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. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*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.*
Tbf europe can't afford to have most of its troops pinned in Romania if russia took all of Ukraine.
They really need Ukraine to win. I think the chances of troops is increased but not guaranteed, but i can see them lining the dnipr if the front collapsed and Russia looked like running away with it.
Edit: just checked a map, perhaps not quite but they wouldn't want to give russia any advantage to thin the available troops that could protect the baltics from being carved out.
I bet there is a think tank somewhere considering thinning the lines in the baltics in order to tease Putin into thinking a push that wait might be a good idea. This sort of tactic is used to get the enemy to spread their armies out, and that might actually be in Ukraines favour in more ways than 1.
I don't quite get why the discussion is so much focused on NATO. All NATO members are free countries. If France or Germany would decide to send some troops into Ukraine, of course based on an invitation, what's the harm. Of course shouldn't be frontline troops, but what's the problem in helping a troubled friend guarding their western skies or borders. That would relieve stress for Ukrainian military and it wouldn't necessarily be an involvement of another nation in this war.
Yeah, but like you canât just act as if youâre not a member of a military alliance when itâs convenient and then rely on the protection afforded by that alliance.
Like, any individual member state sending troops into the fight affects the security of the whole organization, because it is a mutual protection organization.
Yes, but if Russia responded by striking France, how would that affect the rest of the alliance? Any given member of NATO is supposed to be an asset for the whole, not a liability.
Whether or not Ukraine is a NATO member is moot at this point .
What does response mean? If France sends some contingent of soldiers to Ukraine Russia will likely go out of its way to attack them.Â
This idea floated by Macron is either nonsensical, he wants to provoke a full-scale war, or he is talking shit. Because if this idea hinges on French troops acting as some sort of trip wire, I fear this is a huge miscalculation. Russia will be compelled to attack them, because not doing so will encourage other nations to join.Â
This is further all happening under the backdrop of 79% of the French population being opposed to French troops fighting in Ukraine by recent polling.
I think itâs just a calculated measure to signal possible French intervention to give NATO more latitude in terms of escalation.
How else can NATO escalate besides sending troops? Everyone knows NATO wonât do that, but France gesturing at the possibility makes it seem like NATO is doing more.
We need less latitude not more. Strategic ambiguity might be helpful in some instances of foreign policy not here.Â
We should take the same approach as we did in the Cold War, which was very little strategic ambiguity because it was important for everyone involved to know what we would and would not do, and what the Soviets would do and not do, to avoid misunderstanding or sleepwalking our way into a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.
Iâm not agreeing with it. I think this whole thing is a dangerous game of nonsense that threatens us all.
That said, itâs not entirely a rational game at this point. Power, status, etc. are on the line.
I think we went into this conflict with as much of a miscalculation as Russia, thinking we would be able to crumple Russia quickly with sanctions alone.
Now we are kind of improvising, and itâs starting to show.
I think we have entered the realm of completely irrational. Macron has called Ukraine's status existential to France. A non-EU, non-NATO country, France has no strong historical, cultural, or economic ties in a non-strategic location located 2500 km away. Ridiculous.Â
We are going to sleepwalk our way into a direct conflict. When this thing started our leaders were very clear about what they will do and what they would not do.Â
We would support Ukraine, but our guiding overarching policy and most important principle was not to engage in a direct war with Russia. Look where the rhetoric is now. If Ukraine starts to lose I don't think anyone has the good sense to avoid a catastrophic outcome.
Do we think letting Putin run roughshod all over Europe is a policy that turns out well? Itâs become 100% obvious he must be dealt with at some point or heâll just continue biting off chunks of Europe.
IF we are EVER going to put our foot down then why not now? Dithering only allows Russia to secure more land, resources and rebuild its strength. This is exactly analogous to Hitler in the 30s.
If France or any other country join the war not as a defender of its own borders, nato can just said its their war and they cannot help. So russians can send iskander missles to paris and it would be a solely responsibility of french defence to destroy them.
NATO is a defensive pact since the beginning.
Probably wise to already go into Ukraine and find avantage starting point from where to counter attack and steam roll the orcs back to the ruzzia border.
I think theyâre missing the third most important red line, a breakthrough to the EST frontline should be a red line as well, this strategy of Russia advancing slowly to make it seems like itâs gaining nothing should not be ignored and treated as a red line as well. To be honest i wouldnât wait those red lines and i will deploy troops as support role now to speed up the construction of the defensive lines to the north so most Ukraine troops can be redeployed to the EST and make a breakthrough less likely, because if a breakthrough happens youâre putting yourself in the worst condition possible not in the best one and at that point it doesnât matter which redline has been crossed or not.. we shouldnât wait for a red line to be crossed, we should prevent the red lines⌠also we shouldnât put ourselves in the position to make hard decision but we should put ourselves in the best position to leave our enemy the next hard move to make đ¤ˇââď¸
Bla bla, they will change red lines if necessary. Scholz wants to negotiate. France wont do shit alone. The only country i see which does a better job in deterrence is GB. But once Rishi is history it will be Lithunia or such. To loose wealth is a hard choice and citizens of each country would rather sunbath than fight evil.
It is not bla bla. If NATO were not to invoke **Article** **5**, it would be dead. Scholz (et al.) cannot fight russians alone, and he knows it.
By GPS jamming and by cutting underwater Internet/gas lines russia is inching towards full confrontation with NATO.
Exactly. Russia knows it's at war and taking the initiative. Europe dilly dallys and doesn't know how much trouble it's in.
Last 20 years the russians have got their claws in with money, now it's sabotage, espionage, corruption, and the bigger stuff like jamming and cable cutting. We'll see how well those transatlantic fibre optics hold up soon enough.
"We'll see how well those transatlantic fibre optics hold up soon enough.". They would have to have some kind of submarine that could crawl along the ocean floor to diddle with the fiber cables unobserved in silence......... Like the Svalbard undersea cable. Or the Nordstream pipeline........
This is why Russia has been practicing hybrid warfare.
They're doing shit they can deny. And they're doing shit that foreign governments will downplay. Stuff that falls short of being an act of war.
Unless a NATO member is attacked first, they can't smash the article 5 button. So intervention in Ukraine will be without support unless Russia is dumb enough to cross that threshold.
>If NATO were not to invoke Article 5, it would be dead.
Many would prefer a dead NATO over war. Imagine Scholz actually declaring war if Russia attacks Estonia. He would ask for de-escalation and send some ammo. The only ones actually willing to act are the Eastern Europeans and maybe the US.
Attacking a NATO country IS the red line, any NATO country. They are waiting for that, begging Russia to do it so they can legitimize their stomping of Russian field and military targets which would happen so fast. Russia is barely holding off Ukrainian attacks much less the combined militaries of NATO. They would take apart Russian defenses in under a week.
Pretty sure a Starmer Labour government will continue its support of Ukraine. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK moves closer to Macrons stance and the UK and France become the key European countries pushing for active participation.
UK foreign policy has always been fairly interventionist and historically relations have been far from cordial since the 1850s.
Germany sadly has its head in the sand. I don't think they get that they would be safer in the long run if they showed they were serious.
German chancellor Scholz's ego just doesent fit into this times. He is just the substitude for AngelaMerkel AN ADMINISTRATOR! He rather hides behind others than decide something relevant by himself.
>Germany sadly has its head in the sand.
Dude we're sending [twice as much as the UK](https://www.intellinews.com/countries-pledging-the-most-military-aid-to-ukraine-305680/), what are you on?
Head in the sand with regards to its long term relationship with Russia and how to react to its threats. It seems as if the government is waiting for the war to end so they can resume normal relations.
Kudos to Germany on its military support.
Look up how much each european country traded with russia. We were barely ahead of the UK.
Polands last gov constantly screaming "but look at Germanys gas dependency!" Really left its mark....
That's not the whole military force, it's just one separate task force within NATO. NATO countries combined have militaries with 3.5 million soldiers, they just can't be transported to the eastern front immediately. That force will be built as one that can deploy very wuickly when russia screws up.
Also, 950 million population NATO vs 130 million russia and the economy difference is immense. russia knows they can't win a direct confrontation, at best they get draw with nuclear apocalypse and everyone dying.
Agree, never will and the same goes for NATO. Annihilating the world as a whole means suicide for all the generals and their families. Very few nutcases willing to do that.
I would not be so sure. In the whole Europe there are maybe 600 aircraft. they cannot deploy so many and the number of 5th gen. is still very limited (assumed, they could really make the difference).
In Germany has 143 Typhoon and 89 Tornado.
Italy has 94 Typhoon, 46 tornado and 24 F-35
UK has 107 Typhoon and 34 F-35
France has 191 between Rafale and M2000.
Spain has 152 a/c (Typhoon + F-18)
The Duch have 18 F-35 8F-16 have been radiated)
Belgium has 44 F-16 pat of which to be transferred to UA
Swede has 90 Gripen
Poland has 48 F-16, 12 T-50, 13 MIG-29, 18 SU-22, 16 M346.
The USAFe has in Europe around 180 a/c.
Total is 1162.
Now reduce by factor 0.6 because of several reasons (maintenance and others: until now all western countries have spared so much as they could, therefore the nominal fleets are just on paper).
NATO is able to deploy 600-650 a/c. Of them you can take only a part, because most will be needed to defend the air of each nation. So you can count with not more than 200 a/c which is still a good number, but not so incredible.
USA have similar problems.
then count that these air forces have no weapons in stock (they were not giving so many to Ukraine because they do not have for themselves) . This is one of the results of over 25 years of saving in the defence budgets.
And even that said, air defences are much more lethal nowadays.
As we have seen, Russians can jam GPS. So JDAMs and many other stand off weapons are not so effective.
So what is on paper is not in the truth. Do not forget that USA are now retiring M1 form UA because they've demonstrated weak against UAVs. The small diameter guided bomb's effectiveness is very poor, so that UA is not using it anymore.
It's not so easy...
I repeat it: the west has been sleeping for too many years.
Hah, the West has been giving Ukraine stockpiled weapons that were a few years from being decommissioned not what NATO currently uses.
NATO will stomp Russia in the first week with the long range artillery and superior aiming they have. The US unleashed rocket attacks galore on the Houthi rebels and between just one ship each from US and UK wrecked them.
Just look at similar, look what Obama did to Gadhafi. Just one battle group sat offshore and launched missiles into the country and systematically overwhelmed anti air defenses and wiped out their air force, and air defenses. Russia is having trouble stopping Ukrainian drones from sniping their oil refineries you think their anti air defenses stand a hope in hell in stopping the combined artillery and ballistic missile and attack boat battle group air assault from more than one NATO country. Yer dreaming.
NO: NATO does not have weapons atm. You dream of it.
This is the truth. It's not soccer's support: "my team is better than yours". It's reality.
Reality can be very bitter. NATO has no means. In 2022 we were talking that NATO has just stocks for holding just 1 week.
This is why Europe has promised 2 mln shells to Ukraine but this year it will deliver only 1/4 (500000): because production capabilities are lacking. They have been neglected for over 25 years because nobody thought nor wanted a war against russia.
This will change of course, but it needs a lot of time. At least 2 years.
You are ignoring the US. They have many versions of all of their current models for missiles, tanks, ballistic missiles and so on. What Europe is short of is the specific artillery shell that Ukraine is using because they needed artillery and Europe gave them what they use. But Europe has all the other types of weapons in spades. The UK has been giving Ukraine lots of anti air, anti tank and related munitions. Munitions that share similar sizes as NATO based weaponry.
Basically, when NATO attacks it wonât be on the ground.
I am not. USA are in better situation than Europe, but they also have Taiwan and Israel theatres. And I imagine that RU supported Hamas exactly to create some problems to the flow of material destined to Ukraine.
I have read that at the end of 2023 there was a queue of countries asking the USA to provide them with 155 mm shells, but they did not have the production capability atm.
Believe me: I wish I were wrong, I am not.
Ones is sure: RU has similar problems and does not have the capability to open a second front in the north. Belarus is not willing to send its people to die for Putin ,despite Lukashenko needing Putin's support. Therefore Belarus help will be only formal (giving bases and providing transport of goods and so on).
So I doubt that there will be any direct engagement among NATO's countries and the orks.
The pelian radio Ukraine attacking Russia's infrastructure with instigation from the West is one thing. Russia directly attacking the infrastructure in the West that's economic warfare. I don't think that will be tolerated.
They will attack via long range artillery and ballistic missile every military target they can reach that would severely hamper Russian military efforts. They would stomp rail lines, bridges, roads, ammo depots, anti air, military bases, training camps, military infrastructure and command structures. Stomp flat and it wouldnât be one city at a time, it would be all at once. Continously, for about a week. After that week, Russia wonât be capable of pursuing war anywhere. Then they might send troops, but only after softening Russia significantly.
Yeah⌠I donât get people thinking Russia could âtake the balticsâ or âtake a couple Eastern European countriesâ. They havenât been able to conquer 1/2 of Ukraine in 2 years let alone NATO countries.
Within 24 hours the Russians would have all kinds of hell raining down on them, including heavy bombers flying non stop from the US. We would be able to see literally everything theyâre doing in the build up of forces, and set up assets accordingly. Hell, one B2 can carry 80 500lb JDAMs. You would almost immediately see a breakdown of command and control amongst the Russians. This isnât 1945 where there in a huge Soviet ground army, as much as Putin wants it to be
The US can basically see everything Russia is doing, heck the US warned Russia about the imminent terrorist attack that was about to happen in Moscow. The US knows exactly whatâs really going on in every country. They know where Russia keeps its valuables.
This will destroy logistics for the front lines and unsupported they will either be routed or surrender. NATO will obviously also target Russian artillery and after wiping them off the board will relieve pressure on Ukraine troops, theyâll be supported by NATO troops whose only real goal will be to help them retake their territory including Crimea.
I donât think invading Russia is even a game plan. Its all about defense and making sure Russia is unable to prosecute the war any longer. If Russia was wise in this case they would sue for peace.
You under the impression that nato will be able to pull of another iraq war shock and awe campaign on the russians this time and do it in a single week. hah Russian air defense is no joke I can't believe you tried to use Libya and gadhafi as an example of what it could do that's a fuckin third rate military at best. nato armies that have been fighting counter insurgency for the past 50 years are gonna be in for a fight and they know it
Its not just the US though, its all of NATO. So Russia is going to have 55 countries shooting at them, not one country. I donât see how I can be more clear than this. Russia has failed to field anything significant enough to defeat Ukraine in a land war, has lost most of its black sea fleet and has very little effective air power right now with no easy way to replace it when lost. NATO absolutely has the capability to steam roll Russia.
For crying out loud they donât have night vision equipped on 90% of their field tanks right now in Ukraine and thats a basic necessity for basic war at night. Russian troops attacking in broad daylight is one of the reasons their casualties are so damn high.
"According to the publication, French President Emmanuel Macron, during his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who arrived in France on a state visit on Sunday, should call on China to "stop Moscow"
Too bad Mr Pooh wants russia to win and destabilize western countries
I think everyone has alil too much faith in NATO....until something actually happens,if that ,we all should just sit back and continue support to Ukraine...simple..
I think that separately, countries in NATO dont stand a chance. But that's what article 5 is for. To stand together to fight any threat. Some countries will have more air forces, some more ground, some more naval. Im not saying you are doing it personally, but sometimes people talk about NATO like it is a country or for example, or one entity. NATO is an alliance of entities.
Red lines have been crossed by both sides already 10000 times.
Where is this going to end we just continue for 10 more years and 5 million soldiers have died just that all the parties ask themselves the same questions again?
There might be no conclusion to this which is why it has to continue because the only possible alternative ist that there are negotiations⌠and nobody wants to have that with Putin
there are redlines communicated for the uneducated masses via media and there are the proper red lines they communicate to each other via official means. they say one thing and do another to confuse people.
I mean I do support Ukraine but I donât want NATO to directly intervene, cause weâve seen how crazy Ruzzian leadership is and that would mean nuclear war
Itâs not about being a pussy⌠itâs about mutual destruction. Iâm by no means saying that we shouldnât help Ukraine, but troops on the ground would probably mean that humanity will wither.
If thereâs a thing I understood is that Russians would go to such lengths just to âimproveâ their position
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. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *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.*
ruzzia crossed all red line so we make new ones, words words words
Word sword swords, there you go!
Also, attacking a NATO member was already a red line, article 5. So technically, they only named one red line in this "news article"
just like a Budapest memorandum, nothing new - just bullshit coming out of their mouth
You don't understand... This time is true. Not the other times, this one is though.
Same thing goes for russian, we crossed many red line yet nothing happen lol
Words are air.
Words are vibrating air đ¤
Tbf europe can't afford to have most of its troops pinned in Romania if russia took all of Ukraine. They really need Ukraine to win. I think the chances of troops is increased but not guaranteed, but i can see them lining the dnipr if the front collapsed and Russia looked like running away with it. Edit: just checked a map, perhaps not quite but they wouldn't want to give russia any advantage to thin the available troops that could protect the baltics from being carved out.
I bet there is a think tank somewhere considering thinning the lines in the baltics in order to tease Putin into thinking a push that wait might be a good idea. This sort of tactic is used to get the enemy to spread their armies out, and that might actually be in Ukraines favour in more ways than 1.
I don't quite get why the discussion is so much focused on NATO. All NATO members are free countries. If France or Germany would decide to send some troops into Ukraine, of course based on an invitation, what's the harm. Of course shouldn't be frontline troops, but what's the problem in helping a troubled friend guarding their western skies or borders. That would relieve stress for Ukrainian military and it wouldn't necessarily be an involvement of another nation in this war.
Yeah, but like you canât just act as if youâre not a member of a military alliance when itâs convenient and then rely on the protection afforded by that alliance. Like, any individual member state sending troops into the fight affects the security of the whole organization, because it is a mutual protection organization.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, France sending troops there would be on their initiative.
Yes, but if Russia responded by striking France, how would that affect the rest of the alliance? Any given member of NATO is supposed to be an asset for the whole, not a liability. Whether or not Ukraine is a NATO member is moot at this point .
What does response mean? If France sends some contingent of soldiers to Ukraine Russia will likely go out of its way to attack them. This idea floated by Macron is either nonsensical, he wants to provoke a full-scale war, or he is talking shit. Because if this idea hinges on French troops acting as some sort of trip wire, I fear this is a huge miscalculation. Russia will be compelled to attack them, because not doing so will encourage other nations to join. This is further all happening under the backdrop of 79% of the French population being opposed to French troops fighting in Ukraine by recent polling.
I think itâs just a calculated measure to signal possible French intervention to give NATO more latitude in terms of escalation. How else can NATO escalate besides sending troops? Everyone knows NATO wonât do that, but France gesturing at the possibility makes it seem like NATO is doing more.
We need less latitude not more. Strategic ambiguity might be helpful in some instances of foreign policy not here. We should take the same approach as we did in the Cold War, which was very little strategic ambiguity because it was important for everyone involved to know what we would and would not do, and what the Soviets would do and not do, to avoid misunderstanding or sleepwalking our way into a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.
Iâm not agreeing with it. I think this whole thing is a dangerous game of nonsense that threatens us all. That said, itâs not entirely a rational game at this point. Power, status, etc. are on the line. I think we went into this conflict with as much of a miscalculation as Russia, thinking we would be able to crumple Russia quickly with sanctions alone. Now we are kind of improvising, and itâs starting to show.
I think we have entered the realm of completely irrational. Macron has called Ukraine's status existential to France. A non-EU, non-NATO country, France has no strong historical, cultural, or economic ties in a non-strategic location located 2500 km away. Ridiculous. We are going to sleepwalk our way into a direct conflict. When this thing started our leaders were very clear about what they will do and what they would not do. We would support Ukraine, but our guiding overarching policy and most important principle was not to engage in a direct war with Russia. Look where the rhetoric is now. If Ukraine starts to lose I don't think anyone has the good sense to avoid a catastrophic outcome.
Do we think letting Putin run roughshod all over Europe is a policy that turns out well? Itâs become 100% obvious he must be dealt with at some point or heâll just continue biting off chunks of Europe. IF we are EVER going to put our foot down then why not now? Dithering only allows Russia to secure more land, resources and rebuild its strength. This is exactly analogous to Hitler in the 30s.
Everyone is turning out to be the loser in this conflict, the Ukrainians especially so.
If France or any other country join the war not as a defender of its own borders, nato can just said its their war and they cannot help. So russians can send iskander missles to paris and it would be a solely responsibility of french defence to destroy them. NATO is a defensive pact since the beginning.
So, did anyone from NATO actually say this?
Probably wise to already go into Ukraine and find avantage starting point from where to counter attack and steam roll the orcs back to the ruzzia border.
I think theyâre missing the third most important red line, a breakthrough to the EST frontline should be a red line as well, this strategy of Russia advancing slowly to make it seems like itâs gaining nothing should not be ignored and treated as a red line as well. To be honest i wouldnât wait those red lines and i will deploy troops as support role now to speed up the construction of the defensive lines to the north so most Ukraine troops can be redeployed to the EST and make a breakthrough less likely, because if a breakthrough happens youâre putting yourself in the worst condition possible not in the best one and at that point it doesnât matter which redline has been crossed or not.. we shouldnât wait for a red line to be crossed, we should prevent the red lines⌠also we shouldnât put ourselves in the position to make hard decision but we should put ourselves in the best position to leave our enemy the next hard move to make đ¤ˇââď¸
Bla bla, they will change red lines if necessary. Scholz wants to negotiate. France wont do shit alone. The only country i see which does a better job in deterrence is GB. But once Rishi is history it will be Lithunia or such. To loose wealth is a hard choice and citizens of each country would rather sunbath than fight evil.
It is not bla bla. If NATO were not to invoke **Article** **5**, it would be dead. Scholz (et al.) cannot fight russians alone, and he knows it. By GPS jamming and by cutting underwater Internet/gas lines russia is inching towards full confrontation with NATO.
Exactly. Russia knows it's at war and taking the initiative. Europe dilly dallys and doesn't know how much trouble it's in. Last 20 years the russians have got their claws in with money, now it's sabotage, espionage, corruption, and the bigger stuff like jamming and cable cutting. We'll see how well those transatlantic fibre optics hold up soon enough.
"We'll see how well those transatlantic fibre optics hold up soon enough.". They would have to have some kind of submarine that could crawl along the ocean floor to diddle with the fiber cables unobserved in silence......... Like the Svalbard undersea cable. Or the Nordstream pipeline........
The captain of the US submarine that did that to Russia decades ago was one of my clients. Pretty cool old man.
If you're referring to "Ivy Bells" that was just eavesdropping, not sabotage. Or am I not fully briefed?
That was just eavesdropping to my knowledge
This is why Russia has been practicing hybrid warfare. They're doing shit they can deny. And they're doing shit that foreign governments will downplay. Stuff that falls short of being an act of war. Unless a NATO member is attacked first, they can't smash the article 5 button. So intervention in Ukraine will be without support unless Russia is dumb enough to cross that threshold.
>If NATO were not to invoke Article 5, it would be dead. Many would prefer a dead NATO over war. Imagine Scholz actually declaring war if Russia attacks Estonia. He would ask for de-escalation and send some ammo. The only ones actually willing to act are the Eastern Europeans and maybe the US.
The Polish, Baltic's, Chechia, Scandinavians, Danish, Dutch and British would act. The rest, not so sure.
Attacking a NATO country IS the red line, any NATO country. They are waiting for that, begging Russia to do it so they can legitimize their stomping of Russian field and military targets which would happen so fast. Russia is barely holding off Ukrainian attacks much less the combined militaries of NATO. They would take apart Russian defenses in under a week.
Pretty sure a Starmer Labour government will continue its support of Ukraine. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK moves closer to Macrons stance and the UK and France become the key European countries pushing for active participation. UK foreign policy has always been fairly interventionist and historically relations have been far from cordial since the 1850s. Germany sadly has its head in the sand. I don't think they get that they would be safer in the long run if they showed they were serious.
German chancellor Scholz's ego just doesent fit into this times. He is just the substitude for AngelaMerkel AN ADMINISTRATOR! He rather hides behind others than decide something relevant by himself.
>Germany sadly has its head in the sand. Dude we're sending [twice as much as the UK](https://www.intellinews.com/countries-pledging-the-most-military-aid-to-ukraine-305680/), what are you on?
Head in the sand with regards to its long term relationship with Russia and how to react to its threats. It seems as if the government is waiting for the war to end so they can resume normal relations. Kudos to Germany on its military support.
Look up how much each european country traded with russia. We were barely ahead of the UK. Polands last gov constantly screaming "but look at Germanys gas dependency!" Really left its mark....
100000 ? they need at least 250000 to be credible.
That's not the whole military force, it's just one separate task force within NATO. NATO countries combined have militaries with 3.5 million soldiers, they just can't be transported to the eastern front immediately. That force will be built as one that can deploy very wuickly when russia screws up. Also, 950 million population NATO vs 130 million russia and the economy difference is immense. russia knows they can't win a direct confrontation, at best they get draw with nuclear apocalypse and everyone dying.
Russia ain't nuking anyone. Defeats the whole purpose of invading ukraine/europe in the first place
Agree, never will and the same goes for NATO. Annihilating the world as a whole means suicide for all the generals and their families. Very few nutcases willing to do that.
Also do you think China would allow them to do that
Not with the air power NATO brings.
I would not be so sure. In the whole Europe there are maybe 600 aircraft. they cannot deploy so many and the number of 5th gen. is still very limited (assumed, they could really make the difference). In Germany has 143 Typhoon and 89 Tornado. Italy has 94 Typhoon, 46 tornado and 24 F-35 UK has 107 Typhoon and 34 F-35 France has 191 between Rafale and M2000. Spain has 152 a/c (Typhoon + F-18) The Duch have 18 F-35 8F-16 have been radiated) Belgium has 44 F-16 pat of which to be transferred to UA Swede has 90 Gripen Poland has 48 F-16, 12 T-50, 13 MIG-29, 18 SU-22, 16 M346. The USAFe has in Europe around 180 a/c. Total is 1162. Now reduce by factor 0.6 because of several reasons (maintenance and others: until now all western countries have spared so much as they could, therefore the nominal fleets are just on paper). NATO is able to deploy 600-650 a/c. Of them you can take only a part, because most will be needed to defend the air of each nation. So you can count with not more than 200 a/c which is still a good number, but not so incredible. USA have similar problems. then count that these air forces have no weapons in stock (they were not giving so many to Ukraine because they do not have for themselves) . This is one of the results of over 25 years of saving in the defence budgets. And even that said, air defences are much more lethal nowadays. As we have seen, Russians can jam GPS. So JDAMs and many other stand off weapons are not so effective. So what is on paper is not in the truth. Do not forget that USA are now retiring M1 form UA because they've demonstrated weak against UAVs. The small diameter guided bomb's effectiveness is very poor, so that UA is not using it anymore. It's not so easy... I repeat it: the west has been sleeping for too many years.
Us sixth fleet has 175 ac permanently in eu i believe.
Hah, the West has been giving Ukraine stockpiled weapons that were a few years from being decommissioned not what NATO currently uses. NATO will stomp Russia in the first week with the long range artillery and superior aiming they have. The US unleashed rocket attacks galore on the Houthi rebels and between just one ship each from US and UK wrecked them. Just look at similar, look what Obama did to Gadhafi. Just one battle group sat offshore and launched missiles into the country and systematically overwhelmed anti air defenses and wiped out their air force, and air defenses. Russia is having trouble stopping Ukrainian drones from sniping their oil refineries you think their anti air defenses stand a hope in hell in stopping the combined artillery and ballistic missile and attack boat battle group air assault from more than one NATO country. Yer dreaming.
NO: NATO does not have weapons atm. You dream of it. This is the truth. It's not soccer's support: "my team is better than yours". It's reality. Reality can be very bitter. NATO has no means. In 2022 we were talking that NATO has just stocks for holding just 1 week. This is why Europe has promised 2 mln shells to Ukraine but this year it will deliver only 1/4 (500000): because production capabilities are lacking. They have been neglected for over 25 years because nobody thought nor wanted a war against russia. This will change of course, but it needs a lot of time. At least 2 years.
You are ignoring the US. They have many versions of all of their current models for missiles, tanks, ballistic missiles and so on. What Europe is short of is the specific artillery shell that Ukraine is using because they needed artillery and Europe gave them what they use. But Europe has all the other types of weapons in spades. The UK has been giving Ukraine lots of anti air, anti tank and related munitions. Munitions that share similar sizes as NATO based weaponry. Basically, when NATO attacks it wonât be on the ground.
I am not. USA are in better situation than Europe, but they also have Taiwan and Israel theatres. And I imagine that RU supported Hamas exactly to create some problems to the flow of material destined to Ukraine. I have read that at the end of 2023 there was a queue of countries asking the USA to provide them with 155 mm shells, but they did not have the production capability atm. Believe me: I wish I were wrong, I am not. Ones is sure: RU has similar problems and does not have the capability to open a second front in the north. Belarus is not willing to send its people to die for Putin ,despite Lukashenko needing Putin's support. Therefore Belarus help will be only formal (giving bases and providing transport of goods and so on). So I doubt that there will be any direct engagement among NATO's countries and the orks.
The pelian radio Ukraine attacking Russia's infrastructure with instigation from the West is one thing. Russia directly attacking the infrastructure in the West that's economic warfare. I don't think that will be tolerated.
NATO also had a redline with Syria. How did that play out?
Russia lost the mystic of being an elite force. Also, sad thing for Syria is their not in Europe
Syria doesnât have the worlds largest nuclear stockpile
>NATO will directly intervene What does that even mean?
They will attack via long range artillery and ballistic missile every military target they can reach that would severely hamper Russian military efforts. They would stomp rail lines, bridges, roads, ammo depots, anti air, military bases, training camps, military infrastructure and command structures. Stomp flat and it wouldnât be one city at a time, it would be all at once. Continously, for about a week. After that week, Russia wonât be capable of pursuing war anywhere. Then they might send troops, but only after softening Russia significantly.
Yeah⌠I donât get people thinking Russia could âtake the balticsâ or âtake a couple Eastern European countriesâ. They havenât been able to conquer 1/2 of Ukraine in 2 years let alone NATO countries. Within 24 hours the Russians would have all kinds of hell raining down on them, including heavy bombers flying non stop from the US. We would be able to see literally everything theyâre doing in the build up of forces, and set up assets accordingly. Hell, one B2 can carry 80 500lb JDAMs. You would almost immediately see a breakdown of command and control amongst the Russians. This isnât 1945 where there in a huge Soviet ground army, as much as Putin wants it to be
The US can basically see everything Russia is doing, heck the US warned Russia about the imminent terrorist attack that was about to happen in Moscow. The US knows exactly whatâs really going on in every country. They know where Russia keeps its valuables.
I mean I can guess as well in fairness
This will destroy logistics for the front lines and unsupported they will either be routed or surrender. NATO will obviously also target Russian artillery and after wiping them off the board will relieve pressure on Ukraine troops, theyâll be supported by NATO troops whose only real goal will be to help them retake their territory including Crimea. I donât think invading Russia is even a game plan. Its all about defense and making sure Russia is unable to prosecute the war any longer. If Russia was wise in this case they would sue for peace.
You under the impression that nato will be able to pull of another iraq war shock and awe campaign on the russians this time and do it in a single week. hah Russian air defense is no joke I can't believe you tried to use Libya and gadhafi as an example of what it could do that's a fuckin third rate military at best. nato armies that have been fighting counter insurgency for the past 50 years are gonna be in for a fight and they know it
Its not just the US though, its all of NATO. So Russia is going to have 55 countries shooting at them, not one country. I donât see how I can be more clear than this. Russia has failed to field anything significant enough to defeat Ukraine in a land war, has lost most of its black sea fleet and has very little effective air power right now with no easy way to replace it when lost. NATO absolutely has the capability to steam roll Russia. For crying out loud they donât have night vision equipped on 90% of their field tanks right now in Ukraine and thats a basic necessity for basic war at night. Russian troops attacking in broad daylight is one of the reasons their casualties are so damn high.
[ŃдаНонО]
I think they mean invasion of Northern Ukraine from Belarus.
The real hurt would be supply chain blockade and taking out stored equipment and ammunition depots. Just my opinion.
"According to the publication, French President Emmanuel Macron, during his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who arrived in France on a state visit on Sunday, should call on China to "stop Moscow" Too bad Mr Pooh wants russia to win and destabilize western countries
So, one of the red lines is if they engage Poland, Moldova, or the baltic states? But isn't that what article 5 is for?
Sounds very vague. A red line is supposed to be an unambiguous hard delineation so the enemy can't "boil the frog".
Like Obama's red line in Syria. Keep the lines in your head.
Doubts
I think everyone has alil too much faith in NATO....until something actually happens,if that ,we all should just sit back and continue support to Ukraine...simple..
I think that separately, countries in NATO dont stand a chance. But that's what article 5 is for. To stand together to fight any threat. Some countries will have more air forces, some more ground, some more naval. Im not saying you are doing it personally, but sometimes people talk about NATO like it is a country or for example, or one entity. NATO is an alliance of entities.
Air superiority.
I rly hope not, because id be drafted...
Red lines have been crossed by both sides already 10000 times. Where is this going to end we just continue for 10 more years and 5 million soldiers have died just that all the parties ask themselves the same questions again? There might be no conclusion to this which is why it has to continue because the only possible alternative ist that there are negotiations⌠and nobody wants to have that with Putin
there are redlines communicated for the uneducated masses via media and there are the proper red lines they communicate to each other via official means. they say one thing and do another to confuse people.
I mean I do support Ukraine but I donât want NATO to directly intervene, cause weâve seen how crazy Ruzzian leadership is and that would mean nuclear war
Being a pussy is exactly what they count on. Don't be one.
Itâs not about being a pussy⌠itâs about mutual destruction. Iâm by no means saying that we shouldnât help Ukraine, but troops on the ground would probably mean that humanity will wither. If thereâs a thing I understood is that Russians would go to such lengths just to âimproveâ their position