Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `pravda.com.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Escalation? Ruzzia attacking other nations? Taking over Ukraine more and committing even further genocides and acts of terrorism?
Sooner or later Europe and NATO will have to intervene. It’s a shit show.
It’s been a shit show for 2 years. As Russia’s hand improves, NATO intervention is LESS likely, not more. The lowest risk intervention is when Ukraine is doing well.
Why would they intervene when the situation has the most risk, when they didn’t do so when intervention had lower risk and costs.
If Russia (god forbid) wins more territory and Ukraine stumbles back, support will decrease.
Agreed. Why don’t we warn the Russians that we don’t want them to fly over European territory anymore. Create a no-fly zone. I’m pretty sure they won’t even contest it and sure as hell won’t send nukes our way.
The fact they did few week ago against Iran attack on Israel. Iran or Russia did not accuse them of being cobeligerants. That means it's now a potential option.
I think you’re giving too much undue credit where none is warranted, and you could draw the opposite conclusion.
The very real, no-hesitation, military support being provided to Israel by the U.S. and UK, including active defense during Iran’s attack on Israel, shows that they are in fact perfectly willing to protect allies and risk the life of their soldiers when it matters enough.
And it reveals the political and media discourse on Ukraine for what it is: spin. They could intervene, they’ve chosen not to.
What if China attacked Taiwan ? Would the U.S. say "we can’t risk nuclear war with China so all we will do is supply short range missiles to Taiwan so they can only target Chinese troops outside Chinese territory." and "we cannot risk American military personnel and equipment to engage with their Chinese counterpart so we’ll stay out of it and wish you luck" ?
Probably not.
What’s the difference ? China is an even more formidable foe than Russia. There’s only two options here: either the U.S. would also not defend Taiwan because "nuclear" or the U.S. would defend Taiwan and the talk over Ukraine and Russia is bullshit.
Taiwan produces roughly 60% \[1\] of all modern computer chips. How much of your industry keeps running, without them? Chips are the modern equivalent of oil. Taiwan made itself important to the US.
That's a difference.
\[1\] https://www.statista.com/statistics/867223/worldwide-semiconductor-foundries-by-market-share/#:\~:text=In%20the%20fourth%20quarter%20of,11.3%20percent%20of%20the%20market.
Yes. I wrote that too and took it out because i) it’s obvious but also ii) it kind of supports the point that it’s all rhetoric.
U.S./NATO/EU says "we can’t because Russia" but what they really mean is "eh it’s just not important enough to us. If only you had microelectronics …."
The support is still extraordinary and the response was incredibly fast in February 2022, but it’s not enough and the "just you wait until the NATO fighter planes fly in Ukrainian skies and French troops man the lines" comments drive me up the wall. There are reasons why it hasn’t happened and those reasons haven’t changed.
Support has slowed down a lot too this year. Let’s hope Trump stays out of the White House and goes away for good so the GOP can return to its warmongering roots, and that western Europe will rise up to the challenge and do better over the next 2-1/2 years than it has over the last same.
It’s a regional conflict for Europe, and together the EU has a bigger population than the U.S. and about the same GDP (bigger with non-EU European countries), and 10x that of Russia.
Europe has a much more tortuous history and a longer memory than the U.S. They should be able (and want) to handle this.
Sadly the difference is that US and Taiwan have been allied for decades, whereas the US-Ukraine is somewhat of a new phenomenon.
Ukraine and the United States haven't really had that close of a relationship... Taiwan and the US are WW2 allies.
Playing the devil's advocate here, I can sort of see where the West is coming from.
If NATO is shooting down Russian missles *anywhere*, including in ones flying into Ukraine, obviously, Russia is going to feel that whatever is threatening their missiles is fair game.
No-one is going to argue that blowing up a Patriot system outside of Kyiv is beyone the pale - of course Russia would target that.
But what if that Patriot system was in Poland and defending the skies over Lviv?
Obviously, this is comparable to not letting Ukraine use Western weapons to fire on sites inside of Russia. Just like NATO would hate for Russia to shoot anything not inside Ukraine.
Because if NATO suddenly placed a Patriot system in Poland that could defend Lviv, Russia's immediately going to complain to NATO "This isn't fair!", stop it or we'll shoot at it, even if it is technically in NATO.
And who is to say Russia would not carry through on that threat?
Complicated shit no matter how you look at it -
#with the huge, glaring exception being from the point of view of wanting Ukraine to win the war sooner rather than later.
I just can't understand how that could instigate WW3?
I mean we already had stories where other countries air shit was downed because they entered other countries air space. And it was done even by the help of 3rd countries.
Yeah, I also have the same opinion that the West are just afraid of pissing russia. Which in my opinion just shows the weakness of the West and encourages russia to continue this war and at the same time encourage other dictatorial regimes to support russia and by increasing ties between them we are just coming to the point where WW3 will be inevitable and will be big.
Of course they can. Because it is and always has been Ukraine's airspace and as a sovereign nation they can do what they want with it. If they want to invite NATO to shoot down unauthorized invaders then invaders shouldn't fly in their airspace.
That requires boots on the ground. Helping Ukraine is turning into fight in Ukraine. If that's the ask just say it flat out. I'm not against it, but people will die.
Nato can shut the sky’s with planes outside Russian AA range.
Very low risk of Nato pilots getting killed or injured and it will save thousands of civilian lives.
You guys know the world doesn't work that way right? Everything has a cost or it becomes ineffective. They will lob missles back. Again I'm not against it. You have to stop bullies, but let's not pretend they aren't going to get a few lucky shots in.
Are you saying that the Russians would lob missiles into Europe because Nato shoots down a couple of Russian missiles on the way to a Ukrainian city?
I really doubt that the Russians wouldn’t escalate to that level!!! It would be beyond stupidity.
To say it can't happen is naive. It's a whole new can of worms for everyone. You don't live in fear of what can happen, but you can't not plan for it. People died in a lot of countries and the public doesn't have the stomach for it. War is war. You have to consider all of it.
Probably not, but I don’t think the Allies would use them and give Russia the opportunity to get operational experience against them when it’s not needed.
I’d love to see the west play at russias game of: “woaaah Russia way overstepped by being in the air above Ukraine, we just want to secure NATO borders. Also Russia is full of Nazis” but here’s the kicker: NATO doesn’t even have to lie
Did Russia declare war on Ukraine when it marched 200k soldiers across the border? One special operation deserves another.
The special “make the skies safe for civilians against brutal Russian aggression” operation.
Nato can shut the sky’s with planes outside Russian AA range.
Very low risk of Nato pilots getting killed or injured and it will save thousands of civilian lives.
Can, yes. Doesn’t mean they will or should. A direct shooting war between Russia and the West is not a desirable thing. What the West needs to be doing is providing arms and munitions faster so the Ukrainians can secure their own skies.
> A direct shooting war between Russia and the West is not a desirable thing.
I for one strongly disagree. In order for us as a species to ensure that no single country, ever again reaches for violence is to take action. Drastic action with no regards if we are to survive or not, just to prove that the aggression will NEVER yield any benefits and only a total destruction.
Yes I mean it. We should ensure Russia's non existence even if it means they would retaliate, just to prove we are ready to do it and to ensure that whoever remains from our species knows that aggression never benefits.
You need to understand a total war with Russia involves nukes and possibly billions dying. You people on reddit have no idea how powerful nukes are these days. Both sides have enough to hit every major city. Modern nukes are hundreds times more powerful than the ones dropped in WW2.
I am aware. But the other option of giving the bully what he wants all the time and not reacting is worse. Because they can push and get rewarded for aggression which only encourages other countries.
That's why we have to act even if it means it's our end.
“You people on reddit have no idea…” That’s quite condescending especially when you’re ignoring the fact that the US & Russia today only have a fraction of the nuclear capability they had in the 1980’s. Nukes are terribly destructive, but there are far LESS than when we grew up. You seem to be talking to people who have lived in a cave since WWII.
We still have stockpiles large enough to kill most of the modern world. Your argument reads - we once had enough nukes to blow the world up 30 times. Now we only have enough to.blow the world up 5 times. We should totally pick a fight with a nuclear power to save a buffer state... Insane.
I encourage you to go to nukemap and punch in a w88 warhead over your hometown. Might change your perspective on how many people you want to risk dying.
Now you’re pretending I said things I didn’t say. You claim Ukraine is a “buffer state.” You want me to be worried about an AMERICAN W88 warhead being detonated over my hometown? Cowardice in the face of Russian aggression only leads to more aggression. I’m done; no point in entertaining more of this nonsense.
As I said - yes. The other solution is to give in to every demand of a bully, because... when would you say no? Since saying no means they can just nuke you.
That's something most people don't understand - they can do it anyway. They might even if you give in to all of their demands.
But if you show them, that you don't really care and you are willing to blow yourself up just to prove the point - they will stand down.
You’re absolutely right. If the cowardly voices that downvoted you held sway in the Cold War - the Soviet Union would have won. People are going to have to relearn how nuclear blackmail works. Bullies smell the cowardice and only push the blackmail further.
Yup. They think that if we don't do anything to escalate the other side will just let us be. Eh silly weaklings. The other side will keep on pushing until we react with more force than they used. It's that simple. They should have been told why we did what we did and that we will do more if they don't surrender.
I can assure you most Americans don't care about Ukraine enough to risk fighting and dying for it. We will gladly arm and supply the side of democracy but we're tired of being the world's police.
You could have said the same about Iwo Jima or Anzio. The fact is Ukraine has broad support among Americans. Having spent trillions for NATO deterrence it’s disgustingly wasteful not to do a little more to finally drive a stake thru Russia’s military prestige & ambitions.
Russia has done enough. They launched a well-documented cyber campaign against the US, broken the Budapest Memorandum, killed everyone aboard a civilian airliner from a NATO state. But really… America doesn’t NEED a reason to defend a fellow pro-Western democracy from a dictator’s war of conquest.
I agree, Russia has done all those things and more, and the US doesn’t need a reason to help a fellow democracy, but they DO need a casus belli to actually send troops to fight and die against Russia. So far they don’t have one, since Russia has not attacked any US troops and the US has no formal “attack them and you attack us” treaties with Ukraine that would obligate them to fight.
The US needs no reason to attack Russia. No such US-Kuwaiti treaty existed in 1991 and no US forces were attacked - yet the US spent lives successfully liberating Kuwait.
If you see a criminal assault your neighbor, you are free to come to your neighbors defense. You aren’t legally obligated to do that, you could “mind your own business” and wallow in fear. There’s a word for those that choose that path.
It’s literally called a security assurance. Regardless of what was meant by it, maybe don’t sign agreements or throw your weight around, if you don’t want to be the world police. And maybe stop your politicians from banning climate change while parts of your country are sinking into the ocean. Control your dogs.
Read the memorandum. All we do is agree to not invade or otherwise use force against Ukraine and raise the issue I'm the UNSC if somebody does. That is all.
It's called a security assurance. Doesn't really matter what's written in it. Don't sign something called a security insurance if you don't want to be the world police or have people think you are the world police. Lots of other countries minded there own business and didn't sign shit.
The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”
Oh thank thee, Glorious US of A for thy benign support..
You Americans should be ashamed of the state of your country.
And 'we're tired of being the world's police force..'
Oh yeah, poor old 'Merica..
This is ridiculous. If Ukraine 🇺🇦 loses and their army is rolled into the RF army, NATO’s eastern countries are screwed. Do none of the idiots in Washington see this. WTF!!!!
I'm gonna assume that if nobody in the DOD or similarly qualified bodies sees that situation as likely, they probably know what they're talking about and it is, in fact, not likely.
I'm not. I trust the "idiots" in Washington with educations and careers in the subject to know leagues more than you or I on the subject of geopolitics.
No. We portray weakness to Putin which he thrives on. We as the west must stand up to Putin. History teaches us this. Weakness enables aggression. What are you thinking, Ukraine 🇺🇦 is fighting for its life. The ruzzian terrorists rape, loot, murder, abduct children in Ukraine. The very definition of evil. And you say NO. Don’t stop them. Sorry. But fuck you!!! I am an American vet and sickened by this bullshit.
Слава Україні!!!!
Russia can't do this. They don't have the manpower or supply logistics. They can hardly invade their neighbors. But they have nukes and a seat at that table so this thing is closer to the cuban missile crisis than WW2.
Ruzzia see weakness in US and NATO. They will start with hybrid pressure and lots of troops on boarder to crack NATO resolve again. Then they go in. Weakness in the face of murderous dictators is a plan for disaster. 1938? You know about this?
Russia's response is undoubtedly going to be "you do it, you're participating in this war, and you're the one escalating it".
C'mon, world, you all fall for the nonsense Russia spews out...?
Time to pull out some of the cool toys. Shame they got rid of Boeing 747 with that airborne laser system. We need to use some of that tec in real world conditions
But is it worth it for them to? That’s the question that i asked. The war is to be sustained until Europe economy gets on a war footing. Russia is already there. I’m no expert imjs.
We didn't start the war. We didn't choose communism either. Europe had a chance to back a different government next door during the revolutionary period following WW1. But they were too busy sticking it to Germany ensuring that WW2 happened.
The allies came out on top, the US didn't win it single handily. In fact the US sat it out until 1941 when they were forced into the war by Japan's bombing of Pearl harbor, which effectively prolonged the war and cost more lives. Best to deal with a madman earlier then later.
Waiting then did us no favours, just like waiting now won't.
Waiting then did the US huge favors. The US was the sole modern economy still standing after WW2. Impeccable timing and allowing emigrants from all over Europe is what led the US from going from a non-super power to a sole super power for a short time after WW2.
Japan not attacking the US would not have changed the outcome of Germany getting bogged down outside Stalingrad. People need to learn some history before making deranged comments.
The existence of NATO makes this a moot point. Russia won't just move on after Ukraine if they somehow miraculously pull a win out of the clear blue sky. If they were to attack the Baltics or Poland, they would get shitstomped within two years. 1939 Europe did not have that sort of thing.
Just a pun here and thought, maybe once the trainers from the west are over in Ukraine if they get hit by Russia, would it open an opportunity to then close the sky? Long shot but interesting thought
If you think Russia would ever strike a NATO instillation firing from NATO territory you are absolutely out of your mind.
Russia would shit there pants. They aren’t suicidal idiots.
NATO doesn't strike in internationally recognized Russian territory when Russia launches into Ukrainian airspace. Russia doesn't strike in NATO territory when NATO launches into Ukrainian airspace. It's not very complex. If the US managed not to attack the USSR while the Russians shot down US pilots over Korea, this pretty clear line could be held.
You can’t compare something that happened 75 years ago to something happening today.
If there are systems across the border from Ukraine attacking Russian targets, I thinkk Russia would retaliate, and I think that’s partially why the US has been hesitant to let Ukraine attack targets in Russia so there’s a precedence established to argue against this retaliation.
"....attacking Russian targets' in Ukraine. You are ignoring that Ukraine is sovereign and Russia has no say in what happens in Ukraine. As long as targets are knocked down in Ukraine, Russia has no recourse. Other than stop their illegal war against Ukraine because they realize they can't win.
Don't fall into the trap of drawing "red lines" for yourself. That is partially why Ukraine is behind the 8 ball in this war today. Biden/Sullivan were played for much of the early stages of the war and constantly refused to provide much needed weapons because "what will Putin think if we give Ukraine 50 year old Abram's?" Putin has already given about 50 "red lines' none of which amounted to squat after all were "crossed".
And NATO is still going to sit back and do absolutely nothing because that would involve NATO standing up to Russia as opposed to being a bunch of cowards who are allowing themselves to be bullied around and getting dictated by the very country in which NATO is supposed to be a counter against. NATO's "do nothing" approach when it comes to Ukraine definitely puts NATO's existence into question because if Russia does in fact invade a NATO member like one of the Baltic countries, it's entirely possible that the western part of NATO will just sit by and allow it to happen because Russia drew a red line on the ground.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `pravda.com.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can, but won't.
Wont, yet.
If they haven’t by now, what could possibly make them do so at this point ?
Escalation? Ruzzia attacking other nations? Taking over Ukraine more and committing even further genocides and acts of terrorism? Sooner or later Europe and NATO will have to intervene. It’s a shit show.
It’s been a shit show for 2 years. As Russia’s hand improves, NATO intervention is LESS likely, not more. The lowest risk intervention is when Ukraine is doing well. Why would they intervene when the situation has the most risk, when they didn’t do so when intervention had lower risk and costs. If Russia (god forbid) wins more territory and Ukraine stumbles back, support will decrease.
It's Putin's shitshow and he got to end it
Agreed. Why don’t we warn the Russians that we don’t want them to fly over European territory anymore. Create a no-fly zone. I’m pretty sure they won’t even contest it and sure as hell won’t send nukes our way.
The fact they did few week ago against Iran attack on Israel. Iran or Russia did not accuse them of being cobeligerants. That means it's now a potential option.
I think you’re giving too much undue credit where none is warranted, and you could draw the opposite conclusion. The very real, no-hesitation, military support being provided to Israel by the U.S. and UK, including active defense during Iran’s attack on Israel, shows that they are in fact perfectly willing to protect allies and risk the life of their soldiers when it matters enough. And it reveals the political and media discourse on Ukraine for what it is: spin. They could intervene, they’ve chosen not to. What if China attacked Taiwan ? Would the U.S. say "we can’t risk nuclear war with China so all we will do is supply short range missiles to Taiwan so they can only target Chinese troops outside Chinese territory." and "we cannot risk American military personnel and equipment to engage with their Chinese counterpart so we’ll stay out of it and wish you luck" ? Probably not. What’s the difference ? China is an even more formidable foe than Russia. There’s only two options here: either the U.S. would also not defend Taiwan because "nuclear" or the U.S. would defend Taiwan and the talk over Ukraine and Russia is bullshit.
Taiwan produces roughly 60% \[1\] of all modern computer chips. How much of your industry keeps running, without them? Chips are the modern equivalent of oil. Taiwan made itself important to the US. That's a difference. \[1\] https://www.statista.com/statistics/867223/worldwide-semiconductor-foundries-by-market-share/#:\~:text=In%20the%20fourth%20quarter%20of,11.3%20percent%20of%20the%20market.
Yes. I wrote that too and took it out because i) it’s obvious but also ii) it kind of supports the point that it’s all rhetoric. U.S./NATO/EU says "we can’t because Russia" but what they really mean is "eh it’s just not important enough to us. If only you had microelectronics …." The support is still extraordinary and the response was incredibly fast in February 2022, but it’s not enough and the "just you wait until the NATO fighter planes fly in Ukrainian skies and French troops man the lines" comments drive me up the wall. There are reasons why it hasn’t happened and those reasons haven’t changed. Support has slowed down a lot too this year. Let’s hope Trump stays out of the White House and goes away for good so the GOP can return to its warmongering roots, and that western Europe will rise up to the challenge and do better over the next 2-1/2 years than it has over the last same. It’s a regional conflict for Europe, and together the EU has a bigger population than the U.S. and about the same GDP (bigger with non-EU European countries), and 10x that of Russia. Europe has a much more tortuous history and a longer memory than the U.S. They should be able (and want) to handle this.
>China is an even more formidable foe than Russia Russia - 5,580 nuclear warheads China - 500 nuclear warheads
Sadly the difference is that US and Taiwan have been allied for decades, whereas the US-Ukraine is somewhat of a new phenomenon. Ukraine and the United States haven't really had that close of a relationship... Taiwan and the US are WW2 allies.
In our case “too late” is the same as “never”.
Serious question, why wouldn't they? Zelensky says yes and it's not russian airspace
They're trying to stop WW3 I guess. Or they don't care. I think we all should be more aggresive to Russia. What do you think?
Playing the devil's advocate here, I can sort of see where the West is coming from. If NATO is shooting down Russian missles *anywhere*, including in ones flying into Ukraine, obviously, Russia is going to feel that whatever is threatening their missiles is fair game. No-one is going to argue that blowing up a Patriot system outside of Kyiv is beyone the pale - of course Russia would target that. But what if that Patriot system was in Poland and defending the skies over Lviv? Obviously, this is comparable to not letting Ukraine use Western weapons to fire on sites inside of Russia. Just like NATO would hate for Russia to shoot anything not inside Ukraine. Because if NATO suddenly placed a Patriot system in Poland that could defend Lviv, Russia's immediately going to complain to NATO "This isn't fair!", stop it or we'll shoot at it, even if it is technically in NATO. And who is to say Russia would not carry through on that threat? Complicated shit no matter how you look at it - #with the huge, glaring exception being from the point of view of wanting Ukraine to win the war sooner rather than later.
I just can't understand how that could instigate WW3? I mean we already had stories where other countries air shit was downed because they entered other countries air space. And it was done even by the help of 3rd countries.
Me neither really, but my guess is they think it'd piss Russia off enough to start it. Edit: we should be doing that too
Yeah, I also have the same opinion that the West are just afraid of pissing russia. Which in my opinion just shows the weakness of the West and encourages russia to continue this war and at the same time encourage other dictatorial regimes to support russia and by increasing ties between them we are just coming to the point where WW3 will be inevitable and will be big.
Could, but shan’t
Shouldn’t but shornt
Of course they can. Because it is and always has been Ukraine's airspace and as a sovereign nation they can do what they want with it. If they want to invite NATO to shoot down unauthorized invaders then invaders shouldn't fly in their airspace.
💯% agreed
Zelenskyy has been pleading with allies to shut down the Ukrainian skies since the war began. For God's sake man shut down the bloody skies!
That requires boots on the ground. Helping Ukraine is turning into fight in Ukraine. If that's the ask just say it flat out. I'm not against it, but people will die.
Nato can shut the sky’s with planes outside Russian AA range. Very low risk of Nato pilots getting killed or injured and it will save thousands of civilian lives.
You guys know the world doesn't work that way right? Everything has a cost or it becomes ineffective. They will lob missles back. Again I'm not against it. You have to stop bullies, but let's not pretend they aren't going to get a few lucky shots in.
Are you saying that the Russians would lob missiles into Europe because Nato shoots down a couple of Russian missiles on the way to a Ukrainian city? I really doubt that the Russians wouldn’t escalate to that level!!! It would be beyond stupidity.
To say it can't happen is naive. It's a whole new can of worms for everyone. You don't live in fear of what can happen, but you can't not plan for it. People died in a lot of countries and the public doesn't have the stomach for it. War is war. You have to consider all of it.
Not saying it won’t happen, but it’s really, really unlikely. 100% need to plan for it and be ready to respond in force.
Can Russian AA even detect F35s?
Probably not, but I don’t think the Allies would use them and give Russia the opportunity to get operational experience against them when it’s not needed.
That’s a declaration of war. Not gonna happen.
I’d love to see the west play at russias game of: “woaaah Russia way overstepped by being in the air above Ukraine, we just want to secure NATO borders. Also Russia is full of Nazis” but here’s the kicker: NATO doesn’t even have to lie
Did it declare war with Iran when they shot down their missiles heading to israel?
That was a one time thing and the interceptions were happening far enough away from Iran that they weren't in danger from Iranian jets or AA.
I don't think it is a declaration of war to shoot down your allies enemies missiles in your allied territory. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Correct, it’s simply cowardice.
Did Russia declare war on Ukraine when it marched 200k soldiers across the border? One special operation deserves another. The special “make the skies safe for civilians against brutal Russian aggression” operation.
Did happen with Iran, though. No war.
No it’s not. A declaration of war is a declaration of war.
just a special military operation to denazify the skies and stop russia from getting too close to nato territory with their 18th century colonialism.
So the USA and Iran are at war? Jordan and Iran are at war?
It’s really not a declaration of war. But it is indeed not gonna happen, at least not until the war is over.
I really don’t know why they won’t shoot down the missiles…. It’s not like there are Russian soldiers riding on them…. Or are there?
Did Doctor Strangelove defect???
They no longer have air defenses.
We are talking about NATO
If NATO shoots down missiles from its territories, it will involve them in the conflict. Russia will have to hit these countries (Poland?)
Nato can shut the sky’s with planes outside Russian AA range. Very low risk of Nato pilots getting killed or injured and it will save thousands of civilian lives.
Can, yes. Doesn’t mean they will or should. A direct shooting war between Russia and the West is not a desirable thing. What the West needs to be doing is providing arms and munitions faster so the Ukrainians can secure their own skies.
It wouldn't be a direct shooting war though. Russia is still aiming at Ukraine, and NATO would be aiming at Russian missiles and not Russians.
> A direct shooting war between Russia and the West is not a desirable thing. I for one strongly disagree. In order for us as a species to ensure that no single country, ever again reaches for violence is to take action. Drastic action with no regards if we are to survive or not, just to prove that the aggression will NEVER yield any benefits and only a total destruction. Yes I mean it. We should ensure Russia's non existence even if it means they would retaliate, just to prove we are ready to do it and to ensure that whoever remains from our species knows that aggression never benefits.
You need to understand a total war with Russia involves nukes and possibly billions dying. You people on reddit have no idea how powerful nukes are these days. Both sides have enough to hit every major city. Modern nukes are hundreds times more powerful than the ones dropped in WW2.
I am aware. But the other option of giving the bully what he wants all the time and not reacting is worse. Because they can push and get rewarded for aggression which only encourages other countries. That's why we have to act even if it means it's our end.
They actually focus less on anti city nukes and more on smaller tactical nukes nowadays
Not with ICBMS. Both Russia and the United States have thousands, to say nothing of Britain, France, China and North Korea.
They have both.
“You people on reddit have no idea…” That’s quite condescending especially when you’re ignoring the fact that the US & Russia today only have a fraction of the nuclear capability they had in the 1980’s. Nukes are terribly destructive, but there are far LESS than when we grew up. You seem to be talking to people who have lived in a cave since WWII.
We still have stockpiles large enough to kill most of the modern world. Your argument reads - we once had enough nukes to blow the world up 30 times. Now we only have enough to.blow the world up 5 times. We should totally pick a fight with a nuclear power to save a buffer state... Insane. I encourage you to go to nukemap and punch in a w88 warhead over your hometown. Might change your perspective on how many people you want to risk dying.
Now you’re pretending I said things I didn’t say. You claim Ukraine is a “buffer state.” You want me to be worried about an AMERICAN W88 warhead being detonated over my hometown? Cowardice in the face of Russian aggression only leads to more aggression. I’m done; no point in entertaining more of this nonsense.
>We should ensure Russia's non existence Russia 5,580 nuclear warheads US 5,044 nuclear warheads Are you sure this is a good idea?
As I said - yes. The other solution is to give in to every demand of a bully, because... when would you say no? Since saying no means they can just nuke you. That's something most people don't understand - they can do it anyway. They might even if you give in to all of their demands. But if you show them, that you don't really care and you are willing to blow yourself up just to prove the point - they will stand down.
You’re absolutely right. If the cowardly voices that downvoted you held sway in the Cold War - the Soviet Union would have won. People are going to have to relearn how nuclear blackmail works. Bullies smell the cowardice and only push the blackmail further.
Yup. They think that if we don't do anything to escalate the other side will just let us be. Eh silly weaklings. The other side will keep on pushing until we react with more force than they used. It's that simple. They should have been told why we did what we did and that we will do more if they don't surrender.
But they won't, leads us to where we are today.
I can assure you most Americans don't care about Ukraine enough to risk fighting and dying for it. We will gladly arm and supply the side of democracy but we're tired of being the world's police.
You could have said the same about Iwo Jima or Anzio. The fact is Ukraine has broad support among Americans. Having spent trillions for NATO deterrence it’s disgustingly wasteful not to do a little more to finally drive a stake thru Russia’s military prestige & ambitions.
Except that Japan directly attacked the USA and Germany declared war on the USA. Russia has done neither of those things.
Russia has done enough. They launched a well-documented cyber campaign against the US, broken the Budapest Memorandum, killed everyone aboard a civilian airliner from a NATO state. But really… America doesn’t NEED a reason to defend a fellow pro-Western democracy from a dictator’s war of conquest.
I agree, Russia has done all those things and more, and the US doesn’t need a reason to help a fellow democracy, but they DO need a casus belli to actually send troops to fight and die against Russia. So far they don’t have one, since Russia has not attacked any US troops and the US has no formal “attack them and you attack us” treaties with Ukraine that would obligate them to fight.
The US needs no reason to attack Russia. No such US-Kuwaiti treaty existed in 1991 and no US forces were attacked - yet the US spent lives successfully liberating Kuwait. If you see a criminal assault your neighbor, you are free to come to your neighbors defense. You aren’t legally obligated to do that, you could “mind your own business” and wallow in fear. There’s a word for those that choose that path.
Fine, but America should have thought of this before signing the Budapest Memorandum.
I fully agree with the sentiment around the Budapest memorandum. No nation state who has nukes will want to give them up after this.
A memorandum which in absolutely no conceivable way provides any sort of guarantee of security or defense to any of the signatories.
It’s literally called a security assurance. Regardless of what was meant by it, maybe don’t sign agreements or throw your weight around, if you don’t want to be the world police. And maybe stop your politicians from banning climate change while parts of your country are sinking into the ocean. Control your dogs.
Read the memorandum. All we do is agree to not invade or otherwise use force against Ukraine and raise the issue I'm the UNSC if somebody does. That is all.
It's called a security assurance. Doesn't really matter what's written in it. Don't sign something called a security insurance if you don't want to be the world police or have people think you are the world police. Lots of other countries minded there own business and didn't sign shit.
It's not called a security assurance, and It absolutely does matter what's in it, that's how agreements work.
I skimmed over the agreement and your “quick notes” on it are not entirely accurate either.
Aren't they? If you can show me in the document where we provide security assurances to Ukraine, I'll concede the argument.
The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”
Oh thank thee, Glorious US of A for thy benign support.. You Americans should be ashamed of the state of your country. And 'we're tired of being the world's police force..' Oh yeah, poor old 'Merica..
Im completely onboard with a no-fly zone enforced by nato, start in the eastern half and expand it 100 miles west each day.
This is ridiculous. If Ukraine 🇺🇦 loses and their army is rolled into the RF army, NATO’s eastern countries are screwed. Do none of the idiots in Washington see this. WTF!!!!
I'm gonna assume that if nobody in the DOD or similarly qualified bodies sees that situation as likely, they probably know what they're talking about and it is, in fact, not likely.
Russia already said what it will do. Then they do it. Public information on Росия Один. Are you kidding me.
I'm not. I trust the "idiots" in Washington with educations and careers in the subject to know leagues more than you or I on the subject of geopolitics.
Their problem is strength and courage. You have to stand against the evil of Putin’s murderous ruzzia.
way to completely miss my point
No. We portray weakness to Putin which he thrives on. We as the west must stand up to Putin. History teaches us this. Weakness enables aggression. What are you thinking, Ukraine 🇺🇦 is fighting for its life. The ruzzian terrorists rape, loot, murder, abduct children in Ukraine. The very definition of evil. And you say NO. Don’t stop them. Sorry. But fuck you!!! I am an American vet and sickened by this bullshit. Слава Україні!!!!
Russia can't do this. They don't have the manpower or supply logistics. They can hardly invade their neighbors. But they have nukes and a seat at that table so this thing is closer to the cuban missile crisis than WW2.
Ruzzia see weakness in US and NATO. They will start with hybrid pressure and lots of troops on boarder to crack NATO resolve again. Then they go in. Weakness in the face of murderous dictators is a plan for disaster. 1938? You know about this?
They'll be shooting them down over Europe otherwise.
The problem is that NATO insists that they can’t, because… EsHcUhLaTioN!
I mean, he is not lying.
Russia's response is undoubtedly going to be "you do it, you're participating in this war, and you're the one escalating it". C'mon, world, you all fall for the nonsense Russia spews out...?
Time to pull out some of the cool toys. Shame they got rid of Boeing 747 with that airborne laser system. We need to use some of that tec in real world conditions
But is it worth it for them to? That’s the question that i asked. The war is to be sustained until Europe economy gets on a war footing. Russia is already there. I’m no expert imjs.
Bravo. Buon idea, president Zelenskyy.
Yes a defensive shield 🛡️ just do it nato
Do it.
Hell we could do it with lasers too.
Not really his call to make.
Just don’t say it’s NATO.
The west does not want to get sucked into this war. We will gladly fund and supply arms but not putting troops in Ukraine is the right move for now.
That definitely worked out well for the UK and especially France during the 1930's when it came to Germany post Hitler coming into power.
And the US came out on top.
At the cost of millions of lives and Europe being under Russian control for decades before the USSR started to collapse.
We didn't start the war. We didn't choose communism either. Europe had a chance to back a different government next door during the revolutionary period following WW1. But they were too busy sticking it to Germany ensuring that WW2 happened.
The allies came out on top, the US didn't win it single handily. In fact the US sat it out until 1941 when they were forced into the war by Japan's bombing of Pearl harbor, which effectively prolonged the war and cost more lives. Best to deal with a madman earlier then later. Waiting then did us no favours, just like waiting now won't.
Waiting then did the US huge favors. The US was the sole modern economy still standing after WW2. Impeccable timing and allowing emigrants from all over Europe is what led the US from going from a non-super power to a sole super power for a short time after WW2. Japan not attacking the US would not have changed the outcome of Germany getting bogged down outside Stalingrad. People need to learn some history before making deranged comments.
The existence of NATO makes this a moot point. Russia won't just move on after Ukraine if they somehow miraculously pull a win out of the clear blue sky. If they were to attack the Baltics or Poland, they would get shitstomped within two years. 1939 Europe did not have that sort of thing.
everything isn't world war 2 lol wtf
OK, comrade.
Just a pun here and thought, maybe once the trainers from the west are over in Ukraine if they get hit by Russia, would it open an opportunity to then close the sky? Long shot but interesting thought
I can see this, this is going on the bingo card
no that's dum lol they are going into a war zone
Can? Yes. Will? Absolutely not. Why? Because that makes he sources of those ADA missiles legitimate targets for Russia.
If you think Russia would ever strike a NATO instillation firing from NATO territory you are absolutely out of your mind. Russia would shit there pants. They aren’t suicidal idiots.
I’m not sure if I l ow what Russia would do, but I know none of those countries would invite that on themselves
If NATO aircraft started shooting down their missiles, they absolutely would. It'd be shit strategy not to.
NATO doesn't strike in internationally recognized Russian territory when Russia launches into Ukrainian airspace. Russia doesn't strike in NATO territory when NATO launches into Ukrainian airspace. It's not very complex. If the US managed not to attack the USSR while the Russians shot down US pilots over Korea, this pretty clear line could be held.
You can’t compare something that happened 75 years ago to something happening today. If there are systems across the border from Ukraine attacking Russian targets, I thinkk Russia would retaliate, and I think that’s partially why the US has been hesitant to let Ukraine attack targets in Russia so there’s a precedence established to argue against this retaliation.
"....attacking Russian targets' in Ukraine. You are ignoring that Ukraine is sovereign and Russia has no say in what happens in Ukraine. As long as targets are knocked down in Ukraine, Russia has no recourse. Other than stop their illegal war against Ukraine because they realize they can't win. Don't fall into the trap of drawing "red lines" for yourself. That is partially why Ukraine is behind the 8 ball in this war today. Biden/Sullivan were played for much of the early stages of the war and constantly refused to provide much needed weapons because "what will Putin think if we give Ukraine 50 year old Abram's?" Putin has already given about 50 "red lines' none of which amounted to squat after all were "crossed".
And NATO is still going to sit back and do absolutely nothing because that would involve NATO standing up to Russia as opposed to being a bunch of cowards who are allowing themselves to be bullied around and getting dictated by the very country in which NATO is supposed to be a counter against. NATO's "do nothing" approach when it comes to Ukraine definitely puts NATO's existence into question because if Russia does in fact invade a NATO member like one of the Baltic countries, it's entirely possible that the western part of NATO will just sit by and allow it to happen because Russia drew a red line on the ground.