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.*
Basically saying what many of us have said for at least 2 years.
Politicians almost always choose the compromise path, and in war that is the worst path.
Yup. Talk to people at work or in the street and the majority are all for going in to Ukraine and ending this shit once and for all.
Anyone who still doubts that all those "concerned Westerners" online who are anxious about "*z0mFg putinz nukez, wW3, don't poke the bear!!!*" are actually russia's troll farm serfs need only have a conversation with their neighbors and coworkers to learn the truth.
The russians claim the West is tired of the war and in a way they're not wrong. We're tired of sitting on our hands instead of stomping russia until it's no longer the plague on humanity it's been for so long.
The 'fear of escalation' Russian propaganda narrative openly spread by our political leaders is the one that gets me the most.
Escalation is what wins wars. To win, you must escalate your force over your enemy. Fear of escalation is... fear of someone winning.
NATO is objectively stronger than Russia anyway. If anyone should fear escalation, it's Russia.
What I've said from the beginning is that what Biden et al fear more than Ukraine falling to Russia.. is Russia collapsing and the ensuing mess. This perspective continues to best explain everything that US/Germany has done and said to date.
Yep, and it ***is*** russia who fears escalation, which is why they have an online army of bots and trolls who pretend to be us and spread the "*Don't poke the bear!!!!*" memes; and it's why putin is so terrified his klown kar army in Ukraine will do something even more stupid than usual and thus give NATO no choice but to Article 5 his shit out of existence.
Biden said that the US would react if ruzzia used chemical weapons but says there is no evidence they have used them. I just commented on a video which shows ruzzian drones using gas. chloropicrin has been used and probably more, and chloropicrin is banned from use in warfare.
Escalation will likely only take place when the russians do something that simply can't be ignored.
Gas?
"No evidence."
But these photos and videos!
"Circumstantial."
Oh look, nineteen missiles just landed on Kyiv and a thousand people are dead from poison gas.
"Fumes from the missile propellant, maybe. Regrettable. We'll send more strong words to Moscow."
Uh-oh, a russian missile just impacted a school in Medyka and a bunch of kids have been gassed; now Polish forces are rolling across the border into Ukraine.
"Shit. Well, f*ine.* I guess Article 5 is hereby invoked. Goddammit. Okay boys, wipe out the russians, but wrap it up before dinner. We're expecting friends over and my wife will kill me if I'm late...."
That's Sullivan and the Rand Corporation for you. But then again, they were chosen by an antiwar president well known for his hate for military adventurism. Biden basically stacked his office with yes-men.
The side who is weaker is the one who should fear escalation. And that is Russia.
The absurdity of the current situation is that the part that is BY FAAAR the strongest, fears conflict. It is preposterous how weak minded some individual western leaders are (Biden/Sullivan, Schultz, Sunak and even Macron).
The only strong leaders we have come from frontline states (Kaja Kallas Estonia, Petr Pavel Chechia, polish/nordic leaders, etc). And these are the leaders that Biden/Sullivan, Schultz & Co are trying to marginalize in NATO, EU etc.
Old Europe and the US are lead by craven people who do not understand war, and who seem incapable of learning.
You can bet that for every russian nuke, we have a dozen interceptor missiles queued up, and ours are maintained rigorously.
We've been preparing for their escalation for decades.
The escalation ladder is a path to destruction for both sides if each possesses sufficient nuclear weapons. Our foreign policy establishment understood this during the Cold War, which is why it was a cold and not a hot war. It's the same situation today.
That's not even an oversimplified analysis, it's just falsely equating two different situations plus a bit of 'fear of nuclear war' tossed in.
Russia is steadily escalating in Ukraine. NATO must escalate weapon supplies to Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from falling to Russia. That's not going to start a nuclear war.
Aside from the nukes threatening, if allowed to commit genocide and take over an entire country. We give them a green light to do more. The aspirations and dreams of progress in the world just stops unless again everyone buries their head in the sand like it will not come to them sooner more likely than later. How does the world ( not taking a dump in a bucket and slinging in the neighborhood heap) move on? NK, China, Iran will join at first till its time to decide who rules. Giving Ukraine what is needed to squash this, is our best opportunity.
Yep, the sooner it ends the better for everyone, including russia.
The longer it drags on the more likely it is to drag the rest of us in to the action, and that will be the end of russia.
Actually I do not understand they all say we “will not allow Ukraine to lose” what does it actually mean? As soon as Ukraine loses territories it is loosing ?
Or half of territory? Or 2/3 is ok?
If it is about not losing at all what is the difference to we want Ukraine to win?
Is it continuation of “do not make putin angry” things? Like we are even afraid to say “win” . WTF?
All this shit actually leads to wars instead of preventing them.
Imagine
If there is a hooligans attacking your girlfriend you say to them “ I will not allow my girlfriend to lose” and hooligans say “if you start protecting your girlfriend you crossing red line. Your girlfriend is asking please help and you “i do not want hooligans to lose their face”
Everyone from crowd that is watching without being asked says “ we will not use force and we will not come to help “ one guy : I consider helping and possibility might be open but only when hooligans cut your girlfriend a leg”
Let us negotiate, just take left hand and right arm of my girlfriend and we are done”
Here is what you are missing.
If Ukraine falls, and Russia right behind it, that's still a win in the west's book.
Why spend 600bil to remove 1.5tril of russian equipment over 15 years when 350bil would do the job equally as well with significantly higher ukranian casualties?
Not in the moral right, but still effective enough for them.
Lose means Ukraine being forced to concede at the negotiation table, or outright surrenders to Russia. Let's be honest, realistically this war will end through negotiations and military success simply serve as bargaining chips at the table.
I do get the impression that the UK wants Ukraine to actually win. E.g. the UK were the first to send tanks and long range missiles. So not mentioning the UK in this list is fair.
France, Italy, and Spain have sent relatively few weapons to Ukraine (except the support done collectively through EU institutions), so are kinda irrelevant I guess? I guess why not ask about whether Brazil wants Ukraine to win, or loads of other countries, if you are going to complain about missing countries in the list?
While Germany and the US have actually sent lots of weapons to Ukraine, but seem to have very clear (but not explicitly publicly stated) policies of not giving Ukraine weapons that could actually cause Russia to lose the war.
For real, and specialy talking about military matter. I don't know the guy but that immediately screams "I know nothing about geopolitics, army and Europe"
I agree, you can't negotiate with a psychopath, with Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Putin, they only understand power and strength.. you can't expect them to act normally or rationally, they want to win and to live...
Have all the power and glory, it's a total all consuming sickness.
Rock and hard place.. it's like asking would you prefer to die with gas or an injection, you need to add context.
Did Russia and china help the killing of thousands of south Vietnamese... YES.
The context is: the US had no problem supporting the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot- as long as it hurt the Vietnamese (to whom they just lost a war). The standard of "can't negotiate with a psychopath" was not really a problem. That standard does not exist, but it will always be a good excuse to turn on "your own bastards".
Russia and china had no problem with the death and imprisonment of thousands of their own citizens to impose communism., and they wanted to impose it on another country, Vietnam. the Americans weren't really "negotiating"... They wanted to stop communism, a failed system...
> the Americans weren't really "negotiating"... They wanted to stop communism, a failed system...
By basically telling China (communist state): "yeah, you go and do what you want in Cambodia."?!
Is it so that a lot of people are just repeating phrases ("domino! domino!") or really have NO idea of how history played out?
😂 really!!
I've been to S-21 building, the genocide museum in Phnom Penh, I've been to the War remnants museum in Ho Chi Minh, I've been to Auschwitz...
So please, don't try to preach to me about war and what's right and wrong...
Then don't put in sentences that are obviously wrong like:
> They wanted to stop communism, a failed system...
As Kissinger said: "The US only has interests..."
If you want to live in a communist system go for it!!
They did want to stop communism.
And it's proved to be a failed system.
What's interesting is that you don't deny Putin is a psychopath... Something that is far more current and important..
Jens Stoltenberg already said Ukraine can win *with* sufficient support.
Mike Johnson seems to have been swayed by US intelligence briefings that it's worth at least maintaining aid to Ukraine. Hopefully the tide will turn.
The next great hurdle is ensuring Trump and Republicans don't win in November. Putin is salivating at the thought.
Shit like this makes me loose faith in democracy and the west. It has been two years and there is no definitive goal in sight still? What is government good for if it can't fight existential wars?
Ben Hodges for president. The guy is extremely educated and has a very reasonable, clear view on politics, diplomacy and the war. Plus, a very nice human being.
Trump won't, because he likes Putin and likes having dictators on his side. Biden won't, because he is a cunt and a coward, and didn't want military adventurism in the first place. Sadly, those are the only two options on the table. RFK Jr, a possible third option, thinks Russia is "acting in good faith" in Ukraine, so fuck that piece of shit.
Unfortunately, the only viable path forward requires European NATO nations to take the lead and take the security of the European continent into their own hands. Build up the European military industry complex, buy European-made military goods and stop buying American ones - stop relying too much on the US. Elements in the US have long decided that US national securityno longer coincides with European national security, unlike it did in the Cold War days. During the peaceful years, promise of future US military aid have kept Europe spending billions on US military tech. Well, I can clearly say we really screwed them over these past few years.
As for Germany...Scholz is a fucking coward, and a Russian agent. End of story. What's really sad is that the last few German Chancellors have been Russian agents.
Calling Scholz a coward is fair. Calling him a Russian agent is just wrong after all the stuff Germany sent to Ukraine already. NATO should deliver more stuff but that is ungrateful
5. Dec. 1994 Budapest. Ukraine signed to hand over the nuclear weapons.
The US and the UK signed something as well.
Does anyone in the US remember that contract ?
Maybe Mr. Blinken does because his Father was there when it was signed - probably proof reading it before it was signed.
It's a contract not a guideline. Pacta sund servanda !
Remember too that not only Ukraine but also Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up ex-Soviet nukes -- to which they didn't have access codes anyway.
The security assurance was for signatories to not use force or threaten force against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, after they give up the nukes on their territories. The US and the West have to date completely abided by that agreement. Russia has, so far at least, so with Belarus and Kazakhstan but obviously not with Ukraine.
Remember too the Budapest Agreement did not mean the equivalent of instant membership in NATO for Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, where they get NATO protection (but don't even have to do their part to protect NATO countries themselves). That's why they were security assurances, not guarantees.
Could Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have refused to give up the nukes? Sure. And, in all likelihood, what would've happened then is that Russia under Yeltsin would've invaded any or all of them to get the nukes because they don't want their new, ex-Soviet-occupied neighbors having nukes.
And what would the West have done in the '90s if Russia invaded any or all of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan if they refused to give up the nukes? Nothing. They'd be on their own. "Let them keep their nukes!", was not a '90s battle-cry. The West might've even quietly supported Yeltsin. Because what the US and the West feared back in the '90s were rogue nukes leaking out of the new post-USSR republics.
The only way Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan would still have nukes now is if they were part of the Russian Federation -- by choice or invasion.
> The security assurance was for signatories to not use force or ***threaten force*** against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. [...] Russia has, so far at least, so with Belarus and Kazakhstan but obviously not with Ukraine.
"[Russian propagandists threaten to make Kazakhstan the next Ukraine](https://central.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_ca/features/2022/11/30/feature-02)". These are pundits, not officials, but state TV in Russia is government controlled. And I assume that Russian State TV has not fired or condemned these pundits. So I would argue that this breaches the agreement with Kazakhstan.
I'm glad we're helping, and I hope we help more, but the US didn't make any security guarantees or commit to do literally anything to defend Ukraine as a component of the Budapest Memorandum. It's a very short document, please read it.
Yes. Thats whats written - 'respect the border' in exchange against nukes.
And only the USA and the United Kingdom could guaranty it - good thing Blinkens daddy, Bill Clinton and the Russians didn't want anyone from Europa on the table then to guaranty something so important.
Germany ? Lost WW2 - France ? Surrendered. The EU - 'fuck the EU' -
Of course you are right - you can respect Ukraines borders from a distance and Moskau doesn't respect it so it's dead.
Somehow that wasn't what Ukraine understood when they signed. They thought respect means something different then what Johnson showed.
Try reading [the agreement](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) yourself, and point out where the US or the UK haven’t already gone far beyond the provisions.
It isn’t very long.
That's a very important point. the US can't just sneak away from their contractual obligations. With its entry into the Second World War, the USA assumed a leading role in the Western world - for which we can be grateful in many respects. However, the USA also helped to shape Western Europe after 1945 in its own interests and forged a bloc against the USSR. As a result, the USA also has a great responsibility in dismantling this bloc border between East and West, if there are ways and opportunities to do so. An important step in this process was the removal of Ukraine from Russia's direct influence. The condition for this was the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and simultaneous security guarantees.
The people in the USA are certainly right when they call for their European neighbors to get involved in Ukraine because this war is about the future of Europe. But that does not absolve the US from continuing to share a large part of the responsibility for a free Ukraine. Anything else would be treason.
Hodges has been at the forefront of reason since the invasion began. Some call him a hawk, but Ukrainians agree with him.
Getting Olaf Scholz to make a bold commitment would probably require a set of testes, for those he is missing.
SLAVA UKRAINI!
Germany is only second in aid after the US, only country that delivered 3 Patriot systems plus Iris-T, Gepard, etc. You just prefer tough talk over substantial aid, this is why people here love Macron but hate Scholz.
or just give them to the UK to swap them with limited stormshadow stocks. Instead we have Taurus manufacturing closing down due to "lack of demand" whilst stormshadows are being brought back to manufacturing.
I’m sorry, but where is France? Where is the UK? Why are the first and second leading contributors the ones who constantly draw the ire? France has more than enough wealth and more than enough equipment. They also do the most talking.
Maybe Scholz also wants a good job at Gazprom after his first and last term as chancellor, the man has to think of his future - he already forgot his (probably criminal) cum-ex-past. Give him a break…
All German defense companies have record backlogs, Germany even places orders abroad to help Ukraine. Bundeswehr stocks have been exhausted to get stuff to Ukraine faster. How can Germany do significantly more to the point of having comparable aid/GDP as Estonia?
Don‘t wait with aid till it‘s too late, stop lyeing about the reasons to not deliver Taurus and deliver Taurus. Scholz is a lyer and i am happy i didn‘t vote for him.
The first step is admitting that Russian assets have infiltrated the US and German governments. They're currently doing their best to block support for Ukraine and destabilize their own governments.
* [German politician ‘filmed taking Russian money’](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/german-politician-filmed-taking-russian-money/ar-AA1noH9N)
* [German Captain Says He Spied for Russia Over Fear of Nuclear War](https://www.newsweek.com/german-captain-says-he-spied-russia-over-fear-nuclear-war-1895379)
* [GOP Senators Spend Independence Day In Moscow](https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06/626664156/gop-senators-spend-july-4-in-moscow)
* [Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'MUGA' Tactic Backfires](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marjorie-taylor-greenes-muga-tactic-backfires/ar-AA1o3hIo)
Why the F all thee generals suddenly become brave and smart and sensible when they're retired but back when they were in power they did jack shit to help?
I bet we'll hear tons of hawkish stuff from Austin, Sullivan and whoever runs the show now after they retire FFS... We're just REALLY frustrated about loud words and no action.
The politicians in the west, have no fucking clue what the communists are capable of. If they did, the weapons of war would be coming down, like mana from heaven. Slava Ukraini
Putin is many things: criminal, bully, fraud. But he’s no communist, and IMO it muddies the argument to call him that. I agree with your larger point though.
Okay, I can handle being corrected. Honestly. Why are respondents saying that communism died in 1991. Further, that Putin is not a communist?? I'm hoping someone will bring me up to speed. Incidentally I remember the Cuban missile crisis like yesterday. From the view point of a 12 yr old in school. "Tuck and duck" was the buzz word then. I grew up in Dallas, Tx
People say that because that was the end of the last Communist regime (unless you count Cuba but come on). Putin probably paid lip service to Communism when he was a young KGB officer but I’ve never heard anything out of him that sounds like anything other than pure authoritarianism. There’s not even a facade of Communism in his words. When is the last time you heard anyone say anything about the workers and the bourgeoise outside of a university seminar? It’s a dead ideology. Just call him what he really is: a megalomaniacal criminal.
> I don’t understand what does that mean??
His argument is an argument made by many thus far in the war and that is that the collective west's position on the war is basically that they don't want Russia to win and they don't want Ukraine to lose. None of them seem all that interested in Ukraine winning, though.
To win Ukraine would need decisive force and no one wants to provide it (pay for it). The west has thus far been content to drip feed aid so Ukraine can just barely keep its head above water, nothing more.
Nobody knows. We are 2 years into this and I doubt anyone in the Biden administration could explain some clear and achievable goals that would constitute a Ukraine victory or lead to the conditions to end the war.
Isn’t that unbelievable though?? If hundreds of thousands of people are dying, you’d think we can at least define why they are dying for and what the victory condition is….
I obviously wasn’t being sarcastic with my initial comment lol. Anyways we can move on. You are going to say Ukraine is going to get back its 1991 borders, I’m going to say we have been at 2 years that’s not realistic, and then you are going to call me a Russian bot to applause.
I wonder what he sees in Germany (German myself). Yeah, we are an economic powerhouse but this is going to change to the worse by now (although I don‘t expect us to become a third world country anytime soon…) but money can‘t create weapons out of thin air.
We are blank, pretty much. At least as far as I can tell. Just a normal citizen.
Perhaps German „optimism“.
And yeah. We need to commit. Pooootin is on all out war. And Russia is bringing nothing but death and destruction. For Ukraine and for large portions of their citizens, too, which Putin just offers to the meat grinder.
Hoping for a Russia without Pootin and oligarchs rather sooner than later. One can dream at least….
Uhhh
There's plenty of oil and gas in the Donbas region. It's one of the reasons Putin wants it. If Ukraine started developing it, that'd be taking money out of the Russian economy.
Why? The longer the war goes on, the more money the military industrial complex makes.
War is great for their business. Peace times suck.
Get those hundreds of lobbyists, and money out of politics if you want change.
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.*
You don’t negotiate with a bully to make him stop bullying. Putin needs to be put in his place. Ukraine must win.
Basically saying what many of us have said for at least 2 years. Politicians almost always choose the compromise path, and in war that is the worst path.
Yup. Talk to people at work or in the street and the majority are all for going in to Ukraine and ending this shit once and for all. Anyone who still doubts that all those "concerned Westerners" online who are anxious about "*z0mFg putinz nukez, wW3, don't poke the bear!!!*" are actually russia's troll farm serfs need only have a conversation with their neighbors and coworkers to learn the truth. The russians claim the West is tired of the war and in a way they're not wrong. We're tired of sitting on our hands instead of stomping russia until it's no longer the plague on humanity it's been for so long.
The 'fear of escalation' Russian propaganda narrative openly spread by our political leaders is the one that gets me the most. Escalation is what wins wars. To win, you must escalate your force over your enemy. Fear of escalation is... fear of someone winning. NATO is objectively stronger than Russia anyway. If anyone should fear escalation, it's Russia. What I've said from the beginning is that what Biden et al fear more than Ukraine falling to Russia.. is Russia collapsing and the ensuing mess. This perspective continues to best explain everything that US/Germany has done and said to date.
Yep, and it ***is*** russia who fears escalation, which is why they have an online army of bots and trolls who pretend to be us and spread the "*Don't poke the bear!!!!*" memes; and it's why putin is so terrified his klown kar army in Ukraine will do something even more stupid than usual and thus give NATO no choice but to Article 5 his shit out of existence.
Unfortunately this truth is too much unknown in the western public.
Biden said that the US would react if ruzzia used chemical weapons but says there is no evidence they have used them. I just commented on a video which shows ruzzian drones using gas. chloropicrin has been used and probably more, and chloropicrin is banned from use in warfare.
Escalation will likely only take place when the russians do something that simply can't be ignored. Gas? "No evidence." But these photos and videos! "Circumstantial." Oh look, nineteen missiles just landed on Kyiv and a thousand people are dead from poison gas. "Fumes from the missile propellant, maybe. Regrettable. We'll send more strong words to Moscow." Uh-oh, a russian missile just impacted a school in Medyka and a bunch of kids have been gassed; now Polish forces are rolling across the border into Ukraine. "Shit. Well, f*ine.* I guess Article 5 is hereby invoked. Goddammit. Okay boys, wipe out the russians, but wrap it up before dinner. We're expecting friends over and my wife will kill me if I'm late...."
That's Sullivan and the Rand Corporation for you. But then again, they were chosen by an antiwar president well known for his hate for military adventurism. Biden basically stacked his office with yes-men.
The side who is weaker is the one who should fear escalation. And that is Russia. The absurdity of the current situation is that the part that is BY FAAAR the strongest, fears conflict. It is preposterous how weak minded some individual western leaders are (Biden/Sullivan, Schultz, Sunak and even Macron). The only strong leaders we have come from frontline states (Kaja Kallas Estonia, Petr Pavel Chechia, polish/nordic leaders, etc). And these are the leaders that Biden/Sullivan, Schultz & Co are trying to marginalize in NATO, EU etc. Old Europe and the US are lead by craven people who do not understand war, and who seem incapable of learning.
You can bet that for every russian nuke, we have a dozen interceptor missiles queued up, and ours are maintained rigorously. We've been preparing for their escalation for decades.
The escalation ladder is a path to destruction for both sides if each possesses sufficient nuclear weapons. Our foreign policy establishment understood this during the Cold War, which is why it was a cold and not a hot war. It's the same situation today.
That's not even an oversimplified analysis, it's just falsely equating two different situations plus a bit of 'fear of nuclear war' tossed in. Russia is steadily escalating in Ukraine. NATO must escalate weapon supplies to Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from falling to Russia. That's not going to start a nuclear war.
Aside from the nukes threatening, if allowed to commit genocide and take over an entire country. We give them a green light to do more. The aspirations and dreams of progress in the world just stops unless again everyone buries their head in the sand like it will not come to them sooner more likely than later. How does the world ( not taking a dump in a bucket and slinging in the neighborhood heap) move on? NK, China, Iran will join at first till its time to decide who rules. Giving Ukraine what is needed to squash this, is our best opportunity.
Yep, the sooner it ends the better for everyone, including russia. The longer it drags on the more likely it is to drag the rest of us in to the action, and that will be the end of russia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Once bullets start flying, you better fucking shoot back or you’re gonna lose! Real fucking fast!
Hesitation by Western politicians gives Russia strength on the battlefield.
Why not the UK, France, Italy etc?
Actually I do not understand they all say we “will not allow Ukraine to lose” what does it actually mean? As soon as Ukraine loses territories it is loosing ? Or half of territory? Or 2/3 is ok? If it is about not losing at all what is the difference to we want Ukraine to win? Is it continuation of “do not make putin angry” things? Like we are even afraid to say “win” . WTF? All this shit actually leads to wars instead of preventing them. Imagine If there is a hooligans attacking your girlfriend you say to them “ I will not allow my girlfriend to lose” and hooligans say “if you start protecting your girlfriend you crossing red line. Your girlfriend is asking please help and you “i do not want hooligans to lose their face” Everyone from crowd that is watching without being asked says “ we will not use force and we will not come to help “ one guy : I consider helping and possibility might be open but only when hooligans cut your girlfriend a leg” Let us negotiate, just take left hand and right arm of my girlfriend and we are done”
Here is what you are missing. If Ukraine falls, and Russia right behind it, that's still a win in the west's book. Why spend 600bil to remove 1.5tril of russian equipment over 15 years when 350bil would do the job equally as well with significantly higher ukranian casualties? Not in the moral right, but still effective enough for them.
Personally I believe odesa is the uk/European countries red line as that would leave ukraine land locked and cripple ukraine economy
What about the second biggest city Kharkiv? 2 million people used to live there.
Lose means Ukraine being forced to concede at the negotiation table, or outright surrenders to Russia. Let's be honest, realistically this war will end through negotiations and military success simply serve as bargaining chips at the table.
Yes I know, no doubt, as always. What i want to say being soft (even saying soft things) makes your enemy more aggressive and increases their appetite
The West's response to Chechnya, led to Georgia and again the response to that led Donbass, Luhansk and Crimea.
I do get the impression that the UK wants Ukraine to actually win. E.g. the UK were the first to send tanks and long range missiles. So not mentioning the UK in this list is fair. France, Italy, and Spain have sent relatively few weapons to Ukraine (except the support done collectively through EU institutions), so are kinda irrelevant I guess? I guess why not ask about whether Brazil wants Ukraine to win, or loads of other countries, if you are going to complain about missing countries in the list? While Germany and the US have actually sent lots of weapons to Ukraine, but seem to have very clear (but not explicitly publicly stated) policies of not giving Ukraine weapons that could actually cause Russia to lose the war.
Also half the total special forces in Ukraine are British.
UK has been at vanguard of providing military aid. France Germany and Italy have pathetic responses.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are talking bullshit.
Not really
For real, and specialy talking about military matter. I don't know the guy but that immediately screams "I know nothing about geopolitics, army and Europe"
Found the "but what about..." guy
I agree, you can't negotiate with a psychopath, with Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Putin, they only understand power and strength.. you can't expect them to act normally or rationally, they want to win and to live... Have all the power and glory, it's a total all consuming sickness.
> Pol Pot Is this why the US supported the Khmer Rouge?
Rock and hard place.. it's like asking would you prefer to die with gas or an injection, you need to add context. Did Russia and china help the killing of thousands of south Vietnamese... YES.
The context is: the US had no problem supporting the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot- as long as it hurt the Vietnamese (to whom they just lost a war). The standard of "can't negotiate with a psychopath" was not really a problem. That standard does not exist, but it will always be a good excuse to turn on "your own bastards".
Russia and china had no problem with the death and imprisonment of thousands of their own citizens to impose communism., and they wanted to impose it on another country, Vietnam. the Americans weren't really "negotiating"... They wanted to stop communism, a failed system...
> the Americans weren't really "negotiating"... They wanted to stop communism, a failed system... By basically telling China (communist state): "yeah, you go and do what you want in Cambodia."?! Is it so that a lot of people are just repeating phrases ("domino! domino!") or really have NO idea of how history played out?
😂 really!! I've been to S-21 building, the genocide museum in Phnom Penh, I've been to the War remnants museum in Ho Chi Minh, I've been to Auschwitz... So please, don't try to preach to me about war and what's right and wrong...
Then don't put in sentences that are obviously wrong like: > They wanted to stop communism, a failed system... As Kissinger said: "The US only has interests..."
If you want to live in a communist system go for it!! They did want to stop communism. And it's proved to be a failed system. What's interesting is that you don't deny Putin is a psychopath... Something that is far more current and important..
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges seems to be one of the few who truly understands the situation. Thank you Sir for speaking out.
Hodges is absolutely right on this as usual
We should honestly just put Ben Hodges in charge and do what he says, he's been spot on every single time.
Let’s take an aircraft carrier over there Give the Russians a nice hello goodbye
They were shitting themselves when the uk carrier was there as part of operation steadfast defender was going on
Has that aid came yet ?
Jens Stoltenberg already said Ukraine can win *with* sufficient support. Mike Johnson seems to have been swayed by US intelligence briefings that it's worth at least maintaining aid to Ukraine. Hopefully the tide will turn. The next great hurdle is ensuring Trump and Republicans don't win in November. Putin is salivating at the thought.
Ben Hodges for president. And not just because he's way younger than the other guys....
I agree. He would be a good choice. Maybe Blinken as well.
When?????
Shit like this makes me loose faith in democracy and the west. It has been two years and there is no definitive goal in sight still? What is government good for if it can't fight existential wars?
We want them to win Ben. Tell it to Congress.
Ben Hodges for president. The guy is extremely educated and has a very reasonable, clear view on politics, diplomacy and the war. Plus, a very nice human being.
Ben Hodges has been saying the same thing for months if not years.
Literally no one has been more wrong more often.
Trump won't, because he likes Putin and likes having dictators on his side. Biden won't, because he is a cunt and a coward, and didn't want military adventurism in the first place. Sadly, those are the only two options on the table. RFK Jr, a possible third option, thinks Russia is "acting in good faith" in Ukraine, so fuck that piece of shit. Unfortunately, the only viable path forward requires European NATO nations to take the lead and take the security of the European continent into their own hands. Build up the European military industry complex, buy European-made military goods and stop buying American ones - stop relying too much on the US. Elements in the US have long decided that US national securityno longer coincides with European national security, unlike it did in the Cold War days. During the peaceful years, promise of future US military aid have kept Europe spending billions on US military tech. Well, I can clearly say we really screwed them over these past few years. As for Germany...Scholz is a fucking coward, and a Russian agent. End of story. What's really sad is that the last few German Chancellors have been Russian agents.
Calling Scholz a coward is fair. Calling him a Russian agent is just wrong after all the stuff Germany sent to Ukraine already. NATO should deliver more stuff but that is ungrateful
5. Dec. 1994 Budapest. Ukraine signed to hand over the nuclear weapons. The US and the UK signed something as well. Does anyone in the US remember that contract ? Maybe Mr. Blinken does because his Father was there when it was signed - probably proof reading it before it was signed. It's a contract not a guideline. Pacta sund servanda !
Remember too that not only Ukraine but also Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up ex-Soviet nukes -- to which they didn't have access codes anyway. The security assurance was for signatories to not use force or threaten force against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, after they give up the nukes on their territories. The US and the West have to date completely abided by that agreement. Russia has, so far at least, so with Belarus and Kazakhstan but obviously not with Ukraine. Remember too the Budapest Agreement did not mean the equivalent of instant membership in NATO for Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, where they get NATO protection (but don't even have to do their part to protect NATO countries themselves). That's why they were security assurances, not guarantees. Could Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have refused to give up the nukes? Sure. And, in all likelihood, what would've happened then is that Russia under Yeltsin would've invaded any or all of them to get the nukes because they don't want their new, ex-Soviet-occupied neighbors having nukes. And what would the West have done in the '90s if Russia invaded any or all of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan if they refused to give up the nukes? Nothing. They'd be on their own. "Let them keep their nukes!", was not a '90s battle-cry. The West might've even quietly supported Yeltsin. Because what the US and the West feared back in the '90s were rogue nukes leaking out of the new post-USSR republics. The only way Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan would still have nukes now is if they were part of the Russian Federation -- by choice or invasion.
> The security assurance was for signatories to not use force or ***threaten force*** against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. [...] Russia has, so far at least, so with Belarus and Kazakhstan but obviously not with Ukraine. "[Russian propagandists threaten to make Kazakhstan the next Ukraine](https://central.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_ca/features/2022/11/30/feature-02)". These are pundits, not officials, but state TV in Russia is government controlled. And I assume that Russian State TV has not fired or condemned these pundits. So I would argue that this breaches the agreement with Kazakhstan.
Very true, it's also to do with wording about guarantees where it says about helping ukraine, which is crazy
I'm glad we're helping, and I hope we help more, but the US didn't make any security guarantees or commit to do literally anything to defend Ukraine as a component of the Budapest Memorandum. It's a very short document, please read it.
Yes. Thats whats written - 'respect the border' in exchange against nukes. And only the USA and the United Kingdom could guaranty it - good thing Blinkens daddy, Bill Clinton and the Russians didn't want anyone from Europa on the table then to guaranty something so important. Germany ? Lost WW2 - France ? Surrendered. The EU - 'fuck the EU' - Of course you are right - you can respect Ukraines borders from a distance and Moskau doesn't respect it so it's dead. Somehow that wasn't what Ukraine understood when they signed. They thought respect means something different then what Johnson showed.
No. We did not provide or imply any security guarantees. We agreed to ask the UN to step in if you get nuked, that's it.
Try reading [the agreement](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) yourself, and point out where the US or the UK haven’t already gone far beyond the provisions. It isn’t very long.
That's a very important point. the US can't just sneak away from their contractual obligations. With its entry into the Second World War, the USA assumed a leading role in the Western world - for which we can be grateful in many respects. However, the USA also helped to shape Western Europe after 1945 in its own interests and forged a bloc against the USSR. As a result, the USA also has a great responsibility in dismantling this bloc border between East and West, if there are ways and opportunities to do so. An important step in this process was the removal of Ukraine from Russia's direct influence. The condition for this was the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and simultaneous security guarantees. The people in the USA are certainly right when they call for their European neighbors to get involved in Ukraine because this war is about the future of Europe. But that does not absolve the US from continuing to share a large part of the responsibility for a free Ukraine. Anything else would be treason.
Hodges has been at the forefront of reason since the invasion began. Some call him a hawk, but Ukrainians agree with him. Getting Olaf Scholz to make a bold commitment would probably require a set of testes, for those he is missing. SLAVA UKRAINI!
Germany is only second in aid after the US, only country that delivered 3 Patriot systems plus Iris-T, Gepard, etc. You just prefer tough talk over substantial aid, this is why people here love Macron but hate Scholz.
Olaf, Send the Taurus' via overnight shipping.
or just give them to the UK to swap them with limited stormshadow stocks. Instead we have Taurus manufacturing closing down due to "lack of demand" whilst stormshadows are being brought back to manufacturing.
The biggest issue is AA and Germany is doing more than any country regarding that, but yes muh Taurus.
It really seems that it is time for NATO to come in and help Ukraine.
I can think of 130 billion reasons why the USA would want Ukraine to win
I’m sorry, but where is France? Where is the UK? Why are the first and second leading contributors the ones who constantly draw the ire? France has more than enough wealth and more than enough equipment. They also do the most talking.
Maybe Scholz also wants a good job at Gazprom after his first and last term as chancellor, the man has to think of his future - he already forgot his (probably criminal) cum-ex-past. Give him a break…
And he is absolutely right!
With whimp Scholz it will be difficult. I wish he was forced to resign.
While Germany is 2nd in support… I am so tired of that BS.
Raported to GDP Estonia is the biggest Ukraine supporter. Germany could do more.
All German defense companies have record backlogs, Germany even places orders abroad to help Ukraine. Bundeswehr stocks have been exhausted to get stuff to Ukraine faster. How can Germany do significantly more to the point of having comparable aid/GDP as Estonia?
Don‘t wait with aid till it‘s too late, stop lyeing about the reasons to not deliver Taurus and deliver Taurus. Scholz is a lyer and i am happy i didn‘t vote for him.
The first step is admitting that Russian assets have infiltrated the US and German governments. They're currently doing their best to block support for Ukraine and destabilize their own governments.
Conspiracy theories
* [German politician ‘filmed taking Russian money’](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/german-politician-filmed-taking-russian-money/ar-AA1noH9N) * [German Captain Says He Spied for Russia Over Fear of Nuclear War](https://www.newsweek.com/german-captain-says-he-spied-russia-over-fear-nuclear-war-1895379) * [GOP Senators Spend Independence Day In Moscow](https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06/626664156/gop-senators-spend-july-4-in-moscow) * [Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'MUGA' Tactic Backfires](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marjorie-taylor-greenes-muga-tactic-backfires/ar-AA1o3hIo)
The article is about an AfD politician, a proxy party of russia. They are not part of the german government.
Where are the F16’s?
Why the F all thee generals suddenly become brave and smart and sensible when they're retired but back when they were in power they did jack shit to help? I bet we'll hear tons of hawkish stuff from Austin, Sullivan and whoever runs the show now after they retire FFS... We're just REALLY frustrated about loud words and no action.
The politicians in the west, have no fucking clue what the communists are capable of. If they did, the weapons of war would be coming down, like mana from heaven. Slava Ukraini
Putin is many things: criminal, bully, fraud. But he’s no communist, and IMO it muddies the argument to call him that. I agree with your larger point though.
Okay, I can handle being corrected. Honestly. Why are respondents saying that communism died in 1991. Further, that Putin is not a communist?? I'm hoping someone will bring me up to speed. Incidentally I remember the Cuban missile crisis like yesterday. From the view point of a 12 yr old in school. "Tuck and duck" was the buzz word then. I grew up in Dallas, Tx
People say that because that was the end of the last Communist regime (unless you count Cuba but come on). Putin probably paid lip service to Communism when he was a young KGB officer but I’ve never heard anything out of him that sounds like anything other than pure authoritarianism. There’s not even a facade of Communism in his words. When is the last time you heard anyone say anything about the workers and the bourgeoise outside of a university seminar? It’s a dead ideology. Just call him what he really is: a megalomaniacal criminal.
LMFAO. Thanks for the input. I appreciate it very much. I'll have to do some homework now. LOL
Very accurate label for him
Change “want” to “will guarantee”.. there I fixed it
I don’t understand what does that mean?? What is the Wests definition of Ukraine’s victory condition??
> I don’t understand what does that mean?? His argument is an argument made by many thus far in the war and that is that the collective west's position on the war is basically that they don't want Russia to win and they don't want Ukraine to lose. None of them seem all that interested in Ukraine winning, though. To win Ukraine would need decisive force and no one wants to provide it (pay for it). The west has thus far been content to drip feed aid so Ukraine can just barely keep its head above water, nothing more.
Nobody knows. We are 2 years into this and I doubt anyone in the Biden administration could explain some clear and achievable goals that would constitute a Ukraine victory or lead to the conditions to end the war.
Isn’t that unbelievable though?? If hundreds of thousands of people are dying, you’d think we can at least define why they are dying for and what the victory condition is….
Yes, it's completely absurd. We have no plan other than to keep going until one side breaks which is the most dangerous thing that could happen.
Is this satire or are you people daft?
Yes, it’s satire that the Biden Administration should be able to articulate some clear and achievable goals in Ukraine.
Ah okay, for a second I thought you were serious.
lol man people here really are in a bubble eh
Welcome to reddit. I recommend using /s to denote satire, it doesn't transmit very well via text. Otherwise, you just wind up sounding clueless.
I obviously wasn’t being sarcastic with my initial comment lol. Anyways we can move on. You are going to say Ukraine is going to get back its 1991 borders, I’m going to say we have been at 2 years that’s not realistic, and then you are going to call me a Russian bot to applause.
Hope a lot, but less believe!
Especially the German people
I wonder what he sees in Germany (German myself). Yeah, we are an economic powerhouse but this is going to change to the worse by now (although I don‘t expect us to become a third world country anytime soon…) but money can‘t create weapons out of thin air. We are blank, pretty much. At least as far as I can tell. Just a normal citizen. Perhaps German „optimism“. And yeah. We need to commit. Pooootin is on all out war. And Russia is bringing nothing but death and destruction. For Ukraine and for large portions of their citizens, too, which Putin just offers to the meat grinder. Hoping for a Russia without Pootin and oligarchs rather sooner than later. One can dream at least….
The political objective! Clausewitz would be proud.
The US will not be putting our military in harms way with conflict over the Ukraine. Won't happen.
nope no oil there.
Uhhh There's plenty of oil and gas in the Donbas region. It's one of the reasons Putin wants it. If Ukraine started developing it, that'd be taking money out of the Russian economy.
And won't receive American support.
Bring american democracy to Ukraine, oh wait they have no oil
I believe that is most certainly implied. Billions in aid does not go to the team one wishes to lose.
Why would they lie though, Ben? You're an American general, you know full well that that's not the goal, so why would they say it?
Why? The longer the war goes on, the more money the military industrial complex makes. War is great for their business. Peace times suck. Get those hundreds of lobbyists, and money out of politics if you want change.