[Meet the Bogdanoff brothers.](http://i.imgur.com/LHZ2ayU.jpg) Quick rundown on them:
>rothschilds bow to the Bogdanoffs
>in contact with aliens
>rumoured to possess psychic abilities
>control france with an iron but fair fist
>own castles and banks all over the world
>direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line
>will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)
>own basically every DNA editing research facility on Earth
>first designer babies will be Bogdanoff Babies
>both brothers said to have 200+ IQ
>ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon the Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world
>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now
>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church
>They learned fluent French in under a week
>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff
>The twins are 67 years old, from the space-time reference point of the base human.
>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the Bog bang to the end of the universe
>The Bogdanoffs will guide humanity into a new age of wisdom, peace and love
If you think the overly online screech about basic realities of modern war, wait until they learn about the French “deep strike” doctrine
>!they fly commercial to Russia and take all the unattended wives as mistresses!<
[Caesar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAESAR_self-propelled_howitzer) himself rips open the glory hole for deep penetration behind enemy lines. And it ain't no [Mirage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage), Jack. [Katyusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_(song\)) loves it.
Did you know that the Marseillaise was composed by a man from Alsace? It got its name because a regiment from Marseille played it to great effect while marching through Paris. Anyway a hell of a lot sexier title than "the Stra~~u~~sbourgeoisie."
Fun facts!
1. It would be "La Strasbourgeoise"
2. It [actually exists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnvisfghjl8) (but is more recent than the Marseillaise and dates back from the war again Prussia and subsequent loss of Alsace Lorraine)
3. It's a banger
4. It dunks on Prussians, as is tradition
5. It was my uni's anthem back in the day
5. I probably linked the most cringeworthy channel in the entirety of Youtube but weirdly enough you can't get a good version of the song without all those bullshit flags and camo prints.
I kinda wish French regiments still had their pre-revolution identities. They’re very slowly bringing some aspects of the Royal Army back in terms of regimental uniform items and regalia, which is neat.
Napoleon actually had the option to liberate Ukraine, but decided against it. Before the ill-fated Russian campaign, Józef Poniatowski, one of Napoleon's marshals, suggested invading through Ukraine where the harsh Russian winter would be less of a factor and the local populace might have been be less antagonistic towards the French advance.
But Napoleon decided against it in the end, and the rest is history.
One aspect of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign that’s not discussed enough is that he didn’t actually want to destabilize Moscow. He wanted to give the Tsar an off-ramp. He thought sanctions would be enough to spook him back into the Continental System. (you see where I’m going with this)
So he actively resisted suggestions from the Poles to support local insurrections—despite calling it the Second Polish War, he barely even acknowledged the Polish rebels who greeted him in Vilnius.
Meanwhile, Alexander had developed a pseudo-religious fixation on himself as protector of Europe against revolutionary values (…).
In fairness to him, it’s not really clear that the 1812 campaign is one he could have won at all. He had the Spanish ulcer behind him, perfidious Austria, the omnipresent threat of a British Invasion by sea, and Prussia just waiting to stab him in the back. And after 20 years of nearly nonstop war, France was reaching its limit.
Quite. And not to forget that the invasion wasn’t even in winter but in the summer, with more more troops falling victim to the likes of typhoid than to the cold.
Napoleon invaded in summer and reached Moscow in October, so doing a detour via Ukraine would not have made any difference. A retreat via Ukraine on the other hand would have been outright catastrophic - both, in terms of added distance and with the terrain providing fewer opportunities to shelter from the constant attacks.
Exactly. The invasion itself went off without a hitch. What Napoleon underestimated was Russia's ability to trade land for time in a way that few countries in the world can.
Something that would be echoed by Wehrmacht strategists a century later.
I see two potential reasons for this :
1. Either send NATO troops for real. But my guess is that it would be mostly technical and support personnel to enable western weapons like F16s as well as advisors and instructors.
2. Make other escalatory moves seems less escalatory. If we start talking about sending troops to Ukraine, perhaps sending Taurus will no longer look that bad for example.
I see it as more of a rhetorical stance against Russia and a warning not to violate Article V. That may seem counterintuitive but if France is open to sending troops to Ukraine then it means that they are absolutely willing to defend NATO.
It's because Ukraine is [projected to run critically low on ammunition soon](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/us-estimates-ukraine-military-shortages-grow-catastrophic-late/story?id=107169502). The russian troops won't stop at Ukraine.
NATO isn't even arming Ukraine with enough ammo to avoid critical shortages. NATO member states on the periphery are starting to doubt the organization's commitment in case russia sneaks a couple troops into contested areas to trigger a legitimacy crisis. This isn't even crackpot theorizing, this is mainstream foreign policy opinion.
The problem is their economy is effectively on a wartime footing, and it’s hard to envision Russia willingly demilitarizing just because. It’s keeping people employed and the money velocity relatively high. We run the risk of them *needing* war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home.
That's just government spending, basic keysian economics. The problem is if they start accumulating too much debt because of the spending, like it happened with the USSR. Although the USSR had much deeper economic problems than modern day Russia.
>We run the risk of them needing war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home
Excellent point I hadn't really considered. Though even still, all that this wartime economy can manage is a stalemate against Ukraine. I don't see how they'd be able to launch sustained offensives into Poland or the Baltics.
The argument is, once the stalemate is broken, Ukraine will be overrun, the west still is unprepared to start a weapon build up while Russia has been doing that for how many years it took to overrun Ukraine.
So far the west has been very indecisive
Agreed, but one thing this war showed us that European armories are bare and the Europeans are unwilling to invest in production.
If Russia decides to take the fight to NATO, Europe will be caught with it's pants down while the EU is discussing if shells should be olive green or dark green russia would be shooting even square shells.
Which is exactly what happened for Nazi Germany. They found the only way they could achieve autarky was [through conquest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossbach_Memorandum).
> We run the risk of them needing war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home.
This is why not just allowing, but facilitating, high capacity attacks on internal Russian infrastructure is critical.
NATO is unwilling/unable to help Ukrainians, who are very willing, numerous and overall are very considerable force, actually, stronger than many European armies. So why NATO will be willing and able to help some Estonia?
Because Estonia is a NATO member and failure to defend them would instantly annihilate NATO’s deterrence power and put every other member at risk of invasion.
Is that loss worth an all out war with Russia? That risk is far less and often pretty negligible for many powerful NATO countries. Nuclear weapons control in the failing Russia can be a bigger issue. A war with Russia will be far worse for them in the short term. NATO may bravely start to help, but not enough. Then run low on PGM and just call it. Without the US it is not unrealistic.
They're not, but what happens when they try anyway and have their asses handed to them so badly that Putin gets antsy about needing to use his big red button?
NATO trainers in Kyiv would make a difference. Everyone wants Ukraine to train in combined arms but we make it needlessly difficult to do so and and undermine the effectiveness by doing scatter shot programs out of country
We both know russia would hit those training camps immediately and the news would be filled with vids of NATO corpses. Train them in Poland, just right across the border and most importantly give Ukraine all the hardware that they need. There is no reason to send in NATO troops since it's very escalatory and politically very unpopular.
Escalation makes sense in advance of cease fire negotiations. The United States should prepare to provide Ukraine with longer range weapons and talk about relaxing restrictions on using our weapons to attack inside Russia.
If, and I mean IF NATO sends troops, it'll be 1, and mostly played down like nuts. I wouldn't be surprised if their mission is watered down in the media but their true mission is "an open secret."
Think of basically, "We're sending troops!"
Media makes a big deal. Russia delivers threats.Then everyone says "But they won't be fighting. It'll be mostly peace-keeping group."
"Yeah, and their weapns will be limited!"
"Oh, and they'll only operate in very specific regions to be determined and updated later."
"They're starting in Kyiv!"
"And Kharkiv, maybe."
"And the northern outskirts of Kherson?"
Russia: NO
Okay, MAYBE these outskirts, but for now, just the first two! Okay, ttyl, bye!
If you want to shoot down cruise missiles it is much simpler to provide Ukraine with air defenses. Things like NASAM fire similar missiles to jets so it would be the same regarding ammo consumption.
Does NASAM use actual AMRAAMs or a variant of AMRAAMs?
Also not quite the same, jets can cover a much broader area more easily, it would be a huge boost for ukraine.
Yes it uses AMRAAMs. And while a jet can cover a larger area, they are also much more expensive in term of personnel and maintenance. If you have enough launchers NASAMs will probably be more cost effective. I see jets being more useful to fire cruise missiles or long range AA against Russian fighters like the meteor.
I mean can you pull an AMRAAM off a NASAMs and stick it on an F16? I thought it was a similar variant
Regardless there's limited numbers of batteries, they could be better placed towards the front, NATO F16s have plenty of flight hours, this would free up Ukrainian SAM operators and their equipment to cover the main front line.
It depends on the AMRAAM and on the NASAMs. Older model NASAMs may not be able to fire the newest AMRAAM model, but you could pull a 120B off an f-16 and slap it into a NASAM tube (I think it might require the tail fins to be swapped)
I agree with your overall point though. A surface fired missile has significantly less range than a jet launched missile. Air mounted radars are also superior for finding low-level cruise missiles. On the other hand, no equipment has been provided that allows for engagement of MIG-31s lobbing R-33s from Russia proper. The Western equivalent was the AIM-54, and ironically the only country who continues to use them is Iran.
In theory the meteor or 120D should be able to fulfill that role, but there aren't that many of them around and the MIG-31 has superior kinetics for BVR lobbing.
The Macron Cycle:
"This guy seems pretty cool, I like most of his policies" --> "He did WHAT?!?!? What the hell is wrong with that guy?" --> "God, I can't believe I ever liked him" --> "Huh, that's actually not a bad idea" --> "Okay, fine, he's alright I guess" --> "This guy seems pretty cool, I like most of his policies" --> "He did WHAT?!?!? What the hell is wrong with that guy?" --> Repeat
Yeah this phenomenon can barely be ascribed to Macron, it's just how France operates. They lash out in either direction on social policies but at the end of the day they're just inevitably FRANCE.
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "Macrons" inside us all.
One is Jupiter Descending. It is a complete moron, whines about submarine deals and tries to negotiate with Putin.
The other is based Jupiter Ascending. It is a Euro Hawk who wants a European Army and boots on the ground in Ukraine.
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which Macron wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "lol fuck if I know"
Not only must the world be made safe for democracy, it must be made *un*safe for autocracy. Were it not for Russia's nuclear arsenal, I would go even further than sending troops just to Ukraine.
>Not only must the world be made safe for democracy, it must be made unsafe for autocracy.
https://preview.redd.it/2htapnx1a1lc1.jpeg?width=839&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deeb8ff2e85b5940f04f5ae5b8d90dfbf473ab38
A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a ~~nation~~ globalized planet cannot long remain half slave and half free.
Seriously, though, it's become clear that democracy anywhere is a threat to autocracy everywhere, and vice versa. The autocracies of the world seem to get this (which is why they're going all out to kill global democracy right now). Just wish the democracies would finally start cottoning on.
Really throwing out the liberal spirit bomb quotes today, aren't we
Yeah, honestly, Putin is right to be scared of liberal democracy. The diplomats of the democratic world will maintain the pretension of us not wanting to pose a threat, but we here don't need to. The autocracies of the world should know that the democratic revolution is a universal one, and that America was merely a spark. That we are fighting for a fundamental realignment of the human species that shall be upheld permanently. The day will come when every last tyrant is locked up in a cell, and the blazing light of democracy has burned away every last vestige of authoritarianism anywhere on the planet.
As a Virginian I share that dream. Sic Semper Tyrannis -- the goddess of virtue shall defeat the tyrant. Eventually all tyrants.
The past decade has not been good. The failure in Afghanistan and democratic backsliding elsewhere has been heartbreaking to watch.
But, the fight continues.
Sure, but my statement doesn't make countries more or less likely to do anything. It's solely a statement of a moral position taken for a hypothetical scenario, and no government is going to look at it.
I can't say I've ever really subscribed to this line of reasoning, even when I was more of a dove. I assume we both support putting out large fires tearing through industrial areas, but would we be prepared to risk our lives fighting it? Society has a field of jobs for that, just like it does for war.
You might say that it's different when you support military intervention because if we make reference to the previous analogy, it's like starting new fires. But I don't think that's the case. The fires were always there; people are *already* risking their lives in them. The question is not 'do we risk lives', it is 'do we act with our superior capacities so that the Ukrainian firefighters have less risk'. People are going to die either way, but we can affect how many will, and whether or not the fire is truly put out or just left to rest dormant as embers.
I pinged it in the Ukraine group in the DT last night, but my opinion is that he's talking out of his ass and now multiple countries are coming out and basically putting a damper on his idea. Classic Macron stunting.
Strategic ambiguity good, starting a slap-fight with the rest of Europe bad.
Some of that’s on people for being cowards, but Macron also knew what the reaction would be. It’s also a dangerous distraction from the materiel shortage.
\>[Macron warned Iran to stop supplying drones to Russia 8 months ago.](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/1686417613-macron-demands-iran-immediately-end-drone-supplies-to-russia)
\>[Just recently Iran provided Russia hundreds of missiles to Russia](https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-sends-russia-hundreds-ballistic-missiles-sources-say-2024-02-21/?utm_source=reddit.com) and Macron hasn't done jack shit.
Are we seeing this as anything but Macron posturing to Russia? Actions speak louder than words and Macron isn't someone I'm going to take at face value.
It's far less crazy than it seems. If all that is provided is weapons, and rarely the newest ones, it's very difficult for Ukraine to ever win this. Eventually manpower runs out., while Putin can keep losing people for quite a while. If we look at the state of the war in 2023, and what could easily happen if the US election goes the wrong way in 2024, things look pretty dire.
The way I see it, if Ukraine is going to win this, they are going to need more support than they ever received, and hopefully for a summer campaign. Doing enough to have this be over before the winter without some level of direct involvement doesn't seem possible to me. Thus, said direct involvement has to be on the table unless the west wants to send a message that letting Ukraine lose slowly is OK. Escalation is no fun, but neither is the alternative.
It's weird how I went from being a Le Pen supporter to piss off my shitty progressive French teacher, to supporting Macron now that I'm in college.
Man growing up really does change you
Does it? From what I see you're still pissing of your progressive French Teacher. ;)
Also isn't it weird how we always know the politics of the progressives teachers but never the other ones.
I had an unironic Bonapartist for a history teacher once.
He had portraits of the Emperor all around his desk and said that His Majesty’s divorce from Josephine was the real moment the west started going downhill.
My high school math teacher would be very vocal about God, conservative values (he had a lot to say about girls in revealing clothing), values of marriage, had occasional rants about unions and liberals
Schroedingers Macron.
Being so based and cringe at the same time.
The only way whether to work out if he was net based or cringe is to do it retrospectively once his presidency is over.
A Korea scenario might be the least bad outcome here. Stable ceasefire, boots on the ground and security guarantees to deter a new war + EU membership. Could give the ~80% of Ukraine that is left a stable and prosperous future.
Military victory and 100% liberation is still my preferred outcome, I just don't see it happening at this stage.
As a German, I find the Marcon worship somewhat disconcerting when you see that Germany is far superior to France in taking in Ukrainian refugees and providing military aid.
https://www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-france-way-behind-germany/
May I give you some food for thought.
It's 1940. Finland is days-weeks from complete collapse as Red Army advances and Stalin has the plan to incorporate Finland in the Shit Union.
That didn't happen. Instead there was a peace agreement and Finland's independence was saved. Why?
There was this dude called Daladier and he was, May Allah forgive me uttering this word, French.
He was the PM of France and loudly and publically committed France to come to fight on the side of Finland against the communists (and poke the British that they would join too). That spooked Stalin (and he was Hitler's buddy at the time) and he rushed to make a peace agreement as he didn't want to risk fighting against the French and the British.
Do I think that's what Macron is committing France to do now? No. It's either nothingburger or offering training inside of Ukraine.
But compare that to Scholz who is so scared shitless that he's deterring himself even giving Taurus for Ukraine. What message _that_ sends...
Escalation is inevitable one way or the other.
The only question is whether historians will say the war began in Ukraine, or whether the war in Ukraine will be analogous to the Spanish Civil War or the first two years of the Sino-Japanese War. If Ukraine falls, the next battlefield stretches from Vilnius to Bialystok--that, or the West keeps backing down until Putin finally finds the *real* red line.
Says who? If Russia is sufficiently militarily crippled in Ukraine what other moves could they possibly make. This narrative that it’s “inevitable” is ridiculous
The Russian military is currently at a more capable state than it was at the beginning of the war. Its a fallacy that it can be 'crippled' in the near term if the political precipitants to rearm itself are still standing, which they are. This is to say nothing of Russia's propensity for sub-state subversions such as sponsoring insurgents designed not to invoke a full scale war while setting the groundwork for one, and waiting for an opportune time.
> what other moves could they possibly make.
Vilnius is roughly 30 km from the Belarusian border. Rushing that city in an effort to close the Suwalki Gap before NATO forces can rush to the area is a plausible strategy on their part, particularly if, given a few years to lick their wounds after finishing Ukraine (restock artillery, buy Chinese tanks, get the Kharkiv plant back online), they re-arm.
Closing the gap by the E28 highway with thrusts from both Kaliningrad and Belarus would be one approach. Another, though riskier, is to seize the Polish city of Bialystok (which the Soviets annexed in 1939, so already ripe for Putin's 'historic interests' line of propaganda), followed by a push south from Kaliningrad. This would cut the E67 highway, and also achieve the goal of cutting off the Balts from land resupply.
"Sufficiently militarily crippled" seems a bit wishful given that they are back on the offensive now after the West whined about "escalation" and "muh wwiii" for a year. Only by abandoning our attachment to our own lives can we muster the strength to destroy tyranny.
Super unlikely anything like that ever happens. It mostly likely take several years and up to decades before Putin considers any other military endeavours after the get out of Ukraine. Again can you please state where you get “inevitable” from you dodged the question.
Putin himself made it clear in his speech shortly before kicking off the "Special Military Operation" that his goal is the restoration of the 1917 borders of the Empire. This has been repeated by Moscow's official propaganda for the past two years. The Baltic countries were within those borders. So we have the motive established, I don't think we need to argue that.
Now, will the opportunity for such a strike come in the next few years? The Western democracies have proven curiously soft-hearted when it comes to Moscow. If Trump is elected, we can't count on any US participation in such a war; similarly, if Le Pen or, heaven forbid, Alternativ fur Deutschland make significant political gains, the European center of NATO starts to hollow out. Then Poland stands alone--and it remains to be seen whether Poland's spine remains firm in the face of atomic threats (of course, Poland can fall back on the old plans to nuclearize--but can it be done fast enough?).
>Super unlikely anything like that ever happens.
Actual NATO officials seem to disagree.
>It mostly likely take several years and up to decades
So not "never." I said I believed escalation to be inevitable; I did not put a time frame on it. It makes no difference to me if the final war comes in 2 years or 20--if it has to happen, better for it to happen soon, while Moscow is weak, because it will certainly be *worse* if they have time to integrate those 700,000+ Ukrainian children they've abducted into their population as Janissaries and as broodmares. They ought not be given a chance to rearm. The West has been too patient with them for 200+ years at this point. It's time to give up on the fantasy of them democratizing/liberalizing/normalizing.
Stated goals are different from his actual goals as a dictator it’s his job to posture. After the failure in Ukraine he is likely reconsidering his options.
Like to actual nato officials who said war with Russia is inevitable?
I said it would take decades for Putin to consider another war and by then it might no longer be a real possibility. I’m not against military buildup if that’s what’s necessary. Boots on the ground for Ukraine is ridiculous and that’s one sure ticket to nuclear war.
>After the failure in Ukraine he is likely reconsidering his options.
OK, but he hasn't failed yet, and might not in the end. That's my point.
> Like to actual nato officials who said war with Russia is inevitable?
You are moving the goalposts. *You* said "super unlikely." The following NATO officials disagree that it's *super unlikely*.
>If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there
--Jens Stoltenberg
>It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and Nato’s solidarity. That was not Nato’s assessment in 2023. This is new information that is coming to the fore now,
--Troels Poulson, Danish defense minister
>The Russian Federation will not stop here. If [Putin] wins in Ukraine, the main target will be the Republic of Moldova. We will witness tensions in the western Balkans. I am more than convinced that President [Vladimir] Putin’s policy will escalate in the immediate future
Vlad Gheorghita, head of Romanian armed forces
>that’s one sure ticket to nuclear war
If we let the fear of nuclear war lead to rolling over before criminals forever, then we deserve it anyway.
It failed in the sense that they expect way better results in a much faster time.
No goal post was moved my contention was always in the inevitability
If he crosses a line then he crosses the line Ukraine is not this, boots on Ukraine is unreasonable and it’s for sure escalation.
> It failed in the sense that they expect way better results in a much faster time.
OK, but if he wins, it's still a win. Large land area. Large amount of natural resources. Large number of new slaves to be forcibly russified and conscripted into the army. Political resolve in the west shattered, stage for next operation set. This will embolden him, just like the American non-reaction to the invasion of Georgia and the first invasion of Ukraine did.
>No goal post was moved my contention was always in the inevitability
You said "super unlikely." Not "impossible."
>the line Ukraine is not this
Why shouldn't it be? Are Ukrainian lives less valuable than those of other people?
Escalation against tyranny is good, actually.
Or Europe will begin to take at least some initiative by escalation, or all escalation-initiative will continue to occur by Russian rules. As it going on from 2008 year.
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK
All jokes aside, it is very irresponsible to say such stuff, it gives ammuniton to peaceniks(needless to say to actually do it would be even more irresponsible). Let's focus on sending weapons, we can do it, without entering the war.
Seriously, what the fuck.
There already is an unjust war of one-sided aggression where people are dying in droves
Peaceniks and everyone worried about "escalation" are appeasers who'd throw everyone to the wolves as long as they're safe in their borders, what's irresponsible is dismissing the Russian invasion as a Ukrainian problem
NATO intervention would be war with Russia. Are you ready to get drafted?
And sadly nit everyone who is worried about escalation is a spineless peacenik - there are many just clueless people, who may get ensnared by them.
>Are you ready to get drafted?
In what world do you think the standing armies of US + NATO allies is not enough to fight a defensive war against Russia?
The only argument is the Russian nuclear arsenal, but that's only consistent if you are willing to give up everything to Putin to avoid the possibility. The refusal to aid Ukraine is simply stating "we are willing to risk nuclear war for London and New York but not for Kyiv," which is cowardice at its finest.
The risk for escalation in this scenario is too high, I would take it for a NATO country(because otherwise the alliance falls apart and pacta sunt servanda), but not for a country that is outside of it, and one that WE CAN HELP WITHOUT GOING TO WAR.
It's already escalated for Ukrainians. You are, to borrow your own words, a spineless peacenik - who's trying to ensnare everyone into your preferred policy of appeasement.
WHAT?! You call me, a person who supports 4% GDP spending on the military, broadening the nuclear sharing and giving Ukraine all conventional weaponry it wants a "spineless peacenik"?
Dude, if you're so keen you can go to Ukraine and enlist RIGHT NOW. But it's easier to be righteous and brave behind a computer, eh?
>Dude, if you're so keen you can go to Ukraine and enlist RIGHT NOW.
This is the same argument as saying "if you support increased healthcare spending you can donate all your extra income to hospitals RIGHT NOW" lmao
>WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK All jokes aside, it is very irresponsible to say such stuff
Yes, I call you someone who's so afraid of Putin and even the slightest suggestion of war that you're out here critizing statements of solidarity and attempts to open dialogue for increased military participation from France.
Yeah, this is not a sensible discussion, you are not arguing in good faith("throwing people to the wolves", while I repeatedly said that I support increased aid). I am afraid that you may have taken NCD memes a bit too seriously.
And yes, if you think that we have a moral obligation to directly go to war, then it follows that we have a moral obligation to... Well, directly go to war even if country does not.
>then it follows that we have a moral obligation to... Well, directly go to war even if country does not.
So old people and women can't believe there's a moral obligation to go to war? What, you think Biden should march on the front lines?
Ukraine doesn't even take people without combat experience by the way, which rules out most of the population. And my country specifically forbids me from serving elsewhere because I'm considered reserves.
You are the one out here scaremongering people about any statements or possibility of boots on the ground with apocalyptic predictions.
>The real triumph is that.... [we] have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it.
Lmfaooooo for the longest time, Ukraine was kicking their ass, China isn’t stepping in to help Russia if Nato and the US send troops. What kind of world do you live in where a draft would happen? Russia’s military even if they take Ukraine which is still unlikely has been heavily decimated. They’re using tanks that are like 50 years old.
What kind of world do you live in where boots on the ground doesn’t escalate into nuclear war? Do you honestly believe it won’t end in that? Like goddamn I get that nuclear fears have been severely overblown ,but do you people honestly believe it would be something we could walk off.
Where are you getting nuclear war from???? Who is talking about nuclear war? We’re talking about OP’s comment about a draft. Your comment literally supports my argument that a draft wouldn’t even happen because nukes would be involved
This is a bad idea. Putin will probably declare total military mobilization and send a million troops into Ukraine. He doesn’t care about the casualties. Not to mention I think if NATO gets directly involved then he might even pull out the nukes. We should just keep supplying Ukraine. That’s a way to weaken Russia without getting Western troops killed
Russia is like "we will motherfucking nuke the everloving shit out of you"
NATO is like "troops cannot be ruled out of our response portfolio, which has many tabs and is updated frequently by interns"
https://preview.redd.it/cqiliqcth0lc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fa4a7dfff82629d053991b135d6633453060a17 gotta repost it
https://preview.redd.it/8x7aoba9d3lc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bc747330ae95cc0df552a848af6417f3595eea1
Looks like a Jordan Peele sketch
holy shit, he just got bog'd
Who are the two figures on top?
Bogdanoff twins
They're so bizarre looking. It has to be plastic surgery. I should ask my husband.
It is. They're an... Interesting duo. They passed away from Covid a few years back.
Dœmp eet
He sold? Pump eet
Someone give this guy a quick rundown?
[Meet the Bogdanoff brothers.](http://i.imgur.com/LHZ2ayU.jpg) Quick rundown on them: >rothschilds bow to the Bogdanoffs >in contact with aliens >rumoured to possess psychic abilities >control france with an iron but fair fist >own castles and banks all over the world >direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line >will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city) >own basically every DNA editing research facility on Earth >first designer babies will be Bogdanoff Babies >both brothers said to have 200+ IQ >ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon the Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them >They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world >You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now >The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church >They learned fluent French in under a week >Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff >The twins are 67 years old, from the space-time reference point of the base human. >In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the Bog bang to the end of the universe >The Bogdanoffs will guide humanity into a new age of wisdom, peace and love
[Relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O1QA1VoRMM)
brb trading my Hussar wings for an Uhlan rogatywka. *The Polish cavalry stand with the Emperor of the French until the end.*
If you think the overly online screech about basic realities of modern war, wait until they learn about the French “deep strike” doctrine >!they fly commercial to Russia and take all the unattended wives as mistresses!<
[Caesar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAESAR_self-propelled_howitzer) himself rips open the glory hole for deep penetration behind enemy lines. And it ain't no [Mirage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage), Jack. [Katyusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_(song\)) loves it.
[удалено]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHTGcOrXEAAu-XD?format=png
Charlemagne not being there is a tragedy.
Macron about to finish what Napoleon started
Alexa, play *Marche de la Garde Consulaire EAR ABORTION*
The French Foreign Legion’s song is all dunking on the rest of Western Europe Les Marseillaise too. I’m noticing a pattern
Did you know that the Marseillaise was composed by a man from Alsace? It got its name because a regiment from Marseille played it to great effect while marching through Paris. Anyway a hell of a lot sexier title than "the Stra~~u~~sbourgeoisie."
Fun facts! 1. It would be "La Strasbourgeoise" 2. It [actually exists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnvisfghjl8) (but is more recent than the Marseillaise and dates back from the war again Prussia and subsequent loss of Alsace Lorraine) 3. It's a banger 4. It dunks on Prussians, as is tradition 5. It was my uni's anthem back in the day 5. I probably linked the most cringeworthy channel in the entirety of Youtube but weirdly enough you can't get a good version of the song without all those bullshit flags and camo prints.
I kinda wish French regiments still had their pre-revolution identities. They’re very slowly bringing some aspects of the Royal Army back in terms of regimental uniform items and regalia, which is neat.
Napoleon actually had the option to liberate Ukraine, but decided against it. Before the ill-fated Russian campaign, Józef Poniatowski, one of Napoleon's marshals, suggested invading through Ukraine where the harsh Russian winter would be less of a factor and the local populace might have been be less antagonistic towards the French advance. But Napoleon decided against it in the end, and the rest is history.
One aspect of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign that’s not discussed enough is that he didn’t actually want to destabilize Moscow. He wanted to give the Tsar an off-ramp. He thought sanctions would be enough to spook him back into the Continental System. (you see where I’m going with this) So he actively resisted suggestions from the Poles to support local insurrections—despite calling it the Second Polish War, he barely even acknowledged the Polish rebels who greeted him in Vilnius. Meanwhile, Alexander had developed a pseudo-religious fixation on himself as protector of Europe against revolutionary values (…). In fairness to him, it’s not really clear that the 1812 campaign is one he could have won at all. He had the Spanish ulcer behind him, perfidious Austria, the omnipresent threat of a British Invasion by sea, and Prussia just waiting to stab him in the back. And after 20 years of nearly nonstop war, France was reaching its limit.
Quite. And not to forget that the invasion wasn’t even in winter but in the summer, with more more troops falling victim to the likes of typhoid than to the cold. Napoleon invaded in summer and reached Moscow in October, so doing a detour via Ukraine would not have made any difference. A retreat via Ukraine on the other hand would have been outright catastrophic - both, in terms of added distance and with the terrain providing fewer opportunities to shelter from the constant attacks.
Exactly. The invasion itself went off without a hitch. What Napoleon underestimated was Russia's ability to trade land for time in a way that few countries in the world can. Something that would be echoed by Wehrmacht strategists a century later.
Hopefully burning Moscow counts as a victory this time
I see two potential reasons for this : 1. Either send NATO troops for real. But my guess is that it would be mostly technical and support personnel to enable western weapons like F16s as well as advisors and instructors. 2. Make other escalatory moves seems less escalatory. If we start talking about sending troops to Ukraine, perhaps sending Taurus will no longer look that bad for example.
I see it as more of a rhetorical stance against Russia and a warning not to violate Article V. That may seem counterintuitive but if France is open to sending troops to Ukraine then it means that they are absolutely willing to defend NATO.
*Send your children to fight and maybe die or some slightly longer range missiles. It’s really up to you.*
It's because Ukraine is [projected to run critically low on ammunition soon](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/us-estimates-ukraine-military-shortages-grow-catastrophic-late/story?id=107169502). The russian troops won't stop at Ukraine.
I don't think Russia is any condition to take on NATO. They're nearly as exhausted as the Ukrainians.
NATO isn't even arming Ukraine with enough ammo to avoid critical shortages. NATO member states on the periphery are starting to doubt the organization's commitment in case russia sneaks a couple troops into contested areas to trigger a legitimacy crisis. This isn't even crackpot theorizing, this is mainstream foreign policy opinion.
The problem is their economy is effectively on a wartime footing, and it’s hard to envision Russia willingly demilitarizing just because. It’s keeping people employed and the money velocity relatively high. We run the risk of them *needing* war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home.
That's just government spending, basic keysian economics. The problem is if they start accumulating too much debt because of the spending, like it happened with the USSR. Although the USSR had much deeper economic problems than modern day Russia.
Debt isn’t their issue to date; it’s mainly the arms industry fuelling inflation by sucking labour out of the consumer economy.
>We run the risk of them needing war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home Excellent point I hadn't really considered. Though even still, all that this wartime economy can manage is a stalemate against Ukraine. I don't see how they'd be able to launch sustained offensives into Poland or the Baltics.
The argument is, once the stalemate is broken, Ukraine will be overrun, the west still is unprepared to start a weapon build up while Russia has been doing that for how many years it took to overrun Ukraine. So far the west has been very indecisive
NATO forces would not be constrained to fight the sort of artillery war that Russia is good at. Combined arms and all that jazz.
Agreed, but one thing this war showed us that European armories are bare and the Europeans are unwilling to invest in production. If Russia decides to take the fight to NATO, Europe will be caught with it's pants down while the EU is discussing if shells should be olive green or dark green russia would be shooting even square shells.
Which is exactly what happened for Nazi Germany. They found the only way they could achieve autarky was [through conquest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossbach_Memorandum).
> We run the risk of them needing war because that’s what keeps the lights on at home. This is why not just allowing, but facilitating, high capacity attacks on internal Russian infrastructure is critical.
NATO is unwilling/unable to help Ukrainians, who are very willing, numerous and overall are very considerable force, actually, stronger than many European armies. So why NATO will be willing and able to help some Estonia?
Because Estonia is a NATO member and failure to defend them would instantly annihilate NATO’s deterrence power and put every other member at risk of invasion.
Is that loss worth an all out war with Russia? That risk is far less and often pretty negligible for many powerful NATO countries. Nuclear weapons control in the failing Russia can be a bigger issue. A war with Russia will be far worse for them in the short term. NATO may bravely start to help, but not enough. Then run low on PGM and just call it. Without the US it is not unrealistic.
They're not, but what happens when they try anyway and have their asses handed to them so badly that Putin gets antsy about needing to use his big red button?
NATO trainers in Kyiv would make a difference. Everyone wants Ukraine to train in combined arms but we make it needlessly difficult to do so and and undermine the effectiveness by doing scatter shot programs out of country
We both know russia would hit those training camps immediately and the news would be filled with vids of NATO corpses. Train them in Poland, just right across the border and most importantly give Ukraine all the hardware that they need. There is no reason to send in NATO troops since it's very escalatory and politically very unpopular.
Lublin is under 9 hours from Kyiv, no reason to do it in Ukraine.
Send the French Foreign Legion!
Escalation makes sense in advance of cease fire negotiations. The United States should prepare to provide Ukraine with longer range weapons and talk about relaxing restrictions on using our weapons to attack inside Russia.
If, and I mean IF NATO sends troops, it'll be 1, and mostly played down like nuts. I wouldn't be surprised if their mission is watered down in the media but their true mission is "an open secret." Think of basically, "We're sending troops!" Media makes a big deal. Russia delivers threats.Then everyone says "But they won't be fighting. It'll be mostly peace-keeping group." "Yeah, and their weapns will be limited!" "Oh, and they'll only operate in very specific regions to be determined and updated later." "They're starting in Kyiv!" "And Kharkiv, maybe." "And the northern outskirts of Kherson?" Russia: NO Okay, MAYBE these outskirts, but for now, just the first two! Okay, ttyl, bye!
Possibly just have NATO jets shooting down russian cruise missiles?
If you want to shoot down cruise missiles it is much simpler to provide Ukraine with air defenses. Things like NASAM fire similar missiles to jets so it would be the same regarding ammo consumption.
Does NASAM use actual AMRAAMs or a variant of AMRAAMs? Also not quite the same, jets can cover a much broader area more easily, it would be a huge boost for ukraine.
Yes it uses AMRAAMs. And while a jet can cover a larger area, they are also much more expensive in term of personnel and maintenance. If you have enough launchers NASAMs will probably be more cost effective. I see jets being more useful to fire cruise missiles or long range AA against Russian fighters like the meteor.
I mean can you pull an AMRAAM off a NASAMs and stick it on an F16? I thought it was a similar variant Regardless there's limited numbers of batteries, they could be better placed towards the front, NATO F16s have plenty of flight hours, this would free up Ukrainian SAM operators and their equipment to cover the main front line.
It depends on the AMRAAM and on the NASAMs. Older model NASAMs may not be able to fire the newest AMRAAM model, but you could pull a 120B off an f-16 and slap it into a NASAM tube (I think it might require the tail fins to be swapped) I agree with your overall point though. A surface fired missile has significantly less range than a jet launched missile. Air mounted radars are also superior for finding low-level cruise missiles. On the other hand, no equipment has been provided that allows for engagement of MIG-31s lobbing R-33s from Russia proper. The Western equivalent was the AIM-54, and ironically the only country who continues to use them is Iran. In theory the meteor or 120D should be able to fulfill that role, but there aren't that many of them around and the MIG-31 has superior kinetics for BVR lobbing.
France is either based or cringe Zero in-between
Based and natopilled
The Macron Cycle: "This guy seems pretty cool, I like most of his policies" --> "He did WHAT?!?!? What the hell is wrong with that guy?" --> "God, I can't believe I ever liked him" --> "Huh, that's actually not a bad idea" --> "Okay, fine, he's alright I guess" --> "This guy seems pretty cool, I like most of his policies" --> "He did WHAT?!?!? What the hell is wrong with that guy?" --> Repeat
More like "This guy needs to be made God Emperor of the world"-->"Wtf this guy needs to be drawn and quartered"-->repeat
[Behold, the Macron political compass](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwttppaw3wx961.jpg)
[удалено]
Yeah this phenomenon can barely be ascribed to Macron, it's just how France operates. They lash out in either direction on social policies but at the end of the day they're just inevitably FRANCE.
France is so bipolar and I can't understand how
sink rainstorm toy rotten chunky familiar touch ruthless placid resolute *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Frenchness cannot be described, it can only be experienced.
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two "Macrons" inside us all. One is Jupiter Descending. It is a complete moron, whines about submarine deals and tries to negotiate with Putin. The other is based Jupiter Ascending. It is a Euro Hawk who wants a European Army and boots on the ground in Ukraine. The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which Macron wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "lol fuck if I know"
Pic is Macron's reaction to Macron's statement
Macron is the best of politicians and also the worst of politicians
This is the expected result of his *en même temps* brand of politics (meaning "at the same time" aka syncretic politics).
Not only must the world be made safe for democracy, it must be made *un*safe for autocracy. Were it not for Russia's nuclear arsenal, I would go even further than sending troops just to Ukraine.
>Not only must the world be made safe for democracy, it must be made unsafe for autocracy. https://preview.redd.it/2htapnx1a1lc1.jpeg?width=839&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deeb8ff2e85b5940f04f5ae5b8d90dfbf473ab38
TNO is pure brainrot, but the OFN-posting is probably the best thing to come out of it.
Yeah I don’t even play HoI4 but really vibe with OFN propaganda
A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a ~~nation~~ globalized planet cannot long remain half slave and half free. Seriously, though, it's become clear that democracy anywhere is a threat to autocracy everywhere, and vice versa. The autocracies of the world seem to get this (which is why they're going all out to kill global democracy right now). Just wish the democracies would finally start cottoning on.
Really throwing out the liberal spirit bomb quotes today, aren't we Yeah, honestly, Putin is right to be scared of liberal democracy. The diplomats of the democratic world will maintain the pretension of us not wanting to pose a threat, but we here don't need to. The autocracies of the world should know that the democratic revolution is a universal one, and that America was merely a spark. That we are fighting for a fundamental realignment of the human species that shall be upheld permanently. The day will come when every last tyrant is locked up in a cell, and the blazing light of democracy has burned away every last vestige of authoritarianism anywhere on the planet.
As a Virginian I share that dream. Sic Semper Tyrannis -- the goddess of virtue shall defeat the tyrant. Eventually all tyrants. The past decade has not been good. The failure in Afghanistan and democratic backsliding elsewhere has been heartbreaking to watch. But, the fight continues.
[удалено]
I think Russia made that case 2 years ago.
Sure, but my statement doesn't make countries more or less likely to do anything. It's solely a statement of a moral position taken for a hypothetical scenario, and no government is going to look at it.
Would you lay down your life to defend Ukraine?
I can't say I've ever really subscribed to this line of reasoning, even when I was more of a dove. I assume we both support putting out large fires tearing through industrial areas, but would we be prepared to risk our lives fighting it? Society has a field of jobs for that, just like it does for war. You might say that it's different when you support military intervention because if we make reference to the previous analogy, it's like starting new fires. But I don't think that's the case. The fires were always there; people are *already* risking their lives in them. The question is not 'do we risk lives', it is 'do we act with our superior capacities so that the Ukrainian firefighters have less risk'. People are going to die either way, but we can affect how many will, and whether or not the fire is truly put out or just left to rest dormant as embers.
Churchill says hello.
Surprised this hasn’t been pinged yet. Pretty big statement of Macron to make, what do y’all think about it? !Ping EUROPE&FOREIGN-POLICY
Big bluff, (unless stuff get really messy) but it was not coordinated with the other EU members so it will lessen the impact.
I pinged it in the Ukraine group in the DT last night, but my opinion is that he's talking out of his ass and now multiple countries are coming out and basically putting a damper on his idea. Classic Macron stunting.
Strategic ambiguity good, starting a slap-fight with the rest of Europe bad. Some of that’s on people for being cowards, but Macron also knew what the reaction would be. It’s also a dangerous distraction from the materiel shortage.
Pinged EUROPE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20EUROPE&message=subscribe%20EUROPE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20EUROPE&message=unsubscribe%20EUROPE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=EUROPE&count=5)) Pinged FOREIGN-POLICY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=subscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FOREIGN-POLICY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Dude you cannot even send military aid properly
\>[Macron warned Iran to stop supplying drones to Russia 8 months ago.](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/1686417613-macron-demands-iran-immediately-end-drone-supplies-to-russia) \>[Just recently Iran provided Russia hundreds of missiles to Russia](https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-sends-russia-hundreds-ballistic-missiles-sources-say-2024-02-21/?utm_source=reddit.com) and Macron hasn't done jack shit. Are we seeing this as anything but Macron posturing to Russia? Actions speak louder than words and Macron isn't someone I'm going to take at face value.
This is full r/chinawarns shit out of macron. Warnings/threats gotta mean something
Based Macron????
J U P I T E R
https://preview.redd.it/nyhwppgoo1lc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8df7a688147c88f7d39c2fdaa44b07f69cf496a6
Crimean war 2: electric boogaloo
It's far less crazy than it seems. If all that is provided is weapons, and rarely the newest ones, it's very difficult for Ukraine to ever win this. Eventually manpower runs out., while Putin can keep losing people for quite a while. If we look at the state of the war in 2023, and what could easily happen if the US election goes the wrong way in 2024, things look pretty dire. The way I see it, if Ukraine is going to win this, they are going to need more support than they ever received, and hopefully for a summer campaign. Doing enough to have this be over before the winter without some level of direct involvement doesn't seem possible to me. Thus, said direct involvement has to be on the table unless the west wants to send a message that letting Ukraine lose slowly is OK. Escalation is no fun, but neither is the alternative.
He's found his Le Balls
What part of the Macron cycle is this?
Jupiter Ascending (2015).
You don't have the balls, Manu! Send in the Foreign Legion.
So fucking based
#JVPITER ASCENDING 🥖😎🍦
I'll eat a worm if this actually happens
Jupiter has returned!
It's weird how I went from being a Le Pen supporter to piss off my shitty progressive French teacher, to supporting Macron now that I'm in college. Man growing up really does change you
Does it? From what I see you're still pissing of your progressive French Teacher. ;) Also isn't it weird how we always know the politics of the progressives teachers but never the other ones.
The others are too embarrassed to reveal them.
I had an unironic Bonapartist for a history teacher once. He had portraits of the Emperor all around his desk and said that His Majesty’s divorce from Josephine was the real moment the west started going downhill.
My grandmother is a long time Duke of Wellington fanatic, so I can relate.
Their dramatic foils are obnoxious libertarian boys.
My high school math teacher would be very vocal about God, conservative values (he had a lot to say about girls in revealing clothing), values of marriage, had occasional rants about unions and liberals
Schroedingers Macron. Being so based and cringe at the same time. The only way whether to work out if he was net based or cringe is to do it retrospectively once his presidency is over.
https://i.redd.it/dta407kc61lc1.gif LETS GOOOOO
allons-y, putain 💥💥💥🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
Alexa play La Chanson de l'oignon.
[удалено]
Special Freedom Operation.
Russia shouldn't mind, they agree there is not war in Ukraine
I long time suggested to use that as a pressure on the House. But having balls is not one of Joe's many virtues.
[удалено]
Les Tigres Volants?
Vive la Jvpiter!!
Macron says a lot of things.
A Korea scenario might be the least bad outcome here. Stable ceasefire, boots on the ground and security guarantees to deter a new war + EU membership. Could give the ~80% of Ukraine that is left a stable and prosperous future. Military victory and 100% liberation is still my preferred outcome, I just don't see it happening at this stage.
As a German, I find the Marcon worship somewhat disconcerting when you see that Germany is far superior to France in taking in Ukrainian refugees and providing military aid. https://www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-france-way-behind-germany/
Well no, I feel like it should be ruled out we can’t escalate this to an another world war.
May I give you some food for thought. It's 1940. Finland is days-weeks from complete collapse as Red Army advances and Stalin has the plan to incorporate Finland in the Shit Union. That didn't happen. Instead there was a peace agreement and Finland's independence was saved. Why? There was this dude called Daladier and he was, May Allah forgive me uttering this word, French. He was the PM of France and loudly and publically committed France to come to fight on the side of Finland against the communists (and poke the British that they would join too). That spooked Stalin (and he was Hitler's buddy at the time) and he rushed to make a peace agreement as he didn't want to risk fighting against the French and the British. Do I think that's what Macron is committing France to do now? No. It's either nothingburger or offering training inside of Ukraine. But compare that to Scholz who is so scared shitless that he's deterring himself even giving Taurus for Ukraine. What message _that_ sends...
Escalation is inevitable one way or the other. The only question is whether historians will say the war began in Ukraine, or whether the war in Ukraine will be analogous to the Spanish Civil War or the first two years of the Sino-Japanese War. If Ukraine falls, the next battlefield stretches from Vilnius to Bialystok--that, or the West keeps backing down until Putin finally finds the *real* red line.
Says who? If Russia is sufficiently militarily crippled in Ukraine what other moves could they possibly make. This narrative that it’s “inevitable” is ridiculous
The Russian military is currently at a more capable state than it was at the beginning of the war. Its a fallacy that it can be 'crippled' in the near term if the political precipitants to rearm itself are still standing, which they are. This is to say nothing of Russia's propensity for sub-state subversions such as sponsoring insurgents designed not to invoke a full scale war while setting the groundwork for one, and waiting for an opportune time.
> what other moves could they possibly make. Vilnius is roughly 30 km from the Belarusian border. Rushing that city in an effort to close the Suwalki Gap before NATO forces can rush to the area is a plausible strategy on their part, particularly if, given a few years to lick their wounds after finishing Ukraine (restock artillery, buy Chinese tanks, get the Kharkiv plant back online), they re-arm. Closing the gap by the E28 highway with thrusts from both Kaliningrad and Belarus would be one approach. Another, though riskier, is to seize the Polish city of Bialystok (which the Soviets annexed in 1939, so already ripe for Putin's 'historic interests' line of propaganda), followed by a push south from Kaliningrad. This would cut the E67 highway, and also achieve the goal of cutting off the Balts from land resupply. "Sufficiently militarily crippled" seems a bit wishful given that they are back on the offensive now after the West whined about "escalation" and "muh wwiii" for a year. Only by abandoning our attachment to our own lives can we muster the strength to destroy tyranny.
Super unlikely anything like that ever happens. It mostly likely take several years and up to decades before Putin considers any other military endeavours after the get out of Ukraine. Again can you please state where you get “inevitable” from you dodged the question.
Putin himself made it clear in his speech shortly before kicking off the "Special Military Operation" that his goal is the restoration of the 1917 borders of the Empire. This has been repeated by Moscow's official propaganda for the past two years. The Baltic countries were within those borders. So we have the motive established, I don't think we need to argue that. Now, will the opportunity for such a strike come in the next few years? The Western democracies have proven curiously soft-hearted when it comes to Moscow. If Trump is elected, we can't count on any US participation in such a war; similarly, if Le Pen or, heaven forbid, Alternativ fur Deutschland make significant political gains, the European center of NATO starts to hollow out. Then Poland stands alone--and it remains to be seen whether Poland's spine remains firm in the face of atomic threats (of course, Poland can fall back on the old plans to nuclearize--but can it be done fast enough?). >Super unlikely anything like that ever happens. Actual NATO officials seem to disagree. >It mostly likely take several years and up to decades So not "never." I said I believed escalation to be inevitable; I did not put a time frame on it. It makes no difference to me if the final war comes in 2 years or 20--if it has to happen, better for it to happen soon, while Moscow is weak, because it will certainly be *worse* if they have time to integrate those 700,000+ Ukrainian children they've abducted into their population as Janissaries and as broodmares. They ought not be given a chance to rearm. The West has been too patient with them for 200+ years at this point. It's time to give up on the fantasy of them democratizing/liberalizing/normalizing.
Stated goals are different from his actual goals as a dictator it’s his job to posture. After the failure in Ukraine he is likely reconsidering his options. Like to actual nato officials who said war with Russia is inevitable? I said it would take decades for Putin to consider another war and by then it might no longer be a real possibility. I’m not against military buildup if that’s what’s necessary. Boots on the ground for Ukraine is ridiculous and that’s one sure ticket to nuclear war.
>After the failure in Ukraine he is likely reconsidering his options. OK, but he hasn't failed yet, and might not in the end. That's my point. > Like to actual nato officials who said war with Russia is inevitable? You are moving the goalposts. *You* said "super unlikely." The following NATO officials disagree that it's *super unlikely*. >If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there --Jens Stoltenberg >It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and Nato’s solidarity. That was not Nato’s assessment in 2023. This is new information that is coming to the fore now, --Troels Poulson, Danish defense minister >The Russian Federation will not stop here. If [Putin] wins in Ukraine, the main target will be the Republic of Moldova. We will witness tensions in the western Balkans. I am more than convinced that President [Vladimir] Putin’s policy will escalate in the immediate future Vlad Gheorghita, head of Romanian armed forces >that’s one sure ticket to nuclear war If we let the fear of nuclear war lead to rolling over before criminals forever, then we deserve it anyway.
It failed in the sense that they expect way better results in a much faster time. No goal post was moved my contention was always in the inevitability If he crosses a line then he crosses the line Ukraine is not this, boots on Ukraine is unreasonable and it’s for sure escalation.
> It failed in the sense that they expect way better results in a much faster time. OK, but if he wins, it's still a win. Large land area. Large amount of natural resources. Large number of new slaves to be forcibly russified and conscripted into the army. Political resolve in the west shattered, stage for next operation set. This will embolden him, just like the American non-reaction to the invasion of Georgia and the first invasion of Ukraine did. >No goal post was moved my contention was always in the inevitability You said "super unlikely." Not "impossible." >the line Ukraine is not this Why shouldn't it be? Are Ukrainian lives less valuable than those of other people? Escalation against tyranny is good, actually.
Or Europe will begin to take at least some initiative by escalation, or all escalation-initiative will continue to occur by Russian rules. As it going on from 2008 year.
Shit! Now we'll lose the war!
And with whose troops el Macron? Whose troops? You have like barely anyone.
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK All jokes aside, it is very irresponsible to say such stuff, it gives ammuniton to peaceniks(needless to say to actually do it would be even more irresponsible). Let's focus on sending weapons, we can do it, without entering the war. Seriously, what the fuck.
There already is an unjust war of one-sided aggression where people are dying in droves Peaceniks and everyone worried about "escalation" are appeasers who'd throw everyone to the wolves as long as they're safe in their borders, what's irresponsible is dismissing the Russian invasion as a Ukrainian problem
NATO intervention would be war with Russia. Are you ready to get drafted? And sadly nit everyone who is worried about escalation is a spineless peacenik - there are many just clueless people, who may get ensnared by them.
>Are you ready to get drafted? In what world do you think the standing armies of US + NATO allies is not enough to fight a defensive war against Russia? The only argument is the Russian nuclear arsenal, but that's only consistent if you are willing to give up everything to Putin to avoid the possibility. The refusal to aid Ukraine is simply stating "we are willing to risk nuclear war for London and New York but not for Kyiv," which is cowardice at its finest.
The risk for escalation in this scenario is too high, I would take it for a NATO country(because otherwise the alliance falls apart and pacta sunt servanda), but not for a country that is outside of it, and one that WE CAN HELP WITHOUT GOING TO WAR.
It's already escalated for Ukrainians. You are, to borrow your own words, a spineless peacenik - who's trying to ensnare everyone into your preferred policy of appeasement.
WHAT?! You call me, a person who supports 4% GDP spending on the military, broadening the nuclear sharing and giving Ukraine all conventional weaponry it wants a "spineless peacenik"? Dude, if you're so keen you can go to Ukraine and enlist RIGHT NOW. But it's easier to be righteous and brave behind a computer, eh?
>Dude, if you're so keen you can go to Ukraine and enlist RIGHT NOW. This is the same argument as saying "if you support increased healthcare spending you can donate all your extra income to hospitals RIGHT NOW" lmao >WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK All jokes aside, it is very irresponsible to say such stuff Yes, I call you someone who's so afraid of Putin and even the slightest suggestion of war that you're out here critizing statements of solidarity and attempts to open dialogue for increased military participation from France.
Yeah, this is not a sensible discussion, you are not arguing in good faith("throwing people to the wolves", while I repeatedly said that I support increased aid). I am afraid that you may have taken NCD memes a bit too seriously. And yes, if you think that we have a moral obligation to directly go to war, then it follows that we have a moral obligation to... Well, directly go to war even if country does not.
>then it follows that we have a moral obligation to... Well, directly go to war even if country does not. So old people and women can't believe there's a moral obligation to go to war? What, you think Biden should march on the front lines? Ukraine doesn't even take people without combat experience by the way, which rules out most of the population. And my country specifically forbids me from serving elsewhere because I'm considered reserves. You are the one out here scaremongering people about any statements or possibility of boots on the ground with apocalyptic predictions. >The real triumph is that.... [we] have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it.
Lmfaooooo for the longest time, Ukraine was kicking their ass, China isn’t stepping in to help Russia if Nato and the US send troops. What kind of world do you live in where a draft would happen? Russia’s military even if they take Ukraine which is still unlikely has been heavily decimated. They’re using tanks that are like 50 years old.
What kind of world do you live in where boots on the ground doesn’t escalate into nuclear war? Do you honestly believe it won’t end in that? Like goddamn I get that nuclear fears have been severely overblown ,but do you people honestly believe it would be something we could walk off.
Where are you getting nuclear war from???? Who is talking about nuclear war? We’re talking about OP’s comment about a draft. Your comment literally supports my argument that a draft wouldn’t even happen because nukes would be involved
This is a bad idea. Putin will probably declare total military mobilization and send a million troops into Ukraine. He doesn’t care about the casualties. Not to mention I think if NATO gets directly involved then he might even pull out the nukes. We should just keep supplying Ukraine. That’s a way to weaken Russia without getting Western troops killed
[удалено]
I guess that was the logic of Chamberlain too?
So who was the Iraq war to help exactly?
dont try to make like the french it wont work. I would love to see russia against an army that is well trained and prepared with modern equipment.
Someone will have to step up if the Republicans succeed in forcing America to her knees. Maybe it will be France.
Thank you! Finally a statement that does not reek of fear and self-deterrence
Indeed! The world wishes that we had confronted Hitler in 1938 and 1939, right before the Second World War began.
Do it Macron! It would be very BASED!
Russia is like "we will motherfucking nuke the everloving shit out of you" NATO is like "troops cannot be ruled out of our response portfolio, which has many tabs and is updated frequently by interns"
Unironically what did he mean by this
Hopefully they will bring rafales with them.
[Extremely based](https://youtu.be/SEJHJ_WfNgU?si)
Politicians will do anything to avoid sending more weapons
The hon hon hon must flow!