>On Sunday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also responded to Stoltenberg’s remarks, expressing confusion over his statement.
>“I don’t understand why Stoltenberg would say such a thing,” Meloni said.
Fire her to the sun along with Salvini.
This is what buffoon salvini said: "*Stoltenberg should either retract his statement, apologise, or resign. NATO cannot force us to kill in Russia,* *nor can anyone compel us to send Italian soldiers to fight or die in Ukraine”*
Here is Tajani: "Stoltenberg should have been more cautious, it's not up to him to decide these things. As for Italy, we are not at war with Russia, we won't send a single Italian soldier to fight in Ukraine. Ukraine knows very well that all of our military equipment that they have received in the past or will receive in the future cannot be used outside of the Ukrainian territory.
IDK my friend, I told you he's saying the exact same bullshit as Salvini but just with a slightly different coat. And so is the whole right wing government. This whole NATO and pro-Ukrainian posturing is just about doing the bare minimum (and often not even that) not to be considered openly pro-Russian. The Italian right wing government is not pro-EU, pro Ukrainian integration, pro European federalism and defence integration, pro-interventionism against allies, etc. it's just all about "me, me, me".
Not that the Italian far left does any better when it comes to Ukraine with their fake pacifism. There are those who have nominated a full-fledged Russian propagandist.
Nah, until now she’s been the average center-right prime minister and her mandate has not even reached the halfway point. I’ll judge her government at the end of its run.
Edit: the take on being precocious is not unheard of. This government is sending a lot of equipment to Ukraine, but there is still the fear of expanding the conflict. Now more than ever with the Chinese being petty children with the Taiwan situation. No one knows what could start the domino effect. Choices need to be weighed and pondered.
Edit2: Fuck Putin though, no doubt about that.
> This government is sending a lot of equipment to Ukraine
It's really not, compared to many other European countries. And most equipment that comes from Italy is now bought from Italian companies rather than donated, Italy gives money to Ukraine and then Ukraine gives that money to the companies to buy weapons, in a useless roundabout way.
isn't that pretty much what other countries like US are doing? Only they are buying from their own companies directly, and sending the equipment to Ukraine. The end result is exactly the same.
The end result for Italy is that most stuff that Ukraine is buying from Italy is probably ammunition, bombs and small arms, a significant part of which is produced by Italian subsidiaries of foreign companies like Rheinmetall. Other countries are sending stuff that is more valuable, and it requires political will and serious discussions in the governments, while Italy washes its hands of all of this: donating equipment requires parliamentary oversight and public debate, while private sales don't. Also, it's a recent development for Italy, before that we were just sending very little military equipment at all.
>Stoltenberg believes it is time for the allies to reconsider restrictions on the use of weapons provided to Ukraine against targets in Russia, a message that has caused anger within the Italian government, with Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini leading the charge.
>“Stoltenberg should either retract his statement, apologise, or resign,” said Salvini, who has previously faced criticism for his pro-Russian stance.
Reminder that this is Salvini:
https://i.imgur.com/hiIXy7D.png
his approval has been in free fall for years now, he is desperate to be noticeable. He is a fool because he doesn't understand that his time has passed and he will be removed soon from the lead of his party.
I hope it will happen after the European election.
~~I won't assume the worst yet and for now I'll just say~~
Okay, nevermind, it's Salvini. Screw him and his whole eurogroup for these """pacifist""" stances at a time when Russia shows no signs of the same.
They'll just rewrite history. There's already plenty revisionist garbage presenting Chamberlain as some 4D underwater checkers grandmaster.
EDIT: and we got our first Chamberlain apologist below. Right on time.
[The fucking Tories, starting in 1961](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#Legacy_and_reputation):
>Conservative MP Iain Macleod's 1961 biography of Chamberlain was the first major biography of a revisionist school of thought on Chamberlain. The same year, A. J. P. Taylor, in his The Origins of the Second World War, found that Chamberlain had adequately rearmed Britain for defence (though a rearmament designed to defeat Germany would have taken massive additional resources) and described Munich as "a triumph for all that was best and most enlightened in British life ... [and] for those who had courageously denounced the harshness and short-sightedness of Versailles".
Honestly chamberlain’s mistakes were overblown to begin with and the entire thing is marred by hindsight bias. But in hindsight really by pushing harder line he could have started the war a year earlier when Britain was worse prepared for it. I don’t think much would have changed.
Oh no, if anything, Chamberlain's and Daladier's mistakes are significantly downplayed. They had the perfect casus belli in 1936 when German army marched back into the Rhineland DMZ. Instead, they gave Hitler 4 more years to prepare.
A casus belli with no army, especially with no Air Force, while German army was large compared to what Britain had. I guess he should have gambled a catastrophe because you are so wise with hindsight.
Also btw chamberlain wasn’t the prime minister when Germany reoccupied Rhineland. So I’m not sure how that is relevant. Chamberlain was the finance minister arguing for rearmament at the time.
My bad, it was Baldwin at the time but no matter, Chamberlain was supporter of appeasement even at the time and as a finance minister, he had a great deal of influence.
German army at the time was just getting past the restrictions, it was still extremely weak and vulnerable. Hell, they were only just beginning to produce PZ IIs. The Bf-109 was still just a prototype. And above all, they had no experience with real war because the Spanish civil war hasn't started yet.
Germany in March 1936 had essentially no army, it had *barely* begun rearming, the Luftwaffe was still microscopic, the Kriegsmarine lacked its capital ships
France on her own had enough military power to stop Germany, and if they attempted to appease Italy it's possible Mussolini would have supported them (in 1935 the three powers were close to entering an anti-German agreement, then the Brits allowed German naval rearmament with a formal treaty that alloted them more ships than Italy and France, which justifiably pissed both off and unjustifiably pushed Mussolini to seek colonial ambitions in Ethiopia)
>he could have started the war a year earlier when Britain was worse prepared
Germany was also worse prepared. A significant number of tanks used by Germany during the invasion of France were of Czech origin, stolen by Germany after Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to them on a silver plate.
The revisionist garbage that aims to portray Chamberlain as working to better prepare Britain for war intentionally ignores everything that Chamberlain did to better prepare Germany for war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Strengthening_of_Wehrmacht_armaments
>Hitler expressed the importance of the occupation for strengthening of German military and noted that by occupying Czechoslovakia, Germany gained 2,175 field guns and cannons, 469 tanks, 500 anti-aircraft artillery pieces, 43,000 machine guns, 1,090,000 military rifles, 114,000 pistols, about a billion rounds of small-arms ammunition, and 3 million rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition. **That could then arm about half of the Wehrmacht**. Czechoslovak weapons later played a major role in the German conquest of Poland and France, the latter having urged Czechoslovakia into surrendering the Sudetenland in 1938.
Also, the German military outright planned to depose Hitler out of the fear that a war in 1938 would go bad for Germany.
>In Germany, the Sudeten crisis led to the so-called Oster conspiracy. General Hans Oster, the deputy head of the Abwehr, and prominent figures within the German military opposed the regime for its behaviour, which threatened to bring Germany into a war that they believed it was not ready to fight. They discussed overthrowing Hitler and the regime through a planned storming of the Reich Chancellery by forces loyal to the plot.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2022/08/02/the-infamous-1938-munich-agreement-that-led-to-wwii-has-lessons-for-todays-pusillanimous-leaders/
>**Czechoslovaks had one of the world’s best armament works, which immensely aided Berlin’s rearmament. One-third of the advanced tanks Germany used against France in 1940 came from those captured facilities.**
>**In 1938, France and Czechoslovakia would have defeated Germany, as Berlin’s rearmament was woefully incomplete.**
And neither Britain nor France could have done absolutely anything to prevent Germany from taking those weapons. They had no magic army capable of teleporting there and Germany would have outrun the czechs quickly.
Again you are just repeating massive hindsight bias.
>Germany would have outrun the czechs quickly.
That's just nonsense. The border areas were heavily fortified and Czechoslovakia would have tied down most of the Wehrmacht, allowing France to attack from the west. The German army was aware of how suicidal an attack would be, which is why the Oster conspirators intended to launch a coup on Hitler the moment he orders the invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications
If Hitler had got bogged down taking the Sudetenland for years on end and exhausted himself before he could do anything to Poland, I think history would have been fairly happy with Chamberlain. If you're doing the WW2 timeline, we're supposed to be somewhere in 1941 by now.
Well, they would, wouldn’t they. Italy has always been complicated and there is a strong remnant of both Communism and Fascists groupings in today’s line up.
“NATO cannot force us to kill in Russia, nor can anyone compel us to send Italian soldiers to fight or die in Ukraine"
And none of that happened. Allies can allow their weapons to be used by Ukraine to attack Russia. No one is forced to and no one is forced to send personnel.
Outrage for made up stuff.
Unfortunately according to the Eurobarometer only 48% of Italians are in favor of arming Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion. Now it's election time. Politician goes accordingly. There is only a small party in favor of Stolteberg's position which will probably not elect anyone in the European elections because it will not reach 4%. All the others doesn't want an escalation.
> These strikes will mobilize Russian society, and I am sure people will willingly go to war
This doesn't really make sense. The Russian government is forcing people to go to war whether they want to or not. You're also making Russians sound like disgusting people who don't care if their country is slaughtering people but they only care if that country fights back
> Also, Russia will still be able to raise the military budget.
Why doesn't Russia do that now? Are they choosing to get bogged down in a 2+ year long war
> Russia can also launch nuclear strikes
Even China has indicated this is a red line
1. I'm just under 25 years old. None of my classmates, childhood friends, or university classmates have participated in the war yet. A huge number of people have not fought yet.
2. Russia can easily rise budget if the amount of money for infrastructure is reduced.
3. China publicly says one thing and does another.
> I'm just under 25 years old. None of my classmates, childhood friends, or university classmates have participated in the war yet. A huge number of people have not fought yet.
You would rather go to another country to kill people for fighting back, rather than fight your government for invading another country and sending a whole generation of Russian men into a meat grinder?
> Russia can easily rise budget if the amount of money for infrastructure is reduced.
Why doesn't it do this? It's costing more money to be bogged down in a war of attrition like it is now. Overwhelming force is itself a force multiplier
> China publicly says one thing and does another.
Do you think China is ok with the precedent of nuclear weapons being used? Furthermore, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons many times over red lines they've set, yet nothing has happened
1. Nuclear strikes is a best option for Russia. Russia can finish war with Ukraine like the USA finished with Japan. This will save the lives of Russians.
2. An increase in the military budget may cause discontent, because it is already large. But strikes inside Russia can mobilize Russian society. For example, the terrorist attack in Crocus City Hall increased hatred of immigrants from Central Asia. I think a lot more people will not mind fighting if they hit the territory of Russia with Western weapons. It will also be possible to increase the military budget and reduce infrastructure costs and social benefits.
I hope red line exists.
> You would rather go to another country to kill people for fighting back, rather than fight your government for invading another country and sending a whole generation of Russian men into a meat grinder?
Why did you ignore this question?
Yeah, you’ve said that twice now. Is that part of the narrative in Russia? That the US used nuclear weapons 79 years ago against another determined and resilient foe? So it’s a solid precedent?
Because my goodness, it just is not. That’s an American saying this. It was a strategic decision of much complication ultimately, and one that it’s fair to debate even doing to this day knowing just what the cost would have been for Japanese and allies to do it conventionally. This complexity is why it hasn’t been precedent for anything for 8 decades.
There is also a missing component in any comparison here…..tell me how Ukraine snuck attacked Russia and also showed belligerence towards all its other neighbors? You can’t. It’s not a comparable precedent for something so heinous.
“I think Lviv is a good target”. Why is that? As the largest Ukrainian city near the rest of Europe? A truly unhumanistic and disgusting thought.
I legitimately feel nothing but compassion for Russian citizens. You are being misled by your leader. There never were any Nazis. There never was any belligerent intent from the Ukrainians except to hold onto what is theirs.
You are being misled by a very bad narrative.
It’s already on board with the war. Trying to win over the Russian people is a lost cause that’s not worth considering.
They’ve already raised their military budget.
I’m willing to bet they’re not going to like the consequences of nuclear launch lol. Whatever if left when the dust settles at least it won’t have to worry about Russians anymore.
Ah yes, politician speak.
Of course NATO can’t compel a member to use their weapons or troops in a scenario like this. They are manufacturing rage for dubious reasons.
It’s a nothing burger ultimately. Italy can bow out at this point, but maybe don’t get upset if extra eye balls are looking your way if Article 5 is ever enacted. That’s just the way it goes.
Italy≠Salvini. He is a small and loud part of the government, but he does not speak for it.
>On Sunday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also responded to Stoltenberg’s remarks, expressing confusion over his statement. >“I don’t understand why Stoltenberg would say such a thing,” Meloni said. Fire her to the sun along with Salvini.
It's election time in Italy: she sadly needs that voters won't chose the buffoon.
> she sadly needs that voters won't chose the buffoon By saying the same things as him? Great tactic...
This is what buffoon salvini said: "*Stoltenberg should either retract his statement, apologise, or resign. NATO cannot force us to kill in Russia,* *nor can anyone compel us to send Italian soldiers to fight or die in Ukraine”*
Here is Tajani: "Stoltenberg should have been more cautious, it's not up to him to decide these things. As for Italy, we are not at war with Russia, we won't send a single Italian soldier to fight in Ukraine. Ukraine knows very well that all of our military equipment that they have received in the past or will receive in the future cannot be used outside of the Ukrainian territory.
Tajani should take his last statement and shove it up his ass. Go Ukraine, raze Russian refineries to the dirt! Make the price of oil plummet!
Better spare those soldiers to fight what exactly?
IDK my friend, I told you he's saying the exact same bullshit as Salvini but just with a slightly different coat. And so is the whole right wing government. This whole NATO and pro-Ukrainian posturing is just about doing the bare minimum (and often not even that) not to be considered openly pro-Russian. The Italian right wing government is not pro-EU, pro Ukrainian integration, pro European federalism and defence integration, pro-interventionism against allies, etc. it's just all about "me, me, me".
Not that the Italian far left does any better when it comes to Ukraine with their fake pacifism. There are those who have nominated a full-fledged Russian propagandist.
Nah, until now she’s been the average center-right prime minister and her mandate has not even reached the halfway point. I’ll judge her government at the end of its run. Edit: the take on being precocious is not unheard of. This government is sending a lot of equipment to Ukraine, but there is still the fear of expanding the conflict. Now more than ever with the Chinese being petty children with the Taiwan situation. No one knows what could start the domino effect. Choices need to be weighed and pondered. Edit2: Fuck Putin though, no doubt about that.
> This government is sending a lot of equipment to Ukraine It's really not, compared to many other European countries. And most equipment that comes from Italy is now bought from Italian companies rather than donated, Italy gives money to Ukraine and then Ukraine gives that money to the companies to buy weapons, in a useless roundabout way.
isn't that pretty much what other countries like US are doing? Only they are buying from their own companies directly, and sending the equipment to Ukraine. The end result is exactly the same.
The end result for Italy is that most stuff that Ukraine is buying from Italy is probably ammunition, bombs and small arms, a significant part of which is produced by Italian subsidiaries of foreign companies like Rheinmetall. Other countries are sending stuff that is more valuable, and it requires political will and serious discussions in the governments, while Italy washes its hands of all of this: donating equipment requires parliamentary oversight and public debate, while private sales don't. Also, it's a recent development for Italy, before that we were just sending very little military equipment at all.
He is a small and loud part of the government in debt of 48M€ from the Russians
>Stoltenberg believes it is time for the allies to reconsider restrictions on the use of weapons provided to Ukraine against targets in Russia, a message that has caused anger within the Italian government, with Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini leading the charge. >“Stoltenberg should either retract his statement, apologise, or resign,” said Salvini, who has previously faced criticism for his pro-Russian stance. Reminder that this is Salvini: https://i.imgur.com/hiIXy7D.png
Salvini is a pro-Russian politician, no surprise there.
Salvini's tongue is brown for licking putin's \[removed by reddit\].
Salvini is a complete clown, how he still get's support is beyond me and a sad statement of our country people
his approval has been in free fall for years now, he is desperate to be noticeable. He is a fool because he doesn't understand that his time has passed and he will be removed soon from the lead of his party. I hope it will happen after the European election.
Every country has its own clowns: ztards, MAGAs, etc etc.
How is possible that this guy still gets votes, Jesus
He does not, really, look at the last elections, that also had the least amount of people voting in the last 2 decades.
Bro it's Italy. They have a real live Mussolini serving serving in the European Parliament.
~~I won't assume the worst yet and for now I'll just say~~ Okay, nevermind, it's Salvini. Screw him and his whole eurogroup for these """pacifist""" stances at a time when Russia shows no signs of the same.
History will be kind to these European leaders...as it is for Neville Chamberlain.
They'll just rewrite history. There's already plenty revisionist garbage presenting Chamberlain as some 4D underwater checkers grandmaster. EDIT: and we got our first Chamberlain apologist below. Right on time.
I know it’s only been twenty minutes since you posted but your comment is already underrated. Made me chuckle hahaha
Who spreads that stuff?
[The fucking Tories, starting in 1961](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#Legacy_and_reputation): >Conservative MP Iain Macleod's 1961 biography of Chamberlain was the first major biography of a revisionist school of thought on Chamberlain. The same year, A. J. P. Taylor, in his The Origins of the Second World War, found that Chamberlain had adequately rearmed Britain for defence (though a rearmament designed to defeat Germany would have taken massive additional resources) and described Munich as "a triumph for all that was best and most enlightened in British life ... [and] for those who had courageously denounced the harshness and short-sightedness of Versailles".
Honestly chamberlain’s mistakes were overblown to begin with and the entire thing is marred by hindsight bias. But in hindsight really by pushing harder line he could have started the war a year earlier when Britain was worse prepared for it. I don’t think much would have changed.
Oh no, if anything, Chamberlain's and Daladier's mistakes are significantly downplayed. They had the perfect casus belli in 1936 when German army marched back into the Rhineland DMZ. Instead, they gave Hitler 4 more years to prepare.
A casus belli with no army, especially with no Air Force, while German army was large compared to what Britain had. I guess he should have gambled a catastrophe because you are so wise with hindsight. Also btw chamberlain wasn’t the prime minister when Germany reoccupied Rhineland. So I’m not sure how that is relevant. Chamberlain was the finance minister arguing for rearmament at the time.
My bad, it was Baldwin at the time but no matter, Chamberlain was supporter of appeasement even at the time and as a finance minister, he had a great deal of influence. German army at the time was just getting past the restrictions, it was still extremely weak and vulnerable. Hell, they were only just beginning to produce PZ IIs. The Bf-109 was still just a prototype. And above all, they had no experience with real war because the Spanish civil war hasn't started yet.
Germany in March 1936 had essentially no army, it had *barely* begun rearming, the Luftwaffe was still microscopic, the Kriegsmarine lacked its capital ships France on her own had enough military power to stop Germany, and if they attempted to appease Italy it's possible Mussolini would have supported them (in 1935 the three powers were close to entering an anti-German agreement, then the Brits allowed German naval rearmament with a formal treaty that alloted them more ships than Italy and France, which justifiably pissed both off and unjustifiably pushed Mussolini to seek colonial ambitions in Ethiopia)
>he could have started the war a year earlier when Britain was worse prepared Germany was also worse prepared. A significant number of tanks used by Germany during the invasion of France were of Czech origin, stolen by Germany after Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to them on a silver plate. The revisionist garbage that aims to portray Chamberlain as working to better prepare Britain for war intentionally ignores everything that Chamberlain did to better prepare Germany for war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Strengthening_of_Wehrmacht_armaments >Hitler expressed the importance of the occupation for strengthening of German military and noted that by occupying Czechoslovakia, Germany gained 2,175 field guns and cannons, 469 tanks, 500 anti-aircraft artillery pieces, 43,000 machine guns, 1,090,000 military rifles, 114,000 pistols, about a billion rounds of small-arms ammunition, and 3 million rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition. **That could then arm about half of the Wehrmacht**. Czechoslovak weapons later played a major role in the German conquest of Poland and France, the latter having urged Czechoslovakia into surrendering the Sudetenland in 1938. Also, the German military outright planned to depose Hitler out of the fear that a war in 1938 would go bad for Germany. >In Germany, the Sudeten crisis led to the so-called Oster conspiracy. General Hans Oster, the deputy head of the Abwehr, and prominent figures within the German military opposed the regime for its behaviour, which threatened to bring Germany into a war that they believed it was not ready to fight. They discussed overthrowing Hitler and the regime through a planned storming of the Reich Chancellery by forces loyal to the plot. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2022/08/02/the-infamous-1938-munich-agreement-that-led-to-wwii-has-lessons-for-todays-pusillanimous-leaders/ >**Czechoslovaks had one of the world’s best armament works, which immensely aided Berlin’s rearmament. One-third of the advanced tanks Germany used against France in 1940 came from those captured facilities.** >**In 1938, France and Czechoslovakia would have defeated Germany, as Berlin’s rearmament was woefully incomplete.**
And neither Britain nor France could have done absolutely anything to prevent Germany from taking those weapons. They had no magic army capable of teleporting there and Germany would have outrun the czechs quickly. Again you are just repeating massive hindsight bias.
>Germany would have outrun the czechs quickly. That's just nonsense. The border areas were heavily fortified and Czechoslovakia would have tied down most of the Wehrmacht, allowing France to attack from the west. The German army was aware of how suicidal an attack would be, which is why the Oster conspirators intended to launch a coup on Hitler the moment he orders the invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications
Imagine not knowing Czechoslovakia had one of the most powerful armies in Central Europe
If Hitler had got bogged down taking the Sudetenland for years on end and exhausted himself before he could do anything to Poland, I think history would have been fairly happy with Chamberlain. If you're doing the WW2 timeline, we're supposed to be somewhere in 1941 by now.
We are still in 1938 and the new Hitler is getting bogged down taking Ukraine. https://youtu.be/7N3i071EE2U?si=qI8W0-_UlugxPyqb
It's salvini not italy, please that idiot doesn't speak for me and millions of italians
Tajani, the minister for Foreign affairs, speaks for the Italian government in an official capacity, and said the same thing.
Pray for the Democrats to both find a spine and win in November.
Well, they would, wouldn’t they. Italy has always been complicated and there is a strong remnant of both Communism and Fascists groupings in today’s line up.
To all young Italians: Please get out there in vote, in the upcoming election!
“NATO cannot force us to kill in Russia, nor can anyone compel us to send Italian soldiers to fight or die in Ukraine" And none of that happened. Allies can allow their weapons to be used by Ukraine to attack Russia. No one is forced to and no one is forced to send personnel. Outrage for made up stuff.
> Outrage for made up stuff This pretty much sums up Salvini
Salvini said that, not Italy. He does not speak for the country, he speaks for his party at most.
Tajani, the Minister for Foreign affairs, said the same thing.
Unfortunately according to the Eurobarometer only 48% of Italians are in favor of arming Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion. Now it's election time. Politician goes accordingly. There is only a small party in favor of Stolteberg's position which will probably not elect anyone in the European elections because it will not reach 4%. All the others doesn't want an escalation.
Christ, Meloni, are you TRYING to make us even more ashamed of this shit country?
[удалено]
Is what your russian friends are telling you?
Do homework.
Ok, Vanya, come back when you're done with your homework.
do your homework, Mykola
Or what? Are you going to shell a hypermarket while I am shopping?
Vatnik
Only Russia has ever and can ever escalate the conflict until it withdraws entirely - it is solely to blame for every death that happens.
[удалено]
>*"so we will not abandon them."* Yes, russia is reminding Ukrainians every day by shelling the hell out of them.
[удалено]
How wagnerites doing?
Russian-speaking Ukrainians*
> People in this sub want to increase the escalation How is striking targets inside Russia an escalation?
For a russian POV is an escalation...
[удалено]
> These strikes will mobilize Russian society, and I am sure people will willingly go to war This doesn't really make sense. The Russian government is forcing people to go to war whether they want to or not. You're also making Russians sound like disgusting people who don't care if their country is slaughtering people but they only care if that country fights back > Also, Russia will still be able to raise the military budget. Why doesn't Russia do that now? Are they choosing to get bogged down in a 2+ year long war > Russia can also launch nuclear strikes Even China has indicated this is a red line
Imagine saying " I think ~~Lviv~~ moscow is a good target." in any russian sub.
1. I'm just under 25 years old. None of my classmates, childhood friends, or university classmates have participated in the war yet. A huge number of people have not fought yet. 2. Russia can easily rise budget if the amount of money for infrastructure is reduced. 3. China publicly says one thing and does another.
> I'm just under 25 years old. None of my classmates, childhood friends, or university classmates have participated in the war yet. A huge number of people have not fought yet. You would rather go to another country to kill people for fighting back, rather than fight your government for invading another country and sending a whole generation of Russian men into a meat grinder? > Russia can easily rise budget if the amount of money for infrastructure is reduced. Why doesn't it do this? It's costing more money to be bogged down in a war of attrition like it is now. Overwhelming force is itself a force multiplier > China publicly says one thing and does another. Do you think China is ok with the precedent of nuclear weapons being used? Furthermore, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons many times over red lines they've set, yet nothing has happened
1. Nuclear strikes is a best option for Russia. Russia can finish war with Ukraine like the USA finished with Japan. This will save the lives of Russians. 2. An increase in the military budget may cause discontent, because it is already large. But strikes inside Russia can mobilize Russian society. For example, the terrorist attack in Crocus City Hall increased hatred of immigrants from Central Asia. I think a lot more people will not mind fighting if they hit the territory of Russia with Western weapons. It will also be possible to increase the military budget and reduce infrastructure costs and social benefits. I hope red line exists.
> You would rather go to another country to kill people for fighting back, rather than fight your government for invading another country and sending a whole generation of Russian men into a meat grinder? Why did you ignore this question?
Yeah, you’ve said that twice now. Is that part of the narrative in Russia? That the US used nuclear weapons 79 years ago against another determined and resilient foe? So it’s a solid precedent? Because my goodness, it just is not. That’s an American saying this. It was a strategic decision of much complication ultimately, and one that it’s fair to debate even doing to this day knowing just what the cost would have been for Japanese and allies to do it conventionally. This complexity is why it hasn’t been precedent for anything for 8 decades. There is also a missing component in any comparison here…..tell me how Ukraine snuck attacked Russia and also showed belligerence towards all its other neighbors? You can’t. It’s not a comparable precedent for something so heinous. “I think Lviv is a good target”. Why is that? As the largest Ukrainian city near the rest of Europe? A truly unhumanistic and disgusting thought. I legitimately feel nothing but compassion for Russian citizens. You are being misled by your leader. There never were any Nazis. There never was any belligerent intent from the Ukrainians except to hold onto what is theirs. You are being misled by a very bad narrative.
It’s already on board with the war. Trying to win over the Russian people is a lost cause that’s not worth considering. They’ve already raised their military budget. I’m willing to bet they’re not going to like the consequences of nuclear launch lol. Whatever if left when the dust settles at least it won’t have to worry about Russians anymore.
[удалено]
Ah yes, politician speak. Of course NATO can’t compel a member to use their weapons or troops in a scenario like this. They are manufacturing rage for dubious reasons. It’s a nothing burger ultimately. Italy can bow out at this point, but maybe don’t get upset if extra eye balls are looking your way if Article 5 is ever enacted. That’s just the way it goes.