comment: >
  
  In this headline, Zelensky is not amping up the rhetoric. As for the article:
  
  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the Nato partners for their military assistance, but said "we will still have to fight for the supply of modern tanks".
  "Every day we make it more obvious that there is no alternative, that a decision about tanks must be made."
  Ukraine's current tanks are mostly old Soviet models, often outnumbered and outgunned by Russian firepower.
  More than 2,000 Leopards are sitting in warehouses all over Europe. President Zelensky believes about 300 of them could help to defeat Russia.
  
  Nothing about Z's rhetoric is particularly amped up, since he's staying the obvious: yes Ukraine needs modern tanks, and the best place to source them from is Europe's Leo2 tank fleet, which was primarily built to fight Russians.
context: Russians are killing Ukrainians, don’t get it twisted >
  
  Zelensky isn't blaming the west for Russia's actions.
  The point is that a lot of right wingers who support Putin are playing concerned centrists who claim that supporting Ukraine instead of letting Russia get a win, only serves to kill more people on both sides. 
  Zelenaky is turning that around and emphasizing that not sending support is what's causing deaths >
  
  Anyone who says the west isn't sending support is a lying jackass. Even if it's Zelensky. Ukraine has gotten more money and equipment already than they could have provided for themselves in half a century. >
  
  This is true, but it is also true that the aid is not enough.  Western governments are making decisions about what aid to send based on politics, not tactics. >
  
  Thing is, other countries aren't really obligated to send Ukraine aid. This is all politics. Yes, in real life it sucks that people are dying. In the giant poker game that is international politics, they are just more chips in the pot. Nations don't have morals, they have interests >
  
  Destroying Putin’s Russia is in our interest. >
  
  You don't have to go that far. Denying Putin Ukraine is in our interest and the right thing for people who support individual rights and freedoms. >
  
  Before the war yes, after all the rape, torture and other war crimes the goal should absolutely be the destruction of Putin's Russia. >
  
  Revenge is not a good motivation to continue a war. >
  
  War is bad, peace is good >
  
  We all know who’s killing Ukrainians.. >
  
  Russians would have killed fewer Ukrainians if the West finally got their shit together. >
  
  Probably yeah, but headlines like this can definitely rub people the wrong way.. >
  
  Very disappointed here, most commenters are basically saying "We already helped. Be grateful and stop asking for more already!"
  Of course the immense help from the allies is appreciated. Which is spoken every time, in every press conference by every Ukrainian official.
  The misunderstanding comes from two different worlds Ukrainians and the rest of the world are living in at the moment.
  For the rest of the world, the “situation” is “deeply concerning.” Otherwise, the life is pretty regular.
  In Ukraine, there's a war for survival. There are no half measures there – it's either survival or literal obliteration.
  The need for weapons is not Zelenskyy's whim. If the commander-in-chief needs more weapons to fight back, he tells allies: "I need more weapons to fight back."
  Or would you rather he needed weapons but kept silent about it out of (truly!) enormous respect and gratitude. And then die along with millions of Ukrainians in gratitude for the help they already received? >
  
  They don't realise the domino effect Russian victory will have in the future geopolitics >
  
  Almost none? Maybe some flags get changed but Russia has a limit to how much land they can steal. >
  
  If we fail to back Ukraine to the hilt now, given that we’ve already thrown in on their side and they are clearly willing to fight, and let waning support allow them to be overwhelmed, it signals that the west is not as committed to our allies as we claim to be.
  That emboldens adversaries. China can take Taiwan. The whole South China Sea and region would be vulnerable. Russia could look to Georgia. It would probably introduce some uncertainty over the commitment to the easternmost NATO members. >
  
  AFAIK Ukraine was never an ally to the west and always stayed on the fence taking benefits from both sides until Russia started kicking them around. Taiwan is an ally though, so you can't really compare them equally. >
  
  They were put in NATO’s Membership Action Plan in 2008. I have no idea why a Google search could have found this out, but you still needed to act like Ukraine has no relation with the West before 2022 when the Budapest memorandum was negotiated by the US and France with Russia for Ukraine in 1991. >
  
  Budapest was US, UK and Russia. France signed a similar but weaker pledge.
  But the key thing is (I did some research before posting my former comment to not misconstrue things) it does not commit the signatories to the defence of Ukraine. It promises to to attack, but does not pledge to defend, only offered ‘security assurances’ which are sufficiently vague so as to allow signatories to choose how to respond to a specific situation.
  This is pretty similar to Taiwan’s relations with the US which is why I think this war really is also a barometer for China to decide if they could get away with it. >
  
  Bad headline that only divide’s supporters. >
  
  Well, the headline is true >
  
  What indecision? All the tanks and stinger missiles are indecisive? Does he want..... The west to * gasp * fight their war for them? O mean Russia actually has weapons of mass destruction, but I think that reasoning is a bit passé. >
  
  What's with the shitty rhetoric in here? Mans country is under attack, of course he's going to  play to the crowd, his country expects him to.
  If Ukraine weren't under fucking Russian attack I could get being shitty about this. I think I can look past that given that, ya know, Ukraine is being invaded by fucking Russia unprovoked, though.
  Get over yourselves ffs. >
  
  Yes, unprovoked. Fuck off, Russian troll. >
  
  Fuck off, propagandist warmonger. >
  
  LOL, how stupid you have to be to think anyone will believe you when you pretend being anti-Russia makes me a warmonger. Don't you have some glue to eat? >
  
  I imagine that around the world, people who are living through war without the hope of a similar level of Western support might have a laugh about the idea that the West has been indecisive when it comes to Ukraine. >
  
  Not all conflicts and people are equal. Ukrainians are clear victims, with Western values - it's wrong to treat them as being just another "people living through war". They've earned Western support. >
  
  Ain’t no way someone typed this out and didn’t see the stupidity >
  
  Seriously. Such a bad take. 
  What did Ukraine do to earn western support over every other nation? Show up on the news everyday for the last year >
  
  
  What did Ukraine do to earn western support over every other nation? Show up on the news everyday for the last year
  
  Be white. >
  
  What indecision? The west has been on the side of Ukraine and sending aid for several years now. >
  
  About sending Leopard tanks ASAP as Russia is preparing for a new wave as the spring is about to begin. >
  
  Yeah he say the west but actually it is probably a polite way to say Germany.
  Still not sure why Germany is so cautious about greenlight the export of leopard from other countries, all the official explanation we have gotten so far don't make much sense to be honest. >
  
  Is the US sending tanks? >
  
  US is an entire ocean away. Germany is on the doorstep of this war. These countries claim they want to be “independent” from the US but then situations like this arise and all of a sudden it’s up to the US to make the first move or no one does shit. >
  
  It's not about logistics or speed, Germany wants to make the move together with the US so they're not singled out by Russia for any escalation and present a united front, because Germany is much closer to Russia and weaker than the US.
  Forcing Germany to be the "nail that sticks out" and be the potential focus of Russia's escalation is the issue here. >
  
  What Russian escalation? There's a NATO country between Russia and Germany, there is no way Russia could strike Germany before getting wipe out because they set foot in Poland. >
  
  EU and NATO countries - including the US - have all expressed concerns and voiced the need for caution.
  They have more intel than you do. >
  
  This is such a dumb argument
  "Trust the guy in charge - he's smarter because he's in charge"
  Ever heard of democracy? >
  
  Guess what, the German people are divided on sending the tanks, so this is democracy at work. >
  
  It's shitty that no concrete decision was made about the Leopards. But the west is still sending a ton of other good equipment like Bradleys, Strykers, Iris-Ts, and more Gepards. I know Zelensky is amping up the rhetoric because his country and people are on the line, but the west is certainly not as indecisive as it may seem.