Good for the brits to test their equipment without taking risks but hardly a significant number. But everyhing helps. It is the soldiers on the battlefield, and operates the equipment which makes the real difference
whilst that maybe true but if the goverment say hey we dont want our tanks in Russia and Ukraine ignore our requests, we could then stop supporting Ukraine ect and stop sending supplies thats why whilst we donated yes we still have a say because it involves our vehicles
I hope you understand that this is another step towards newclear inialstion this is an attack from NATO on Russia and they'll be concerquences plz wake up
If it's legal for England to occupy Northern Ireland then how's it illegal for Russia to occupy East Ukraine? I mean if England does it I don't see the problem.
@@carlogambino1979 Completely incorrect comparison. A closer comparison is the German occupation of Poland. Don’t forget that Russia’s goal is the destruction of culture, language and nationality.
@@Fokadas Are you arguing Iran has the right to attack a distant sovereign nation, because Iran is sponsoring terrorism aimed at that same nation? Stop being weird.
The donated weapons are initially used to help Ukraine defend its soil. If it’s used to invade Russia (interpret the situation as you will), it could be seen as NATO taking part in the invasion and could possibly get them even more involved in the war than anyone wants them to be. So yeah, even though we’re pro-Ukraine, if they’re not careful this can be seen as concerning as Ukraine could lose NATO support or NATO could be dragged into the war. And it could lead to a domino effect that could legit lead us to WW3 (worst case scenario).
Bullshit, the cruise missiles don't run withouth a satellite guidance. All strikes on the russian flagship, in Crimea and everywere they was using cruise missiles was conducted by US and UK military, involved directly from the beginning
British tanks donated Ukraine is no longer British tanks. Great job Ukraine for showing that Russia is not a super power in the world. At this point Russia had a lot of land area, but now Russia has less land in their own country.
They have more man and fire power whatever they do in Russian land is sucide mision they already forcing and kidnapping people to fight for commedian zelensky
NATO tanks are being used inside Russia and you're happy about this, this is the most terrifying this ever and the closest we have ever been to nuclear war and you're celebrating it. People are sick in the head.
If they're using the challenger 2, and that can travel and cover distance, then what difference does it make using stormshadow? Its all for the same reason, to help Ukraine and free it from occupation. Ridiculous bureaucracy
@@riversidegardenradio9070 literally only 1 has been destroyed ever, it was sent in without its armour on, and got hit by an anti tank mine then missle immediately after. the hell you taking about?
@@Meeko2689 It depends on what the country that supplied the weapons tells the Ukrainians The German defence chief said that the Ukrainians now own their Marder IFVs and can do what they want with them for example
@@h.a8681The actual question is not Germanys or the UKs conditions on the weapons they gave Ukraine, but what is the range of Russias ICBMs and who does Moscow hold responsible hahahaha
the tanks that were sent are old rubbish and no better than anything the Russians have since they were stripped of their Chobham armour before leaving the UK
Putting pressure on your enemy by opening another front or starting an offensive in a new part of the line is an age old tactic. The Somme, Anzio, British commandos etc. just some examples.
The general, the aim of any diversionary attack is to force your enemy to commit its reserve, but inb this specific case its also about moral and putting pressure on the Kremlins credibility
"On 7 June 1905, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt agreed with the Japanese assessment that the invasion and occupation of Sakhalin was now necessary, as only the threat of direct loss of Russian territory would bring Tsar Nicholas II to consider a negotiated settlement to the war"
Why is it that the BBC correspondent says it is slowing down rather than it has been an amazing success? They never seem to have anything positive to say about Ukraine.
It can't handle ATGMs and FPV drones. This isn't Basra in 2003. Challenger 2 has NUMEROUS problems, It's too heavy for most bridges in Ukraine/Eastern Europe. The Smooth bore gun it uses makes it impossible to share ammunition with other western tanks sent over. There's also no laser warning receiver to alert the crew if they're being painted by an enemy ATGM team. There's no centralised storage of ammunition - all the ammo is stored hapharzardly in and around the crew compartment, which means no blowout panels, which means a catastrophic kill, kills the crew.
Possibly. If you had troubled to do some research prior to posting then you would know it all depends on what sort of reactive armour was fitted prior to dispatch to Ukraine. Quite frankly your ignorance is breathtaking and I wonder at you posting such drivel.
I'm sure Ukraine will find there were a lot of red lines. Lots of prison time for the heads of the army, and their political masters. They really have been playing silly buggers
Wat. The countries that have supplied the equipment are NATO countries. What Putin said and what you are laughing about being the truth are exactly the same thing
We all know tha BBC believes and relays whatever official channels tell them. "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play" - Goebbels.
Of course the Ukrainians are slowing down, they have too because of their supply lines and lack of vehicles. If they try to take too much it can hurt them. It seems the Ukrainian high command knows what they are doing.
Chinese also? 🤔 I am not sure about this, because it would mean crazy sanctions on China, if it would be confirmed, but no sanctions yet so no confirmed Chinese weapons in Russian hands
@@Meeko2689 How about this: Ukrainians are paying with their blood and west wants Russian tanks back in the Russia so west pays for that service to Ukraine by sending equipment.
'Nerds? You mean those who write and understand tactics and doctrine? You mean the soldiers, sailors and airmen who do this for a job? Those nerds?" 😂😂
What a disrespectful comment from a “so called BBC commentator” to refer to Combined Arms Manoeuvres as a term created and used by nerds! It’s very unusual that I watch BBC news and this is just one more reason why the future of the BBC is akin to the future of Putin… looser!!!
@@hughbarr8408do you actually understand what happened at Bakhmut? I've seen you posting pro Ukraine comments so do you think Bakhmut was some kind of embarrassment for Russia? 😂
And so what? Are they not weapons of war or are they decorations? Ukraine has every right to used those weapons to help her citizens 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Good, send everything you can and finally lift those ridiculous restrictions and allow Ukraine to hit anything they like. And if the US is holding UK back, then just ignore it, give green light and revert back to US after (as always) nothing escalated due to this and say: see? Now go and search your backbone
They’re not British tanks, they are Ukrainian tanks. Noting that they were manufactured in the UK, is nothing but a Russian talking point. The UK sells weapons to lots of countries.
Your weapon? you provided it to Ukraine? You are the ones who involved in this conflict, helping fueling it and prolonging the conflict. Don't act now like you have nothing to do with it!
Wonder what will you say when Russia reclaim that land and push further beyond the border of nothern Urkaine. Feels like Westerners lack any foresight, what might happen later.
The Challenger is a world class tank The difference of the war in Kursk and the war in Ukraine is that Russia hasn't had a warning for more than half a year to build up defenses and drop anti-tank mines everywhere Thus, tanks can actually be useful in Kursk Russia never thought that the war would come to their own lands and left their borders effectively undefended
The 14 tanks that the UK sent were scrappers, old , obsolete and stripped of their tech and Chobham armour, sitting ducks for any old anti tank weapon or drone. Nothing world class about them.
@@nic.hNot necessarily. It could have just been where the formulaic planning system the Russians use said to dig in. The power plant would need too be shutin long before the UAF gets anywhere near it. The fact that we are talking about this at all is astonishing.
@@obsidianjane4413 personally if they were creating defences based on preplanned positions I'd expect them to be much wider spread. If you look at where they created them it's pretty clear that it's mainly about the plant and that they were very hastily done, largely long straight lines across fields near roads leading to the plant. I honestly think that Russia was worried that was Ukraine's primary objective.
@@obsidianjane4413 I agree that they'll build more defences. From a political perspective that still isn't great to have to do so. Defensive lines 60km from the border doesn't scream that things are going Russia's way.
Most of the remaining AFV's Russia is deploying are OLDER than Chieftain and less capable. Chieftain is streets ahead of most Russian MBT's even today.
@@CityNomadMethey don't though do they? We have seen this now. Years ago at an expo, Russia pointed to a black box on the side of the tank with wires and an antenna. They claimed it could defeat anti armour of all sorts. Turned out it was a wooden box painted black and with an old coat hanger glued on. But of course, they had set up the expo so it was all staged. It looked good but was useless. They also claimed they had a laser that could counter Javelins laser lock system. But anyone with a shred of knowledge on how javelin works knew it was a lie. And sure enough it's been seen. The Russians are ok at putting down I'll equipped rebels. But not much else it appears. And their kit shows it.
You make jokes, but NATO weapons are being used to invade Russia, and you don't find this the slightest bit terrifying, this is the most terrifying thing to have ever happened.
@@TomTom-j8x I see, you weren't around in the '60s, '70s or '80s. Back when Russia was run by literal alcoholics having temper tantrums on a daily basis, to the extent Western nations had to have active nuclear attack evacuation drills on a regular basis. Putin is indeed a narcissistic autocrat, but there has been much worse times in recent history than this. Regarding Ukraine using basic NATO weapons. Russia is mass-importing weapons and fighters from several crook states around the world. Russia is also arranging military drills with those crook states, probably to try recruit fighters. Your complaint is invalid. NATO should donate _a lot_ more and advanced weapons systems to Ukraine. I personally think, NATO should also provide personell to speed up the knowledge and use of those. NATO should also allow Ukrainian military to partake in NATO drills. Because, all of those things are actively being done by Russia right now.
ALL THE MASS MEDIA IS HAND IN HAND, THE MANIPULATED SHEEP PUT THE MOUTH ON THE WITCHCRAFT, THE TRUTH WILL MAKE US FREE PEOPLE, HUMANITY IS LIVING IN THE LIE OF THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS THE PUPPETS CONTROLLED BY THE GLOBAL ELITE
Questioning how Ukraine uses the equipment we give them is uncalled for. For example, a family is suffering financially, unable to feed or care for themselves. I give them $50,000, but they cannot buy food or medicine with it, only invest it. Have I solved their plight? No! At some point, they need to care for themselves. They have the money, let them use it!
Many Putin supporters believe that Ukraine mistakenly attacked Russia. Some naively made up that Zelenskyy had declared regret. Fourteen reasons why Ukraine attacked Russia: 1) Switching from defense to offense boosts the morale of the Ukrainian army. 2) Makes the Russian people distrust Putin and shows Russia's inability to defend. 3) Russian pilots and missiles cannot freely drop bombs or fire as they did on Ukrainian soil. 4) Russian troops have to spread out to protect thousands of kilometers of the border. 5) Makes Russian troops lose morale when the rear (Russia) is attacked. 6) Putin will be angry and fire personnel (change generals, ministers, etc.), which will cause many inappropriate changes. 7) Russia will have to spend time and money to build a new defense line. 8) Russian pilots and missiles have to fly further because airports near the border are destroyed. 9) There are conditions for negotiations. 10) Make NATO countries support and trust. 11) Have to spend effort and money to evacuate >120,000 Russian civilians. 12) Putin forced the Russian parliament to approve the use of Nuclear when Russia was attacked, making NATO & the US afraid of this red line. Ukraine's attack on Russia proved that Putin did not dare to use Nuclear but only threatened. 13) Captured many Russian soldiers because most of them were children of high-ranking officials, so they were allowed to stay in Russia and used them for negotiations. 14) Obtained information on Russian troop movements and military supplies.
@@GarySpeight-cv5sw generative pre-trained transformer. Or more specifically here it's referring to large language models used to generate comments in support of propaganda, ie bots
Those 14 old tanks only had scrap value, they were obsolete, slow and unreliable as well as being stripped of their protective Chobham armour before leaving the UK.
Do you have any idea how much *POLAND* had to *BEG* the UK, and EU for for Ukraine to be given tanks and fighter aircraft?? The EU dragged their feet for so long that Poland was about to say "f**k everything" go against EU rules and send their own inventory of Leopard II tanks and F-16s to Ukraine for them to use in the fight. That would have seen them sanctioned, kicked out of the EU or banned from being able to import military equipment that is made in the EU. You should be proud of Poland more than anything. *EVERYTHING* has to go through the Ursula von der Leyen and if she wont authorise it. There is nothing anyone can do unless they take matters into their own hands which Poland was ready to do. UK deserve no credit.
Ukrainian not our allies never was all Ukrainian is horrible and rude , greedy people only after our money and military equipment, there don’t care about your life’s
Nothing new. The British are Russia's old enemies, but I don't know why or with what Russia has ever threatened Western Europe. Nothing but the struggle for resources and dominance.
Polish, French and Ukraine special forces were the ones who made incursions in Kursk region....but sadly most of those Nato special forces were COMPLETELY DESTROYED...H hundreds were taken prisoners and most of ther weapons were captured or destroyed...now those who were not yet destroyed are RUNNING SCARED to escape Russian forces WRATH..No need to worry> Russia will no longer accept surrenderees.
If you have to tell a joke, you should also look at the facts. If you were Putin and you had hundreds of NATO special forces prisoners of war, wouldn't you hold a press conference of the century? Also, how many grams of pork can you exchange for these typings?
Нато шлёт оружие, и своих солдат, територия нато может быть атакована... в любой момент 🎉 Через 3 месяца либо Украина проиграет, либо начнется 3 мировая война.
How exactly? Please explain. They can't take Donbas so how do you expect that they will take both "easily"? Russia's remaining military strength is half of what it was 2 years ago and their cash reserves are almost gone.
Yeah everyone who thinks it's not a good idea to invade Russia with NATO weaponry is a bot, yeah if someone doesn't agree with you there a bot, ok sure lol
@@LunaticTheCat it's not just the FSB that plants stories and comments, the US and UK governments do, if you don't think they do you haven't been paying attention to the news, so you know what, I think your a bot, "Sam from Kansas City"
@@tayler2396 hi worth remembering that russias recent election had a massive popular turnout more than uk and other western countries plus Ukraine has now a military dictatorship whose constitutional term ran out months ago...
In 1943, the Germans had two million soldiers poised to take Kursk, along with them were the 800,000-strong Italian 8th Army, and 225,000-strong Hungarian 1st Army. In total, *THREE MILLION* men intent on taking Kursk. When the smoke cleared, the Italians and Hungarians were decimated so severely, only 10 percent of the men they sent to Russia returned to their homelands. The Germans were mauled badly, but the bulk of their force survived to make a retreat that didn't stop until the Battle of Berlin. People never listen to historians until its too late. They say "it will be different this time", and it almost never is...."
So what is your point? Battlefield changed a lot since the 40’s. Technology made smaller troops able to conquer bigger forces - with good manoeuvres and intelligence. Check how amazing US Army and Soviet Army did in Afghanistan etc. first war in Chechnya also was lost by mighty Russia
Ukraine isn't trying to seize this territory. This is a defensive action meant to widen the front. They will eventually withdraw, but Russia will be forced to pull forces out of occupied Ukraine to defend their borders.
