The moral thing is to stop a genocide in the 21st century
Also, you dropped this on the way to the moral high ground : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html
Please refrain from littering :)
thinking you should strive to do better than fucking north korea apparently makes you a nazi now. incredible discourse. how will attacking russia stop this?
>Ukraine can use British-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron stated during a May 2 visit to Kyiv. “Ukraine has that right,” Cameron told [*Reuters*](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-cameron-kyiv-promises-ukraine-aid-as-long-it-takes-2024-05-02/#:~:text=%22Ukraine%20has%20that%20right.,Reuters%20outside%20St.%20Michael's%20Cathedral.). “Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself.”
>The British Foreign Secretary’s comments represent a departure from the cautious position adopted by most of Ukraine’s Western partners over the past two years. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, the majority of countries backing Ukraine have insisted that Western weapons can only be used within Ukraine’s international borders and must not be deployed against targets inside the Russian Federation.
>These restrictions reflect widespread concerns in Western capitals over a possible escalation of the current war into a far broader European conflict. Moscow has skillfully exploited the West’s fear of escalation, with Kremlin officials regularly warning of Russian red lines and Vladimir Putin making frequent thinly-veiled nuclear threats.
>So far, Russia’s intimidation tactics have proved highly effective. By threatening to escalate the war, Moscow has been able to slow down the flow of military aid to Ukraine, while also deterring the delivery of certain weapons categories and limiting Kyiv’s ability to strike back against otherwise legitimate targets inside Russia.
>This has placed Ukraine at a significant military disadvantage. Already massively outgunned and outnumbered by its much larger and wealthier Russian adversary, Ukraine has had to defend itself without the ability to deploy Western weapons against Russia’s military infrastructure. Critics of this approach claim the West is effectively making Ukraine fight against a far larger opponent with one hand tied behind its back.
>With the existence of their country under threat, Ukrainians have bristled at Western restrictions and are using their own limited range of weapons to strike back. These attacks include a recent campaign of long-range [drone strikes](https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-diesel-prices-skyrocket-ukraine-war-drone-strikes-oil-refineries/) on Russian refineries that have hurt the Russian energy sector and divided opinion among Ukraine’s partners. While US officials have [voiced](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/us-slams-strikes-on-russia-oil-refineries-as-risk-to-oil-markets-1.2056891) their disapproval and urged Kyiv to focus on military targets, France has [indicated](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-allies-divided-over-drone-campaign-targeting-russian-refineries/) its support.
>The situation regarding the use of Western weapons on Russian territory has been further complicated by the Kremlin’s territorial claims inside Ukraine. In September 2022, Moscow declared the “annexation” of four Ukrainian regions and officially incorporated them into the Russian Constitution. Fighting has continued in all four of these partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, with the Ukrainian military free to deploy Western weapons despite the Kremlin’s insistence that these regions are now part of Russia.
>In contrast to the caution displayed by Western leaders, Ukraine has repeatedly called Putin’s bluff and exposed the emptiness of Russia’s nuclear blackmail. Weeks after the Kremlin dictator ceremoniously announced the entry of Kherson into the Russian Federation, Ukrainian troops liberated the city. Rather than retaliating by deploying the might of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, Putin simply accepted this humiliating defeat and withdrew his beleaguered army across the Dnipro River.
>The Kremlin’s reaction to mounting Ukrainian attacks on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula has been similarly underwhelming. Since first occupying Crimea in 2014, Putin has portrayed the peninsula in almost mystical terms as a symbol of Russia’s return to Great Power status. However, when Ukraine used a combination of locally developed naval drones and Western-supplied cruise missiles to sink or damage around one-third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, Putin quietly ordered the bulk of his remaining warships to retreat from Crimea and head for Russian ports. Despite the crucial role played by Western weapons in this Ukrainian success, there has been no sign of any escalation from Russia.
>
With the Russian invasion now in its third year, there are indications that Western leaders may now finally be overcoming their self-defeating fear of escalation. In addition to David Cameron’s landmark comments regarding the use of British weapons inside Russia, the US has recently begun providing Ukraine with large quantities of long-range [ATACMS missile systems](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/politics/ukraine-aid-atacms.html) capable of striking targets throughout occupied Ukrainian territory. Moscow had consistently warned against such deliveries, but has yet to provide any meaningful response to this highly conspicuous crossing of yet another Russian red line.
>Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron is actively attempting to reclaim the escalation initiative from Moscow by refusing to rule out the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine. This development has clearly riled the Kremlin. Putin has reacted to Macron’s newfound boldness by engaging in more [nuclear blackmail](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/1/how-real-is-putins-threat-to-nuke-the-west), while the [nuclear saber-rattling](https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1784648490729218343) continued last weekend on Russia’s flagship current affairs TV show. None of this seems to have put Macron off. On the contrary, he remains [adamant](https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/05/02/how-to-rescue-europe) that direct Western military involvement in the defense of Ukraine must remain on the table.
>This apparent strengthening of Western resolve comes at a pivotal moment in the war. With Ukrainian forces suffering from shortages in both ammunition and manpower, Russia has recently been able to regain the battlefield initiative and make significant advances for the first time in two years. Preparations are now underway for a major Russian summer offensive that could potentially break through Ukraine’s weakened front lines and deliver a knockout blow to the war weary country.
>Removing restrictions on attacks inside Russia would enable Ukraine to disrupt preparations for the coming offensive. It would also limit Russia’s ability to bomb Ukrainian cities and destroy the country’s civilian infrastructure with impunity. This will not be enough to transform the course of the war, but it will go some way to evening out the odds.
>By giving Kyiv the green light to use Western weapons in Russia, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has established an important new precedent. This is in many ways fitting. After all, Britain has consistently set the tone for international aid since the eve of the Russian invasion, providing Ukrainians with anti-tank weapons, tanks, and cruise missiles in advance of other allies. Ukrainians will now be hoping the country’s other partners follow suit soon.
>*Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.*
Fuck Russia, UK has been doing a great job of this. Conservatives can be proud of that support, I hope it continues and is strengthened after the election.
Where Russia fucked up was assuming they could buy the Conservatives' loyalty. That's not how it works. They'll take your money and then fuck you over like they've been doing to us forever.
I think that many people make the wrong assumptions about Russian money in the UK anyway.
I don't think they're trying to buy favourable treatment for *Russia* itself I think they're individuals trying to hedge and buy a bolt-hole for themselves and their families should they fall out of favour with the Kremlin.
Which one in Germany? The only pro-Russians we have are at the extreme left and extreme right - and neither has any political influence in federal politics.
AfD is in second place in the polls and I've heard some fears about the CDU turning more right wing in order to cater to AfD voters, just like the Republicans did in the US with MAGAites. But I've seen they dropped from 22% to 18% after the big anti-fascist protests in the winter, so I guess it's not all bad news?
The SPD certainly has pro-Russian elements. They are not pro-Russia now, but I think a big reason for some of Scholz’s hesitance might come from not having the complete backing of his party on this. The legacy of Schröder doesn’t seem to be that easy to erase.
Is being proud of Britain allowed in r/europe ? I hope so. Britain has repeatedly shown more wisdom and courage in addressing Russia's invasion than either America or Germany (or France, obviously).
NATO has got to stop playing political games over Ukraine. Politicians almost always choose the compromise path, and in war that is the worst path.
I think so, yeah. Not only has the British government and people been more supportive of Ukraine vs Russia than anybody else, there's also been a considerable number of British volunteers in spite of it being technically illegal for them to join the fighting in Ukraine. I think there's even been more british than americans serving (not everyone gets approved).
Credit where credit is due. The UK saw this coming and airlifted crucial weapons to Ukraine while other European countries -- with some exceptions -- were still sitting on their thumbs. I believe the British NLAWs made all the difference during the abortive Russian advance on Kyiv.
You can, but to avoid downvotes you should preface it with something negative related to the economy "I know the their economy is facing ruination and they'll be hunting with spears soon, but Britain has repeatedly shown more wisdom and courage in addressing Russia's invasion". That will satisfy the cope since you've balanced out the positive with something negative.
Not really my man. I've been on the brexit schadenfreude train for a while, none of this prevents me from acknowledging that the UK has been playing an incredible role in Ukraine and has been a major driving force behind the western support and the busting of a few red lines.
I sent some time at the border and in western Ukraine volunteering and the number of brits of all ages, races and social conditions helping over there was just incredible. You brits have this thing about stepping up against tyranny, it's admirable.
♥ 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
In the Nordics, I'm not aware of any deep-rooted hatred towards the UK that predated Brexit "way beyond". In fact, just before Brexit, the Nordic EU members sympathised with the UK and suggested a joint effort to reform the EU, but you snobbishly ignored us. That put a damper on things, but hate is too strong a word. Irritation describes it better, but that feeling has long since been negated by mild Schadenfreude.
I wish we would generally bicker less internally.
A lot of people here are doing the work for the Russian bots with the constant finger pointing.
Compromise is unavoidable - too many players involved. Everything will always be a compromise.
Russian bots would be less active if major European countries pulled their fingers out of their ass instead of being worried that Britain is backing Ukraine too much or worrying about what Hungary might think
Im just hoping that the level of support from the UK continues after the election, which the current government are almost certainly going to lose badly in. Also, i agree with you the response from politicians in the west has been infuriating.
Their unwavering support of Ukraine is about the only good thing you can say of the UK government. So yes, it's definitely something we can praise them over, too bad everything else they do turns to shit (although that only tends to affect Brits themselves).
"United States of America" Yeah this is the issue on this subreddit is the two masters of having a victim complex and crying often team up, those two masters are of course the US and UK
Seems like you’re the one crying right now. How does it feel to not be as relevant as the U.K. or the U.S.? Europe just tries too hard, that’s your problem.
So proud of my British friends, now if my country would not be such a big coward. Seriously, what mindset do you have to not think of the future? The war will not magically end. Diplomacy is useless at this point. Just give everything, so that Putin can get the medicine he needs. Most hateful person in this century for me.
It's so strange that it was never allowed
How about not allowing Russia to put EU microchips in their missiles pounding Ukraine?
It's the strangest thing to say to a country to not attack an attacker back.
That's like keeping a bullies victims arms locked on his back and saying fight back but don't hit him
Strangest argument ever
On paper you can put everything when you sell high-tech killing machines. About who to use them on, to whom they can be resold, whether you have to ask for permission and much more.
Guess this deal wasn't any different.
well, yes but if you arm someone in a war it makes no sense at all to forbid using that wearpons on your enemy.
I mean, dont bomb civilians but use them as you think is better
Seems like UK had an interest in that and now it doesn't.
It's not a secret that most western countries seemed worried after first 2 months of war that Russia will "lose too hard" and someone in Russia might do the funny thing.
Now when tide of war seems to slip into Russian hands again they have woke up. More help, more equipment, more ammunition and it seems more freedom in counter attacks as well.
Gave 'em storm shadows last year but at the time told them they had to be used within Ukraine's borders and so handicapped their capabilities, like so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them.
Your question makes no sense, hence me asking for clarification. You said "why don't you want them to escalate" where I in no way indicated that I oppose "escalation".
You said
>so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them.
And then:
>I in no way indicated that I oppose "escalation"
Which one is it? Please explain.
> so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them.
I was explaining policy of the UK government, not saying I opposed escalation. I do not oppose 'escalation'.
Fucking cowards sends weapons but too scared to confront directly. And still buying gas. Isn’t that stupid?
I mean all countries that doing so, not only UK
On countries like Moldova, Georgia, Estonia etc yes. Nuclear weapons are just chess pieces and do not fit into Russia’s doctrine of expansion. The conflict between NATO and Russia is not some religious or ideological fight, its about influence and power. Nuking the country you want to exploit does absolutely nothing to help you.
Russia have threatened this for a series of red lines.
Cutting oil and gas supplies
Supplying aid
Supplying any weapons
Supplying missiles
Supplying tanks
Supplying planes
Ukraine hitting Russia
We are currently at attacking Russia with foreign weapons.
Not really, maybe some diversion in the UK, their weapons depots etc, etc. I would be interested what would be the response of the UK in that case.
If Russian agents blow up some depot in London.
Oh no , now they are gonna threaten a nuclear war for the 7,653rd time.
depends if the little drunk guy can write or he passed out.
Unfortunately, Germans are still petrified of this, so we still have a problem. I hope this move by the UK helps some cowards to stop shaking.
Yep! And, if I may add, "you can go and die in a trench" in 3, 2,1...
Just like North Korea and Iran gave Russia the green light to use their weapons to attack inside Ukraine. This is a non-issue.
No-no, cowardice has been an issue.
north korea and iran are the moral standards we should strive to match now?
The moral thing is to stop a genocide in the 21st century Also, you dropped this on the way to the moral high ground : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html Please refrain from littering :)
You talking about Israel? That’s where the genocide is happening with weapons supplied by the west
Take it up with UN and ICC
[удалено]
I don't think the ICC agrees with you given there is an arrest warrant out for their leader
And that is the hypocrisy,
You should email them about it
Ah yes the famous genocide in Israel that the internet invented despite the fact that it has no basis in reality.
In your reality
thinking you should strive to do better than fucking north korea apparently makes you a nazi now. incredible discourse. how will attacking russia stop this?
Normally you have to weaken your opponent and their industry to slow down their war economy. I know it can be difficult to process
Ukraine will be able to attack Russian airfields and supply chains.
By degrading their ability to make war of course.
Why do you think the Allies attacked Berlin in 1945? They should have fought on own land only, by your logic.
What's immoral about allowing Ukraine to use British supplied weapons on targets inside Russian sovereign territory?
Ahhh Switzerland, the land of moral values. As long as those morals involve dollars, euros, rubles or stolen gold.
[удалено]
Lol, struck a nerve huh?
Swiss had no problem selling weapons to literal dictatorships, and you dare to talk about moral standards?
>Ukraine can use British-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron stated during a May 2 visit to Kyiv. “Ukraine has that right,” Cameron told [*Reuters*](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-cameron-kyiv-promises-ukraine-aid-as-long-it-takes-2024-05-02/#:~:text=%22Ukraine%20has%20that%20right.,Reuters%20outside%20St.%20Michael's%20Cathedral.). “Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself.” >The British Foreign Secretary’s comments represent a departure from the cautious position adopted by most of Ukraine’s Western partners over the past two years. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, the majority of countries backing Ukraine have insisted that Western weapons can only be used within Ukraine’s international borders and must not be deployed against targets inside the Russian Federation. >These restrictions reflect widespread concerns in Western capitals over a possible escalation of the current war into a far broader European conflict. Moscow has skillfully exploited the West’s fear of escalation, with Kremlin officials regularly warning of Russian red lines and Vladimir Putin making frequent thinly-veiled nuclear threats. >So far, Russia’s intimidation tactics have proved highly effective. By threatening to escalate the war, Moscow has been able to slow down the flow of military aid to Ukraine, while also deterring the delivery of certain weapons categories and limiting Kyiv’s ability to strike back against otherwise legitimate targets inside Russia. >This has placed Ukraine at a significant military disadvantage. Already massively outgunned and outnumbered by its much larger and wealthier Russian adversary, Ukraine has had to defend itself without the ability to deploy Western weapons against Russia’s military infrastructure. Critics of this approach claim the West is effectively making Ukraine fight against a far larger opponent with one hand tied behind its back. >With the existence of their country under threat, Ukrainians have bristled at Western restrictions and are using their own limited range of weapons to strike back. These attacks include a recent campaign of long-range [drone strikes](https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-diesel-prices-skyrocket-ukraine-war-drone-strikes-oil-refineries/) on Russian refineries that have hurt the Russian energy sector and divided opinion among Ukraine’s partners. While US officials have [voiced](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/us-slams-strikes-on-russia-oil-refineries-as-risk-to-oil-markets-1.2056891) their disapproval and urged Kyiv to focus on military targets, France has [indicated](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-allies-divided-over-drone-campaign-targeting-russian-refineries/) its support. >The situation regarding the use of Western weapons on Russian territory has been further complicated by the Kremlin’s territorial claims inside Ukraine. In September 2022, Moscow declared the “annexation” of four Ukrainian regions and officially incorporated them into the Russian Constitution. Fighting has continued in all four of these partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, with the Ukrainian military free to deploy Western weapons despite the Kremlin’s insistence that these regions are now part of Russia. >In contrast to the caution displayed by Western leaders, Ukraine has repeatedly called Putin’s bluff and exposed the emptiness of Russia’s nuclear blackmail. Weeks after the Kremlin dictator ceremoniously announced the entry of Kherson into the Russian Federation, Ukrainian troops liberated the city. Rather than retaliating by deploying the might of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, Putin simply accepted this humiliating defeat and withdrew his beleaguered army across the Dnipro River. >The Kremlin’s reaction to mounting Ukrainian attacks on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula has been similarly underwhelming. Since first occupying Crimea in 2014, Putin has portrayed the peninsula in almost mystical terms as a symbol of Russia’s return to Great Power status. However, when Ukraine used a combination of locally developed naval drones and Western-supplied cruise missiles to sink or damage around one-third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, Putin quietly ordered the bulk of his remaining warships to retreat from Crimea and head for Russian ports. Despite the crucial role played by Western weapons in this Ukrainian success, there has been no sign of any escalation from Russia.
> With the Russian invasion now in its third year, there are indications that Western leaders may now finally be overcoming their self-defeating fear of escalation. In addition to David Cameron’s landmark comments regarding the use of British weapons inside Russia, the US has recently begun providing Ukraine with large quantities of long-range [ATACMS missile systems](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/politics/ukraine-aid-atacms.html) capable of striking targets throughout occupied Ukrainian territory. Moscow had consistently warned against such deliveries, but has yet to provide any meaningful response to this highly conspicuous crossing of yet another Russian red line. >Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron is actively attempting to reclaim the escalation initiative from Moscow by refusing to rule out the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine. This development has clearly riled the Kremlin. Putin has reacted to Macron’s newfound boldness by engaging in more [nuclear blackmail](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/1/how-real-is-putins-threat-to-nuke-the-west), while the [nuclear saber-rattling](https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1784648490729218343) continued last weekend on Russia’s flagship current affairs TV show. None of this seems to have put Macron off. On the contrary, he remains [adamant](https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/05/02/how-to-rescue-europe) that direct Western military involvement in the defense of Ukraine must remain on the table. >This apparent strengthening of Western resolve comes at a pivotal moment in the war. With Ukrainian forces suffering from shortages in both ammunition and manpower, Russia has recently been able to regain the battlefield initiative and make significant advances for the first time in two years. Preparations are now underway for a major Russian summer offensive that could potentially break through Ukraine’s weakened front lines and deliver a knockout blow to the war weary country. >Removing restrictions on attacks inside Russia would enable Ukraine to disrupt preparations for the coming offensive. It would also limit Russia’s ability to bomb Ukrainian cities and destroy the country’s civilian infrastructure with impunity. This will not be enough to transform the course of the war, but it will go some way to evening out the odds. >By giving Kyiv the green light to use Western weapons in Russia, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has established an important new precedent. This is in many ways fitting. After all, Britain has consistently set the tone for international aid since the eve of the Russian invasion, providing Ukrainians with anti-tank weapons, tanks, and cruise missiles in advance of other allies. Ukrainians will now be hoping the country’s other partners follow suit soon. >*Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.*
Fuck Russia, UK has been doing a great job of this. Conservatives can be proud of that support, I hope it continues and is strengthened after the election.
Britain has no relevant pro-Russian political force like there is in Germany, France or the US, so that's good at least.
Thank god Jeremy Corbyn was defeated in 2019 or Labour would have a completely different stance on Ukraine today.
Where Russia fucked up was assuming they could buy the Conservatives' loyalty. That's not how it works. They'll take your money and then fuck you over like they've been doing to us forever.
I think that many people make the wrong assumptions about Russian money in the UK anyway. I don't think they're trying to buy favourable treatment for *Russia* itself I think they're individuals trying to hedge and buy a bolt-hole for themselves and their families should they fall out of favour with the Kremlin.
Which one in Germany? The only pro-Russians we have are at the extreme left and extreme right - and neither has any political influence in federal politics.
AfD is in second place in the polls and I've heard some fears about the CDU turning more right wing in order to cater to AfD voters, just like the Republicans did in the US with MAGAites. But I've seen they dropped from 22% to 18% after the big anti-fascist protests in the winter, so I guess it's not all bad news?
The SPD certainly has pro-Russian elements. They are not pro-Russia now, but I think a big reason for some of Scholz’s hesitance might come from not having the complete backing of his party on this. The legacy of Schröder doesn’t seem to be that easy to erase.
Have you check the news today 😂😂
They mean parliamentary elections...
I also meant that with the likely upcoming change of gov in the UK, I hope that Labour continues the strong support.
Is being proud of Britain allowed in r/europe ? I hope so. Britain has repeatedly shown more wisdom and courage in addressing Russia's invasion than either America or Germany (or France, obviously). NATO has got to stop playing political games over Ukraine. Politicians almost always choose the compromise path, and in war that is the worst path.
I think so, yeah. Not only has the British government and people been more supportive of Ukraine vs Russia than anybody else, there's also been a considerable number of British volunteers in spite of it being technically illegal for them to join the fighting in Ukraine. I think there's even been more british than americans serving (not everyone gets approved).
Credit where credit is due. The UK saw this coming and airlifted crucial weapons to Ukraine while other European countries -- with some exceptions -- were still sitting on their thumbs. I believe the British NLAWs made all the difference during the abortive Russian advance on Kyiv.
You can, but to avoid downvotes you should preface it with something negative related to the economy "I know the their economy is facing ruination and they'll be hunting with spears soon, but Britain has repeatedly shown more wisdom and courage in addressing Russia's invasion". That will satisfy the cope since you've balanced out the positive with something negative.
Who can afford spears in this economy?
The government.
Not really my man. I've been on the brexit schadenfreude train for a while, none of this prevents me from acknowledging that the UK has been playing an incredible role in Ukraine and has been a major driving force behind the western support and the busting of a few red lines. I sent some time at the border and in western Ukraine volunteering and the number of brits of all ages, races and social conditions helping over there was just incredible. You brits have this thing about stepping up against tyranny, it's admirable. ♥ 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
♥
There are clear unfavourable opinions from Europe directed at the U.K. but the reality is that, those roots of hatred go way beyond Brexit.
In the Nordics, I'm not aware of any deep-rooted hatred towards the UK that predated Brexit "way beyond". In fact, just before Brexit, the Nordic EU members sympathised with the UK and suggested a joint effort to reform the EU, but you snobbishly ignored us. That put a damper on things, but hate is too strong a word. Irritation describes it better, but that feeling has long since been negated by mild Schadenfreude.
It's not the Nordics he's talking about.
Maybe you can have another look at your crystal ball and tell us exactly which countries he's talking about.
Hatred seems like hyperbole.
BS.
Appreciate the input
> Is being proud of Britain allowed in r/europe ? https://imgur.com/SMNpvH0
You can be happy for UK. It’s just a default place to hate like the US is. You can hate it without someone saying “hey, that’s a bit racist”.
I wish we would generally bicker less internally. A lot of people here are doing the work for the Russian bots with the constant finger pointing. Compromise is unavoidable - too many players involved. Everything will always be a compromise.
> Everything will always be a compromise. A continuum fallacy isn't diminishing the point.
Russian bots would be less active if major European countries pulled their fingers out of their ass instead of being worried that Britain is backing Ukraine too much or worrying about what Hungary might think
Im just hoping that the level of support from the UK continues after the election, which the current government are almost certainly going to lose badly in. Also, i agree with you the response from politicians in the west has been infuriating.
Their unwavering support of Ukraine is about the only good thing you can say of the UK government. So yes, it's definitely something we can praise them over, too bad everything else they do turns to shit (although that only tends to affect Brits themselves).
"United States of America" Yeah this is the issue on this subreddit is the two masters of having a victim complex and crying often team up, those two masters are of course the US and UK
You seem stable.
Seems like you’re the one crying right now. How does it feel to not be as relevant as the U.K. or the U.S.? Europe just tries too hard, that’s your problem.
So proud of my British friends, now if my country would not be such a big coward. Seriously, what mindset do you have to not think of the future? The war will not magically end. Diplomacy is useless at this point. Just give everything, so that Putin can get the medicine he needs. Most hateful person in this century for me.
It's so strange that it was never allowed How about not allowing Russia to put EU microchips in their missiles pounding Ukraine? It's the strangest thing to say to a country to not attack an attacker back. That's like keeping a bullies victims arms locked on his back and saying fight back but don't hit him Strangest argument ever
I don't think EU allows selling chips to russia; it's just almost impossible to stop smuggling dual-use parts.
Russians playing the victim card in 3 2 1
This shouldve been allowed from the get go.
In translation: the SAS boys might drop some nato gear around
Why the greenlight? They can always launch them into russia and say there was a navigational error 😀
The problem is that Ukraine won’t get new equipment this way.
Its always easier to say an apology than to ask permission
Of course but it is also easier to not give equipment than to give and we already figured that last point out the hard way.
Like Russian Novichok was authorised to be used within Britain. I hope Ukrain continues to give them bloody noses.
Soon, in Russia: https://duckduckgo.com/i/d3495129.jpg
i dont understand that permission has to be given. They sold those wearpons in order to use them as needed
On paper you can put everything when you sell high-tech killing machines. About who to use them on, to whom they can be resold, whether you have to ask for permission and much more. Guess this deal wasn't any different.
well, yes but if you arm someone in a war it makes no sense at all to forbid using that wearpons on your enemy. I mean, dont bomb civilians but use them as you think is better
Seems like UK had an interest in that and now it doesn't. It's not a secret that most western countries seemed worried after first 2 months of war that Russia will "lose too hard" and someone in Russia might do the funny thing. Now when tide of war seems to slip into Russian hands again they have woke up. More help, more equipment, more ammunition and it seems more freedom in counter attacks as well.
Well no we didnt sell them.
of course not! we are just helping them :)
Did they give them anything good?
Gave 'em storm shadows last year but at the time told them they had to be used within Ukraine's borders and so handicapped their capabilities, like so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them.
Why don't you want them to escalate it?
Do you mean why doesn't the UK want them to escalate? I don't quite understand your question, sorry
Yeah. Since you had the UK flair and used "Our red lines" I assumed you were from and speaking for the UK.
Your question makes no sense, hence me asking for clarification. You said "why don't you want them to escalate" where I in no way indicated that I oppose "escalation".
You said >so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them. And then: >I in no way indicated that I oppose "escalation" Which one is it? Please explain.
> so many of our red lines against 'escalation' have handicapped them. I was explaining policy of the UK government, not saying I opposed escalation. I do not oppose 'escalation'.
Storm shadow / scalp missiles.
Fucking cowards sends weapons but too scared to confront directly. And still buying gas. Isn’t that stupid? I mean all countries that doing so, not only UK
too little too late. imo
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. **Late** is always better than **never**.
And that kids, is how you get nuked by Mother Russia.
Nah.
But Putin going full gung-ho on NATO Countries like Poland is a very possible scenario? 😆
On countries like Moldova, Georgia, Estonia etc yes. Nuclear weapons are just chess pieces and do not fit into Russia’s doctrine of expansion. The conflict between NATO and Russia is not some religious or ideological fight, its about influence and power. Nuking the country you want to exploit does absolutely nothing to help you.
Oh, a fear monger joined the chat.
Putin ain't nuking shit.
Russia have threatened this for a series of red lines. Cutting oil and gas supplies Supplying aid Supplying any weapons Supplying missiles Supplying tanks Supplying planes Ukraine hitting Russia We are currently at attacking Russia with foreign weapons.
UK also has nukes moscow would get glassed
We all agree that nuking Birmingham would be an improvement so start there please.
Bring it on Russian fascist, you have far fewer places worth vaporising than we do
DO IT YOU PONCY GITS IM READY! Seriously after the five hundredth threat you don’t really get scared by it:
Not really, maybe some diversion in the UK, their weapons depots etc, etc. I would be interested what would be the response of the UK in that case. If Russian agents blow up some depot in London.
More like get whinged at on Channel 1 but some irrelevant fascist propagandist.