>

I'm not afraid of Russia. Obviously Ukraine are doing the entire western world a huge service by dispatching as many russian troops as possible and tanks would aid with that.
I would however not like to weaken the countries that are bordering Russia, there are other countries where tanks could be pulled from.
However if Finland were able to strike a deal of sending Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine while getting replacement tanks immediately in the year 2023-2024 i would be all for it.
If we're talking about Finland sending like 10-20 tanks and other countries chipping in as well (where the total amount of MBTs would equate to like a 100 or more) then yeah i'd be all for it as well.
I'd also like us to send more of our artillery pieces to Ukraine, we have the biggest artillery arsenal in Europe.
Edit: My original first comment is worded a bit wrong, i'm not against sending some tanks to ukraine :) Have a good day all and slava ukraini.
“France, Poland and the United Kingdom have pledged to soon send tanks for the Ukrainian military to use in its efforts to protect itself from Russia,” it says here, and “Finland is considering following suit.” >

Really important to note here that Finland has 200+ Leopard 2 tanks which they could easily ship to Ukraine and replace with Abrams from the US. That’s honestly the easiest method of getting Leopards to Ukraine since Poland has already given so many tanks it will take a year or so more for them to replenish stocks. 
Also important to note that Finland has a standard policy of not disclosing what types of weapons they provide. They usually just disclose “Finland provides $100m in aid to Ukraine” and that’s it. 
If you see an announcement like that in the near future it’s probably going to be Leopard 2’s and we won’t get visual confirmation for several months or so. >


Finland has 200+ Leopard 2 tanks which they could easily ship to Ukraine and replace with Abrams from the US. 

go on, elaborate please,  I want to see the logic behind that.
What they are going to do with those tanks ? and how long you think they will last ?Always interesting to hear an internet military expert , especially reddit expert. >

Same thing they've been doing with all of their other MBTs? Using them for hard points, support and as iron fists on operational spearheads
Western thermals and fire control alone also massively increase survivability
Ukraine still has Polish T72s in their ranks...they attrition the same as everything else, the more they have the longer it will take to run out. The tanks will last years, if they get low, they will use them more sparingly. Its like russian cruise and ballistic missiles - they haven't run out, but they are slowly using less and less in each strike to make sure they last long enough. >

Ok, T72s make sense since Ukraine has infrastructure and skills to use/repair it.
What they are gonna do with Leopards or any other tanks / APSc / IFVs ? People do not understand the amount of infrastructure, supply lines , engineers behind every fighing machine is massive + every person who is gonna use a new tanks needs to go through the proper training program, otherwise a tank will turn into useless metal  very fast.
​
" The tanks will last years" well, most likely no. Sometimes even without a direct hit. >

Logistics are a valid concern. But there is significantly less involved with maintaining tanks than more complex systems like F-16’s. Let’s not forget every NATO country in Europe is using leopards, including next door neighbor Poland. 
Maintenance isn’t some impossible hurdle for Ukraine. They’re still using M-777’s and they modified MiG-29’s to shoot HARM missiles which were clearly effective in Kherson based on the number of dead Russian radar stations we see popping up on Twitter. 
A lot of the IFVs/APCs given are older model M113’s and now MARDER-1’s. These are much simpler to maintain and honestly similar to the existing Soviet stocks. A lot of maintenance difficulties come from post 1980’s weapons where complex electronics and optics really made Soviet and western systems start to deviate. >

I really really doubt all that stuff that the west waste in UA is gonna make a big difference. Germany threw Tiger tanks to the Western and Easter fronts in 1944-1945 , that tank was a way supperior to any allies tanks or Soviet tanks (maybe except IS-2), but that didn't help them. >

Wars aren’t won by individual weapons they are won by wider strategic efforts. Leopard tanks alone won’t make a difference. It’s the fact that the west is providing enough armor (across multiple models) to enable Ukraine to build more mechanized divisions as well as replenish their own losses. Conversely, Russia has squandered their best divisions in the early stages of the conflict and needs to rebuild them with mobilized infantry. 
That’s going to enable Ukraine to actually carry out more offensives. There’s no way Ukraine could have carried out offensives like the their second effort in Kharkiv without western aid. That entire rapid advance was enabled by American MRAPs and Humvees. 
Also Tiger Tanks sucked. They had horrible maneuverability and were a massive maintenance liability. >

Canada should just bite the bullet and send our  2a4 leopards that we are using for training and place a order for replacements. It will take a few years to get the replacements but it should ok. >

But what if you get invaded by USA, or Iceland? >

Guerilla warfare in the second largest forest in the world. >

You never know when those loose and crazy Danes will take back Hans Island again, and if they don’t leave the tasty schnapps it’s gonna be war time. >

Lol that shit is hilarious.  The friendliest border dispute ever. >

Honestly I wonder if spreading out LEGO blocks is part of Danish war strategy, I don’t know if we Canadians can handle it. >

The Whiskey War is actually over.  They settled on psrtitioning the island last year. >

Oh great now we have to share a land border?? What’s next, full scale invasion??!! /s >

Yep. We now have a land border with the US and Denmark.  They have a land border with Germany and Canada.  I suspect conspiracy. >

Queue the Russians crying about it in 3,2,1… >

Russia keeps talking about them already fighting NATO so a few more tanks shouldn't hurt, right? >

They are currently fighting NATO's entire strength... but small quantities of last generation equipment is an escalation so severe it may require a nuclear response. >

Sound investment in our collective security. >

Shit, at this point send them a battalion of M1A1s that the marine corp got rid of. >

Send the Marines in already and watch as they single-handedly end the war in 4 weeks. >

4 days if you give them air support >

If you give them air support you won't even need to send them in to be fair. >

And alot of blue crayons in case they get hungry >

Great initiative, but it will take many months to set up the logistics and train the troops. I wish they had done this a year ago. >

The next 4-6 weeks will tell us whether or not Europe/NATO/US has been committed to this for months and is only now formally announcing it.  I can't find data on Challengers or Leopards, but the US National Guard says crew training for an Abrams typically requires 22 weeks (to say nothing of maintenance logistics).  To avoid getting stuck in late spring muck, an armored offensive would need to begin before the end of February. Sooo if next month we suddenly see Ukrainian crews operating a bunch of western tanks (assuming their training time is similar to Abrams), then it seems reasonable to assume that the recent public announcements were merely an acknowledgement of something that has been in the works for quite some time. 
That being said, I am just a guy on reddit with no military background, so these assumptions could be totally wrong. >

The training time is often compressed, successfully, in times of war. The Ukrainians have apparently surprised the training staff of all the weapons transferred. To the point that, in the US at least, they are taking a second look at their schedules. It's not just a matter of "needs must" just get them to the front. The motivation of those being trained counts for a lot. >

The ukranian soldiers are likely very motivated considering their homes are being bombed and their friends, family and comrades are getting killed. Time off must be just frustrating in that situation. >

Tomorrow fascist russia will announce they already destroyed 763 European tanks. >

Yes they have been sending them some time ago,  but soon >

How many tanks? The U.K. is only sending about a dozen, which is good for PR but not enough to really be useful in this large of a conflict. >

They said in their statement it was a symbolic gesture and hoped our countries would follow suit. There are only about 250 tanks total in the UK so a dozen is a decent proportion. Now if ~~Germany~~ others with German-made tanks want to match out of their 2,000…
Edit: Germany itself vs German-made correction >

Germany doesn't have even 500 tanks, let alone 2000. I doubt that 2k operational Leo exist tbh. And many are owned by turkey, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, which are not going to give any. >

Switzerland could easily help while maintaining full neutrality, it's simple: Some country (like, say, Finland) could donate their own tanks, and buy Swiss tanks to back-fill for their own defense. Voila, Ukraine still gets what they need while neutrality remains intact.
The more important question is whether Switzerland (or any of the other nations you listed) is willing to do the right thing despite there being no negative consequences for it.
Now I don't even know the status of military equipment in Switzerland, so for all I know none of it is usable and this is a moot point. >

I would not buy any weapons from Switzerland. Their rules are prohibitive concerning your rights to do as you please with the weapons you have purchased ie no secondary export. >

That's kind of the point of the above scheme, it circumvents the export restrictions in the short term in order to free up inventory to send to Ukraine.
Also, Switzerland does allow export to a number of terrible regimes as long as they're not in an active conflict with another nation-state, so just getting rid of your old stock when you want to replace it is easy enough. The difficulty lies in exporting the items to a country that is in a state of (non-civil) war. >

Send tanks and a lot of ammunition for the upcoming hordes of zombies. More artillery with anti-infantry munitions >

Artillery shell supply is one area I’m concerned about, and I hope someone is working on it >

This isn’t talked about enough. The 30 year old stocks are gone at this point. Very closely watching this play out. >

Don't give up I think their will to wage war is breaking. Russia talks a big game but this is no fun for them either. We're just waiting for them to admit they're wrong, they're sorry, and won't do it again. If you want a cease fire you agree to nuclear disarmment. Apologize, withdrawal troops,  allow us to remove your nuclear weapons. 

The Western alliance’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine received a shot in the arm this week as multiple European nations for the first time answered President Volodymyr Zelensky’s longstanding call to supply modern battle tanks to Kyiv.
France, Poland and the United Kingdom have pledged to soon send tanks for the Ukrainian military to use in its efforts to protect itself from Russia. Finland is considering following suit. >

They will never agree to nuclear disarmament. Expect the world to end first >

And quite frankly they would be stupid to do so. The nukes are the only thing causing the west to act with caution here. >

Remember Gadafi… the nuclear weapons are the only thing making the West tread lightly. Else we would have seen faster escalation. >

Gadafi never had nukes, lmao. There was only a nuclear program, but no nukes. >

We help allies. this is the way >

Soon is forever. >

The Dutch government is considering sending tanks. Only problem: the Dutch army does not have tanks. Sometimes we borrow a few from the Germans. >

Only taken a year fuck sake >

Just do it already until they are not all dead! >

The problem with tanks is that they depend on supply lines of parts and fuel that aren't found in Ukraine right now.  The US Abrahams run on jet fuel and break down every 300 miles. >

Jet fuel is just kerosene. You can throw a match on it and it probably won't even catch on fire. >

Why the hell was this not done a year or two ago? Hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved if we were not so scared of russia. >

Feels wrong that out of all the countries, Finland might be sending tanks to Ukraine. I'm all for supporting Ukraine anyway possible, but I'd rather keep our Leopard 2 tanks here and provide ukraine with other military aid and hope that some bigger, not so close to russia countries provide tanks for ukraine. >


I'm all for supporting Ukraine anyway possible, but I'd rather keep our Leopard 2 tanks here

So not any way possible. Just in certain instances. Got it. 
Btw russia threw all the forces garrisoning their border with finland into ukraine. To which the brave ukranian soldiers that are supported by you in not any way possible, but slightly less convenient way possible, have promptly dispatched via the meat grinder. 
Send the tanks with thanks for dispatching the very dead soldiers you are currently afraid of.