around 15% of the country, I can’t see how that can square with a country trying to maintain some sense of territorial integrity.