Well a lot of people (thankfully) do care about the potential escalation of the conflict because the prospect of nuclear war is something that no one wants to see. I feel you’re right about what would have happened if Ukraine hadn’t been supplied in drifts and drabs and while I think more should be given to support them I don’t believe that should extend to nuclear weapons.

Also I realise you suggested Ukraine use them on occupied territory, but that is land Ukraine wants back so in the long-term that would only disadvantage themselves.

Also, it’s either Russia or it’s not. There is no ‘proper’. Personal grammatical pet peeve.

Nato response has not been perfect, but it was on point when it came to giving Ukraine what it needed when it needed it and when it was ready to make use of it.

There's no "if we sent at first all we've sent up to today" even when not taking into account political play.

millions of rounds of ammunition and artillery shells have been given to Ukraine, If you were to provide Ukraine that much at the beginning the vast majority of those would have been sitting in storage for a long period awaiting to be used and many would likely have been blown up especially prior to nato ramping up Ukraine's air defense.

Western equipment needed the training, those were always going to be slow to roll out to Ukraine. You don't want Abraham tanks sitting in storage where they could be blown up when no one could even make use of them.

Even greatly increasing the number of equipment Ukrainians were used to was not as straightforward, Ukrainians still needed to train new units to take advantage of the added supply yet those able to form new units were much needed otherwise.

"Ukraine has obeyed when we told them Western weapons" because they can make use of them the way NATO told them to, In a scenario where Ukraine has successfully liberated most of its territory, what are they supposed to do if Russia continues its shelling from Russian territories? The only answer is that they would need to pick the fight within Russia and they would be right to do so, yet China does not care anymore about logic and reasons than Russia does so what would be their response then?

Latest Kings & Generals update on the war (August 1-15):

Ukraine Breaks Through the Surovikin Line - Russian Invasion DOCUMENTARY - YouTube

Sadly for Ukraine, not too much offensive action happened during that time, really.

First confirmed Challenger 2 destroyed

Western equipment is still proving their worth in crew survivability though, Western tanks are powerful but their core focus is the survival of the crew to fight another day, send them another Challenger 2!

RIP Lil Challenger 2. Losses are inevitable, no tank is invulnerable, in addition it's around Robotyne where Russia has sent their very best unit so the fighting will be very fierce and losses to be expected, I'm not bothered about them losing a Challenger 2, I'm frustrated at UK not sending them more though when there's zero reason we can't. Ukraine needs more Challenger 2 and Leopard 2's.

At least Abrams are coming soon, I still hope America just says fuck it and sends a larger batch as they are more capable of doing that then Europe is.

There are reports from survivors of the 47th mechanised brigade (an elite unit) that operates in and around Robotyne. They explain that the tanks have been pretty much useless in the attacks as they usually run into a mine pretty soon. While the fighters in the tanks usually survive, the tank was then in the range of Russian artillery.

So the standard strategy "Go in with tanks and finish the rest with infantry" actually was reversed. "Go in with infantry and remove the mines and finish the rest with tanks" is/was the strategy around Robotyne. This caused incredible losses to the 47th brigade, 75% of the brigade was killed or badly injured. One report tells the story of 24 injured soldiers crammed into an M-113 to remove them from the battlefield.

So the UK may gain ground in the south, it comes with a very heavy price.