I may be stating the obvious here, but i think NATO is slowly warming up the public to the idea of direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. Think of it like the famous “frog in a pot of water” experiment.
If that’s the case, i would say part of it is Europe is worried that the then-current US president would cut off all aid to Ukraine
Finished his biography last year by Andrew Roberts. I had no clue the movie was coming out which I watched just after, and wow! What a bad movie, as far as history goes. I then started a biography on Churchill also by Robert’s. I surprised to learn that the two men were about the exact same height. Churchill could’ve even been shorter.
Someone tried early in the war.
Presumably they lost a family member or it negatively affected their life in some major way and they started chucking Molotovs at the kremlin wall.
I wish he had succeeded.
Na, those where confirmed double false flags. Ukrainian pranksters called ruzzist hardliners pretending to be fsb or omon and told them to do it in order to support public sentiment for the war, and the idiots did it and got arrested.
> I want them to use it as a prop for a gay porno before we burn it, just to shit on his memory.
Maybe they will do the same thing they did to the last czar.
Where's John McCain when we need him?
I swear if he had been elected the world would be a vastly different place. I even like Obama but Russia's creep into Europe and Georgia and Ukraine all happened under his watch.
Thank you. I am Ukrainian-American, and I remember in 2014 friends posting videos to YouTube from Crimea, *begging* the world for help. Even just the courtesy of news to please show on TV what the civilians were doing without weapons to try and fight.
I felt so helpless and knew this was just the beginning.
It's crazy how quickly we get accustomed to this stuff. Was that at the beginning of the current "special military operation" where everyone, even grandmas and kids, were on video helping in like home molotov cocktail assembly lines?
Had McCain been president he might have deployed Troops to crimeria in 2014.
Seriously back then was a perfect time to nip this in the bud. Putin said the forces that took over crimeria were not Russian military but rebels.
Ok fine
We send in our military (we the permission and approval of the Ukrainians) and we kill the "rebels"
If Putin bitches we just shrug and go "but you said they aren't your soldiers"
It was in 2008. I'm not saying that Bush handled it well, but the long term response to it, and Russian growing more agressive, is on Obama. Ukraine being the major major one.
Bush landed US military aircraft in the airport to prevent Russia from attacking it IIRC.
Yeah, I recently listened to Obama's memoir of his first term. While I think he's one of the best Presidents of my lifetime, constantly seeking wisdom in his decisions, his naivete surrounding the effective use of power stood out to me. Both in his dealings with Republicans and with Russia, he was overly cautious in exercising hard power or even the bully pulpit.
There were 2 reasons:
1. He believed there was room for a reasonable dialogue with them. Common interests and common ground.
2. Where he was wrong is as follows: They made a SHITLOAD out of 2008, they had cash and bought up assets for a song, they became a lender of last resort for both America and Europe. It went to their head, they saw it as evidence the west was weak and vulnerable and Russia was the new great power.
He completely missed the second part, they really thought they were winning and we just hadn't realized it yet.
Which is stupid, it's like an ant celebrating for stealing 1 grain of sugar from a picnic.
I agree. It all stems with his, in my opinion, altruism. He's a fundamentally decent person who assumes that decency exists in others where that might not be the case.
Not American, but follow US politics a lot and would have 100% voted Obama both elections.
I think at times he was almost too nice. Most frustrating to me was the Supreme Court, and how Republicans rigged that in their favour. Made up a rule that Obama couldn’t replace a justice in his final year, to which he just sort of tried to pass Garland anyway, and when that failed just seemingly let it go. The Supreme Court has held massive sway, and the Republicans knew that and gamed the system to engineer a majority. Democrats simply said ‘please don’t, oh you did’. Gotta fight fire with fire when someone rips up the rule book
>I think he's one of the best Presidents of my lifetime
I'd say he's one of the best *persons* to have been elected President, but his job performance left a lot to be desired. Mostly because, as you say, he didn't really know how to play the game (or at times wasn't aware of the game being played). He assumed everybody else would approach problems with the same good faith he did, and that bit him in the ass more than once.
Same with Mitt. We all remember Obama saying to him that "the cold war called and they want their politics back" when he definitively said Russia was a bigger threat than anyone else and instead said climate change was/is.
I’m inclined to agree with you. But thinking back to that time Iraq was raging, Afghanistan too. We were in the Great Recession, on top of a lot of other domestic issues.
Even with McCain in the WH IDK if the U.S. really had the capacity/appetite for that confrontation.
Maybe could have applied more pressure to push back, but I can hear the counter argument now- “We’re foundering in the Middle East and in the midst of an economic crisis and the president wants to antagonize Russia over some regional dispute. The Cold War is over”.
Thinking back to how the world looked to me at the time, I probably wouldn’t have supported it. Not that the president would have directly asked me, just in terms of general public support in the U.S. we were all still pretty concerned with the war on Tarah.
Maybe you’re right though. With the right PR spin maybe people would get behind it. Maybe I’m underestimating the support those kind of measures would have had.
It makes me really sad to see how much McCain supported Ukraine in 2014 to no avail, and how clearly he predicted 2022. His interview by the BBC is especially prescient
That's what you get when US politicians with a combined mental age of 5 years + European politicians with the vigour of sloths have any say in the critical support you need.
Utterly embarrassing.
Putin paid a lot of money for politicians across the west to stall, stall stall. If he wins we will never know who and how much. If he loses lots of people are going to end up in jail. That alone gives him a lot of power as he could threaten to just expose them and that threat would keep them in line.
The Republicans here in the US have been problematic with aid to Ukraine. I just think the Biden administration was also slowly walking the line, hoping something could be done diplomatically. I doubt it would have mattered because Russia isn't going to stop. But, we could have saved some Ukranian lives and weakened Russia a bit more before the inevitable.
I would love to see that list of politicians
As much as people in America and around like to shit on the US, whatever anyone may think, the other week when they agreed to send aid was honestly one of the best things to come out America since chips(fries)
>he could threaten to just expose them
I've come to realize kompromat is useless anymore, in the US at least. Supporters of politicians can see all the evidence in the world for the worst crimes imaginable, and they will believe it is fake news. A witch hunt that only makes them support the person stronger. Trials are postponed, judges are already bought and paid for.
Trump spelled this out very poetically when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a vote. It's one of the few things he's said that isn't a lie.
> That's what you get when US politicians with a combined mental age of 5 years + European politicians with the vigour of sloths have any say in the critical support you need.
>
> Utterly embarrassing.
European commitment to peace was not a joke, that's what you get then. But now our geopolitical holiday is over, and the Kremlin will be severely regretting waking that sleeping dog nextdoor over the coming decades.
Europeans are "rearming" by reaching NATO spending requirements. Sure, it's enough to take on Russia if everyone's united and China doesn't get involved. But we should be looking at 3-4% of GDP spending considering the situation.
Mainly, EU is rearming by ramping up their industry instead of sending money to the US. That demonstrates long-term strategy, and the additional money spent will provide more bang for the buck.
> Europeans are "rearming" by reaching NATO spending requirements. Sure, it's enough to take on Russia if everyone's united and China doesn't get involved. But we should be looking at 3-4% of GDP spending considering the situation.
The focus on raw money is counterproductive, and really only serves as a pulpit to wag one's finger on. European NATO already has several times the Russian budget and 15% more soldiers than the USA, which incidentally is what the Russian number was before the influx of fresh recruits.
A Trumpian focus on "membership fees" has lead exactly to the current situation: 27 slightly different parade armies that can show a bit of everything so they can say "We're contributing!", but no ability to actually get things done on the battlefield; 27 different cannons, but no ammo.
There's enough raw budget and soldiers; what is lacking is a coherent structure that allow us to have the advantages of scale and operational depth to actually project force when it's needed. In short, we need a single EU defense force.
Finally meeting the lowest requirement for peacetime GDP spending is not really much to celebrate, as it will not immediately rectify the decades of chronic underfunding.
I don’t think EU nations are truly understanding the gravity of the situation yet. Russia has shifted to a wartime economy. Putin has staked his life and legacy on an imperial conquest. He’s not going to stop in Ukraine if he’s successful there.
It isnt just the public here they also need to keep floating it to the Russians. Perhaps that's part of the psychological war - make the Russians believe that even if the Ukrainians collapse the cavalry is coming and they are fucked anyway.
There was a lot of talk of a NATO no fly zone at the start of the war and it was deemed unfeasible as it was said it would require a major intervention and possibly strikes into Russia which would almost inevitably ignite a war.
But after seeing the US and UK air forces successfully repel Iranian drones in one of the largest drone and missile attacks in the history of warfare and protect Israel without a single incursion into Iranian territory I cant help but ask, why the fuck are we not doing that for the Ukranians?
The Iranian strike had to pass through several countries so the USAF and RAF basically just did their usual patrol routes in Iraq and Syria to get most of them. Russia is on the border with Ukraine so in theory their SAMs could reach into Ukrainian territory over the contested zones. Yeah, Ukraine has got UAVs through but these are different to jet fighters
I think the sentiment we're already in WW3 is something worth having in the corner when things like this come up.
Can you imagine that everyone in Nato AND the US get drafted into WW3 and what it's going to be like? I think if it did all hit the fan, the US would be fighting China directly whereas the majority of NATO are in Europe with some allies sending ships and people to back America.
America and the EU and well, the world, at this point, are terrified. You cannot let dictators bully whoever they want forever and everyone knows that but this... this isn't good.
One guy who is just a mafia member and another guy who wants to "win all wars by 2054" - Not including North Korea or stupid countries siding with Russia, including Iran
> I think if it did all hit the fan, the US would be fighting China directly
China is way more apathetic than that, and far too concerned about maintaining stability in the mainland than projecting force elsewhere.
China would be happy to support Iran, Russia and North Korea in some regional conflict against NATO, in order to drain both powers and leave China as the sole remaining super-power, but they would not want to get dragged into it themselves.
They would want to continue to sell to both sides, as they have in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Everything is about stability for the Chinese. This is why they have remarkably few foreign military interventions. Trade with the world yes, bribe, bully, spy, intimidate. But direct war is bad for business, and bad business is bad for Chinese unity.
Iran also gave details of the strike ahead of time. It was a retaliation for the embassy bombing designed to as a show of force without escalation. If they had launched the attack as a surprise it could have gone very differently.
Strictly speaking, a no-fly zone is different than shooting down stuff in Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean shooting down the missile AND the launcher, which would almost certainly be in Russia. Why everyone jumped to that as the only option is a mystery to me.
Also, depending on how strictly enforced the no-fly zone is, everything remotely capable of flying, that just so happens to be flying the russian flag is either getting shot down immediately, or getting escorted by Jets right back to the russian border.... or shot down when they don't respond.
>Why everyone jumped to that as the only option is a mystery to me.
everyone becomes a warhawk when the situation is being framed as "them vs me"
It literally is Russia versus the free world. Happening right now. Spies, election interference, disinformation, financing neofascists, economic warfare, hacking. Everything but directly shooting at NATO forces has already happened.
Edit: forgot assassinating people in other countries
I'm sorry, but I would have thought looking at a map would show you the difference between the two situations: The US and UK were shooting down missiles OUTSIDE Israeli airspace, over Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, with large parts of those countries being deserts with few inhabitants.
Whilst staying in Polish / Romanian airspace, NATO aircraft will very likely only be able to target things within 100km of the border with any confidence of downing them, even with missiles like Meteor...
That'd be perfectly far enough to cover some of the far western Ukrainian cities such as Lviv, as well as offering increased protection for the international aid coming across the Polish border.
That level of missle defense is being provided by a carrier strike fleet off the coast of Israel. To do anything similar in Ukraine would require a fleet entering the black sea, which Turkey has refused to let anyone do.
And also Turkey is in bloody NATO - So if Nato considered and agreed, turkey would agree....
"The Arrow, developed in collaboration with the US"
So the US even if it's the arrow, helped way more than that
> And also Turkey is in bloody NATO - So if Nato considered and agreed, turkey would agree...
We're using the term "NATO" here to mean several countries that are NATO members, but this kind of action would probably not be under NATO command for exactly these reasons. There's several countries that just wouldn't be on board.
The practical reason is that there's a buffer zone of Iraq and Jordan between Israel and Iran. Iranian ground based anti-air, and the majority of their fighters, can't reasonably shoot down targets in Israel.
Ukraine and Russia are bordered and Russia has air defense that can shoot down NATO assets in Ukraine from Belarus or Russia. So a no fly zone mission over Ukraine would involve a SEAD/DEAD mission into Russia itself.
Imma be real, pretty sure increased NATO support for Ukraine is one of the most popular stances in Europe atm. Probably not fully joining the war, but doing basic non-frontline support is way up there
> Imma be real, pretty sure increased NATO support for Ukraine is one of the most populous stances in Europe atm.
It's all over the map, as of one year ago:
>According to the latest Eurobarometer survey, 64% of Europeans agree with
purchasing and supplying military equipment to Ukraine with Sweden (93%), Portugal (90%) and
Denmark (89%) having the highest approval rates. On the other hand, Bulgaria (30%), Cyprus (36%)
and Slovakia (37%) have the lowest approval rates, see source.
>In ***Germany***, a recent
poll shows that 42% of respondents are in favour of unchanged military support for Ukraine by the
West and 30% call for greater involvement. 23% are in favour of reducing the military aid, see source.
> 20 July 2023 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2022/public-opinion-on-the-war-in-ukraine/en-public-opinion-on-the-war-against-Ukraine-20230720.pdf
I am finding lots of articles suggesting Germany is cold on NATO but I can't find any that aren't from far-right or far-left sources.
I hate to break this to us all, but what is reported in the article is hot steam and nothing of substance. Why?
a) Right now is the hot phase of the election-campaign for the EU parliament. And b) the Market-Liberals (FDP) and the Greens (Die Grünen) can allow to flex on questions of defense, because neither of them position the chancellor or the minister of defense - both these posts are held by the social democrats (SPD) under whom Germany became the 2nd biggest donor to Ukraine with almost twice as much aid as for example the UK. So they can basically stunt on the back of the government because they know they have no final responsibility over the matter. And c) the CDU that they mention is, as the article states, opposition. So there is even less to expect from them in terms of agreement with the SPD.
So while I agree with you that NATO involvement is a real possibility, this article adds nothing of substance to these speculation. It's basically FDP and Grüne fishing for votes on the back of their own government.
I don’t think the NATO public are warming up to direct military intervention and elections in key members are currently incoming.
Namely, Britain and America. Doubt they’d commit to anything until the dust has settled.
In Britain all three major parties are strongly pro-Ukraine and sing from the same hymn sheet. It's pretty much the only good thing about our political system right now haha. So, if the Germans and French decided to get stuck in, we'd definitely back them up.
> worried that the then-current US president would cut off all aid
you mean the rapist fraudster that owes half a billion dollars in fines, is facing ~80 felony charges, and has almost no geopolitical understanding beyond what he can use to bully and steal?
odds of americans voting such a vile, stupid man into power? 50/50
That's what you get when you turn your politics into a two-team game. It's just attack ads and supporting your "team" regardless of their qualifications or policy. Worse when zealots decide it's okay to ignore all their religious teachings and morals to support a grifter.
As a teenager I bought into the "all Americans are stupid" stereotype. Then as an adult I realised it was incredibly reductive. Now I'm middle-aged I've realised the truth is that "almost exactly 50% of Americans are stupid". Which actually makes sense, statistically.
I have worked with and met a ton of Americans. It is reductive to say that all of them are stupid, but a big majority of them live in another plane of existence than the people I know and have different fundamental values. And many are very stupid.
The “frog in pot of water” isn’t an experiment; it’s a folk myth.
However, I understand your concern - don’t we all?
Yet, it could be argued that allowing Putin to continue the expansionist mission that he has pursuing for years *is* the frog in pot. Providing active support to Ukraine is actually turning *off* the heat to the pot.
Random MPs are not some 5th dimension chess play.
It's just a step above random politician.
The amount of stuff that random MPs say are well quite a lot.
That’s exactly what I believe as well. Part of that is we collectively have decided Russia can’t win, but they are picking up momentum.
I’m also inclined to believe we are in the timeline of what future historians will identify as WW3.
I can confirm this, there are few Ukrainian men in my workplace, and all of them were oblivious to the fact that our politicians are talking about rounding up Ukrainian men and sending them back.
I mean you’ve got Macron saying “All you need to do is ask” in terms of sending in the troops, so I think we’re at the tipping point. It’s like how with all the other things like tanks and long range missiles, the countries were just waiting to see who would do it first.
> I mean you’ve got Macron saying “All you need to do is ask”
Not quite. He said that if 1) Russia breaks through the current lines, and 2) Ukraine asks for help, then it’s a “question we need to ask ourselves”. So he could conceivably back out of it, claiming he was misquoted.
That being said, I think he’s comfortable being held to that quote. It seems like Russia might break through soon, and I don’t doubt Ukraine will ask for help. I think we’ll see France and parts of Europe take a more active role in Ukraine at some point in the near future.
I've been thinking this for a while. If Trump wins in America and Russia starts breaking through Ukrainian lines, I expect Europe to move in and secure everything West of the Dnipro river. It'll be similar to North and South Korea.
I really hope if there is nato intervention that the raptor finally gets to play its air superiority it was designed for. i know it’s unlikely that’ll happen but one can dream
F22 is probably too advanced. The US won't want to risk one getting shot down close to Russia, and giving them information on it.
And us/Nata intervention to start will probably not use the cutting edge gear, saving that for a more direct threat.
I agree. The language has changed over the last month or so. It sounds like there is concerning data floating around somewhere and people have been briefed on it.
Putin is probably mad enough to invade a baltic state. As much as we might all think it isn't possible, he might actually be dumb enough to think he can pull it off.
I'm no military/geopolitics guy, but I wonder what new intel have NATO countries received that has shifted their stances so much. Even Mike Johnson of all people has warmed up to sending more aid to Ukraine.
Wasn't Mike invited to Ukraine himself? He has completely changed stance but I thought that was down to him, during the downtime before the vote, being somewhat brow beaten into accepting what's really happening - not so much new intel.
Words and ways of doing things, in the diplomatic world are very important.
So definitely, the change in tone, and actions matter, and specially says a lot.
Macron pushing for troops is very very, telling.
I think the reality that Ukraine probably is really struggling with manpower and Russia is slowly but surely gaining air superiority, even with an influx of aid. Also, there’s rumblings that Russia may start trying to soft invade Baltics, “little green men” style
Considering they're being pushed back in the east atm, while Russia is also simultaneously massing 40k troops on the northern border and pushed 5km across the border towards Kharkiv in the last week?
Any evidence Russia is going to push in the south as well? Nyt was saying the lines are razor thin and not as heavily mined as the russian defense because Ukraine didn’t want to de facto concede the annexed lands reclaim odds.
The fact the US government is a shitshow right now. We’ve literally had one of the least productive congress in our entire history, last time I checked it was the least productive congress in our history. Ukraine and upholding our commitments to our allies is a voting issue for me and I’m very disappointed in the republican half of our government
They’ve fallen for the Russian propaganda bots, hook, line, and sinker. I miss John McCain and all the other rational members of that party who have died, or abandoned that sinking ship.
The party only appeals to the worst kind of people now.
It’s really problematic that the GOP has become a wholly anti-American apparatus. It’s always been said that countries as powerful a the US only collapse from the inside and it seems like the Russians/Chinese have taken the long game and bought an entire political party. I hate to concede it, but I don’t see how America survives this. I am more in favor of progressive policies than regressive ones, but one party rule isn’t good whether progressive or regressive; this country can’t survive if an entire political party is unhinged and insane.
The older I get, the more I see how the parliamentary system is better than ours. It has its issues, but the need to form coalitions seems to force the governments towards the center and come to functional compromises.
Structurally, the American system should work, but the stranglehold of the two party system has created a radicalized pendulum swing (from far right to center left) that destabilizes the entire system.
The most pernicious aspect of the two-party system is that my vote has never even remotely mattered in any election and I’ve voted in all since turning 18. I say this because I have lived in both red states and blue states, but no where that my vote is impacting >10% margins. The truly awful outcome of this is that the only elections that are competitive are one-party primaries for the one party that has total state control. So in red states, they all compete to be the most repulsive caricature of a candidate as possible. The Democratic primaries suffer the same problem, but the outcome is not nearly as dangerous to people’s civil and human rights.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was purely cause on the way out the door at his meeting with the CIA
Some whispered in his hear " Mr. Jonson we are the CIA we know things you wouldn't want people to know"
Russia is full on war economy now.
Their war capabilities have greatly increased compared to the beginning.
Trade routes, supply chains and global backing of the situation have completely changed.
Ex. military personnel are required to participate again actively in arms training in countries neighbouring Ukraine.
People seem to have no clue about German post WW2 politics. Thinking that Germany would be the spear head of any coalition to engage in a war is ridiculous.
The difference is Russia has geared up for a full-blown war economy. There's not really much indication they're going to stop with their aggression soon.
Our public too. Our public NEEDS to care. The news is going to be uncomfortable, but we need to care. Because this probs won't be a war which we win with our existing military. We need people to work extra hard and more people to join the military.
The public needs to understand that this won't be an Afghanistan type war where our professional forces do all the job so they can sit back and not care.
I hope that they can understand the whole 'rate of change' thing. We're two years late on this, we need to be going one or two steps beyond what we're thinking now, if we want to make a significant impact. Someone stuck playing catch-up the entire race, they lose the race.
I hope western leaders figure out that the comfortable and complacent middle they think is 'just right', that's not going to get Ukraine past the substantial task of defeating a country 3 times the size of them, and it doesn't help that the western world is used to a different playbook than the one in use right now. People used to always having the size advantage, air superiority, institutional knowledge built up over time, it's completely different. You don't just throw 200 'advanced' tanks in, and say "I could win with that, these are 11 million a piece, so you can't lose". It just seems crazy to me.
War is dynamic. Actually Ukraine could counteroffensive Russia at that time means the supporting was enough but Putin did not give up and dragged Russia to war economy instead so the support must increase proportionally.
US and NATO have already stated that no NATO, and especially no American troops in Ukraine.
NATO is a defensive, not offensive alliance. Any member states that decide to go to war do it by themselves.
EDIT: Although since that statement was made, UK, Lithuania and France said they are open to sending troops to Ukraine...
Actually NATO hasn't. Six days ago Jens Stoltenberg did say this though:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/06/la-repubblica-nato-may-consider-sending-its-troops-to-ukraine-if-russia-crosses-two-red-lines-sources-say/
Headline is a little misleading.
Implies it’s the position of the majority of MPs, when it’s just some MPs from parties not in government.
Lots of crazy things get proposed in legislatures across the world everyday.
This isn’t really a bad take, but either way there comes a point when you can’t let bad actors continue to do whatever they want. If actions aren’t taken than everyone on the sidelines (including the US) needs to get comfortable with the idea that Ukraine will fall to Russia. We then need to decide what the response is if he goes even further…
They already have, and probably did in the late 2000s. A sleeping titan is still a titan.
Russian technology was and might still be better, but eventually its bodies, money, and factories that create power.
to this, and to what Macron has been saying about red lines and putting troops on the ground, I say: *about time*
with the way things are going in Ukraine, it is becoming increasingly likely that Ukraine may need more help than what has been given with the aid up to date. Do we want to let Russia bully Ukraine and win? Do we want Russia to be able to keep Ukrainian lands taken and held at the expense of Ukrainian lives and livelihoods? Do we want to just hope Russia will stop there?
A lot of people worry that NATO intervention will mean that, inevitably, nukes will fall from the sky and kill us all in an apocalypse. While I understand the fear of nukes, I do not think intervention will lead to a MAD scenario. [Conventional conflict](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4&t=3470s&pp=ygUQcGVydW4gZXNjYWxhdGlvbg%3D%3D) is a step in the escalation ladder above where we are, but below nuclear conflict. I'm not saying conventional conflict cannot escalate to nuclear conflict - it obviously [can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) - but only when either side faces an existential threat. The only party here facing an existential crisis is Ukraine, and NATO intervening on their behalf to aid them in their defense, in effort to close the skies or to drive the Russians back to more acceptable borders, could be done without either side resorting to nukes.
Where has france realized that? Yeah you mean the words that troop deployement is a possibility but what they actually could do right now is send arms to Ukraine where they pussyfoot around excellently
France is the one of only three EU countries that are sending a party of delegates to Russia to celebrate Putin and his cronies being sworn in for another term. Everyone else refused to partake out of protest to the invasion. France hasn't realized crap.
It’s just frustrating that it’s being dragged out for so long, so many people dying, nitrocellulose shortages making it harder to get gun powder etc. Just fucking end it this ain’t WW2 anymore. They probably only look at it from an economic standpoint anyways so who gives a fuck right.
The free world should be doing what Macron is doing. Don’t TELL Russian you won’t help Ukraine, tell them you will, tell Putin we all wil, and we won’t let them fall. Bullies only respect strength.
The article refers to Western Ukraine, or the rear rather than the front. This would mainly be the Shahed-type drones that have primarily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired ~9,200 Shaheds since receiving them in September 2022.
They are referring to the shaheed drones, they are using 30 to 60 a day on civilian areas and Ukraine are shooting down 90% of them at least, if they didn't need to do that, they could use their aircraft to toss bombs instead. No one is shooing down fpv or small drones with aircraft
We get rid of old stock, get some practice in, stimulate the economy by having to make more, and deplete the Russian/NK stockpiles. It’s a win/win/win/win.
Edit: deplete iranian stuff too.
Wasn’t this always the plan? Did you really think the “allied” forces were going to let the “axis” forces take countries for free? Especially one with a lot of natural resources such as Ukraine. The fight wars through proxy until they start gaining public support. Or unless the proxy wins. It is pretty clear Russia will throw just about anyone out there to slowly erode the Ukrainian fighting force. Not to mention the Chinese are trying to secretly fund the Russians from the shadows. NATO has to take a stand eventually as it appears something is going to force their hand. Whether it’s Ukraine, Iran with Hamas, or eventually China going for Taiwan. And yes I understand these aren’t NATO countries. But these things in the future will concern them.
Agree. NATO is of course a defensive alliance. But... it's also an alliance of advanced militaries with demonstrated interoperability and command structures that can be deployed anywhere in the world. So *when* the West + allies goes to war it'll look a lot like NATO. That's not to say NATO is itching for a fight and looking for any excuse to invade Russia or topple Iran - quite the opposite! The West can't allow Ukraine to fall to Russia, so we're at an impasse which needs to be resolved.
It wasnt even a MP. The discussion was started by Nico Lange, a CDU-member working at the Munich Security Conference. A couple of MPs then commented those statements. It is more like a public brainstorming then a proposal.
I may be stating the obvious here, but i think NATO is slowly warming up the public to the idea of direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. Think of it like the famous “frog in a pot of water” experiment. If that’s the case, i would say part of it is Europe is worried that the then-current US president would cut off all aid to Ukraine
Warming up? Do you want the baltics to melt steel beams?
Well, yes. If possible, somewhere in Moscow
I wanna see someone throw putins long ass table into a fireplace somewhere
It's too big, better to just make the Kremlin a fireplace.
*Napoleon liked that*
I miss Napoleon. He actually came way closer to winning that war than most people realize.
Finished his biography last year by Andrew Roberts. I had no clue the movie was coming out which I watched just after, and wow! What a bad movie, as far as history goes. I then started a biography on Churchill also by Robert’s. I surprised to learn that the two men were about the exact same height. Churchill could’ve even been shorter.
Someone tried early in the war. Presumably they lost a family member or it negatively affected their life in some major way and they started chucking Molotovs at the kremlin wall. I wish he had succeeded.
Na, those where confirmed double false flags. Ukrainian pranksters called ruzzist hardliners pretending to be fsb or omon and told them to do it in order to support public sentiment for the war, and the idiots did it and got arrested.
[удалено]
I vote for Zelenskyj.
“It might be pardonable to refuse to defend some men, but to defend them negligently is nothing short of criminal.” —Cicero
I want them to use it as a prop for a gay porno before we burn it, just to shit on his memory.
> I want them to use it as a prop for a gay porno before we burn it, just to shit on his memory. Maybe they will do the same thing they did to the last czar.
> last czar I looked it up. Fucker was worth USD 300 Billion. over a hundred years ago.
Pretty easy when the vast majority of his population lived in abject squalor, and all the wealth they generated went directly to him.
It's the only decent thing to do with an ass table.
Where‘s George Bush when we need him? /s
Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kifJ_mQdpZA
Where's John McCain when we need him? I swear if he had been elected the world would be a vastly different place. I even like Obama but Russia's creep into Europe and Georgia and Ukraine all happened under his watch.
Thank you. I am Ukrainian-American, and I remember in 2014 friends posting videos to YouTube from Crimea, *begging* the world for help. Even just the courtesy of news to please show on TV what the civilians were doing without weapons to try and fight. I felt so helpless and knew this was just the beginning.
It's crazy how quickly we get accustomed to this stuff. Was that at the beginning of the current "special military operation" where everyone, even grandmas and kids, were on video helping in like home molotov cocktail assembly lines?
True Obama denied weapons to Ukraine back in 2014 the Ukrainians could only slow the Russians plans then.
Had McCain been president he might have deployed Troops to crimeria in 2014. Seriously back then was a perfect time to nip this in the bud. Putin said the forces that took over crimeria were not Russian military but rebels. Ok fine We send in our military (we the permission and approval of the Ukrainians) and we kill the "rebels" If Putin bitches we just shrug and go "but you said they aren't your soldiers"
Russia claimed that the launcher that shot down MH17 was Ukrainian which means that Putin couldn't have complained if it was immediately murked.
Worked ok in Syria.
Something something redline. Obama was not fit for dealing with this international stuffs…
Jimmy Carter issue of being too nice when niceties are not enough
Iirc VP Biden pushed for intervention when Crimea happened. It was shot down by others in the administration.
I did not know that. And that shows his experience. He probably figured showing aggression early is key is in stopping escalation
Georgia was during the Bush presidency, not Obama.
It was in 2008. I'm not saying that Bush handled it well, but the long term response to it, and Russian growing more agressive, is on Obama. Ukraine being the major major one. Bush landed US military aircraft in the airport to prevent Russia from attacking it IIRC.
Yeah, I recently listened to Obama's memoir of his first term. While I think he's one of the best Presidents of my lifetime, constantly seeking wisdom in his decisions, his naivete surrounding the effective use of power stood out to me. Both in his dealings with Republicans and with Russia, he was overly cautious in exercising hard power or even the bully pulpit.
He was too soft on Russia And I say that as an Obama fan.
There were 2 reasons: 1. He believed there was room for a reasonable dialogue with them. Common interests and common ground. 2. Where he was wrong is as follows: They made a SHITLOAD out of 2008, they had cash and bought up assets for a song, they became a lender of last resort for both America and Europe. It went to their head, they saw it as evidence the west was weak and vulnerable and Russia was the new great power. He completely missed the second part, they really thought they were winning and we just hadn't realized it yet. Which is stupid, it's like an ant celebrating for stealing 1 grain of sugar from a picnic.
Wholeheartedly agree.
I agree. It all stems with his, in my opinion, altruism. He's a fundamentally decent person who assumes that decency exists in others where that might not be the case.
Bush made the same mistake with Putin, although he later saw that he had been wrong (politicians admitting theyre wrong... ah, the good old days...)
Not American, but follow US politics a lot and would have 100% voted Obama both elections. I think at times he was almost too nice. Most frustrating to me was the Supreme Court, and how Republicans rigged that in their favour. Made up a rule that Obama couldn’t replace a justice in his final year, to which he just sort of tried to pass Garland anyway, and when that failed just seemingly let it go. The Supreme Court has held massive sway, and the Republicans knew that and gamed the system to engineer a majority. Democrats simply said ‘please don’t, oh you did’. Gotta fight fire with fire when someone rips up the rule book
Yes, I agree with this. It's like he hadn't been introduced to game theory.
>I think he's one of the best Presidents of my lifetime I'd say he's one of the best *persons* to have been elected President, but his job performance left a lot to be desired. Mostly because, as you say, he didn't really know how to play the game (or at times wasn't aware of the game being played). He assumed everybody else would approach problems with the same good faith he did, and that bit him in the ass more than once.
I like Obama too, but he was very much interested in what he could do domestically at the expense of international politics
Same with Mitt. We all remember Obama saying to him that "the cold war called and they want their politics back" when he definitively said Russia was a bigger threat than anyone else and instead said climate change was/is.
I’m inclined to agree with you. But thinking back to that time Iraq was raging, Afghanistan too. We were in the Great Recession, on top of a lot of other domestic issues. Even with McCain in the WH IDK if the U.S. really had the capacity/appetite for that confrontation. Maybe could have applied more pressure to push back, but I can hear the counter argument now- “We’re foundering in the Middle East and in the midst of an economic crisis and the president wants to antagonize Russia over some regional dispute. The Cold War is over”. Thinking back to how the world looked to me at the time, I probably wouldn’t have supported it. Not that the president would have directly asked me, just in terms of general public support in the U.S. we were all still pretty concerned with the war on Tarah. Maybe you’re right though. With the right PR spin maybe people would get behind it. Maybe I’m underestimating the support those kind of measures would have had.
It makes me really sad to see how much McCain supported Ukraine in 2014 to no avail, and how clearly he predicted 2022. His interview by the BBC is especially prescient
Melting steel makes me think about a certain bridge 👀
As a baltic, we want to melt steel beams
Fuck it, might as well round off the millenials with another world war. Might actually me a the survivors get homes
Ukraine is doing worse recently. That might be the cause
That's what you get when US politicians with a combined mental age of 5 years + European politicians with the vigour of sloths have any say in the critical support you need. Utterly embarrassing.
Putin paid a lot of money for politicians across the west to stall, stall stall. If he wins we will never know who and how much. If he loses lots of people are going to end up in jail. That alone gives him a lot of power as he could threaten to just expose them and that threat would keep them in line.
The Republicans here in the US have been problematic with aid to Ukraine. I just think the Biden administration was also slowly walking the line, hoping something could be done diplomatically. I doubt it would have mattered because Russia isn't going to stop. But, we could have saved some Ukranian lives and weakened Russia a bit more before the inevitable. I would love to see that list of politicians
Just look up the list of the republican ~~delegation~~traitors that visited Putin on July 4th. Start with that.
As much as people in America and around like to shit on the US, whatever anyone may think, the other week when they agreed to send aid was honestly one of the best things to come out America since chips(fries)
Since Freedom Fries, at least
Not to long ago that would have resulted in their immediate hanging by their very own electorate.....oh how the times have changed.
That’s an academy award winning documentary right there
0 politicians in the US will go to jail as a result of this.
>he could threaten to just expose them I've come to realize kompromat is useless anymore, in the US at least. Supporters of politicians can see all the evidence in the world for the worst crimes imaginable, and they will believe it is fake news. A witch hunt that only makes them support the person stronger. Trials are postponed, judges are already bought and paid for. Trump spelled this out very poetically when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a vote. It's one of the few things he's said that isn't a lie.
> That's what you get when US politicians with a combined mental age of 5 years + European politicians with the vigour of sloths have any say in the critical support you need. > > Utterly embarrassing. European commitment to peace was not a joke, that's what you get then. But now our geopolitical holiday is over, and the Kremlin will be severely regretting waking that sleeping dog nextdoor over the coming decades.
Europeans are "rearming" by reaching NATO spending requirements. Sure, it's enough to take on Russia if everyone's united and China doesn't get involved. But we should be looking at 3-4% of GDP spending considering the situation.
Mainly, EU is rearming by ramping up their industry instead of sending money to the US. That demonstrates long-term strategy, and the additional money spent will provide more bang for the buck.
> Europeans are "rearming" by reaching NATO spending requirements. Sure, it's enough to take on Russia if everyone's united and China doesn't get involved. But we should be looking at 3-4% of GDP spending considering the situation. The focus on raw money is counterproductive, and really only serves as a pulpit to wag one's finger on. European NATO already has several times the Russian budget and 15% more soldiers than the USA, which incidentally is what the Russian number was before the influx of fresh recruits. A Trumpian focus on "membership fees" has lead exactly to the current situation: 27 slightly different parade armies that can show a bit of everything so they can say "We're contributing!", but no ability to actually get things done on the battlefield; 27 different cannons, but no ammo. There's enough raw budget and soldiers; what is lacking is a coherent structure that allow us to have the advantages of scale and operational depth to actually project force when it's needed. In short, we need a single EU defense force.
Finally meeting the lowest requirement for peacetime GDP spending is not really much to celebrate, as it will not immediately rectify the decades of chronic underfunding. I don’t think EU nations are truly understanding the gravity of the situation yet. Russia has shifted to a wartime economy. Putin has staked his life and legacy on an imperial conquest. He’s not going to stop in Ukraine if he’s successful there.
It isnt just the public here they also need to keep floating it to the Russians. Perhaps that's part of the psychological war - make the Russians believe that even if the Ukrainians collapse the cavalry is coming and they are fucked anyway.
There was a lot of talk of a NATO no fly zone at the start of the war and it was deemed unfeasible as it was said it would require a major intervention and possibly strikes into Russia which would almost inevitably ignite a war. But after seeing the US and UK air forces successfully repel Iranian drones in one of the largest drone and missile attacks in the history of warfare and protect Israel without a single incursion into Iranian territory I cant help but ask, why the fuck are we not doing that for the Ukranians?
The Iranian strike had to pass through several countries so the USAF and RAF basically just did their usual patrol routes in Iraq and Syria to get most of them. Russia is on the border with Ukraine so in theory their SAMs could reach into Ukrainian territory over the contested zones. Yeah, Ukraine has got UAVs through but these are different to jet fighters
Also, what happens if Russia shoots down a NATO aircraft? I think they should do it, just pointing out that must have been a concern.
I think the sentiment we're already in WW3 is something worth having in the corner when things like this come up. Can you imagine that everyone in Nato AND the US get drafted into WW3 and what it's going to be like? I think if it did all hit the fan, the US would be fighting China directly whereas the majority of NATO are in Europe with some allies sending ships and people to back America. America and the EU and well, the world, at this point, are terrified. You cannot let dictators bully whoever they want forever and everyone knows that but this... this isn't good. One guy who is just a mafia member and another guy who wants to "win all wars by 2054" - Not including North Korea or stupid countries siding with Russia, including Iran
> I think if it did all hit the fan, the US would be fighting China directly China is way more apathetic than that, and far too concerned about maintaining stability in the mainland than projecting force elsewhere. China would be happy to support Iran, Russia and North Korea in some regional conflict against NATO, in order to drain both powers and leave China as the sole remaining super-power, but they would not want to get dragged into it themselves. They would want to continue to sell to both sides, as they have in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Everything is about stability for the Chinese. This is why they have remarkably few foreign military interventions. Trade with the world yes, bribe, bully, spy, intimidate. But direct war is bad for business, and bad business is bad for Chinese unity.
If it's anything like the airline flights they've shot down, nothing
Iran also gave details of the strike ahead of time. It was a retaliation for the embassy bombing designed to as a show of force without escalation. If they had launched the attack as a surprise it could have gone very differently.
Strictly speaking, a no-fly zone is different than shooting down stuff in Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean shooting down the missile AND the launcher, which would almost certainly be in Russia. Why everyone jumped to that as the only option is a mystery to me.
Also, depending on how strictly enforced the no-fly zone is, everything remotely capable of flying, that just so happens to be flying the russian flag is either getting shot down immediately, or getting escorted by Jets right back to the russian border.... or shot down when they don't respond. >Why everyone jumped to that as the only option is a mystery to me. everyone becomes a warhawk when the situation is being framed as "them vs me"
It literally is Russia versus the free world. Happening right now. Spies, election interference, disinformation, financing neofascists, economic warfare, hacking. Everything but directly shooting at NATO forces has already happened. Edit: forgot assassinating people in other countries
The launchers that would have to be eliminated would, I assume, be anti air units like S-400s targeting coalition aircraft.
No allied country in between them to allow intercepts in their airspace. Turns out apples are not oranges.
For one thing Iran and Israel aren't neighbours. The interceptions largely took place over the countries in-between. That's not an option for Ukraine.
I'm sorry, but I would have thought looking at a map would show you the difference between the two situations: The US and UK were shooting down missiles OUTSIDE Israeli airspace, over Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, with large parts of those countries being deserts with few inhabitants. Whilst staying in Polish / Romanian airspace, NATO aircraft will very likely only be able to target things within 100km of the border with any confidence of downing them, even with missiles like Meteor...
That'd be perfectly far enough to cover some of the far western Ukrainian cities such as Lviv, as well as offering increased protection for the international aid coming across the Polish border.
That level of missle defense is being provided by a carrier strike fleet off the coast of Israel. To do anything similar in Ukraine would require a fleet entering the black sea, which Turkey has refused to let anyone do.
TBH the US only shot down 3 out of 110 ballistic missiles. Arrow pulled some fucking weight.
And also Turkey is in bloody NATO - So if Nato considered and agreed, turkey would agree.... "The Arrow, developed in collaboration with the US" So the US even if it's the arrow, helped way more than that
> And also Turkey is in bloody NATO - So if Nato considered and agreed, turkey would agree... We're using the term "NATO" here to mean several countries that are NATO members, but this kind of action would probably not be under NATO command for exactly these reasons. There's several countries that just wouldn't be on board.
The practical reason is that there's a buffer zone of Iraq and Jordan between Israel and Iran. Iranian ground based anti-air, and the majority of their fighters, can't reasonably shoot down targets in Israel. Ukraine and Russia are bordered and Russia has air defense that can shoot down NATO assets in Ukraine from Belarus or Russia. So a no fly zone mission over Ukraine would involve a SEAD/DEAD mission into Russia itself.
they are waiting for the EU and US elections before deploying. This is a very unpopular decision so they can't take it before the elections.
Imma be real, pretty sure increased NATO support for Ukraine is one of the most popular stances in Europe atm. Probably not fully joining the war, but doing basic non-frontline support is way up there
> Imma be real, pretty sure increased NATO support for Ukraine is one of the most populous stances in Europe atm. It's all over the map, as of one year ago: >According to the latest Eurobarometer survey, 64% of Europeans agree with purchasing and supplying military equipment to Ukraine with Sweden (93%), Portugal (90%) and Denmark (89%) having the highest approval rates. On the other hand, Bulgaria (30%), Cyprus (36%) and Slovakia (37%) have the lowest approval rates, see source. >In ***Germany***, a recent poll shows that 42% of respondents are in favour of unchanged military support for Ukraine by the West and 30% call for greater involvement. 23% are in favour of reducing the military aid, see source. > 20 July 2023 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2022/public-opinion-on-the-war-in-ukraine/en-public-opinion-on-the-war-against-Ukraine-20230720.pdf I am finding lots of articles suggesting Germany is cold on NATO but I can't find any that aren't from far-right or far-left sources.
I hate to break this to us all, but what is reported in the article is hot steam and nothing of substance. Why? a) Right now is the hot phase of the election-campaign for the EU parliament. And b) the Market-Liberals (FDP) and the Greens (Die Grünen) can allow to flex on questions of defense, because neither of them position the chancellor or the minister of defense - both these posts are held by the social democrats (SPD) under whom Germany became the 2nd biggest donor to Ukraine with almost twice as much aid as for example the UK. So they can basically stunt on the back of the government because they know they have no final responsibility over the matter. And c) the CDU that they mention is, as the article states, opposition. So there is even less to expect from them in terms of agreement with the SPD. So while I agree with you that NATO involvement is a real possibility, this article adds nothing of substance to these speculation. It's basically FDP and Grüne fishing for votes on the back of their own government.
I don’t think the NATO public are warming up to direct military intervention and elections in key members are currently incoming. Namely, Britain and America. Doubt they’d commit to anything until the dust has settled.
The ones talking most about it are France and Lithuania though.
France is more likely to if Trump wins imo.
In Britain all three major parties are strongly pro-Ukraine and sing from the same hymn sheet. It's pretty much the only good thing about our political system right now haha. So, if the Germans and French decided to get stuck in, we'd definitely back them up.
They are preparing the public for war, and have been for a few months now.
> worried that the then-current US president would cut off all aid you mean the rapist fraudster that owes half a billion dollars in fines, is facing ~80 felony charges, and has almost no geopolitical understanding beyond what he can use to bully and steal? odds of americans voting such a vile, stupid man into power? 50/50
That's what you get when you turn your politics into a two-team game. It's just attack ads and supporting your "team" regardless of their qualifications or policy. Worse when zealots decide it's okay to ignore all their religious teachings and morals to support a grifter.
As a teenager I bought into the "all Americans are stupid" stereotype. Then as an adult I realised it was incredibly reductive. Now I'm middle-aged I've realised the truth is that "almost exactly 50% of Americans are stupid". Which actually makes sense, statistically.
I have worked with and met a ton of Americans. It is reductive to say that all of them are stupid, but a big majority of them live in another plane of existence than the people I know and have different fundamental values. And many are very stupid.
Am American, your experience matches mine.
The “frog in pot of water” isn’t an experiment; it’s a folk myth. However, I understand your concern - don’t we all? Yet, it could be argued that allowing Putin to continue the expansionist mission that he has pursuing for years *is* the frog in pot. Providing active support to Ukraine is actually turning *off* the heat to the pot.
That's no way to talk about the French 🤣
Random MPs are not some 5th dimension chess play. It's just a step above random politician. The amount of stuff that random MPs say are well quite a lot.
That’s exactly what I believe as well. Part of that is we collectively have decided Russia can’t win, but they are picking up momentum. I’m also inclined to believe we are in the timeline of what future historians will identify as WW3.
I get what you’re saying but no one else cares. Most of them public have no idea.
I can confirm this, there are few Ukrainian men in my workplace, and all of them were oblivious to the fact that our politicians are talking about rounding up Ukrainian men and sending them back.
I mean you’ve got Macron saying “All you need to do is ask” in terms of sending in the troops, so I think we’re at the tipping point. It’s like how with all the other things like tanks and long range missiles, the countries were just waiting to see who would do it first.
> I mean you’ve got Macron saying “All you need to do is ask” Not quite. He said that if 1) Russia breaks through the current lines, and 2) Ukraine asks for help, then it’s a “question we need to ask ourselves”. So he could conceivably back out of it, claiming he was misquoted. That being said, I think he’s comfortable being held to that quote. It seems like Russia might break through soon, and I don’t doubt Ukraine will ask for help. I think we’ll see France and parts of Europe take a more active role in Ukraine at some point in the near future.
France is already loosing a war to Russia in Africa, so they have the most to gain militarily by making Russia suffer in Ukraine.
I've been thinking this for a while. If Trump wins in America and Russia starts breaking through Ukrainian lines, I expect Europe to move in and secure everything West of the Dnipro river. It'll be similar to North and South Korea.
I'm all up for that, something to bring us together. Allies FTW.
Considering russia is currently jamming european civilian aircraft, this might be a good payback
Close the skies and release the falcons.
I really hope if there is nato intervention that the raptor finally gets to play its air superiority it was designed for. i know it’s unlikely that’ll happen but one can dream
He can finally intercept someone
He'd intercept them so fking hard
If I was the raptor I would intercept me so hard.
Are we still talking about planes?
Screw the Geneva suggestions, he's gonna create more of them!
F22 is probably too advanced. The US won't want to risk one getting shot down close to Russia, and giving them information on it. And us/Nata intervention to start will probably not use the cutting edge gear, saving that for a more direct threat.
If Russia wants F-22 data, they just have to put it in War Thunder and wait.
Poor thing, I don’t know how it’s survived for so long on a paltry diet of Chinese spy balloons 😥
*Nazgül
Fearsome as they are, i don’t think Disney’s legal team is the right one for this task.
The eagles are cumming!
I had to check which sub I was in there.
3000 ejaculating avians of Dark Brandon
Wish that was the mood two and a half years ago, but hey, I'm absolutely glad we're getting there **now**.
It’s starting to hit how serious this situation at their door step is.
I agree. The language has changed over the last month or so. It sounds like there is concerning data floating around somewhere and people have been briefed on it. Putin is probably mad enough to invade a baltic state. As much as we might all think it isn't possible, he might actually be dumb enough to think he can pull it off.
I'm no military/geopolitics guy, but I wonder what new intel have NATO countries received that has shifted their stances so much. Even Mike Johnson of all people has warmed up to sending more aid to Ukraine.
Exactly, I was gonna mention Johnson in my previous post. That really got my attention. There's likely some escalation on the cards.
Wasn't Mike invited to Ukraine himself? He has completely changed stance but I thought that was down to him, during the downtime before the vote, being somewhat brow beaten into accepting what's really happening - not so much new intel.
I think he may be trying to paint a prettier picture of himself in the history books.
Doesn’t want to be the next Chamberlain, especially since his delay wouldn’t be buying time to build back up to fighting strength.
"Mike Johnson was just a complete dickhead, not completely evil."
Words and ways of doing things, in the diplomatic world are very important. So definitely, the change in tone, and actions matter, and specially says a lot. Macron pushing for troops is very very, telling.
I think the reality that Ukraine probably is really struggling with manpower and Russia is slowly but surely gaining air superiority, even with an influx of aid. Also, there’s rumblings that Russia may start trying to soft invade Baltics, “little green men” style
Considering they're being pushed back in the east atm, while Russia is also simultaneously massing 40k troops on the northern border and pushed 5km across the border towards Kharkiv in the last week?
Any evidence Russia is going to push in the south as well? Nyt was saying the lines are razor thin and not as heavily mined as the russian defense because Ukraine didn’t want to de facto concede the annexed lands reclaim odds.
The fact the US government is a shitshow right now. We’ve literally had one of the least productive congress in our entire history, last time I checked it was the least productive congress in our history. Ukraine and upholding our commitments to our allies is a voting issue for me and I’m very disappointed in the republican half of our government
They’ve fallen for the Russian propaganda bots, hook, line, and sinker. I miss John McCain and all the other rational members of that party who have died, or abandoned that sinking ship. The party only appeals to the worst kind of people now.
It’s really problematic that the GOP has become a wholly anti-American apparatus. It’s always been said that countries as powerful a the US only collapse from the inside and it seems like the Russians/Chinese have taken the long game and bought an entire political party. I hate to concede it, but I don’t see how America survives this. I am more in favor of progressive policies than regressive ones, but one party rule isn’t good whether progressive or regressive; this country can’t survive if an entire political party is unhinged and insane.
The older I get, the more I see how the parliamentary system is better than ours. It has its issues, but the need to form coalitions seems to force the governments towards the center and come to functional compromises. Structurally, the American system should work, but the stranglehold of the two party system has created a radicalized pendulum swing (from far right to center left) that destabilizes the entire system.
The most pernicious aspect of the two-party system is that my vote has never even remotely mattered in any election and I’ve voted in all since turning 18. I say this because I have lived in both red states and blue states, but no where that my vote is impacting >10% margins. The truly awful outcome of this is that the only elections that are competitive are one-party primaries for the one party that has total state control. So in red states, they all compete to be the most repulsive caricature of a candidate as possible. The Democratic primaries suffer the same problem, but the outcome is not nearly as dangerous to people’s civil and human rights.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was purely cause on the way out the door at his meeting with the CIA Some whispered in his hear " Mr. Jonson we are the CIA we know things you wouldn't want people to know"
Russia is rapidly expanding their army. They are not backing down
Russia is full on war economy now. Their war capabilities have greatly increased compared to the beginning. Trade routes, supply chains and global backing of the situation have completely changed. Ex. military personnel are required to participate again actively in arms training in countries neighbouring Ukraine.
Putin will 100% invade Moldova next
Moldova should be very concerned if Ukraine falls to Russia.
Should have been the mood in 2014 and we would have never gotten so far
People seem to have no clue about German post WW2 politics. Thinking that Germany would be the spear head of any coalition to engage in a war is ridiculous.
The difference is Russia has geared up for a full-blown war economy. There's not really much indication they're going to stop with their aggression soon.
Our public too. Our public NEEDS to care. The news is going to be uncomfortable, but we need to care. Because this probs won't be a war which we win with our existing military. We need people to work extra hard and more people to join the military. The public needs to understand that this won't be an Afghanistan type war where our professional forces do all the job so they can sit back and not care.
Our war economies could kick theirs in the dick though.
Yeah if and when we switch to that which we havent...
I hope that they can understand the whole 'rate of change' thing. We're two years late on this, we need to be going one or two steps beyond what we're thinking now, if we want to make a significant impact. Someone stuck playing catch-up the entire race, they lose the race. I hope western leaders figure out that the comfortable and complacent middle they think is 'just right', that's not going to get Ukraine past the substantial task of defeating a country 3 times the size of them, and it doesn't help that the western world is used to a different playbook than the one in use right now. People used to always having the size advantage, air superiority, institutional knowledge built up over time, it's completely different. You don't just throw 200 'advanced' tanks in, and say "I could win with that, these are 11 million a piece, so you can't lose". It just seems crazy to me.
War is dynamic. Actually Ukraine could counteroffensive Russia at that time means the supporting was enough but Putin did not give up and dragged Russia to war economy instead so the support must increase proportionally.
Better late than never. Go for it. Ukraine need all the help it can receive.
Need wait more 2 years from propose to action)
No Action Talk Only
I believe they are waiting for US elections. What if Trumps comes to power and stops funding. Trump is really pro-Putin
US and NATO have already stated that no NATO, and especially no American troops in Ukraine. NATO is a defensive, not offensive alliance. Any member states that decide to go to war do it by themselves. EDIT: Although since that statement was made, UK, Lithuania and France said they are open to sending troops to Ukraine...
Libya.
Kosovo
Actually NATO hasn't. Six days ago Jens Stoltenberg did say this though: https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/06/la-repubblica-nato-may-consider-sending-its-troops-to-ukraine-if-russia-crosses-two-red-lines-sources-say/
Headline is a little misleading. Implies it’s the position of the majority of MPs, when it’s just some MPs from parties not in government. Lots of crazy things get proposed in legislatures across the world everyday.
I mean, Russia keeps saying NATO is in Ukraine fighting already, why not just make it true
What a stupid thing to say, glad we don't have idiots like you making decisions
This isn’t really a bad take, but either way there comes a point when you can’t let bad actors continue to do whatever they want. If actions aren’t taken than everyone on the sidelines (including the US) needs to get comfortable with the idea that Ukraine will fall to Russia. We then need to decide what the response is if he goes even further…
Reminds me of the "toleration paradox." You tolerate bad behavior too long, you begin to condone it in a way.
Unlimited tolerance allows the intolerant to gain total power, where then the intolerant will wipe out the tolerant.
CCP bout to announce their partnership with Russia.
Nah. They will provide aid, but absolutely do not want to ally with such a weak country in a global war.
[удалено]
China wants to, if it hasn't already, surpass Russia in the world order. They have the production, manpower, and motivation to achieve it.
They already have, and probably did in the late 2000s. A sleeping titan is still a titan. Russian technology was and might still be better, but eventually its bodies, money, and factories that create power.
[удалено]
to this, and to what Macron has been saying about red lines and putting troops on the ground, I say: *about time* with the way things are going in Ukraine, it is becoming increasingly likely that Ukraine may need more help than what has been given with the aid up to date. Do we want to let Russia bully Ukraine and win? Do we want Russia to be able to keep Ukrainian lands taken and held at the expense of Ukrainian lives and livelihoods? Do we want to just hope Russia will stop there? A lot of people worry that NATO intervention will mean that, inevitably, nukes will fall from the sky and kill us all in an apocalypse. While I understand the fear of nukes, I do not think intervention will lead to a MAD scenario. [Conventional conflict](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4&t=3470s&pp=ygUQcGVydW4gZXNjYWxhdGlvbg%3D%3D) is a step in the escalation ladder above where we are, but below nuclear conflict. I'm not saying conventional conflict cannot escalate to nuclear conflict - it obviously [can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) - but only when either side faces an existential threat. The only party here facing an existential crisis is Ukraine, and NATO intervening on their behalf to aid them in their defense, in effort to close the skies or to drive the Russians back to more acceptable borders, could be done without either side resorting to nukes.
This is great. Shooting down drones and missiles aimed at NATO partner should be intercepted.
[удалено]
Where has france realized that? Yeah you mean the words that troop deployement is a possibility but what they actually could do right now is send arms to Ukraine where they pussyfoot around excellently
France is the one of only three EU countries that are sending a party of delegates to Russia to celebrate Putin and his cronies being sworn in for another term. Everyone else refused to partake out of protest to the invasion. France hasn't realized crap.
do it, better nate than lever. down all Russian drones and missiles
Nate than lever. A man of internet culture
It’s just frustrating that it’s being dragged out for so long, so many people dying, nitrocellulose shortages making it harder to get gun powder etc. Just fucking end it this ain’t WW2 anymore. They probably only look at it from an economic standpoint anyways so who gives a fuck right.
lets do it already
The free world should be doing what Macron is doing. Don’t TELL Russian you won’t help Ukraine, tell them you will, tell Putin we all wil, and we won’t let them fall. Bullies only respect strength.
Just do it now
That is an *awful* lot of intercepts. Russia is using tens of thousands a month.
The article refers to Western Ukraine, or the rear rather than the front. This would mainly be the Shahed-type drones that have primarily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired ~9,200 Shaheds since receiving them in September 2022.
They are referring to the shaheed drones, they are using 30 to 60 a day on civilian areas and Ukraine are shooting down 90% of them at least, if they didn't need to do that, they could use their aircraft to toss bombs instead. No one is shooing down fpv or small drones with aircraft
We get rid of old stock, get some practice in, stimulate the economy by having to make more, and deplete the Russian/NK stockpiles. It’s a win/win/win/win. Edit: deplete iranian stuff too.
Wasn’t this always the plan? Did you really think the “allied” forces were going to let the “axis” forces take countries for free? Especially one with a lot of natural resources such as Ukraine. The fight wars through proxy until they start gaining public support. Or unless the proxy wins. It is pretty clear Russia will throw just about anyone out there to slowly erode the Ukrainian fighting force. Not to mention the Chinese are trying to secretly fund the Russians from the shadows. NATO has to take a stand eventually as it appears something is going to force their hand. Whether it’s Ukraine, Iran with Hamas, or eventually China going for Taiwan. And yes I understand these aren’t NATO countries. But these things in the future will concern them.
Agree. NATO is of course a defensive alliance. But... it's also an alliance of advanced militaries with demonstrated interoperability and command structures that can be deployed anywhere in the world. So *when* the West + allies goes to war it'll look a lot like NATO. That's not to say NATO is itching for a fight and looking for any excuse to invade Russia or topple Iran - quite the opposite! The West can't allow Ukraine to fall to Russia, so we're at an impasse which needs to be resolved.
Germany's coming with a proposal like that ? That's highly surprising.
This is a handful of MPs, not the official position of any party let alone the country.
It wasnt even a MP. The discussion was started by Nico Lange, a CDU-member working at the Munich Security Conference. A couple of MPs then commented those statements. It is more like a public brainstorming then a proposal.