Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Ukraine: how Western tanks will change the war - expert explains" video.

It was reported that Germany (already supplying humanitarian aid) wanted America to send tanks first; it was then reported that "political pressure" (unspecified) had been applied and Germany would supply (14) tanks, at the end of March; America would supply (31) tanks by December time. I don't know the worth of tanks on the modern battlefield; but the sight of German tanks in Eastern Europe (again) is highly likely to provoke a violent response; so I have to question where some of these "experts" are getting their expertise. At the moment we are supposed to believe that America can't find 31 tanks; the Western media (msm) has gone on and on about Russia running out of ammunition (since March) it seems that's not true; now the msm claim America has no tanks (so they'll need to build some); these are some of the reasons I don't trust the msm, their "experts" or their opinions. The msm claim Russia won't go nuclear; previously they claimed America would (over Cuba); I know they like the sound of their own voice (me too sometimes), but there wasn't just one holocaust; a million Russians died in the Battle of Leningrad (and all the msm did was talk about Putin). Lest we forget... Russia hasn't, the American msm clearly has; so should NATO countries go a step further? What, possibly start WW3 over Ukraine? It's not even a NATO member. Somebody is playing games, just bad luck America a nuclear superpower has no tanks I guess; what are they doing with that $782,000,000,000 military budget? (Building nuclear bunkers perhaps). Where's my lethal aid?
1
@davemckolanis4683 It was an Arab perspective; they know how to blow up tanks; so should you not be quiet and go away. German tanks in Eastern Europe = WW3.
1
@davemckolanis4683 The point being made was that even tribal nations found ways to destroy tanks; there are a whole list of more sophisticated anti-tank weapons now; it should also be mentioned that: without air cover tanks are vulnerable; German tanks in Eastern Europe (again) is likely to provoke a violent reaction and America claiming they have no tanks (until December) is a fairy story. If you are claiming that it's NATO v Russia; something the "Western interests" are trying not to say; then NATO countries become legitimate targets (words have consequences). It doesn't look like Russia is trying to take over Europe; it looks like they have occupied the mainly Russia speaking regions; they are grinding Ukraine down and every time those "Western interests" try it on, Russia destroys more infrastructure or targets the capital. Russia has been doing this for a year; Ukraine should have stayed neutral (as agreed) but the EU and America are just so charitable they kept offering Ukraine money (despite clear warnings). Then you started babbling; the usual stuff: I did finish school; I'm not a supporter of Russia, or Ukraine (heard enough American lies); I've worked in: Europe; America; China; Russia and darkest Africa and so I can tell you that Joe's guest is wrong on a number of matters. One thing he doesn't seem to appreciate is scale; it's 70 years since Russia lost 860,000 men; 1000 tanks in a single battle, which they won. Compared to what is occurring in Ukraine, Russia has hardly started, but I believe they mean to finish this. I doubt 14 tanks will last long; but a million people died in Leningrad at German hands, so it really is a shame America hasn't any tanks, it should be noted Russia has nukes now; so I agree with the OP those Western interests must be sick in the head... Ukraine should have stayed neutral.
1
@davemckolanis4683 Oh dear, too busy; too many big words; having trouble getting your sh*t in order... well jog on then... I wouldn't want to hold you back. You could try typing with both hands; instead of "multi-tasking"; since it's all about you; or get out of the toilet (give someone else a chance); but do try and make a point instead of just rambling... your caps lock key hates you (Btw).
1