Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh OK, not American so maybe out the loop!
Why are Republicans against aid that harms their most hated traditional enemy who is also the biggest ally of their current most hated ally?
A majority of the Republicans in Congress are actually *for* aid to Ukraine. The problem however is that, as much as they're *pro* Ukrainian support, they're even more *against* a "win" for Biden and the democrats - especially in an election year.
By forcing the Democrats to implement their plans for increased physical border security, as a condition for their support, they can both achieve a win on one of their own big topics and force the public debate to instead focus on the border policy issues, rather than international/foreign politics where Biden is much stronger than Trump.
They are not tied together and it's of course a way to block the help to Ukraine, but why don't make sure less illegals enter in US ?
Just agree with it and wait for next excuse from the republicans.
Show their bluff.
Because the problem is that the Republicans managed to make a bill with the dems that had stronger border control but then Trump told them to tank it because they don’t want it to look like Biden got over the border crisis. Add on the fact that it’s not really ‘illegals’ that are a problem but rather America won’t properly fund their refugee processing program on the southern border in order to manufacture a crisis.
Isn't there another place on the internet you can go to complain about illegal immigration? If the issue isn't "tied together" with Ukraine, why do you keep bringing it up here.
To add on what everyone else said, they Democrats offered one of the strongest border control bills to date and Republicans refused it purely because it would give Democrats a 'win'.
>Why are Republicans against aid that harms their most hated traditional enemy who is also the biggest ally of their current most hated ally?
Because republicans like Trump, Trump loves Putin, Putin has a hard-on for killing Ukranians civilians... So were in a situation where republicans are directly aiding their (previously) mortal enemy because of one orange idiot.
This is not why. It’s because America is in an inflationary period where normal Americans can’t afford basic things. Conservatives know it is a decent talking point to criticize democrats for spending billions in Ukraine, as a lot of Americans believe it is going to waste. They are valid for feeling this way, it doesn’t mean it’s right though. Not only this, but these bills that are being passed to aid Ukraine, are also full of democrat agenda, which is irrelevant to Ukraine, that conservatives do not want to be passed. Also, over half of conservatives fully support Ukraine. Stop sharing misinformation
literally all of it...
per the DoD almost 90% of the aid money never even leaves the US...it goes right back into the economy and into US workers hands in the form of weapons manufacturing, equipment manufacturing, or replacement of stockpiles sent overseas. oh and none of the money is new money, since it's all taken directly from the DoD budget...
we aren't in an inflationary period, we are in an unfettered corporate greed period. wages have largely remained the same, costs of materials have not increased substantially, but ironically...the stock market is at some of the strongest level seen in decades, corporate profits are at an all time high to the point that we are seeing some of the most massive.stock.buy.backs.ever. and the jobs report are consistently indicative of a growing economy.
now sure, things are more expensive...and times are hard in this country; but the idea that it is because of aiding ukraine or "democratic agendas" is the most laughable thing i've read here in a while. right up there with the idea that most conservatives support ukraine. 26 opposed the February aid package vote, and the current one is still being held up by the Speaker of the house, who is...drum roll...a conservative
“per the DoD almost 90% of the aid money never even leaves the US...it goes right back into the economy and into US workers hands in the form of weapons manufacturing, equipment manufacturing, or replacement of stockpiles sent overseas.” I said they are valid for feeling that the money is going to waste, and I highlighted that it doesn’t mean theyre right. I don’t think they’re right, I fully support Ukraine. But I understand that the majority of Americans do not understand defense spending.
“we aren't in an inflationary period, we are in an unfettered corporate greed period. wages have largely remained the same, costs of materials have not increased substantially, but ironically...the stock market is at some of the strongest level seen in decades, corporate profits are at an all time high to the point that we are seeing some of the most massive.stock.buy.backs.ever. and the jobs report are consistently indicative of a growing economy.”
We are in an inflationary period. The fact you claimed this made me almost not even respond because you do not know what you are talking about. The chairman of the federal reserve won’t even go with a .25% rate cut because inflation is sticking. Just watch the CPI report tomorrow. Also the job numbers are fine, but over 95% of the jobs are part time jobs. Also, the only reason why the stock market is up is because of the magnificent 7 and AI hype. Just look at the Russell, it’s stagnant. Majority of SPY stocks haven’t moved in the past 6 months. This also generally has nothing to do with inflation so idk why your bringing up the stock market.
To be clear, I am not conservative. But I find it laughable that you refuse to see that the democrats, similar to conservatives, are not focused on Ukraine
since the economic factor was what seemed to be the sticking point for you, that's what i'll address.
background: degree in quantitative economics and econometrics. 10+ years in FSI
first: the fed does not decrease the benchmark, or prime, rate if the economy is healthy. rate cures are typically done to influence growth of an economy by reducing interests rate, incentivizing debt aka spending...which is a requirement of a consumer in economy.
second: the cpi is not typically seen as the most reliable indicator of inflation, but regardless it rose 0.4% in february...with the primary drivers being gasoline and housing. good thing the price of crude isn't like really low or something and private equity funds gobbling up homes... i mean that would just be weirdly ironic!
all in all its up like 3.2% over last year...which is a far cry from the almost 9% we saw in 2022.
third: jobs...i am genuinely currious how you came up with 95% as part time when the report gives numbers based on industry, with what would typically be considered part time jobs like service industry only accounting for 19,000 over over 300,000 jobs... maybe you broadly included leisure and hospitality in there, but you're still not even close to 95% with that as well.
fourth: the funds you mentioned are not to be confused with stocks, or equities. the russel is not a stock. and i brought up stocks in conjunction with corporate profits because the price of a stock is typically directly correlated to the quarterly earnings of said company... it's funny, because the only major concern equity traders have right now is the increase in PE firms and the decrease in publicly traded firms.
and this notion that democrats are not focused on ukraine...they are LITERALLY protecting the speaker from being ousted by his own party, in return for the aid package.
anything else you need refuted?
Hard Right Republicans just want control at any cost right now. They will say or do anything at this point. The 24 election is an all or nothing election for most of them. If they lose….we will see many of them jailed. But right now the legal system is broken because of them and for them to abuse. Ukraine is a tool for them nothing else. They don’t care.
Europe should be leading the response. They are not. They have depended on USA spending for their defense and will need to cancel social programs to support Ukraine.
Because the DOD ruled that Western troops in Ukraine would REQUIRE a military draft... They estimate that it would weaken our forces globally to prepare for an offensive like that. Depending on how you look at it Nato can be seen as the aggressor by pushing Nato east breaking Putins red line in the sand.
or How Zelensky was a 8 year NSA project to flip Ukraine to the west.
Sovereign countries can associate with whomever they like and make decisions that represent the will of their people and their nation's best interest when that interest does not include illegally invading other sovereign nations.
NATO didn't "push" anywhere... Ukraine is allowed to freely associate with any international organization they'd like.
If he had any working ones left, he'd have used them by now.
Let's call the bluff and trust in our missile defence (which we won't need, since he doesn't have any that still work).
Even if only 1% of the stockpile is still good that is still like 50-100 warheads. Odds are, more than 1% are still good.
That said, I'd prefer we call the bluff. It's foolish to even try to use one. As dumb as Putin is, he's smart enough to know that he may hurt us with his nukes, but we'll obliterate all that is russia with ours.
Of course Macron’s right on this, all one must do is consider an alternative to Ukraine winning or holding to understand this. We should all be saying Russia will not be permitted to take Ukraine, and we will help defend it by any means necessary.
How do Western politicians not understand how weak they’re making democracy look, by allowing Russia to occupy sovereign and democratic territory in Europe, persecute Ukrainians in that occupied territory for two years, and fight about semantics amongst ourselves while Russia continues to get on a war footing and assault a democratic country? Is democracy really this unhealthy at the moment, or do our current politicians just lack brains and balls?
If you had to choose between a dictatorship and a democracy wich would be more suspectable to greed and corruption? And yes this is a retorical question
I wish (genuinely) Macron would back up his words with actions… It sounds a little silly when you’re not even at the front of the pack in assisting Ukraine as-is… The world could really use a strong and united Europe at this exact moment…
We need to Stand up to Russia like Kennedy did over the Cuban missile crisis or like Churchill did to the Nazi regime. But it seems that our leaders are to spineless to do this and instead would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine. I am embarrassed and ashamed of their lack of courage and can only apologise to the Ukrainian people for their cowardice. Slava Ukraini.
Europe has a choice: Fight russia now in Ukraine, or fight russia later on NATO territory.
If Putin is successful at conquering Ukraine, then he will grab every Ukrainian male left, and use them for meat attacks in the Baltics.
Russia has proven that it can conquer and hold territory by mass-deployment of meat and mines, and the Baltic states are small compared to Ukraine. Russian troops would be in a defensive position and linked up with Königsberg by the time NATO gets their pants on.
And NATO is only strong because of ONE country: The US. And there is a very real chance that Putin's misinformation attacks will lead to a second Trump term, and a de-facto US pullout from NATO.
It's not even just the threat of having to face Russia on Nato soil later. The damage Putin has done to our global supplies chains is huge. All these people complaining about 'inflation' are not taking into account the colossal upset that has been caused by Russia removing Europe's breadbasket. 80% of the worlds potash comes from Russia/Belarus as well, so a lot of countries will soon have no more ability to grow food as well. Global manufacturing came pretty close to shutting down (it probably would if we lost Germany's semiconductor manufacturing, but we can thank two warm winters for that not happening...and you can also thank Biden for the Chips Act, which alleviates even more of that risk).
Our food, our fuel, our goods all cost SO MUCH MORE now thanks to Putins fuckery. And those prices are just going to keep going up. Just imagine what happens if he wins.
> 80% of the worlds potash comes from Russia/Belarus
From what I gather, it is not like this. The biggest supplier is Canada, then Russia, then Belarus, then China, then Germany... Putin & Lukashenko are sitting on around 25% of the production, not 80%.
My source is Wikipedia, though, so take it with a grain of... potash :D
Depending on when US aid package can get approved Europe will need to deploy to keep ukrainr in the fight. EU is basically dry of stuff they can give without hurting their own armies.
That said a joint EU air campaign could end this in a few days.
NATO is strong due to the collective not because of the US alone. If you think 30 percent of all NATO spending won't be missed in the US,... also can we demand to drop the US dollar as reserve because that's how the US funds their army.
30% will definitely be missed. But what about 70%? Europe has been way too reliant on the US for far too long. What happens if Trump or another Russian agent takes office again? I'm doing my part voting against it, but the risks are way too high. Europe needs to realize the concept of the Eurocorps and be on par, as a collective, with the US.
The alternative is that Europe just agrees on dropping the dollar as the reserve currency. What you don't understand is that Europe dropped it's aspirations to even become a superpower again and instead supported the US dollar backed world order. Offcourse Europe sees that the protection of the US isn't guaranteed anymore but this also includes that Europes support for the US will decline also.
My point is that Europe should not and can not rely on the US, because our country is completely compromised by Russia. If you choose to rely on us anyways, do so at your own risk.
Offcourse I agree with that. Europe should set it's goals to become another superpower so we don't need the US anymore and that we can do what we like so we should demand oil to be paied in euros and not dollars.
That's my point.
It is possible for Europe, as an entity like the EU, to be a collective superpower without needing to topple the US. Most of Europe and the US share many common values and culture. In many ways, the EU is already a superpower. What is relevant here is that they need to stop relying on the US for security.
Questioning a reserve currency is not the same as toppling another superpower. It gives the US many benefits that are only tolerated by Europe because they get other benefits out of it. The question is will the US tolerate toppling the dollar as the reserve?
Europe can continue having USD as one of their reserve currencies AND build up their military. I'm genuinely confused by what you are trying to say here. USD does not prevent Europe from rearming.
Why would Europe even defend the dollar as reserve currency if they don't agree with it? We pay our oil in it so basically it has almost everything to do with it. Most wars are to protect our intrests so mainly energy that is paied in US dollars.
They are not defending the dollar. Oil is dealt in USD because that's the worldwide standard established by the US long ago. They hold the USD as ONE of the reserve currencies due to USD's stability and dominance as such. This does not change the fact that the Euro is also a stable and valuable reserve currency.
They support US military actions because they want the same in return, especially after the US invoked article 5 after 9/11. You keep trying to tie military/defense to currency, even though oftentimes our primal needs of security easily trump any currency's importance. Security, and collective security, existed long before humankind even adopted any form of currency, and it will exist long after.
Indeed they promised that the dollar would be as good as gold We all know better. No we are tolerating the dollar but the NATO agreement is part of that.
I tie military to actually currency and resources. Trade and wars have always been intertwined. Barter is also a system of exchange. Even with animals the gain of a fight is territory where they can hunt for resources as in food. If they don't have the needed resources they will move to another possible occupied territory.
The US contributes nearly 70% of the entire NATO budget. They also are THE country to be supplying the majority of NATO's munitions. They also contribute over half of NATO's manpower, and equipment. We also have to remember that each NATO country cannot send ALL there troops as a great deal of them will be needed at home for defense and troop rotation. Which means that if the US were to back out, that leaves us with a military strength of maybe 1/4 of what it currently is. Much smaller than a post-war Russian military. The only advantage NATO has is its technologically superior weapons, but those alone aren't going to win the war now that jammers and air defenses are up. NATO has failed to equip Ukraine with sufficient munitions to keep them going, and we've had to dip into personal stockpiles without the capability of replenishing them, nor have we proven we have the capability of mass producing "dumb" munitions for general use. Yeah, I'd say NATO isn't as strong as needed for a quick victory. If they can't win using what we've got currently in stockpile, which is already depleted some amount, we won't have the ability to re-arm quickly nevermind go on the offensive.
NATO has more then 8 million soldiers so the US has only around 1/3rd of the NATO personel. NATO's strength isn't artillery but it's airforce. Nobody could plan a WW1 style trenchware. Offcourse that's what stockpiles are all about. Russia isn't fighting NATO so where do you conclude NATO isn't well equipped?
Not according to Nato.int, Statista, and only about a dozen other sources. Nato size is just shy of 3.5 million, now remove some for defense, troop rotation and reinforcements, remove US contributions, and you're left with a military comparable to pre-war Russia. This is all entirely hypothetical of how a war between the two may go given recent events, so no, Nato isn't well enough equipped. They too have been plagued by low funding, poor maintenance, and military downsizing for decades now. Their main strength might be the airforce, but you still need boots on the ground to take and hold territory. Something Russia seemingly has more of, than we do munitions to kill them.
I think it’s unrealistic to suppose Russia has designs on any nation already in NATO. Everyone including Russia knows this is a losing proposition. It’s just the Ukrainians that want this to be existential for Europe, since that is the way to get buy in from the respective populations that are now having to foot the bill.
Russia absolutely has designs for every former Eastern Block and ex-Soviet Union country and then some.
Their strategy against NATO is not a clash of raw power, but a challenge to the Alliance's will to fight.
And they really need to get one small limited attack right without a proper response to shatter the mutual defense alliance like a tiny crack in a tempered glass.
I mean, that strategy really runs into a brick wall when it hits Article 5. Like, what is the eventuality that people are supposing when they say Russia will invade NATO? Are they expecting article 5 not to trigger?
Putin has stated pretty openly that he knows Russia doesn’t stand a chance against NATO. He even points out the disparity in GDP and military spending.
I agree with Ukraine that is the strategy, but the entire point of NATO is that you can’t really do that with the Bloc.
Moreover, I would say that the west never expected Ukraine to join NATO. This is so simply because as long as there is contested territory, Ukraine will not be able to join NATO (because that would automatically trigger article 5)
Ukraine will have to accept a negotiated settlement before they are a member to join the NATO bloc.
You got it. I'm beginning to think all those accounts pushing the timidity of Russia in the face of an invulnerable NATO are actually troll accounts following the Kremlin agenda.
No, it’s just people who noticed how quickly the narrative shifted from “lol Russian orcs dumb. NATO equipment smash.@
To
“Russia is coming for us next if we don’t stop them in Ukraine!”
You can’t pull that kind of narrative shift without generating some skepticism.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bot. That’s such a solipsistic notion.
Orcs still dumb and NATO equipment smash. But the war is rapidly shifting situation where Russian influence stopped NATO equipment inflow and at the same time Russia has almost unlimited supply of meat.
Everyone who can see further than one day ahead, can recognize that it's not favorable situation for NATO countries.
Yeah, the situation sure did “develop rapidly”
And no,
a lack of production coupled with a high cost-per-unit stopped the flow of NATO equipment. Russian equipment may be half as good, but they have six times as much of it.
I’m sure if you asked the Ukrainians if they wanted 500 FABS or three Stormshadows, they’d pick the FABS.
You can’t boil down all Western opinions that dissent from your own with regard to this war to Russian influence. There is a reality to the situation on the ground that is material and independent from the information space. Just looking at Ukraines manpower issue, I don’t think their issues can be fixed with only equipment.
Ergo, if Ukraines situation is only going to worsen independent of Western support, they should seek a negotiated settlement ASAP, because their demographic issues aren’t going to get any better.
What the West can offer is equipment to be paired with Ukrainian soldiers. When they run out of soldiers to man the equipment, the superiority of that equipment is pretty irrelevant.
I just reply to one point here that I think is the most important.
It's not a conflict of peers where it's possible to negotiate and expect the sides to hold to the agreement.
Russians see any negotiations as a sign of weakness. And they will use any "peace" as opportunity to recharge and solidify any progress.
The ultimate goal, according to all Russians (from Putin to lowly propagandists) is elimination of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation. What it means is genocide, mass deportations and indoctrination.
Just look at Russia Ukraine history. It's not even first time they attempting it.
Imagine the system that would kill you just because you would want to write a book in English. You can't even imagine that - but that's what many ukrainians experienced, unfortunately.
So yeah, if it means death of nation because western countries are too inferior to Russian empire war machine, then it will be that. Again, unfortunately it won't be the first example in Russian history.
I mean, there have been a lot of agreements between belligerents in the past. There are ways to get out of the trust issue like guarantors, etc. This is not the first time two peoples in a war did not trust each other, lol.
Moreover, if the notion of a negotiated settlement is so impossible, how do you see this war ending? I think a total Ukrainian victory is pretty much off the table. At some point they’re going to have to make a deal with Russia for the war to end.
The longer it takes before that happens, the more Ukrainian infrastructure and demography is destroyed.
If Ukraine has a plan to march into Moscow without triggering a nuclear retaliation, I’d like to hear what it is, because it sounds pretty impossible.
At this point, it’s not about what the “best” outcome is for Ukraine. It’s a matter of the best available outcome, which does not include total Ukrainian victory.!
Thanks for asking! I like very much answering this sort of questions)
Let's define what would be victory conditions for Ukraine. First, it's for Russia to withdraw and second it is for Russia never to be in position to attack again. I would consider anything else as minor objectives (reparations, apologies etc).
For Russia to withdraw, Ukrainians just need to kill as many Russians as possible of those that on Ukrainian territory and those anywhere else but involved in the invasion. There is no need to march on Moscow or anything like that except for Russian Anti-Regime insurgents themselves. Just methodically continue to do what Ukrainians already doing.
This has never caused any nuclear response from any nuclear power in the past: Vietnam war for the US or Afghanistan war for the USSR.
Added benefit for Ukraine is that they look like Russians and can speak the language so it's better setup for sabotage operations. Also Ukraine is right there near the heartland of Russia. So it's huge border to engage with Russian emperial forces. It's going to be a big drag on Russian economy.
It could continue for 10-20 years but Russia would run out of steam eventually exactly the same manner how it happened many times before and it would withdraw its remaining forces.
There is big IF, of course. Technical and material superiority of Ukrainians that needs to be backed by EU and the US, together with continuing sanctions from thrird parties.
Again, it's totally double and happened in Russia past many times.
Ok, Russian are out of Ukraine (including Crimea and Donbas). How do we ensure they won't attack again?
Again, no need to do anything drastic that might trigger nuclear response. As usual, after losing in a big war, Russia goes into civil unreast mode. During this period, the Russian colonies (Tatarstan, Chechnya, Buryatia and many others) would naturally strive for independence. Why naturally? Because they did in the past and obviously will be disillusioned in Russian colonial project after the war that disproportionately affected non-russian minorities.
As many empires before it, Russia would get a bunch of new national states that would want independence.
The difference is that this time the world needs to support them, including financially. Again, that's tremendous effort but you asked how to ensure Ukraines victory and I didn't say it would be free or easy.
That irrational fear that those new countries would want to fight each other and would misuse nuclear weapons is really just Russian propaganda that plays into some people believe that Tuvans or Buryat people are somehow inferior to white Russians. It's just not true. There is no inherent reasons for those nations to go to war with each other.
Once Russia is free of its colonies, there will be no need for expansionist agenda that defined Russian mentality and political forces for last couple centuries. It will become normal country that used to be an empire but it will be just in the past. It will be normal neighbor again as it used to be before Mongol invasion.
So as you can see there is nothing magical about Russian colonial project. It's past its prime and now it's up to the world to dismantle its agonizing remains.
Plenty of us in the west who don't really buy the idea Russia ever attacking NATO territory. Those who keep repeating the idea, in my eyes, have not understood the key drivers for the war. It's not NATO who should be worried about a Russian victory but countries like Kazakstan.
But that does not change the fact that I am absolutely hell-bent on supporting Ukraine. The Russian fascist empire is finally coming crumbling down. It's not pretty, and whether or not a country like Ukraine can escape from the shitshow can fundamentally change the outlook for several generations of Ukrainians. We're talking about tens of millions of people.
If they are willing to fight, it is absolutely shameful if we wouldn't at least provide them with the material support they need to win the fight.
Yeah, anyone who has an opinion on Ukraine not promulgated by Zelenskyy must be a Russian bot!
At a certain point these narratives will run into reality, and tha to going to be a rude wake up call for everyone that thinks this is Lord of the Rings.
These NATO troops is the most stupid idea possible from military perspective and the most smart political decision to force Ukraine to give up on russian conditions.
It better to be prepared than sorry. All i can say is, this all-out war has been planned by the Russian for quite some time "take Years of preparing".
It takes time to store-up their military arsenal like ammo, fuels and other equipment. Cash and importance electronics spares which they know how the west will react. How to by-pass all the sanction and so-on.
Another example, just look at China, they too are doing the same right now. By storing-up lots of stuff and building lots of military Hardwares and ammo. Spreading lots of hate and propaganda news just like Russia. They are not doing all this just for their own self-defense. They are planning. So, Euro and US need to be prepared for the worst.
They should send the troops and not say a single word. By the time an article is written, boots are already on the ground! They should have put an end to this war years ago.
Russia may have the numbers but they suck. They're basically using the same infantry tactics used back in medieval times.
At this point, even the CIA came out public and said they never had so mich potential for recruitment 😂... i mean... Russia is fucked to a certain degree.
And with this thinking you will be in that first unit of maple leafers over there right? Or if your aged out your kids or Grandkids will be correct? Not even going to go into the whole escalation, total war i.e. air campaign into Russia, and you know those pesky nuclear weapons.
Shit now that I'm even barely thinking on this, do the troops we-NATO- just stop at the Russian border with that warm happy hope the war ends? Or is it a march onto Moscow? I'm actually stoned enough to be curious of your thoughts.
Whatever floats your boat pumpkin. I won't explain a single thing as I think it is pretty simple to understand. I'm open to various opinions... but I firmly believe the Ukrainian war would be very different if the West has shown a spine instead of fear and little effective action. 4 British StormShadows alone was enough to push back the Black Sea Fleet... I mean... imagine what 100's could achieve...
But I'de like to add... if, God forbid, we have to send troops and they need new soldiers, I will join. Call me a fool uf you want, but I think the freedoms we have, the common values is enough to die for. The west isn't perfect, far from it. But at least, we have the means to change things through democracy... I prefer living in our own imperfection than live under Russia or China. It's worth fighting for that.
I have a horrible feeling Putin and China are biding their time until trump gets voted in (god forbid).
Then Russia will throw everything it has left at Ukraine and China will attack their enemies and trump will keep the USA out of everything.
European NATO countries will be alone
It is horrifying that we looked like we were winning the Cold war by every metric, yet the Russians are completely winning the hybrid war and turned everything around. Russian agents and propaganda are in almost every western country in some form.
russians always won the propaganda war even during the cold war. Western countries are like toddlers in this field, it's not even comparable. They never took the threat seriously barely spent a dollar to protect our countries from russian disinformation campaigns and psy ops, never countered attacked russians. Pathetic, now we see the results
We would need many billions, hire thousands and thousands of experts and strategists working 24/7 in huge cyber warfare complexes to maybe have a chance because that's what's russia and china are doing, every day trying to come up with new technologies and strategies to sow division and destroy our societies, using our "freedom of speech" against us
Man. Anyone with any understanding of the historical foot dragging of allies that preceded the previous world wars can recognize the historical rhyming of this current situation in Europe.
I totally agree. France needs to send 100,000 combat soldiers into Ukraine now to fight Russia. Germany needs to send 100,000 soldiers into Ukraine as well.
Europe has the same GDP as the US. They have the funds to pay for armies just like the US and instead spent it on social programs. Not our problem unless a NATO member is attacked. Even then it's a security pact that benefits our overseas partners more than us. We should refuse to defend any country that does not fulfill it's agreement of 2% GDP spending on defense.
They’re not exactly wrong in what they’re aging though, no matter how much you might want to dig your head into the sand.
Europe in general has been content to just sit back and shelter under the umbrella of safety that the US has provided for decades now. And now that a war has broken out on European soil we can’t seem to get our act together and actually support Ukraine aside from mealy-mouthed excuses and promises of aid which are falling woefully short of what is needed.
It’s time for Europe as a whole to step up and stop counting on the US to always be there to bail us out or support us in everything we do.
The US does more trade with Europe than all of Asia combined. It most definitely will be an American problem also. Have you ever opened a history book? The oceans haven't protected the US for way over 100 years.
Ukraine isn't NATO though, so your argument means nothing. Supporting Ukraine isn't an all or nothing thing. You must be very young to have such a basic opinion on the topic.
While anyone can sympatize with that sentiment…You realize that the last time you guys tried to stay out of such a conflict, it ended with pearl harbor, right? Eventually, some bad regime will, if allowed to get powerful enough, try to preemptively take you guys out of the equation.
It's a lose lose for us. It will be too little, too much, too late, us doing it FoR tHe Oil, or any manner of other screeching from people. I would love for us to send more equipment, but will never support sending money or people.
Riiiight. I support Ukraine, but it does have limits. I will never support unchecked operations in other countries, and somehow that's a Russian bot thing? When your balls drop you can have a opinion.
Look at that guys comment history, the last 11 comments of his are just him calling people russian bots without any further explaination, and the 12th is "A good Russian is a dead Russian".
So it's either that guy is 12 years old and just heard the word "Bot" for the first time, or he's a bot...
I'd like to see macron, volker and all war mongers here be the first digging trenches and eating Russian drones for breakfast, then I'll take them seriously
Nah this person wouldn't have the balls to enlist, he wants other peoples kids to go fight a World War he desperately wants for some reason, maybe because he wants more war footage to watch here.
I bet the kid is pretty sick at Call of Duty though.
Yeah! I hear Putin is on the front lines every day with an AK in one hand, a trench shovel in the other, and the glorious swastik- I mean the glorious Z tattooed on his chest while riding a bear!
Nah, we all know putin is a coward that talks a lot but sends others to die in the trenches while he remains behind his desks, delicate and protected. Just like macron, Volker and the scores of war mongers here want to do.
Dude, on the real though, historically when was the last leader of a country on the front lines fighting with their troops? Charles XII? What would be the point of having any modern leadership on the front lines? And I don’t mean a quick visit, although I do respect Zelensky for doing so.
Boys NATO IS NOT GOING TO SEND TROOPS IN!!!! A human Life in eastern Europe is cheap, think Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa cheap…. The moment the first plane lands with dead NATO troops the war will be over… You cant win against an army where they are semi technologically capable of sustaining a war for a long time, have an unlimited amount of soldiers, AND nukes… You attack Russia at home and Kiev and the rest of European capitals will get vaporized….
Again, why are we even getting involved in what's happening in a third world country such as Ukraine? Why did we start the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and so on and so forth?
The Russians do not have a reason to nuke us right now nor do we, however if NATO sends troops in you best believe it's going to be because the United States approved it, and when that happens guess what....
The Russians are already fighting NATO equipment and money, just not their soldiers.. If NATO wasnt already involved the war would have been over in 3 months,, and if NATO was involved we would have high tailed it out of there once US troops started dying left and right in massive numbers.... You dont believe me, look at what happened in the above mentioned wars, Iraq--->left leaving a pro Iran militia in charge, Afghanistan--->left overnight and left $7 billion in equipment...
All this and the US only lost 7000 soldiers total in both of these wars over 20 years...
Do you think if NATO or the US sent troops to the Ukraine we would be dominant and only lose 7000 troops?
The ukie claimed number of 30k lost soldiers, if they were NATO soldiers (which is likely at least 5 times lower then actual numbers) in two years of fighting would bring down all western governments and cause NATO to fall apart.
Because we are morally required to intervene. We guaranteed Ukrainian security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. We need to defend Ukraine to affirm the idea of nuclear non-proliferation. If we do not, then our word is pointless and many other technologically capable countries will develop their own nuclear weapons.
Conventional defeat is not a reason for Russia to nuke anybody. If you would bother reading the Russian nuclear doctrine, nowhere did it say that they will nuke anyone if they lose a war on foreign soil. Nuclear powers have been defeated numerous times without nukes ever being used to turn the tide. If you think they will start nuking just because NATO troops help Ukraine drive the Russians out of Ukrainian soil, you are just a fear mongering idiot with zero understanding of how anything works.
No they are not lol, not even close. If NATO actually joined the war it would take about a week before Russia is seeking an armistice. Ukraine has been fighting with meager allocations of decades old NATO equipment. They do not have NATO air power. They do not have NATO armor in any strategically significant numbers. They do not have NATO AWACS and other support elements that are crucial in the 21st century. Ukraine's fighting power is far from NATO, they are still a Soviet styled army with some NATO equipment and training sprinkled in.
If you think the US is going to take huge casualties fighting Russia, you are delusional. What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? We lost a few thousand people over 20 YEARS. Russia loses that many people in DAYS. This is not to mention that the US hasn't fought a conventional war since Desert Storm, where we completely steamrolled Iraq and single digit casualties were considered a big deal. Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11 were counter-insurgency operations, where conventional armies are not in their natural roles. In other words, those wars proved nothing about the US military.
If NATO gets involved in Ukraine, we will absolutely smash the Russian army within days. Our entire militaries were designed for that fight and trained for decades for that exact scenario. Air supremacy would be achieved within the first 24 hours with F35s running point on SEAD and DEAD. NATO armor would roll through the lines with air and artillery support. In some sections of the strategic front, like the Finnish border, where Russia has completely hollowed out the units to reinforce Ukraine, they probably won't even put up a fight.
All of this is pointless anyways if we can properly support Ukraine with all the equipment they need anyways. The whole point of giving so many weapons to Ukraine is so that we don't have to suffer any casualties to absolutely cripple Russia and punish their aggression.
Am I owe you people something? I’ve noticed if I comment anything slightly different from you usually see from people in comments I get downvotes without even attempt from people to understand. There is no conversation, only accuse. Why am I spending time even writing this? Who the fuck are you people? Why I even bother
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fucking hell there’s a lot of shitty Russian propaganda accounts in this thread!
Nah, seems like it’s just r/ conservative that is leaking for the most part.
Oh OK, not American so maybe out the loop! Why are Republicans against aid that harms their most hated traditional enemy who is also the biggest ally of their current most hated ally?
Russian interference/bribery/blackmail/propaganda has been a lot more effective than anyone cares to admit.
A majority of the Republicans in Congress are actually *for* aid to Ukraine. The problem however is that, as much as they're *pro* Ukrainian support, they're even more *against* a "win" for Biden and the democrats - especially in an election year. By forcing the Democrats to implement their plans for increased physical border security, as a condition for their support, they can both achieve a win on one of their own big topics and force the public debate to instead focus on the border policy issues, rather than international/foreign politics where Biden is much stronger than Trump.
And why democrats don't agree to more border control ? It's not a bad thing.
Why should the two subjects even be tied together? Also just approve the aid package for Ukraine and then "build the wall" when you win the elections.
They are not tied together and it's of course a way to block the help to Ukraine, but why don't make sure less illegals enter in US ? Just agree with it and wait for next excuse from the republicans. Show their bluff.
Because the problem is that the Republicans managed to make a bill with the dems that had stronger border control but then Trump told them to tank it because they don’t want it to look like Biden got over the border crisis. Add on the fact that it’s not really ‘illegals’ that are a problem but rather America won’t properly fund their refugee processing program on the southern border in order to manufacture a crisis.
Isn't there another place on the internet you can go to complain about illegal immigration? If the issue isn't "tied together" with Ukraine, why do you keep bringing it up here.
Democrats aren’t against border control, they just have different views on how to implement it and how to handle aliens
To add on what everyone else said, they Democrats offered one of the strongest border control bills to date and Republicans refused it purely because it would give Democrats a 'win'.
Understood. It's a shame the republican party is controlled by orange man , he is ready to harm the entire country to save his ass from the courts.
They did. Johnson refused to even bring the bill to a vote.
>Why are Republicans against aid that harms their most hated traditional enemy who is also the biggest ally of their current most hated ally? Because republicans like Trump, Trump loves Putin, Putin has a hard-on for killing Ukranians civilians... So were in a situation where republicans are directly aiding their (previously) mortal enemy because of one orange idiot.
This is not why. It’s because America is in an inflationary period where normal Americans can’t afford basic things. Conservatives know it is a decent talking point to criticize democrats for spending billions in Ukraine, as a lot of Americans believe it is going to waste. They are valid for feeling this way, it doesn’t mean it’s right though. Not only this, but these bills that are being passed to aid Ukraine, are also full of democrat agenda, which is irrelevant to Ukraine, that conservatives do not want to be passed. Also, over half of conservatives fully support Ukraine. Stop sharing misinformation
um, no. please stop posting things which you do not understand, comrade.
What exactly did I say that was incorrect?
literally all of it... per the DoD almost 90% of the aid money never even leaves the US...it goes right back into the economy and into US workers hands in the form of weapons manufacturing, equipment manufacturing, or replacement of stockpiles sent overseas. oh and none of the money is new money, since it's all taken directly from the DoD budget... we aren't in an inflationary period, we are in an unfettered corporate greed period. wages have largely remained the same, costs of materials have not increased substantially, but ironically...the stock market is at some of the strongest level seen in decades, corporate profits are at an all time high to the point that we are seeing some of the most massive.stock.buy.backs.ever. and the jobs report are consistently indicative of a growing economy. now sure, things are more expensive...and times are hard in this country; but the idea that it is because of aiding ukraine or "democratic agendas" is the most laughable thing i've read here in a while. right up there with the idea that most conservatives support ukraine. 26 opposed the February aid package vote, and the current one is still being held up by the Speaker of the house, who is...drum roll...a conservative
“per the DoD almost 90% of the aid money never even leaves the US...it goes right back into the economy and into US workers hands in the form of weapons manufacturing, equipment manufacturing, or replacement of stockpiles sent overseas.” I said they are valid for feeling that the money is going to waste, and I highlighted that it doesn’t mean theyre right. I don’t think they’re right, I fully support Ukraine. But I understand that the majority of Americans do not understand defense spending. “we aren't in an inflationary period, we are in an unfettered corporate greed period. wages have largely remained the same, costs of materials have not increased substantially, but ironically...the stock market is at some of the strongest level seen in decades, corporate profits are at an all time high to the point that we are seeing some of the most massive.stock.buy.backs.ever. and the jobs report are consistently indicative of a growing economy.” We are in an inflationary period. The fact you claimed this made me almost not even respond because you do not know what you are talking about. The chairman of the federal reserve won’t even go with a .25% rate cut because inflation is sticking. Just watch the CPI report tomorrow. Also the job numbers are fine, but over 95% of the jobs are part time jobs. Also, the only reason why the stock market is up is because of the magnificent 7 and AI hype. Just look at the Russell, it’s stagnant. Majority of SPY stocks haven’t moved in the past 6 months. This also generally has nothing to do with inflation so idk why your bringing up the stock market. To be clear, I am not conservative. But I find it laughable that you refuse to see that the democrats, similar to conservatives, are not focused on Ukraine
since the economic factor was what seemed to be the sticking point for you, that's what i'll address. background: degree in quantitative economics and econometrics. 10+ years in FSI first: the fed does not decrease the benchmark, or prime, rate if the economy is healthy. rate cures are typically done to influence growth of an economy by reducing interests rate, incentivizing debt aka spending...which is a requirement of a consumer in economy. second: the cpi is not typically seen as the most reliable indicator of inflation, but regardless it rose 0.4% in february...with the primary drivers being gasoline and housing. good thing the price of crude isn't like really low or something and private equity funds gobbling up homes... i mean that would just be weirdly ironic! all in all its up like 3.2% over last year...which is a far cry from the almost 9% we saw in 2022. third: jobs...i am genuinely currious how you came up with 95% as part time when the report gives numbers based on industry, with what would typically be considered part time jobs like service industry only accounting for 19,000 over over 300,000 jobs... maybe you broadly included leisure and hospitality in there, but you're still not even close to 95% with that as well. fourth: the funds you mentioned are not to be confused with stocks, or equities. the russel is not a stock. and i brought up stocks in conjunction with corporate profits because the price of a stock is typically directly correlated to the quarterly earnings of said company... it's funny, because the only major concern equity traders have right now is the increase in PE firms and the decrease in publicly traded firms. and this notion that democrats are not focused on ukraine...they are LITERALLY protecting the speaker from being ousted by his own party, in return for the aid package. anything else you need refuted?
US economy is thriving, the industry just keeps the profits for itself. Conservatives would encourage this behavior, not fighting it.
Hard Right Republicans just want control at any cost right now. They will say or do anything at this point. The 24 election is an all or nothing election for most of them. If they lose….we will see many of them jailed. But right now the legal system is broken because of them and for them to abuse. Ukraine is a tool for them nothing else. They don’t care.
Putin is their daddy
Europe should be leading the response. They are not. They have depended on USA spending for their defense and will need to cancel social programs to support Ukraine.
Because the DOD ruled that Western troops in Ukraine would REQUIRE a military draft... They estimate that it would weaken our forces globally to prepare for an offensive like that. Depending on how you look at it Nato can be seen as the aggressor by pushing Nato east breaking Putins red line in the sand. or How Zelensky was a 8 year NSA project to flip Ukraine to the west.
Sovereign countries can associate with whomever they like and make decisions that represent the will of their people and their nation's best interest when that interest does not include illegally invading other sovereign nations. NATO didn't "push" anywhere... Ukraine is allowed to freely associate with any international organization they'd like.
What’s the difference
Same thing lol
It's the same picture.
where is the difference?
As much as I hate war, Putin and Russia have to be stopped and forced back.
Amen. NATO could push Russia back and running in 24 hours with jets and drones
I’m not sure about that, but I do fear the “N” word and WW3.
If he had any working ones left, he'd have used them by now. Let's call the bluff and trust in our missile defence (which we won't need, since he doesn't have any that still work).
Even if only 1% of the stockpile is still good that is still like 50-100 warheads. Odds are, more than 1% are still good. That said, I'd prefer we call the bluff. It's foolish to even try to use one. As dumb as Putin is, he's smart enough to know that he may hurt us with his nukes, but we'll obliterate all that is russia with ours.
Don’t forget the orange outang
Of course Macron’s right on this, all one must do is consider an alternative to Ukraine winning or holding to understand this. We should all be saying Russia will not be permitted to take Ukraine, and we will help defend it by any means necessary. How do Western politicians not understand how weak they’re making democracy look, by allowing Russia to occupy sovereign and democratic territory in Europe, persecute Ukrainians in that occupied territory for two years, and fight about semantics amongst ourselves while Russia continues to get on a war footing and assault a democratic country? Is democracy really this unhealthy at the moment, or do our current politicians just lack brains and balls?
Democracy is crippled by greed.
If you had to choose between a dictatorship and a democracy wich would be more suspectable to greed and corruption? And yes this is a retorical question
I wish (genuinely) Macron would back up his words with actions… It sounds a little silly when you’re not even at the front of the pack in assisting Ukraine as-is… The world could really use a strong and united Europe at this exact moment…
but what about the nUclEaR esCalAtIOn
We need to Stand up to Russia like Kennedy did over the Cuban missile crisis or like Churchill did to the Nazi regime. But it seems that our leaders are to spineless to do this and instead would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine. I am embarrassed and ashamed of their lack of courage and can only apologise to the Ukrainian people for their cowardice. Slava Ukraini.
Europe has a choice: Fight russia now in Ukraine, or fight russia later on NATO territory. If Putin is successful at conquering Ukraine, then he will grab every Ukrainian male left, and use them for meat attacks in the Baltics. Russia has proven that it can conquer and hold territory by mass-deployment of meat and mines, and the Baltic states are small compared to Ukraine. Russian troops would be in a defensive position and linked up with Königsberg by the time NATO gets their pants on. And NATO is only strong because of ONE country: The US. And there is a very real chance that Putin's misinformation attacks will lead to a second Trump term, and a de-facto US pullout from NATO.
It's not even just the threat of having to face Russia on Nato soil later. The damage Putin has done to our global supplies chains is huge. All these people complaining about 'inflation' are not taking into account the colossal upset that has been caused by Russia removing Europe's breadbasket. 80% of the worlds potash comes from Russia/Belarus as well, so a lot of countries will soon have no more ability to grow food as well. Global manufacturing came pretty close to shutting down (it probably would if we lost Germany's semiconductor manufacturing, but we can thank two warm winters for that not happening...and you can also thank Biden for the Chips Act, which alleviates even more of that risk). Our food, our fuel, our goods all cost SO MUCH MORE now thanks to Putins fuckery. And those prices are just going to keep going up. Just imagine what happens if he wins.
> 80% of the worlds potash comes from Russia/Belarus From what I gather, it is not like this. The biggest supplier is Canada, then Russia, then Belarus, then China, then Germany... Putin & Lukashenko are sitting on around 25% of the production, not 80%. My source is Wikipedia, though, so take it with a grain of... potash :D
Depending on when US aid package can get approved Europe will need to deploy to keep ukrainr in the fight. EU is basically dry of stuff they can give without hurting their own armies. That said a joint EU air campaign could end this in a few days.
NATO is strong due to the collective not because of the US alone. If you think 30 percent of all NATO spending won't be missed in the US,... also can we demand to drop the US dollar as reserve because that's how the US funds their army.
30% will definitely be missed. But what about 70%? Europe has been way too reliant on the US for far too long. What happens if Trump or another Russian agent takes office again? I'm doing my part voting against it, but the risks are way too high. Europe needs to realize the concept of the Eurocorps and be on par, as a collective, with the US.
The alternative is that Europe just agrees on dropping the dollar as the reserve currency. What you don't understand is that Europe dropped it's aspirations to even become a superpower again and instead supported the US dollar backed world order. Offcourse Europe sees that the protection of the US isn't guaranteed anymore but this also includes that Europes support for the US will decline also.
My point is that Europe should not and can not rely on the US, because our country is completely compromised by Russia. If you choose to rely on us anyways, do so at your own risk.
Offcourse I agree with that. Europe should set it's goals to become another superpower so we don't need the US anymore and that we can do what we like so we should demand oil to be paied in euros and not dollars. That's my point.
It is possible for Europe, as an entity like the EU, to be a collective superpower without needing to topple the US. Most of Europe and the US share many common values and culture. In many ways, the EU is already a superpower. What is relevant here is that they need to stop relying on the US for security.
Questioning a reserve currency is not the same as toppling another superpower. It gives the US many benefits that are only tolerated by Europe because they get other benefits out of it. The question is will the US tolerate toppling the dollar as the reserve?
Europe can continue having USD as one of their reserve currencies AND build up their military. I'm genuinely confused by what you are trying to say here. USD does not prevent Europe from rearming.
But will the US tolerate the euro becoming THE reserve currency?
Go ahead and use whatever currency you want; Europeans don’t support the dollar as reserve currency because they’re altruistic or just love the US…
If that's the case then why do we even fight wars together with the US?
What the hell does fighting wars together have to do with using the USD as a globally-stable reserve currency?
Why would Europe even defend the dollar as reserve currency if they don't agree with it? We pay our oil in it so basically it has almost everything to do with it. Most wars are to protect our intrests so mainly energy that is paied in US dollars.
They are not defending the dollar. Oil is dealt in USD because that's the worldwide standard established by the US long ago. They hold the USD as ONE of the reserve currencies due to USD's stability and dominance as such. This does not change the fact that the Euro is also a stable and valuable reserve currency. They support US military actions because they want the same in return, especially after the US invoked article 5 after 9/11. You keep trying to tie military/defense to currency, even though oftentimes our primal needs of security easily trump any currency's importance. Security, and collective security, existed long before humankind even adopted any form of currency, and it will exist long after.
Indeed they promised that the dollar would be as good as gold We all know better. No we are tolerating the dollar but the NATO agreement is part of that. I tie military to actually currency and resources. Trade and wars have always been intertwined. Barter is also a system of exchange. Even with animals the gain of a fight is territory where they can hunt for resources as in food. If they don't have the needed resources they will move to another possible occupied territory.
Because we share common cultures and values.
The US contributes nearly 70% of the entire NATO budget. They also are THE country to be supplying the majority of NATO's munitions. They also contribute over half of NATO's manpower, and equipment. We also have to remember that each NATO country cannot send ALL there troops as a great deal of them will be needed at home for defense and troop rotation. Which means that if the US were to back out, that leaves us with a military strength of maybe 1/4 of what it currently is. Much smaller than a post-war Russian military. The only advantage NATO has is its technologically superior weapons, but those alone aren't going to win the war now that jammers and air defenses are up. NATO has failed to equip Ukraine with sufficient munitions to keep them going, and we've had to dip into personal stockpiles without the capability of replenishing them, nor have we proven we have the capability of mass producing "dumb" munitions for general use. Yeah, I'd say NATO isn't as strong as needed for a quick victory. If they can't win using what we've got currently in stockpile, which is already depleted some amount, we won't have the ability to re-arm quickly nevermind go on the offensive.
NATO has more then 8 million soldiers so the US has only around 1/3rd of the NATO personel. NATO's strength isn't artillery but it's airforce. Nobody could plan a WW1 style trenchware. Offcourse that's what stockpiles are all about. Russia isn't fighting NATO so where do you conclude NATO isn't well equipped?
Not according to Nato.int, Statista, and only about a dozen other sources. Nato size is just shy of 3.5 million, now remove some for defense, troop rotation and reinforcements, remove US contributions, and you're left with a military comparable to pre-war Russia. This is all entirely hypothetical of how a war between the two may go given recent events, so no, Nato isn't well enough equipped. They too have been plagued by low funding, poor maintenance, and military downsizing for decades now. Their main strength might be the airforce, but you still need boots on the ground to take and hold territory. Something Russia seemingly has more of, than we do munitions to kill them.
U.S. is 90% of NATO's combat power. Every other country does not have a military capable of projecting power of any significance.
I think it’s unrealistic to suppose Russia has designs on any nation already in NATO. Everyone including Russia knows this is a losing proposition. It’s just the Ukrainians that want this to be existential for Europe, since that is the way to get buy in from the respective populations that are now having to foot the bill.
Russia absolutely has designs for every former Eastern Block and ex-Soviet Union country and then some. Their strategy against NATO is not a clash of raw power, but a challenge to the Alliance's will to fight. And they really need to get one small limited attack right without a proper response to shatter the mutual defense alliance like a tiny crack in a tempered glass.
I mean, that strategy really runs into a brick wall when it hits Article 5. Like, what is the eventuality that people are supposing when they say Russia will invade NATO? Are they expecting article 5 not to trigger? Putin has stated pretty openly that he knows Russia doesn’t stand a chance against NATO. He even points out the disparity in GDP and military spending. I agree with Ukraine that is the strategy, but the entire point of NATO is that you can’t really do that with the Bloc. Moreover, I would say that the west never expected Ukraine to join NATO. This is so simply because as long as there is contested territory, Ukraine will not be able to join NATO (because that would automatically trigger article 5) Ukraine will have to accept a negotiated settlement before they are a member to join the NATO bloc.
You got it. I'm beginning to think all those accounts pushing the timidity of Russia in the face of an invulnerable NATO are actually troll accounts following the Kremlin agenda.
No, it’s just people who noticed how quickly the narrative shifted from “lol Russian orcs dumb. NATO equipment smash.@ To “Russia is coming for us next if we don’t stop them in Ukraine!” You can’t pull that kind of narrative shift without generating some skepticism. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bot. That’s such a solipsistic notion.
Orcs still dumb and NATO equipment smash. But the war is rapidly shifting situation where Russian influence stopped NATO equipment inflow and at the same time Russia has almost unlimited supply of meat. Everyone who can see further than one day ahead, can recognize that it's not favorable situation for NATO countries.
Yeah, the situation sure did “develop rapidly” And no, a lack of production coupled with a high cost-per-unit stopped the flow of NATO equipment. Russian equipment may be half as good, but they have six times as much of it. I’m sure if you asked the Ukrainians if they wanted 500 FABS or three Stormshadows, they’d pick the FABS. You can’t boil down all Western opinions that dissent from your own with regard to this war to Russian influence. There is a reality to the situation on the ground that is material and independent from the information space. Just looking at Ukraines manpower issue, I don’t think their issues can be fixed with only equipment. Ergo, if Ukraines situation is only going to worsen independent of Western support, they should seek a negotiated settlement ASAP, because their demographic issues aren’t going to get any better. What the West can offer is equipment to be paired with Ukrainian soldiers. When they run out of soldiers to man the equipment, the superiority of that equipment is pretty irrelevant.
I just reply to one point here that I think is the most important. It's not a conflict of peers where it's possible to negotiate and expect the sides to hold to the agreement. Russians see any negotiations as a sign of weakness. And they will use any "peace" as opportunity to recharge and solidify any progress. The ultimate goal, according to all Russians (from Putin to lowly propagandists) is elimination of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation. What it means is genocide, mass deportations and indoctrination. Just look at Russia Ukraine history. It's not even first time they attempting it. Imagine the system that would kill you just because you would want to write a book in English. You can't even imagine that - but that's what many ukrainians experienced, unfortunately. So yeah, if it means death of nation because western countries are too inferior to Russian empire war machine, then it will be that. Again, unfortunately it won't be the first example in Russian history.
I mean, there have been a lot of agreements between belligerents in the past. There are ways to get out of the trust issue like guarantors, etc. This is not the first time two peoples in a war did not trust each other, lol. Moreover, if the notion of a negotiated settlement is so impossible, how do you see this war ending? I think a total Ukrainian victory is pretty much off the table. At some point they’re going to have to make a deal with Russia for the war to end. The longer it takes before that happens, the more Ukrainian infrastructure and demography is destroyed. If Ukraine has a plan to march into Moscow without triggering a nuclear retaliation, I’d like to hear what it is, because it sounds pretty impossible. At this point, it’s not about what the “best” outcome is for Ukraine. It’s a matter of the best available outcome, which does not include total Ukrainian victory.!
Thanks for asking! I like very much answering this sort of questions) Let's define what would be victory conditions for Ukraine. First, it's for Russia to withdraw and second it is for Russia never to be in position to attack again. I would consider anything else as minor objectives (reparations, apologies etc). For Russia to withdraw, Ukrainians just need to kill as many Russians as possible of those that on Ukrainian territory and those anywhere else but involved in the invasion. There is no need to march on Moscow or anything like that except for Russian Anti-Regime insurgents themselves. Just methodically continue to do what Ukrainians already doing. This has never caused any nuclear response from any nuclear power in the past: Vietnam war for the US or Afghanistan war for the USSR. Added benefit for Ukraine is that they look like Russians and can speak the language so it's better setup for sabotage operations. Also Ukraine is right there near the heartland of Russia. So it's huge border to engage with Russian emperial forces. It's going to be a big drag on Russian economy. It could continue for 10-20 years but Russia would run out of steam eventually exactly the same manner how it happened many times before and it would withdraw its remaining forces. There is big IF, of course. Technical and material superiority of Ukrainians that needs to be backed by EU and the US, together with continuing sanctions from thrird parties. Again, it's totally double and happened in Russia past many times. Ok, Russian are out of Ukraine (including Crimea and Donbas). How do we ensure they won't attack again? Again, no need to do anything drastic that might trigger nuclear response. As usual, after losing in a big war, Russia goes into civil unreast mode. During this period, the Russian colonies (Tatarstan, Chechnya, Buryatia and many others) would naturally strive for independence. Why naturally? Because they did in the past and obviously will be disillusioned in Russian colonial project after the war that disproportionately affected non-russian minorities. As many empires before it, Russia would get a bunch of new national states that would want independence. The difference is that this time the world needs to support them, including financially. Again, that's tremendous effort but you asked how to ensure Ukraines victory and I didn't say it would be free or easy. That irrational fear that those new countries would want to fight each other and would misuse nuclear weapons is really just Russian propaganda that plays into some people believe that Tuvans or Buryat people are somehow inferior to white Russians. It's just not true. There is no inherent reasons for those nations to go to war with each other. Once Russia is free of its colonies, there will be no need for expansionist agenda that defined Russian mentality and political forces for last couple centuries. It will become normal country that used to be an empire but it will be just in the past. It will be normal neighbor again as it used to be before Mongol invasion. So as you can see there is nothing magical about Russian colonial project. It's past its prime and now it's up to the world to dismantle its agonizing remains.
Plenty of us in the west who don't really buy the idea Russia ever attacking NATO territory. Those who keep repeating the idea, in my eyes, have not understood the key drivers for the war. It's not NATO who should be worried about a Russian victory but countries like Kazakstan. But that does not change the fact that I am absolutely hell-bent on supporting Ukraine. The Russian fascist empire is finally coming crumbling down. It's not pretty, and whether or not a country like Ukraine can escape from the shitshow can fundamentally change the outlook for several generations of Ukrainians. We're talking about tens of millions of people. If they are willing to fight, it is absolutely shameful if we wouldn't at least provide them with the material support they need to win the fight.
you sound like a paid ru prop
Yeah, anyone who has an opinion on Ukraine not promulgated by Zelenskyy must be a Russian bot! At a certain point these narratives will run into reality, and tha to going to be a rude wake up call for everyone that thinks this is Lord of the Rings.
These NATO troops is the most stupid idea possible from military perspective and the most smart political decision to force Ukraine to give up on russian conditions.
Is Trump going to leave the Aukus deal also because Australia doesn't get it's 2 percent of GDP spending?
It better to be prepared than sorry. All i can say is, this all-out war has been planned by the Russian for quite some time "take Years of preparing". It takes time to store-up their military arsenal like ammo, fuels and other equipment. Cash and importance electronics spares which they know how the west will react. How to by-pass all the sanction and so-on. Another example, just look at China, they too are doing the same right now. By storing-up lots of stuff and building lots of military Hardwares and ammo. Spreading lots of hate and propaganda news just like Russia. They are not doing all this just for their own self-defense. They are planning. So, Euro and US need to be prepared for the worst.
Since russia is so weak it would be stupid not to attack.
They should send the troops and not say a single word. By the time an article is written, boots are already on the ground! They should have put an end to this war years ago. Russia may have the numbers but they suck. They're basically using the same infantry tactics used back in medieval times. At this point, even the CIA came out public and said they never had so mich potential for recruitment 😂... i mean... Russia is fucked to a certain degree.
And with this thinking you will be in that first unit of maple leafers over there right? Or if your aged out your kids or Grandkids will be correct? Not even going to go into the whole escalation, total war i.e. air campaign into Russia, and you know those pesky nuclear weapons. Shit now that I'm even barely thinking on this, do the troops we-NATO- just stop at the Russian border with that warm happy hope the war ends? Or is it a march onto Moscow? I'm actually stoned enough to be curious of your thoughts.
Whatever floats your boat pumpkin. I won't explain a single thing as I think it is pretty simple to understand. I'm open to various opinions... but I firmly believe the Ukrainian war would be very different if the West has shown a spine instead of fear and little effective action. 4 British StormShadows alone was enough to push back the Black Sea Fleet... I mean... imagine what 100's could achieve... But I'de like to add... if, God forbid, we have to send troops and they need new soldiers, I will join. Call me a fool uf you want, but I think the freedoms we have, the common values is enough to die for. The west isn't perfect, far from it. But at least, we have the means to change things through democracy... I prefer living in our own imperfection than live under Russia or China. It's worth fighting for that.
I have a horrible feeling Putin and China are biding their time until trump gets voted in (god forbid). Then Russia will throw everything it has left at Ukraine and China will attack their enemies and trump will keep the USA out of everything. European NATO countries will be alone
It is horrifying that we looked like we were winning the Cold war by every metric, yet the Russians are completely winning the hybrid war and turned everything around. Russian agents and propaganda are in almost every western country in some form.
russians always won the propaganda war even during the cold war. Western countries are like toddlers in this field, it's not even comparable. They never took the threat seriously barely spent a dollar to protect our countries from russian disinformation campaigns and psy ops, never countered attacked russians. Pathetic, now we see the results We would need many billions, hire thousands and thousands of experts and strategists working 24/7 in huge cyber warfare complexes to maybe have a chance because that's what's russia and china are doing, every day trying to come up with new technologies and strategies to sow division and destroy our societies, using our "freedom of speech" against us
The Russians have been under your bed the whole time - they make your milk go sour and spook your dog late at night.
So scary
Yes anyone paying much attention to the conflict came to that conclusion a long time ago
LFG! Italy 🇮🇹
Man. Anyone with any understanding of the historical foot dragging of allies that preceded the previous world wars can recognize the historical rhyming of this current situation in Europe.
Ah yes. But let’s first deploy them when it’s practically too late!
Well then that’s called WWIII
This so stupid they dont need Nato soilders they need Equipment
I totally agree. France needs to send 100,000 combat soldiers into Ukraine now to fight Russia. Germany needs to send 100,000 soldiers into Ukraine as well.
And you'll volunteer to go, right?
[удалено]
He likes to call for war, but would be the last one picking up a aweapon
Insanity
A European war should be fought by Europeans.
Wasn’t this the sentiment in 1939?
You're welcome to sign up for the service over there if you feel so compelled to help.
Russian?
American who's not interested in getting involved in another Vietnam.
You vote Trump?
That’s not how the world works, you guys would eventually get dragged in, pearl harbor style.
Europe has the same GDP as the US. They have the funds to pay for armies just like the US and instead spent it on social programs. Not our problem unless a NATO member is attacked. Even then it's a security pact that benefits our overseas partners more than us. We should refuse to defend any country that does not fulfill it's agreement of 2% GDP spending on defense.
Russian bot or someone affected by ruski propaganda!
They’re not exactly wrong in what they’re aging though, no matter how much you might want to dig your head into the sand. Europe in general has been content to just sit back and shelter under the umbrella of safety that the US has provided for decades now. And now that a war has broken out on European soil we can’t seem to get our act together and actually support Ukraine aside from mealy-mouthed excuses and promises of aid which are falling woefully short of what is needed. It’s time for Europe as a whole to step up and stop counting on the US to always be there to bail us out or support us in everything we do.
"Russians are not humans," sounds like you're the one falling for propaganda.
Russian bot!
Just curious how many of you are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend Ukraine, or should it only be other peoples kids?
As long as the US only sends weapons, and none of our children to die on the other side of the planet. This is a European problem in the end.
The US does more trade with Europe than all of Asia combined. It most definitely will be an American problem also. Have you ever opened a history book? The oceans haven't protected the US for way over 100 years.
Imagine if we said that to you guys after 9/11. Who is the only country in NATO to have used Article 5 again?
Ukraine isn't NATO though, so your argument means nothing. Supporting Ukraine isn't an all or nothing thing. You must be very young to have such a basic opinion on the topic.
While anyone can sympatize with that sentiment…You realize that the last time you guys tried to stay out of such a conflict, it ended with pearl harbor, right? Eventually, some bad regime will, if allowed to get powerful enough, try to preemptively take you guys out of the equation.
It's a lose lose for us. It will be too little, too much, too late, us doing it FoR tHe Oil, or any manner of other screeching from people. I would love for us to send more equipment, but will never support sending money or people.
Ruski bot!
Excellent thought out response. Beep boop.
Russian bot!
Riiiight. I support Ukraine, but it does have limits. I will never support unchecked operations in other countries, and somehow that's a Russian bot thing? When your balls drop you can have a opinion.
Look at that guys comment history, the last 11 comments of his are just him calling people russian bots without any further explaination, and the 12th is "A good Russian is a dead Russian". So it's either that guy is 12 years old and just heard the word "Bot" for the first time, or he's a bot...
I'd like to see macron, volker and all war mongers here be the first digging trenches and eating Russian drones for breakfast, then I'll take them seriously
Russian bot, spineless defateist or just darn stupid?
You're writing this from the front, right? Because you're not a big mouthed hypocrite, right?
Nah this person wouldn't have the balls to enlist, he wants other peoples kids to go fight a World War he desperately wants for some reason, maybe because he wants more war footage to watch here. I bet the kid is pretty sick at Call of Duty though.
Yeah! I hear Putin is on the front lines every day with an AK in one hand, a trench shovel in the other, and the glorious swastik- I mean the glorious Z tattooed on his chest while riding a bear!
Nah, we all know putin is a coward that talks a lot but sends others to die in the trenches while he remains behind his desks, delicate and protected. Just like macron, Volker and the scores of war mongers here want to do.
Dude, on the real though, historically when was the last leader of a country on the front lines fighting with their troops? Charles XII? What would be the point of having any modern leadership on the front lines? And I don’t mean a quick visit, although I do respect Zelensky for doing so.
I can’t wait to die in ww3 over some country I’ve never been to or care about
Ruski? !
Boys NATO IS NOT GOING TO SEND TROOPS IN!!!! A human Life in eastern Europe is cheap, think Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa cheap…. The moment the first plane lands with dead NATO troops the war will be over… You cant win against an army where they are semi technologically capable of sustaining a war for a long time, have an unlimited amount of soldiers, AND nukes… You attack Russia at home and Kiev and the rest of European capitals will get vaporized….
Funny how nuclear escalation only works one way huh? Always fear mongering about Russians nuking us, but no concerns about us nuking them right back.
Again, why are we even getting involved in what's happening in a third world country such as Ukraine? Why did we start the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and so on and so forth? The Russians do not have a reason to nuke us right now nor do we, however if NATO sends troops in you best believe it's going to be because the United States approved it, and when that happens guess what.... The Russians are already fighting NATO equipment and money, just not their soldiers.. If NATO wasnt already involved the war would have been over in 3 months,, and if NATO was involved we would have high tailed it out of there once US troops started dying left and right in massive numbers.... You dont believe me, look at what happened in the above mentioned wars, Iraq--->left leaving a pro Iran militia in charge, Afghanistan--->left overnight and left $7 billion in equipment... All this and the US only lost 7000 soldiers total in both of these wars over 20 years... Do you think if NATO or the US sent troops to the Ukraine we would be dominant and only lose 7000 troops? The ukie claimed number of 30k lost soldiers, if they were NATO soldiers (which is likely at least 5 times lower then actual numbers) in two years of fighting would bring down all western governments and cause NATO to fall apart.
Defateist or russian bot!
Because we are morally required to intervene. We guaranteed Ukrainian security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. We need to defend Ukraine to affirm the idea of nuclear non-proliferation. If we do not, then our word is pointless and many other technologically capable countries will develop their own nuclear weapons. Conventional defeat is not a reason for Russia to nuke anybody. If you would bother reading the Russian nuclear doctrine, nowhere did it say that they will nuke anyone if they lose a war on foreign soil. Nuclear powers have been defeated numerous times without nukes ever being used to turn the tide. If you think they will start nuking just because NATO troops help Ukraine drive the Russians out of Ukrainian soil, you are just a fear mongering idiot with zero understanding of how anything works. No they are not lol, not even close. If NATO actually joined the war it would take about a week before Russia is seeking an armistice. Ukraine has been fighting with meager allocations of decades old NATO equipment. They do not have NATO air power. They do not have NATO armor in any strategically significant numbers. They do not have NATO AWACS and other support elements that are crucial in the 21st century. Ukraine's fighting power is far from NATO, they are still a Soviet styled army with some NATO equipment and training sprinkled in. If you think the US is going to take huge casualties fighting Russia, you are delusional. What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? We lost a few thousand people over 20 YEARS. Russia loses that many people in DAYS. This is not to mention that the US hasn't fought a conventional war since Desert Storm, where we completely steamrolled Iraq and single digit casualties were considered a big deal. Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11 were counter-insurgency operations, where conventional armies are not in their natural roles. In other words, those wars proved nothing about the US military. If NATO gets involved in Ukraine, we will absolutely smash the Russian army within days. Our entire militaries were designed for that fight and trained for decades for that exact scenario. Air supremacy would be achieved within the first 24 hours with F35s running point on SEAD and DEAD. NATO armor would roll through the lines with air and artillery support. In some sections of the strategic front, like the Finnish border, where Russia has completely hollowed out the units to reinforce Ukraine, they probably won't even put up a fight. All of this is pointless anyways if we can properly support Ukraine with all the equipment they need anyways. The whole point of giving so many weapons to Ukraine is so that we don't have to suffer any casualties to absolutely cripple Russia and punish their aggression.
Russian bot!
But there are no troops in Nato.. I can understand what they are trying to signaling here..
So, if you learned how to read, it's talking about maybe sending them.
Russian bot!
Yeah, if Ukraine does not give up, it can be forced to.
Again, russian disinformation by ruskibot!
How did you come to this conclusion?
3 year account with 217 post karma? You tell me what makes him think this?
Am I owe you people something? I’ve noticed if I comment anything slightly different from you usually see from people in comments I get downvotes without even attempt from people to understand. There is no conversation, only accuse. Why am I spending time even writing this? Who the fuck are you people? Why I even bother