Why is Putin concerned about NATO dispatching tanks to Ukraine?

Ukraine has been requesting heavy combat vehicles from the beginning of the invasion, and it appears that its demand is likely to be granted. Western tanks may derail Putin's invasion, which is why he has tried so hard to scare the West away from deploying them. In this dramatic narrative, find out what happens if NATO sends heavy artillery to Ukraine. 😰🤧🥴

Ukrainian equipment was generally older and less effective, which gave them a significant disadvantage. However, the initial invasion's defensive nature and an influx of hundreds of western anti-tank missiles helped tip the loss ratio decisively in Ukraine's favor, with Russia suffering significantly more casualties per combat engagement. Even so, Ukraine was experiencing catastrophic losses as a share of its overall fleets; according to some estimates, nearly 100 of Ukraine's initial vehicle fleet have been lost, damaged, or taken. Many of these would eventually be fixed, but the countless vehicles that the retreating Russians left behind were an even greater benefit to Ukraine. Russia quickly overtook the United States as Ukraine's top military aid provider, which is a terrible strategy for winning a war.

Due to its small arms industry and the fact that a large portion of it was destroyed in the conflict, Ukraine is only able to produce a limited number of domestic armored vehicles. When you have as many missiles as Russia initially had before the war, the odds are you're eventually going to hit what you're aiming at, even if you can't hit the broad side of a barn from ten feet away on most days. The small numbers of defense plants in Ukraine were a top priority target for Russia. Because the east of Ukraine is primarily used for industry while the west is primarily used for farming, the capture of significant industrial cities in the east also severely hampered Ukrainian manufacturing. No amount of anti-tank missiles from the west could prevent Ukraine from being seriously troubled unless they figured out how to make tanks out of wheat and barley.

After all, infantry that has taken a position and held it cannot be defeated by anti-tank missiles. The majority of westerners believed the Russian propaganda at the outset of the conflict and was certain that Ukraine would fall within days or at most weeks. Due to the fact that sending equipment to an army in a battle it will unavoidably lose quickly is absurd, it is unfair to criticize the west for not acting sooner to aid the country. The west's initial strategy in the conflict was to make the Russian army suffer as much as it could during its invasion because it did not think it could be effectively stopped. This was successfully accomplished by man-portable anti-tank missiles and air defense systems, which severely damaged Russia's armored forces and possibly killed a quarter of its attack helicopter fleet.

Russian helicopters found the combat environment to be so deadly that even today, the formidable Ka-52, a truly capable and fearsome attack chopper, is only useful as an inaccurate aerial artillery platform, having to launch volleys of rockets during pitch-up maneuvers well outside the range of enemy man pads. The world began to realize that Ukraine could actually win this battle, though, as the Kyiv offensive stalled out and eventually came to a complete halt. Or, at the very least, it could endure long enough and cause Russia enough suffering that the country would be forced to accept a very slim victory. The US sent outdated M-113 battle taxis and Humvees in place of the battle tanks that Ukraine had requested in response to its request for heavy combat systems, which was finally granted, albeit with disappointing results.

Europe mostly followed suit, sending mostly artillery and some air defense gear. Intimidated by Putin's nuclear rhetoric, the west had entered a self-deterrent ouroboros cycle. And this was precisely Putin's intention from the outset, which is why he made so many TV appearances discussing the potential for using nuclear weapons while never explicitly stating that he would do so in the conflict in Ukraine. The idea of Putin going nuclear made Western leaders collectively flinch, and as a result, the entire NATO alliance began to closely scrutinize every proposed shipment of western equipment. Initially, the US sent only a dozen or so of the weapon system because some EU leaders believed that the US's provision of HIMARS was far too provocative.

However, this long-range artillery immediately proved to be incredibly effective, which led the US to send more. However, HIMARS' effectiveness went against Ukraine's desire for more of the platform and important equipment like western tanks. As a result of the mobile, six-missile rocket artillery's ability to deliver precise firepower, the Russian command and control and logistics networks were completely destroyed, and many senior Russian officials perished. Then, thanks to its high mobility, it was able to elude Russian artillery retaliation and attack helicopters pursuing them. Russia claimed to have destroyed 300 more HIMARS than the US had actually sent because of the use of low-cost plywood decoys. All of this put Russia in a terrible position, which the counterattack in September that retook large portions of the east greatly benefited from.

In response, the West once more browned its collective pantaloons as news anchors complained about an escalation in daily broadcasts. Putin ratcheted up the rhetoric once more. As a result, there was no chance that Ukraine would obtain the tanks it so desperately desired. Russia was simply too strong for Ukraine to defeat, as doing so would have angered Putin. However, the escalation narrative ignores the fact that Putin has already escalated his war against Ukraine numerous times. More to the point, Putin's nuclear rhetoric is nothing more than sabre-rattling tough talk intended to frighten westerners; in reality, even Putin isn't stupid enough to make this losing war nuclear. In contrast to Russia, the US has already threatened catastrophic conventional consequences with its military.

Works, you know. In addition, Putin would need to use either a large number of tactical weapons against troop formations or strategic nuclear weapons against major population centers in order to have any real impact on the war. Either action would make Russia a global pariah, cutting it off from the rest of the world and destroying it politically and economically. However, Britain is to blame for the west's final demise, which is happening now.