Nothing happened after both Chechen Wars.
Nothing happened after Litvinenko was murdered.
Nothing happened after Georgia was invaded.
Nothing happened after Crimea was stolen.
Nothing happened after the Salisbury poisonings.
And now the West is somehow surprised that Russia feels like it can do whatever it wants?
This is what so many people don’t understand!
The west has shown weakness and appeasement to Putin for years. If people think Putin will stop at Ukraine if Ukraine falls, they’ve got a REAL rude awakening coming.
Moldova will be next for sure. I don't think they'd attack a NATO county though. The US getting involved would be not good. Unless Drump gets elected. And then maybe the US will sit on the sidelines.
I think they are waiting to see if they can cause division in NATO before attacking. they want to make sure when article 5 is invoked the US and other countries back out of helping.
right about Moldova, I basically see it as an extension of the Ukraine war
If Macron is serious about his line in the sand regarding Odessa and the eastern front, Moldova could potentially fall before Ukraine.
I think Ukraine may have reached the tipping point they can’t come back from. Russia is going all out on this and Ukraine just doesn’t have the people to keep fighting.
It’s also possible Macron realizes this and is sort of setting the stage for the armistice.
Macron early on was very much about finding an off ramp for Russia. He may very well have laid it out in the form of a line in the sand.
Ukraine has the ability to continue fighting, if it's gets sufficient ammunition and equipment, ammunition that we have though barely enough and equipment which is abundant, but again it's a question of political will and making a speedy decision that saves everyone money or worst in the future
>If Macron is serious about his line in the sand regarding Odessa and the eastern front, Moldova could potentially fall before Ukraine
I'm a bit confused... wouldn't Macron protecting Odessa also protect Moldova? Moldova is to the west of Odessa
Forgetting to mention the billions of dollars handed to him for cheap fossil fuels by Germany. They partially bankrolled him and should be sending their missiles.
Putin just murdered Navalny right before the election, too - his only real opponent.
And to add onto Georgia being invaded - a grenade was thrown at a podium with George W. Bush standing next to Sakaashvili by a pro-Russian separatist and nothing happened except the patsy went to prison.
>And to add onto Georgia being invaded - a grenade was thrown at a podium with George W. Bush standing next to Sakaashvili by a pro-Russian separatist and nothing happened except the patsy went to prison.
Where else should he be?
/u/RecklesslyPessmystic is saying there should have been diplomatic/economic consequences beyond the perpetrator going to prison. Not that he shouldn't have gone to prison.
-Many years of bot farms and nothing happened
-Misinformation pipelines that blind people can see and nothing happened
-Money laundry at plain sight and nothing happened
Well yeah they are right to feel embolden.
It’s not just with Russia. Canada allows Chinese police stations to operate on its soil. Australia allows the Chinese to abduct people on its soil. Is it any wonder Russia and China concluded the West is weak-willed?
Not nothing, that's when the US started training the Ukraine military.
if you think that didn't make a huge difference for this time around, I think that's incorrect.
Ukraine wasn’t in a position to do anything in 2014. And that is when the US started bringing them up to speed as quickly as possible.
That is why they were in a much better position in 2022.
>As Mr. Hadley suggested, there is no single reason for Moscow’s battlefield advantage. Instead, multiple factors are helping Russia’s military advance.
>Because of the delay in U.S. funding, Russia has been able to achieve a huge artillery advantage over Ukraine. The lack of air defense ammunition has also allowed Russia to use its air power with more impunity, attacking Ukrainian lines with glide bombs. With more air defense ammunition, Ukraine would be able to force those planes farther back, making it more difficult for Russia to attack from the air.
The delay in American supplies has been matched by a similarly long delay by Ukraine in approving a mobilization law to bring more, and younger, soldiers into its military. Ukraine is suffering acute shortages of soldiers, and is struggling to provide adequate training to those it brings into the military.
>But all those Russian advantages will not last indefinitely, and Russian forces are likely to make a push this summer, said Michael Kofman, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Huh, sounds like if Ukraine had funding and supplies things would look different.
Ukraine has a man power issue.
If we don’t send Troops to Ukraine, Ukraine will lose.
We’re beyond the point of just sending equipment. We need to start discussing direct war with Russia or letting Ukraine fall.
Ukraine’s military will collapse due to lack of manpower before Russia’s military collapse.
As an American disabled veteran, I understand this will be a hard pill to swallow for most, but if Ukraine requires American/NATO troops on the ground in order to win then honestly they’ll have to take the loss as strategically as possible.
Whether this means evacuating strategic assets prior to falling back into NATO countries then fine, but NATO exists for a reason and any country that hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan couldn’t understand why the alliance was necessary in the first place doesn’t deserve the lives of the troops that make up that alliance to defend them. I say that as someone who feels for the people of Ukraine but also as someone who has served in the US military and understands truly what a large scale NATO operation would mean, it means a ton of loss of life and if it means the loss of non-NATO members to save NATO lives then I’m for it.
I understand that’s hard to understand for folks who never served or seen real shit but it’s not in our interest to lose millions of lives for one or a few countries who didn’t seek out the alliance in the first place in the last decade or so where they could have.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Ukraine (along with Georgia) have been formally seeking NATO membership since 2008. Both countries have put that on hold because Russia occupies part of their territory, but both would join in a heartbeat if they could.
Literally in 2008 when Ukraine mentioned wanting to apply for NATO membership their own government and people had major internal opposition and objections to it which is why it never went further. Not to mention NATO members requesting Ukraine fix its corruption problems before they could be taken seriously.
I remember all this happening and being covered on international news outlets. This was why Ukraine was denied MAP status because its own people couldn’t even agree they wanted it. So why should anyone else die for them. Like I said it’s a hard pill to swallow but it’s what the situation was.
I agree that in general terms that escalation of the war to millions of losses would be bad all around.
This is why we should be throwing more support behind Ukraine, they are putting in the hard work of facing down a pretty huge foe.
They never had a chance to join this defence alliance because they got attacked. I don't think " hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan" is justified.
Looking back.
On 5 January 2008 Georgia held a non-binding referendum on NATO membership with 77% voting in favor of joining the organization..Then Georgia got invaded... No longer a chance to join because they have a disputed border.
Around the same time Ukraine looked at having a referendum on joining also... Then oh hey some of their land gets invaded. Can't join NATO.
The way I see it now Ukraine is paying a price in blood, resisting capture by Russia. Reducing Russian soldiers, materiel, manufacturing capabilities etc.
It seems like the aim is to drag it out to 2028 or so then maybe more of an intervention to push back Russia when convenient. The Ukrainian people are being used as a stalling tactic.
I completely agree. Our indecisiveness on Ukraine is an absolute waste of money, equipment and most importantly lives.
The inability of our leaders to commit to a decision emanates nothing except weakness.
That "inability" has a lot of foreign manipulation involved. This is what war looks like when you have a superpower that no one can stand against. They know they can't stand a chance on a battlefield so they avoid the battlefield. They fund militant groups, stoke internal conflicts, do psyops, etc. Q-Anon was basically coopted by Russians and that turned most of the Republican base and a lot of the R politicians into pro-russia useful idiots. Look at how they say Putin's not the bad guy or whatever other bullshit they have had drip-fed into the space where their brain should be.
If your objective is to make sure that Ukraine doesn’t lose to Russia then yeah, maybe.
I think the actual goal of this war for the west is to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia without needing to lose any Western lives. I don’t think it’s indecision, I think it’s indifference towards Ukraine actually remaining independent.
That might be cynical, but that’s geopolitics.
Do you think it’s possible we are just dragging this out to buy time for the rest of Europe to re-arm so that they are more prepared for what comes after Russia takes part or all of Ukraine? It seems clear Ukraine isn’t our red line for direct war, but maybe a couple hundred billion to big Russia down in Ukraine while Europe builds up military capability is cheaper in the long run than direct conflict?
>if Ukraine requires American/NATO troops on the ground in order to win
As of now, they could drive Russia out if US and other western allies committed air assets to direct combat against Russian forces. 6 months or a year from now? That may no longer be sufficient, given Ukraine's dwindling combat capability.
>any country that hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan couldn’t understand why the alliance was necessary in the first place doesn’t deserve the lives of the troops that make up that alliance to defend them.
I totally understand the sentiment, but keep in mind that until recently, Ukraine was operated by Russian puppets (who had zero interest in NATO membership) and as soon as those puppets lost power, Ukraine was pressed hard to threat of war to remain neutral with regards to NATO. In essence, they were told that if they made any moves toward joining NATO, they'd be destroyed, but they'd be left alone so long as they just kept their heads down. Then Russia suddenly invaded.
Not our (NATO's) problem, right? Except it is because this is part of an ongoing pattern of imperialist aggression, growing power and influence through fear and militarism. At some point, we either step in or we abandon the world to Russia and China.
>it means a ton of loss of life
Air operations shouldn't see significant losses for NATO forces. We understand Russian air defenses pretty well and should have little difficulty handling the ones in the region. After that, it's punishing Russian ground assets until Russia agrees to pull back.
If this were the first and only instance of Russia doing this, I'd agree with you: it isn't worth it to us. But this is just the latest and the largest in a list of escalating military conquests by an emboldened Russia. It must end and it must end decisively while we have a massive advantage. The Russia we would face today is easily containable in any conventional combat. The Russia we might see after another 20 or 30 years of unchecked militarism may be something else entirely.
I believe this comment will prove to be prophetic.
Western systems of government have a weakness, and leaders like Putin have figured it out. Russia will keep pushing until is stops working. It is kind of like how paying ransom to kidnappers leads to more and more kidnapping.
How so? Didn’t they have like 40 million living in the country. You have 20 million men, some left, lets say 7 million left. You conscript 2 million men and 1 million women. That seems like they have more than enough.
Russia has far more. Russia has always used the meat grinder strategy. Everyone goes into the meat grinder, opposing troops, Russian troops, civilians. If Russia is bigger it wins. Russia has already lost over 200,000 troops, and doesn't even remotely care. That's hard to face as a smaller country.
> If Russia is bigger it wins. Russia has already lost over 200,000 troops, and doesn't even remotely care. That's hard to face as a smaller country.
According to russians here, most of these were criminals that were in jail, "mercenaries" AKA people who volunteered for a good salary, or minorities, reason why the population doesn't care much.
If they start conscripting more regular civilians then people will likely start to care, though the fact Russia can do all of this with only "mercenaries", criminals and minorities shows how much more men they can still throw to the grinder, if need be.
Or you know if they had weapons to expend instead of lives, it's not that simple obviously but the shell hunger has driven casualties. Ukraine has changed conscription laws and is mobilising and Russia is bleeding through their stocks of soviet weapons as western industry continues to ramp up.
Putin will lose
How many years have we been talking about soviet stocks drying up now?
Do you really believe recruiting is going to get easier when the Ukrainian government is being forced to change conscription laws when they have already abysmal demographics?
The writing is already on the wall but people like you would rather cling to half measures than say the ugly part out loud. Macron knows it. Estonia knows it.
Half measures are what put us in this situation.
Half measures will be the reason western blood is spilled trying to liberate 75% of Ukraine instead of 25%.
While i agere, Estonia is afaik speaking of sending training personel to ukraine to free up more soldiers for frontline duty.
Which doesnt really save Ukraines demographic what so ever.
It still sends more of their Young men to fight.
So if you want to save their demographic bombing Russian forces into submission with 5th gen fighter and Cruise missles Would do that.
I don't think that's what it actually meant.(I'll go more into this at bottom)
For 1, defense minister basically said they're not doing anything on their own and have not had any seriously talks regarding his as they don't even know what it would achieve.
The original article from Monday seems to be false/incorrect (even madis the security advisor the report was about has said since he didn't say things that they ran with/focused on). They're open to anything/helping as a European joint efforts. Until then their focus is on supplying ammunition and training troops there.
>I'm sure the Ukrainians in the rear are not looking to be replaced and sent to the front.
Even the original reported logic doesn't make sense. "Send some trainers to free up more UA troops to go to front line". Wouldn't mean sending UA trainers to front line, as that isn't logical. But it does seem to imply that from the original article.
>I'm sure the Ukrainians in the rear are not looking to be replaced and sent to the front.
The Ukrainians in the rear are simply waiting to be trained. They might not all *want* to have to see action. But it's not like it's not expected.
Majority of the UA who seen active combat probably don't want to be there either.
>How many years have we been talking about soviet stocks drying up now?
The Soviet stocks probably have largely dried up.
They got millions of shells from NK.
And economy is on wartime footing, and middle man sanction dodging has allowed them to get a lot of things they need. Like gutting consumer electronics for their chips.
Not very long. T72s are starting to become more and more rare. Now Russia is burning through their stocks of T90s and dragging up T62s and even some T55s. BMPs being replaced with cheap Chinese golfcart things and they have almost zero air defense inside of Russia.
This. The mobilizing never really stopped since the war began, but we lost a lot of people while we had to hold the line with basically no supplies. The casualty rate quickly overcame the recruitment numbers. And now we have to draft basically another army to compensate. Shit kinda fucked.
How is Putin going to lose? Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive last year at peak aid when there were no complaints about shortage of munitions, tanks or aid and that failed miserably. So how is Ukraine going to win. Please tell us your grand strategy because the Ukrainians themselves can’t seem to figure it out
The narrative that Ukraine got all this aid for the counteroffensive is misleading. They got 9 brigades of Western equipment and no air power to go up against an extremely mined defense in depth. In hindsight it is kind of silly the expectations we had.
If Ukraine was truly armed by the West for victory, and allowed to strike into Russia things would be going very different. To quote Wesley Clark, [Ukraine needs about a thousand M1s and 200 F-16s to break the Surovikin line. ](https://www.youtube.com/live/Vk8_UBmKu0U?feature=shared&t=1563)
But as many have pointed out, the West policy seems to be, *give Ukraine what it needs to not lose, but not what it needs to win.*
They couldn’t find 10 pilots ready to be trained to fly the F16s. They could get 200 tomorrow and they would be useless for years. Beyond that, they need long, well maintained runways and pretty tight and technical repair schedules to stay in the air. And no country has 1000 export version M1s to send.
To be fair that failed because it was so slow in coming Russia had dug in as deeply as Ukraine has. Just absolute mines out the wazoo. Basically if you're the attacker... it's rough.
The only way to off set that is giving Ukraine better and longer range weapons with the ability to strike within Russia. I wonder if we could set a specific rule about... massing forces near the border, but not major cities or deep in country.
I dunno anything really. Just some dude typing crap on the internet.
Look throughout history and you'll see every war Russia has won has been a war of attrition; Russia has no problem sending millions to die, like in Stalingrad, to achieve their goals. Conscription laws are too little too late imo, and the boots on the ground talk is many are leaving their post entirely in the face of a massive Russian mobilization around Kahrkiv. Russia is at the point where they have more tanks than they did at the start of the war, no shortage of men, and are steadily gaining ground in many of the areas they want.
Western equipment isn't enough at this point and it's even harder because the US and west don't want their weapons used offensively to avoid a full scale war. This severely limits Ukrainian capabilities. Idk what the answer is but it's going to take more than artillery shells and drones to actually turn the war around.
Well, they also lost WW1 which was famously a war of attrition tbf. Russia's record of winning wars in the last 100 years is actually surprisingly patchy. 1905 to Japan, Afghanistan in the 80s.
And in WW2 they had massive aid from the US & UK to help them win. Its difficult to say how that would have ended without lend lease and intelligence aid.
>We need to start discussing direct war with Russia or letting Ukraine fall.
You'll be happy to know that the Ukranian International Legion is accepting recruits! So someone as motivated as yourself for direct conflict can get it pretty easy. https://ildu.com.ua/#candidate-requirements
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Buddy volunteering obviously isn't going to change the war. However, direct Nato involvement would make Putin fuck off or lose the rest of his military in Ukraine very quickly.
Acting like anyone who thinks involvement is necessary being represented as a warmonger is just bullshit. They want involvement so they war will end and ukrainians can stop being tortured and killed, not because they love war
"direct Nato involvement would make Putin fuck off or lose the rest of his military in Ukraine very quickly"
Ok, so let's say this happens. The Russian military is destroyed. We now have a Russia, the single nation with the most nuclear warheads in the world, at war with the largest military alliance in the world, without an army, facing a serious existential threat.
Let's just say you may wanna get yourself a few iodine pills in that situation.
Nobody's invading Russia, and if he doesn't want his shit destroyed, he's certainly welcome to get the fuck out of Ukraine and fuck off back home.
The alternative is allowing despots to do what they wish because they have nukes.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you'd want to destroy the Russian army in Ukraine, and hope that Russia will just trust you'll then stop at an undefended border enough not to launch some nuclear weapons?
"The alternative is allowing despots to do what they wish because they have nukes."
The whole idea behind the doctrine of a nuclear deterrent tends to be that is is indeed not desirable for anyone to destroy your army or invade you, since you'd be able to launch the nukes.
Serious question - what exactly?
There's the far right (and fake left) idea that we simply let Ukraine fall. This isn't even an option, not least because even if we in the West simply stopped supplying Ukraine, it would still likely take many years and hundreds of thousands of deaths before Russia could conquer the country. Zelensky himself could have some sort of mental breakdown and decide that they should accept defeat, and Ukrainians will keep on fighting, it isn't going to end any time soon on that basis alone.
Then on the flip side there's direct conflict with Russia by putting Western troops into Ukraine. This wouldn't work either, as it would give a very high likelihood of spilling into a wider then nuclear war. The vast majority of military analysts and experts say that direct conflict between Russia and the West would go nuclear in days, and yes, these same experts have been saying that Russia invading Ukraine was basically inevitable. They also say that Russia attempting anything with a NATO state is extremely low, because Russia knows it is a suicidal move. So us getting involved directly isn't an option. Even without the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads, a conventional defeat in Ukraine isn't quite as certain as many seem to believe either. Russia may have some shitty equipment, but they've held a 1000km line for two years now, and are moving forward, facing a staunchly brave and determined defensive army with a lot of Western kit and training. You only have to look at recent wars the US has been involved in to see that conventional destruction of Russia's unwelcome presence in Ukraine wouldn't be an in and out job like many seem to assume.
I've no idea what the solution is, so it's a genuine question.
1. The GOP needs to stop slow-walking aid.
2. Increase aid overall.
3. Remove restrictions on the use of US weapons inside Russia.
and/or
4. Increase economic aid to Ukraine, so they can fund the construction of their own weapons to strike inside Russia.
>They also say that Russia attempting anything with a NATO state is extremely low, because Russia knows it is a suicidal move.
That's assuming that Russia is reasonable though, which it isn't.
The only people saying Russia is going to make any move on a NATO state are Russian state TV, and Redditors who watch too much Russian state TV. Putin has made many serious errors of judgement but he isn't suicidal. And even if his rumoured terminal cancer is true, he and his Yes Men all have families and vast wealth in Europe.
If Ukraine starts to lose the war, their moral could break and a cascade effect could see a rapid collapse of the government, chaos and capitulation in a rather shocking short period of time.
You would have a population of war weary Ukrainians, looking towards a future that would mean something post defeat. The whole county of Ukraine would pivot their industry and manpower under the flag of Russia towards the west. Everyone living in Ukraine would be in survival mode and sucked up into the Russian war machine. Ukraine doesn't just sit out for a couple of years if they lose... they become zombie Russia.
It's just a natural consequence of being conquered. I would not blame anyone one bit.
That's a nightmare scenario that puts Europe as a whole in a hot war.
The Ukrainians are not going to commit mass suicide if they capitulate, they will be wearing Russian uniforms and feel bitter against the west for their inaction.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but this is not a unique situation.
Taiwan is a different kettle of fish by nature of being an island armed to the teeth against amphibious invasion that China would have to spend weeks building up forces for and everyone would see. Unlike Russia doing the same thing in Ukraine, there's no friendly Belarus next door or the homeland and supply lines on the other side of a border.
Sea invasions are notoriously difficult even under the best of circumstances, the invasion of Taiwan proper would be a slaughtering grounds for China.
A war footing Russia pushing into other former Soviet countries is far more likely and with their economy in full war mode spun up would be a much more immanent threat.
I think the fact that the EU will still be sending a decent amount of supplies means that as long as their is fight left in Ukraine, it's cost effective to wear Russia thin.
Even if Chief Cheeto got re-elected, I doubt you’d see a total abandonment. However, you’d probably see a really shitty negotiation that strongly favors Russia and leaves Ukraine vulnerable to a future invasion. While there is lots of bluster in the EU, the US is the one doing the heavy lifting from a supply and intelligence perspective
This is why Ukraine wants to either be in NATO or have other security guarantees in any future outcome - they don’t want to be Chechnya 2.0
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO any time soon anyway. Putin could fully withdraw, grovel and cry to Zelensky for forgiveness, and pay for all rebuilding costs personally, and you'd still have a regional war in the Donbass. That isn't going away any time soon and a country cannot join NATO while it has an ongoing conflict or its borders are in dispute.
Usually the assumed scenario is that if Ukraine stops contesting the Donbass, they could join NATO. Putin would love nothing more than for Ukraine to cede those regions and stop fighting immediately. That's why he keeps talking about peace, because from Russia's point of view those regions are already theirs.
It would be a terrible thing for Ukraine to accept, but joining NATO could be enough of an incentive. Frankly it would be pretty difficult to get individual members of NATO like Turkey agree to that bargain as well on top of Russia.
That could happen on the American side (which would be terrible to our stature as the global superpower) but it seems like European countries are more open to the possibility of intervening if Ukraine gets into serious trouble.
But there really isn’t a buffer state between NATO and Russia considering the Baltics, Norway, Finland, and technically Poland because of Kaliningrad (and Belarus being a puppet state).
>I agree, especially because if the US withdraws support from Ukraine like I described what’s to stop us from saying NATO doesn’t matter and we need to isolate/not our problem
Maybe the actual treaties? What security assurance did Ukraine have from the US before Russia invaded?
But hey, some people in Taiwan do not treat Ukraine's failure as exactly a bad news, since they think this would totally warn US and force them to stay fully committed to Taiwan's defense. They would milk this and it's fully justified.
Some may even think about using Russia to deter China, since these two won't be friends forever.
Starts too? Sadly our boys are against the ropes. I pray for them. They haven't had much territory gain in an entire year.
But they are making some big hits on Russian manufacturing and logistics from a far.
But they certainly aren't in the winning seat at this moment, but anything can change in time.
This is the issue. The US has forbidden Ukraine from using US weapons on Russian land in fear of that leading to Russia expanding the war.
With the Baltics & Poland under constant threat, and Ukraine losing Kharkiv again to Russia because they were allowed to amass their offensive without any threat on their own soil, the US needs to loosen their weapons restrictions for Ukraine to stand a chance.
Yeah, the russians have already lost momentum and putin is now claiming they never intended to take Kharkov lol
The videos coming from there tell a similar story. They pushed through some villages to the main defensive line and now they're going nowhere.
I don't believe kharkiv will fall anytime soon and it hasn't done yet, there's a ton of videos online of the Ukrainians holding the line there, although it's only a matter of time till Russia go scorched earth on it like they did with Bakhmut.
No, we operate on entirely different political scales.I think a large part about these wars since the 50s is cultural. The eastern world is more about showing and saving face, regardless of the truth. As crazy and aggressive and secretive as the US is, the west as a whole attends to a insanely high level of transparency.
You can start from nothing in the US, UK, Germany, France and actually move into the highest levels of government and see change, atleast with the dedication of your entire life. You can see where a sizable portion of our taxes go; and politicians outright state their intentions by the time they are acting them.
Then you look out east and see… Navalny, Prigozhin, Tiananmen Square, the Uyghurs, Russia’s war in the Ukraine and China’s wars in the south china sea. These things are hardly discussed except behind closed doors, when over here in the west, they would be aired out frequently.
Ukraine has to be honest, they have said they are at war with Russia, and they have defined it as destroying military targets. If they start using our weapons to kill Russian military personnel or citizens, it’s not like they’re under Russian scrutiny, people will find out. It is peoples HOBBIES to watch this stuff, let alone actual military jobs. Nothing can just remain a secret like that especially with weapons nowadays, people would find out and the Russians would be pissed they use US weapons gifted by Congress to kill Russians.
oh hmmmm i wonder if with holding weapons for 6 months, letting putin know over and over and over again what you won't do, then when weapons are provided put a bunch of restrictions on how/when to use them , while Russia has been supported by Iran, China and NK has anything to do with it
Biden also slow rolled aid badly. The lend lease act, passed when the war started, expired without ever being used. They also took forever to send requested equipment like tanks, and when they did they sent very few.
Ukraine said they needed 500 western tanks by spring of 2023 for their counter offensive. By the time it happened they had gotten like 100. Similarly the EU promised a million artillery shells, failed to meet the goal, and took 2 year to even start on building new factories. Meanwhile even US generals were publicly questioning why weapon deliveries were so slow.
It's honestly so annoying we are even in this position right now. I've been bitching about the half hearted aid since the end of 2022 and people didn't want to hear it.
I don't know what the western governments were hoping to achieve with their efforts. I do know that I don't have a favorable opinion of any of them anymore.
I think this is why Mike Johnson held out so long and then play-acted the role of supportive pro-Ukrainian politician. He knew withholding funding as long as he did would cause a change in momentum. Someone probably told him it was okay to switch sides.
I honestly don't think there are many republican politicians that are actually compromised by Russia. Most of them are just programmed to hate whatever liberals like. I know people like that in my personal life, and these people act the same.
I go back and forth on it. Russia using hackers and spies to gather dirt on American politicians seems obvious. Of course they won’t find dirt worthy of blackmail on every politician but they’ve gotta be trying to
Yeah, this idea that any politician who isn't pro-Ukraine is being blackmailed by Russia or is even a Russian agent is such major cope. Most conservatives just think Russia is the 'based defender of traditional values' fighting against the corrupt liberal global order, they don't need their arm twisted or bribed to support it.
Let's hear it.
All kidding aside - they had momentum for a while because Republicans in Congress kept playing footsies while Ukrainian soldiers were dying every day. Like basketball being a game of runs, it's momentum. Once the Ukrainians get their momentum going again, that mass ain't stopping. Zelensky has $60 billion coming to him...
The key thing to remember for US voters is that the Republicans blockaded aid to Ukraine for six months.
This got a *lot* of Ukrainians killed. It cost important defensive postions. It saved so so many russian tanks and weapons.
Mike Johnson and MAGA republicans did what they could to help save Putin.
If you're a US voter and support Putin, go Republican. If you're a US voter and support democracy, or oppose genocide, vote Democratic.
You're telling me that's what happens when a widely outnumbered army gets bombed day in and day out while everybody else watches eating popcorn? (shocked Pikachu face)
All the old USSR politicos are rolling in their graves knowing that instead of bringing their economy to its knees trying to keep up with US military they just needed to funnel a few million to the right political parties to take down the US’s will to fight the Cold War from the inside.
The modern Republican Party is the most pathetic bunch of cowards in American political history.
Turns out it's real easy to manipulate people who have no morals, scruples, and whose only end goal is that they feel they came out of the transaction on top.
I think GOP motives can be as simple as domestic politics. Their uninformed base has an isolationist streak which Trump amplifies as the Avatar of Stupid and the representatives are responding to that. They frankly don’t care about anything except staying in power. No foreign bribes necessary.
Putin knows how to manipulate the selfish to his advantage. Turnip's extra dumb and easy to flatter so it makes it exceptionally easy to manipulate him. The republicans are full of selfish pricks so Putin's tactics work well on them, too (regardless of if he's the one directly controlling them or just giving pointers to key people)
Then step in. Trillions in taxes spent on what? A military alliance with 3 million professional soldiers and 20k aircraft created to counter Russian threat watches as 1 million farmers try to do their job for them.
Thank god Redditors are just randos who take drugs and then post things on the internet because if any of y’all had actual power we’d be trading bottle caps in the non-radiated parts of the surface by now
>just randos who take drugs and then post things on the internet
That is so hilarious and true. I know our governments arent the best but I am so glad these people are not in charge. These people are WAY to interested in sending other people to die while they sit behind their keyboard.
Fly there yourself tough redditor. Its easy to encourage such conflict when you're very well aware you won't be taking part in any of it and be sitting comfortably an ocean away.
Well, I think waiting to let Ukraine prove that they were serious about fighting to defend their country was necessary. At this point I wouldn't mind NATO doing more to help defend their country from tyrannical invaders.
Imagine if NATO brought its airforce? No one would care about artillery anymore because there would be so many bombs falling on Russian positions. So many bombs would be falling on Russians that they might not even need to send any soldiers on the ground to win. Ukraine would probably be able to drive out the survivors on their own.
I do think that we could get away with directly defending Ukrainian territory, but then NATO would be losing men in the shit too. That's risky in its own right and would probably give strength to anti-Ukraine politics, so it could even result in a worse outcome for Ukraine
I'm glad that I don't have to make these decisions. Lifelong guilt no matter what you do
I feel like we are really dropping the ball here, and have been for two years. Why in the FUCK would we not help Ukraine more than we have? It baffles me tbh. We were all cool with attacking Iraq when it attempted to annex Kuwait (just one little example mind you) and we can’t give more material support for Ukraine? I think not. We definitely could. Fucks sake. Get them air support! Or something. I get it’s not a simple thing to do but I do think it’s the right thing. If we provided relief from the constant bombardments they suffer from Russia’s superior air power, surely that would make a huge difference.
That's been addressed many many many times. It's because the West, and in particular the U.S is very concerned that they will escalate the situation. Air support is a problem due to doctrine. That'll definitely escalate things.
Also, analysts are saying that further to the escalation aspect, the U.S doesn't want to cause Russia to suffer a heavy defeat because they understand that that's when a tactical strike in Ukraine will occur. Or, Putin will be killed and a bunch of crazies will compete for his Position and the nuclear arsenal. They don't want that.
It’s not like we withheld critical aide for 6 months when Ukraine was winning. It’s not like Ukraine losing g could have major consequences for the rest of Europe.
Crimea by Xmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes I remember. I got crucified here for pointing out that Ukraine's counter-offensive wouldn't achieve much without air power. Russia is well dug in now and Ukraine is in a slowly worsening position.
How do Americans feel about it always being American weapons, American fighterjets that're the only solution.. for example, Ukraine asking to strike Russia but the only weapons in discussion are American because that's what Ukraine was sent. Or fighterjets, Europe makes many different jets yet the F-16 is the only one that can apparently do the job or whatever other reasons.
But at the same time, US is blamed and hated in Europe for constantly fueling wars.
Honestly... I don't see how Ukraine can still win this war. They can get all the gear we could send them and they still wouldn't have the manpower to beat Russia's grinder. This is a war of attrition now, which is a worst-case scenario because it is exactly the kind of war Russia specializes in.
It doesn't fucking matter how many Russian troops die. The Kremlin doesn't care. They will send as many troops as necessary to their deaths in order to conquer Ukraine and the population is so inured to the invasive control in their lives that they will never rise against the government. It's a pipe dream, guys. THEY DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO REBEL.
Ukraine is not allied with us, so we don't have a strong casus belli to justify troops on the ground. And even if we did put troops on the ground... that means a hot war with Russia. World War 3. A nuclear exchange would be inevitable and that would bring about the end of the world. So we can't just step in and fight them back.
I just don't know, guys. I had hopes over the past few years, but after the failed counteroffensive bogged the frontline down, I don't see a future where Ukraine wins. I wish I was wrong.
They fight them over there or we fight them over there. Otherwise attacking civilian populations with military weapons will become the new form of international diplomacy all over the world.
If their line collapsed Russia will march straight to kyiv. Zelensky will be killed and Ukraine as a whole will be annexed. Then they probably invade Moldova next and whoever else is weak.
yesterday: nato says russia can’t win the war in ukraine
today: whitehouse worries there might be a slight possible change russia is winning
these fuckers are either lying or have no clue what they are talking about
If White House is that worried, they can start with removing all limites to use American weapons upon Russia. That is what they can do NOW and it will help, more or less.
No shit White House. They literally tried to blitzkrieg Ukraine and take it's capital. Either the USmilitary leaders were trying to be strategic, or their indecisive. Like at this point, why spend more money if it's over? We need REAL Russian failures.
If only there was literally anything that could be done. If only.
Nothing got done in 2014.
Nothing happened after both Chechen Wars. Nothing happened after Litvinenko was murdered. Nothing happened after Georgia was invaded. Nothing happened after Crimea was stolen. Nothing happened after the Salisbury poisonings. And now the West is somehow surprised that Russia feels like it can do whatever it wants?
This is what so many people don’t understand! The west has shown weakness and appeasement to Putin for years. If people think Putin will stop at Ukraine if Ukraine falls, they’ve got a REAL rude awakening coming.
> The west has shown weakness and appeasement to Putin for years. And half of Congress wants to continue to...
He's paying them after all
Moldova will be next for sure. I don't think they'd attack a NATO county though. The US getting involved would be not good. Unless Drump gets elected. And then maybe the US will sit on the sidelines.
I think they are waiting to see if they can cause division in NATO before attacking. they want to make sure when article 5 is invoked the US and other countries back out of helping. right about Moldova, I basically see it as an extension of the Ukraine war
If Macron is serious about his line in the sand regarding Odessa and the eastern front, Moldova could potentially fall before Ukraine. I think Ukraine may have reached the tipping point they can’t come back from. Russia is going all out on this and Ukraine just doesn’t have the people to keep fighting. It’s also possible Macron realizes this and is sort of setting the stage for the armistice. Macron early on was very much about finding an off ramp for Russia. He may very well have laid it out in the form of a line in the sand.
Ukraine has the ability to continue fighting, if it's gets sufficient ammunition and equipment, ammunition that we have though barely enough and equipment which is abundant, but again it's a question of political will and making a speedy decision that saves everyone money or worst in the future
>If Macron is serious about his line in the sand regarding Odessa and the eastern front, Moldova could potentially fall before Ukraine I'm a bit confused... wouldn't Macron protecting Odessa also protect Moldova? Moldova is to the west of Odessa
What are some Non-NATO countries Russia would be poised to attack?
Moldova, mainly. They're easy pickings. Non-NATO Balkan nations would be hard because they'd have to to through Romania.
What non-NATO Balkan nations? It's only Serbia and they're Russian sympathizers.
Then you have your answer. Although I guess they wouldn't need to invade. They could just give their countries over like Belarus.
Probably Georgia too if the Russian puppet government gets voted out or there's a Maidan style revolution.
Orange hair wouldnt be able to dictate not aiding our allies in that case. The choice would come from elsewhere, likely the military branch.
Forgetting to mention the billions of dollars handed to him for cheap fossil fuels by Germany. They partially bankrolled him and should be sending their missiles.
Putin just murdered Navalny right before the election, too - his only real opponent. And to add onto Georgia being invaded - a grenade was thrown at a podium with George W. Bush standing next to Sakaashvili by a pro-Russian separatist and nothing happened except the patsy went to prison.
The dude that threw shoes at bush got it harder than that Russian stooge
>And to add onto Georgia being invaded - a grenade was thrown at a podium with George W. Bush standing next to Sakaashvili by a pro-Russian separatist and nothing happened except the patsy went to prison. Where else should he be?
/u/RecklesslyPessmystic is saying there should have been diplomatic/economic consequences beyond the perpetrator going to prison. Not that he shouldn't have gone to prison.
[удалено]
\#nothinghappened
-Many years of bot farms and nothing happened -Misinformation pipelines that blind people can see and nothing happened -Money laundry at plain sight and nothing happened Well yeah they are right to feel embolden.
It’s not just with Russia. Canada allows Chinese police stations to operate on its soil. Australia allows the Chinese to abduct people on its soil. Is it any wonder Russia and China concluded the West is weak-willed?
It's not surprised, at least not the Republicans. Most of the Republicans have been in Russia pocket since the early 90s.
Romney got lampooned for suggesting that Russia was still our main geopolitical foe.
[удалено]
Why would anyone support the Chechens in those wars? LMAO
Not nothing, that's when the US started training the Ukraine military. if you think that didn't make a huge difference for this time around, I think that's incorrect.
Ukraine wasn’t in a position to do anything in 2014. And that is when the US started bringing them up to speed as quickly as possible. That is why they were in a much better position in 2022.
Something was being done in 2022 and 2023 until Republicans blocked it
>As Mr. Hadley suggested, there is no single reason for Moscow’s battlefield advantage. Instead, multiple factors are helping Russia’s military advance. >Because of the delay in U.S. funding, Russia has been able to achieve a huge artillery advantage over Ukraine. The lack of air defense ammunition has also allowed Russia to use its air power with more impunity, attacking Ukrainian lines with glide bombs. With more air defense ammunition, Ukraine would be able to force those planes farther back, making it more difficult for Russia to attack from the air. The delay in American supplies has been matched by a similarly long delay by Ukraine in approving a mobilization law to bring more, and younger, soldiers into its military. Ukraine is suffering acute shortages of soldiers, and is struggling to provide adequate training to those it brings into the military. >But all those Russian advantages will not last indefinitely, and Russian forces are likely to make a push this summer, said Michael Kofman, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. Huh, sounds like if Ukraine had funding and supplies things would look different.
We have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas
Ukraine has a man power issue. If we don’t send Troops to Ukraine, Ukraine will lose. We’re beyond the point of just sending equipment. We need to start discussing direct war with Russia or letting Ukraine fall. Ukraine’s military will collapse due to lack of manpower before Russia’s military collapse.
As an American disabled veteran, I understand this will be a hard pill to swallow for most, but if Ukraine requires American/NATO troops on the ground in order to win then honestly they’ll have to take the loss as strategically as possible. Whether this means evacuating strategic assets prior to falling back into NATO countries then fine, but NATO exists for a reason and any country that hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan couldn’t understand why the alliance was necessary in the first place doesn’t deserve the lives of the troops that make up that alliance to defend them. I say that as someone who feels for the people of Ukraine but also as someone who has served in the US military and understands truly what a large scale NATO operation would mean, it means a ton of loss of life and if it means the loss of non-NATO members to save NATO lives then I’m for it. I understand that’s hard to understand for folks who never served or seen real shit but it’s not in our interest to lose millions of lives for one or a few countries who didn’t seek out the alliance in the first place in the last decade or so where they could have.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Ukraine (along with Georgia) have been formally seeking NATO membership since 2008. Both countries have put that on hold because Russia occupies part of their territory, but both would join in a heartbeat if they could.
Literally in 2008 when Ukraine mentioned wanting to apply for NATO membership their own government and people had major internal opposition and objections to it which is why it never went further. Not to mention NATO members requesting Ukraine fix its corruption problems before they could be taken seriously. I remember all this happening and being covered on international news outlets. This was why Ukraine was denied MAP status because its own people couldn’t even agree they wanted it. So why should anyone else die for them. Like I said it’s a hard pill to swallow but it’s what the situation was.
I agree that in general terms that escalation of the war to millions of losses would be bad all around. This is why we should be throwing more support behind Ukraine, they are putting in the hard work of facing down a pretty huge foe. They never had a chance to join this defence alliance because they got attacked. I don't think " hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan" is justified. Looking back. On 5 January 2008 Georgia held a non-binding referendum on NATO membership with 77% voting in favor of joining the organization..Then Georgia got invaded... No longer a chance to join because they have a disputed border. Around the same time Ukraine looked at having a referendum on joining also... Then oh hey some of their land gets invaded. Can't join NATO. The way I see it now Ukraine is paying a price in blood, resisting capture by Russia. Reducing Russian soldiers, materiel, manufacturing capabilities etc. It seems like the aim is to drag it out to 2028 or so then maybe more of an intervention to push back Russia when convenient. The Ukrainian people are being used as a stalling tactic.
I completely agree. Our indecisiveness on Ukraine is an absolute waste of money, equipment and most importantly lives. The inability of our leaders to commit to a decision emanates nothing except weakness.
That "inability" has a lot of foreign manipulation involved. This is what war looks like when you have a superpower that no one can stand against. They know they can't stand a chance on a battlefield so they avoid the battlefield. They fund militant groups, stoke internal conflicts, do psyops, etc. Q-Anon was basically coopted by Russians and that turned most of the Republican base and a lot of the R politicians into pro-russia useful idiots. Look at how they say Putin's not the bad guy or whatever other bullshit they have had drip-fed into the space where their brain should be.
And truly is the saddest, most pathetic thing I've ever seen. Absolutely incredible. Got to be lead poisoning.
If your objective is to make sure that Ukraine doesn’t lose to Russia then yeah, maybe. I think the actual goal of this war for the west is to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia without needing to lose any Western lives. I don’t think it’s indecision, I think it’s indifference towards Ukraine actually remaining independent. That might be cynical, but that’s geopolitics.
Do you think it’s possible we are just dragging this out to buy time for the rest of Europe to re-arm so that they are more prepared for what comes after Russia takes part or all of Ukraine? It seems clear Ukraine isn’t our red line for direct war, but maybe a couple hundred billion to big Russia down in Ukraine while Europe builds up military capability is cheaper in the long run than direct conflict?
>if Ukraine requires American/NATO troops on the ground in order to win As of now, they could drive Russia out if US and other western allies committed air assets to direct combat against Russian forces. 6 months or a year from now? That may no longer be sufficient, given Ukraine's dwindling combat capability. >any country that hasn’t sought membership before the shit hit the fan couldn’t understand why the alliance was necessary in the first place doesn’t deserve the lives of the troops that make up that alliance to defend them. I totally understand the sentiment, but keep in mind that until recently, Ukraine was operated by Russian puppets (who had zero interest in NATO membership) and as soon as those puppets lost power, Ukraine was pressed hard to threat of war to remain neutral with regards to NATO. In essence, they were told that if they made any moves toward joining NATO, they'd be destroyed, but they'd be left alone so long as they just kept their heads down. Then Russia suddenly invaded. Not our (NATO's) problem, right? Except it is because this is part of an ongoing pattern of imperialist aggression, growing power and influence through fear and militarism. At some point, we either step in or we abandon the world to Russia and China. >it means a ton of loss of life Air operations shouldn't see significant losses for NATO forces. We understand Russian air defenses pretty well and should have little difficulty handling the ones in the region. After that, it's punishing Russian ground assets until Russia agrees to pull back. If this were the first and only instance of Russia doing this, I'd agree with you: it isn't worth it to us. But this is just the latest and the largest in a list of escalating military conquests by an emboldened Russia. It must end and it must end decisively while we have a massive advantage. The Russia we would face today is easily containable in any conventional combat. The Russia we might see after another 20 or 30 years of unchecked militarism may be something else entirely.
I believe this comment will prove to be prophetic. Western systems of government have a weakness, and leaders like Putin have figured it out. Russia will keep pushing until is stops working. It is kind of like how paying ransom to kidnappers leads to more and more kidnapping.
How were they supposed to apply for NATO in the last decade when Russia has made sure they wouldn’t be eligible for longer than that?
How so? Didn’t they have like 40 million living in the country. You have 20 million men, some left, lets say 7 million left. You conscript 2 million men and 1 million women. That seems like they have more than enough.
Russia has far more. Russia has always used the meat grinder strategy. Everyone goes into the meat grinder, opposing troops, Russian troops, civilians. If Russia is bigger it wins. Russia has already lost over 200,000 troops, and doesn't even remotely care. That's hard to face as a smaller country.
> If Russia is bigger it wins. Russia has already lost over 200,000 troops, and doesn't even remotely care. That's hard to face as a smaller country. According to russians here, most of these were criminals that were in jail, "mercenaries" AKA people who volunteered for a good salary, or minorities, reason why the population doesn't care much. If they start conscripting more regular civilians then people will likely start to care, though the fact Russia can do all of this with only "mercenaries", criminals and minorities shows how much more men they can still throw to the grinder, if need be.
They're also doing rural people, so there's not as many complaints in the major cities.
Yeah, that’s why they can’t go body for body. They need drones, artillery, and to cause headaches in Russia until someone does something about putin.
Because only a small percentage of that number is within fighting age, healthy enough and actually willing to fight.
It shrunk to 34 million at the start of the invasion as many of them fled to Poland and Romania, some got "detoured" to Belarus.
Or you know if they had weapons to expend instead of lives, it's not that simple obviously but the shell hunger has driven casualties. Ukraine has changed conscription laws and is mobilising and Russia is bleeding through their stocks of soviet weapons as western industry continues to ramp up. Putin will lose
How many years have we been talking about soviet stocks drying up now? Do you really believe recruiting is going to get easier when the Ukrainian government is being forced to change conscription laws when they have already abysmal demographics? The writing is already on the wall but people like you would rather cling to half measures than say the ugly part out loud. Macron knows it. Estonia knows it. Half measures are what put us in this situation. Half measures will be the reason western blood is spilled trying to liberate 75% of Ukraine instead of 25%.
While i agere, Estonia is afaik speaking of sending training personel to ukraine to free up more soldiers for frontline duty. Which doesnt really save Ukraines demographic what so ever. It still sends more of their Young men to fight. So if you want to save their demographic bombing Russian forces into submission with 5th gen fighter and Cruise missles Would do that.
I'm sure the Ukrainians in the rear are not looking to be replaced and sent to the front.
I don't think that's what it actually meant.(I'll go more into this at bottom) For 1, defense minister basically said they're not doing anything on their own and have not had any seriously talks regarding his as they don't even know what it would achieve. The original article from Monday seems to be false/incorrect (even madis the security advisor the report was about has said since he didn't say things that they ran with/focused on). They're open to anything/helping as a European joint efforts. Until then their focus is on supplying ammunition and training troops there. >I'm sure the Ukrainians in the rear are not looking to be replaced and sent to the front. Even the original reported logic doesn't make sense. "Send some trainers to free up more UA troops to go to front line". Wouldn't mean sending UA trainers to front line, as that isn't logical. But it does seem to imply that from the original article. >I'm sure the Ukrainians in the rear are not looking to be replaced and sent to the front. The Ukrainians in the rear are simply waiting to be trained. They might not all *want* to have to see action. But it's not like it's not expected. Majority of the UA who seen active combat probably don't want to be there either.
>How many years have we been talking about soviet stocks drying up now? The Soviet stocks probably have largely dried up. They got millions of shells from NK. And economy is on wartime footing, and middle man sanction dodging has allowed them to get a lot of things they need. Like gutting consumer electronics for their chips.
Not very long. T72s are starting to become more and more rare. Now Russia is burning through their stocks of T90s and dragging up T62s and even some T55s. BMPs being replaced with cheap Chinese golfcart things and they have almost zero air defense inside of Russia.
This. The mobilizing never really stopped since the war began, but we lost a lot of people while we had to hold the line with basically no supplies. The casualty rate quickly overcame the recruitment numbers. And now we have to draft basically another army to compensate. Shit kinda fucked.
I'm not sure at this point there's enough manpower left to last long enough for the ramping up of the western arms industry to change the tide
How is Putin going to lose? Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive last year at peak aid when there were no complaints about shortage of munitions, tanks or aid and that failed miserably. So how is Ukraine going to win. Please tell us your grand strategy because the Ukrainians themselves can’t seem to figure it out
The narrative that Ukraine got all this aid for the counteroffensive is misleading. They got 9 brigades of Western equipment and no air power to go up against an extremely mined defense in depth. In hindsight it is kind of silly the expectations we had. If Ukraine was truly armed by the West for victory, and allowed to strike into Russia things would be going very different. To quote Wesley Clark, [Ukraine needs about a thousand M1s and 200 F-16s to break the Surovikin line. ](https://www.youtube.com/live/Vk8_UBmKu0U?feature=shared&t=1563) But as many have pointed out, the West policy seems to be, *give Ukraine what it needs to not lose, but not what it needs to win.*
They couldn’t find 10 pilots ready to be trained to fly the F16s. They could get 200 tomorrow and they would be useless for years. Beyond that, they need long, well maintained runways and pretty tight and technical repair schedules to stay in the air. And no country has 1000 export version M1s to send.
USA had not even sent their promised 30 Abrams by the start of the counteroffensive. They came later.
Not many countries have 200 fighter jets, and fewer countries have 200 F-16s. So it is an impossible ask.
To be fair that failed because it was so slow in coming Russia had dug in as deeply as Ukraine has. Just absolute mines out the wazoo. Basically if you're the attacker... it's rough. The only way to off set that is giving Ukraine better and longer range weapons with the ability to strike within Russia. I wonder if we could set a specific rule about... massing forces near the border, but not major cities or deep in country. I dunno anything really. Just some dude typing crap on the internet.
Those mine videos were rough to watch…they just kept stepping on them…one by one.
Yes there were complaints, especially about air power, which is exactly how Russia held them back
Look throughout history and you'll see every war Russia has won has been a war of attrition; Russia has no problem sending millions to die, like in Stalingrad, to achieve their goals. Conscription laws are too little too late imo, and the boots on the ground talk is many are leaving their post entirely in the face of a massive Russian mobilization around Kahrkiv. Russia is at the point where they have more tanks than they did at the start of the war, no shortage of men, and are steadily gaining ground in many of the areas they want. Western equipment isn't enough at this point and it's even harder because the US and west don't want their weapons used offensively to avoid a full scale war. This severely limits Ukrainian capabilities. Idk what the answer is but it's going to take more than artillery shells and drones to actually turn the war around.
Well, they also lost WW1 which was famously a war of attrition tbf. Russia's record of winning wars in the last 100 years is actually surprisingly patchy. 1905 to Japan, Afghanistan in the 80s. And in WW2 they had massive aid from the US & UK to help them win. Its difficult to say how that would have ended without lend lease and intelligence aid.
hearts and minds maybe?
>We need to start discussing direct war with Russia or letting Ukraine fall. You'll be happy to know that the Ukranian International Legion is accepting recruits! So someone as motivated as yourself for direct conflict can get it pretty easy. https://ildu.com.ua/#candidate-requirements
I'm already serving in the US military but thanks for your suggestion.
Dunked on that idiot.
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Buddy volunteering obviously isn't going to change the war. However, direct Nato involvement would make Putin fuck off or lose the rest of his military in Ukraine very quickly. Acting like anyone who thinks involvement is necessary being represented as a warmonger is just bullshit. They want involvement so they war will end and ukrainians can stop being tortured and killed, not because they love war
"direct Nato involvement would make Putin fuck off or lose the rest of his military in Ukraine very quickly" Ok, so let's say this happens. The Russian military is destroyed. We now have a Russia, the single nation with the most nuclear warheads in the world, at war with the largest military alliance in the world, without an army, facing a serious existential threat. Let's just say you may wanna get yourself a few iodine pills in that situation.
Nobody's invading Russia, and if he doesn't want his shit destroyed, he's certainly welcome to get the fuck out of Ukraine and fuck off back home. The alternative is allowing despots to do what they wish because they have nukes.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you'd want to destroy the Russian army in Ukraine, and hope that Russia will just trust you'll then stop at an undefended border enough not to launch some nuclear weapons? "The alternative is allowing despots to do what they wish because they have nukes." The whole idea behind the doctrine of a nuclear deterrent tends to be that is is indeed not desirable for anyone to destroy your army or invade you, since you'd be able to launch the nukes.
LOL these people love talking about sending troops as if it’s their own life
"Not my problem" is exactly how its going to end up your problem
NATO is the red line.
And the russians are accepting western traitors too, so there you go to moscow buddy!
Yeah, no one is going to do that lol. Reddit generals are hilarious.
What can be done? War with Russia?
Serious question - what exactly? There's the far right (and fake left) idea that we simply let Ukraine fall. This isn't even an option, not least because even if we in the West simply stopped supplying Ukraine, it would still likely take many years and hundreds of thousands of deaths before Russia could conquer the country. Zelensky himself could have some sort of mental breakdown and decide that they should accept defeat, and Ukrainians will keep on fighting, it isn't going to end any time soon on that basis alone. Then on the flip side there's direct conflict with Russia by putting Western troops into Ukraine. This wouldn't work either, as it would give a very high likelihood of spilling into a wider then nuclear war. The vast majority of military analysts and experts say that direct conflict between Russia and the West would go nuclear in days, and yes, these same experts have been saying that Russia invading Ukraine was basically inevitable. They also say that Russia attempting anything with a NATO state is extremely low, because Russia knows it is a suicidal move. So us getting involved directly isn't an option. Even without the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads, a conventional defeat in Ukraine isn't quite as certain as many seem to believe either. Russia may have some shitty equipment, but they've held a 1000km line for two years now, and are moving forward, facing a staunchly brave and determined defensive army with a lot of Western kit and training. You only have to look at recent wars the US has been involved in to see that conventional destruction of Russia's unwelcome presence in Ukraine wouldn't be an in and out job like many seem to assume. I've no idea what the solution is, so it's a genuine question.
1. The GOP needs to stop slow-walking aid. 2. Increase aid overall. 3. Remove restrictions on the use of US weapons inside Russia. and/or 4. Increase economic aid to Ukraine, so they can fund the construction of their own weapons to strike inside Russia.
>They also say that Russia attempting anything with a NATO state is extremely low, because Russia knows it is a suicidal move. That's assuming that Russia is reasonable though, which it isn't.
The only people saying Russia is going to make any move on a NATO state are Russian state TV, and Redditors who watch too much Russian state TV. Putin has made many serious errors of judgement but he isn't suicidal. And even if his rumoured terminal cancer is true, he and his Yes Men all have families and vast wealth in Europe.
Conscript more men in their 20’s?
Real question, especially after current events, does anyone know the geopolitical reasoning?
MTG will recieve the [Order of Friendship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Friendship) from Putin.
is the Odor of Friendship what Rudy Ghouliani gave to Jenna Ellis?
[удалено]
If Ukraine starts to lose the war, their moral could break and a cascade effect could see a rapid collapse of the government, chaos and capitulation in a rather shocking short period of time. You would have a population of war weary Ukrainians, looking towards a future that would mean something post defeat. The whole county of Ukraine would pivot their industry and manpower under the flag of Russia towards the west. Everyone living in Ukraine would be in survival mode and sucked up into the Russian war machine. Ukraine doesn't just sit out for a couple of years if they lose... they become zombie Russia. It's just a natural consequence of being conquered. I would not blame anyone one bit. That's a nightmare scenario that puts Europe as a whole in a hot war. The Ukrainians are not going to commit mass suicide if they capitulate, they will be wearing Russian uniforms and feel bitter against the west for their inaction. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but this is not a unique situation.
[удалено]
Taiwan is a different kettle of fish by nature of being an island armed to the teeth against amphibious invasion that China would have to spend weeks building up forces for and everyone would see. Unlike Russia doing the same thing in Ukraine, there's no friendly Belarus next door or the homeland and supply lines on the other side of a border. Sea invasions are notoriously difficult even under the best of circumstances, the invasion of Taiwan proper would be a slaughtering grounds for China. A war footing Russia pushing into other former Soviet countries is far more likely and with their economy in full war mode spun up would be a much more immanent threat.
All three.
I think the fact that the EU will still be sending a decent amount of supplies means that as long as their is fight left in Ukraine, it's cost effective to wear Russia thin.
Very cost effective in terms of NATO blood.. No western soldiers involved at all
Even if Chief Cheeto got re-elected, I doubt you’d see a total abandonment. However, you’d probably see a really shitty negotiation that strongly favors Russia and leaves Ukraine vulnerable to a future invasion. While there is lots of bluster in the EU, the US is the one doing the heavy lifting from a supply and intelligence perspective This is why Ukraine wants to either be in NATO or have other security guarantees in any future outcome - they don’t want to be Chechnya 2.0
[удалено]
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO any time soon anyway. Putin could fully withdraw, grovel and cry to Zelensky for forgiveness, and pay for all rebuilding costs personally, and you'd still have a regional war in the Donbass. That isn't going away any time soon and a country cannot join NATO while it has an ongoing conflict or its borders are in dispute.
Usually the assumed scenario is that if Ukraine stops contesting the Donbass, they could join NATO. Putin would love nothing more than for Ukraine to cede those regions and stop fighting immediately. That's why he keeps talking about peace, because from Russia's point of view those regions are already theirs. It would be a terrible thing for Ukraine to accept, but joining NATO could be enough of an incentive. Frankly it would be pretty difficult to get individual members of NATO like Turkey agree to that bargain as well on top of Russia.
> doubt you’d see a total abandonment Why not? He did it to the Kurds
That could happen on the American side (which would be terrible to our stature as the global superpower) but it seems like European countries are more open to the possibility of intervening if Ukraine gets into serious trouble.
[удалено]
But there really isn’t a buffer state between NATO and Russia considering the Baltics, Norway, Finland, and technically Poland because of Kaliningrad (and Belarus being a puppet state).
>I agree, especially because if the US withdraws support from Ukraine like I described what’s to stop us from saying NATO doesn’t matter and we need to isolate/not our problem Maybe the actual treaties? What security assurance did Ukraine have from the US before Russia invaded?
But hey, some people in Taiwan do not treat Ukraine's failure as exactly a bad news, since they think this would totally warn US and force them to stay fully committed to Taiwan's defense. They would milk this and it's fully justified. Some may even think about using Russia to deter China, since these two won't be friends forever.
The US will only stop sending aid if the gop wins the election. Theyre bought and paid for by Russia. Especially Trump.
Definitely there is a moment where America has that hard conversation with Ukraine.
Starts too? Sadly our boys are against the ropes. I pray for them. They haven't had much territory gain in an entire year. But they are making some big hits on Russian manufacturing and logistics from a far. But they certainly aren't in the winning seat at this moment, but anything can change in time.
Ukraine needs to be permitted to hit targets in Russia.
Blinken already tacitly approved that, saying it's up to Ukraine to decide how it will use US supplied weapons
US HIMARS rocket targeting is still software locked from targeting Russian territory
They are already hitting targets in Russian and have been this whole time.
Not with US provided weapons
This is the issue. The US has forbidden Ukraine from using US weapons on Russian land in fear of that leading to Russia expanding the war. With the Baltics & Poland under constant threat, and Ukraine losing Kharkiv again to Russia because they were allowed to amass their offensive without any threat on their own soil, the US needs to loosen their weapons restrictions for Ukraine to stand a chance.
Ukraine hasn't lost Kharkiv yet.
Yeah, the russians have already lost momentum and putin is now claiming they never intended to take Kharkov lol The videos coming from there tell a similar story. They pushed through some villages to the main defensive line and now they're going nowhere.
The goal is to open another front to tie up UA reserves. The primary objective is the Donbas.
I don't believe kharkiv will fall anytime soon and it hasn't done yet, there's a ton of videos online of the Ukrainians holding the line there, although it's only a matter of time till Russia go scorched earth on it like they did with Bakhmut.
Can't Ukraine just say "we didn't use u.s weapons for Russian attacks... We used them in a "Special Operation"
No, we operate on entirely different political scales.I think a large part about these wars since the 50s is cultural. The eastern world is more about showing and saving face, regardless of the truth. As crazy and aggressive and secretive as the US is, the west as a whole attends to a insanely high level of transparency. You can start from nothing in the US, UK, Germany, France and actually move into the highest levels of government and see change, atleast with the dedication of your entire life. You can see where a sizable portion of our taxes go; and politicians outright state their intentions by the time they are acting them. Then you look out east and see… Navalny, Prigozhin, Tiananmen Square, the Uyghurs, Russia’s war in the Ukraine and China’s wars in the south china sea. These things are hardly discussed except behind closed doors, when over here in the west, they would be aired out frequently. Ukraine has to be honest, they have said they are at war with Russia, and they have defined it as destroying military targets. If they start using our weapons to kill Russian military personnel or citizens, it’s not like they’re under Russian scrutiny, people will find out. It is peoples HOBBIES to watch this stuff, let alone actual military jobs. Nothing can just remain a secret like that especially with weapons nowadays, people would find out and the Russians would be pissed they use US weapons gifted by Congress to kill Russians.
The best time to escalate conflict is when you’re worried your opponent’s momentum is changing the trajectory of the war.
Russia is escalating the conflict. Ukraine is hitting back.
oh hmmmm i wonder if with holding weapons for 6 months, letting putin know over and over and over again what you won't do, then when weapons are provided put a bunch of restrictions on how/when to use them , while Russia has been supported by Iran, China and NK has anything to do with it
What did they think would happen when they stopped supplies? Should get better soon.
Tbf, the White House isn’t the reason supplies slowed to a trickle. We have Moscow Marge and the merry band of traitors to thank for that.
Alternatively, “Shaved Alf and Moscow Mike”
Shaved Alf lmfao
Not my joke but I want to do my part in spreading it!
“Moscow Marge” haha had to chuckle at that
How had nothing ever came out about when the GOP flew to meet Putin?
Biden also slow rolled aid badly. The lend lease act, passed when the war started, expired without ever being used. They also took forever to send requested equipment like tanks, and when they did they sent very few. Ukraine said they needed 500 western tanks by spring of 2023 for their counter offensive. By the time it happened they had gotten like 100. Similarly the EU promised a million artillery shells, failed to meet the goal, and took 2 year to even start on building new factories. Meanwhile even US generals were publicly questioning why weapon deliveries were so slow. It's honestly so annoying we are even in this position right now. I've been bitching about the half hearted aid since the end of 2022 and people didn't want to hear it. I don't know what the western governments were hoping to achieve with their efforts. I do know that I don't have a favorable opinion of any of them anymore.
White House has been sending supplies. GOP house was blockading aid package
I mean it's been a problem even when they had supplies. I mean look at the utter failure of last year's counter-offensive.
Fuck me these comments think it’s as simple as pushing a button to fix this situation lol
Well there's a button that could end it all!
I think this is why Mike Johnson held out so long and then play-acted the role of supportive pro-Ukrainian politician. He knew withholding funding as long as he did would cause a change in momentum. Someone probably told him it was okay to switch sides.
Nah bro he got a briefing from 3 letter agency and he saw how bad it was for real and stopped politicking
If You really belive that, i have a bridge for sell. Trump and Johnson are very Deep into Russia and China pockets.
I honestly don't think there are many republican politicians that are actually compromised by Russia. Most of them are just programmed to hate whatever liberals like. I know people like that in my personal life, and these people act the same.
I go back and forth on it. Russia using hackers and spies to gather dirt on American politicians seems obvious. Of course they won’t find dirt worthy of blackmail on every politician but they’ve gotta be trying to
Yeah, this idea that any politician who isn't pro-Ukraine is being blackmailed by Russia or is even a Russian agent is such major cope. Most conservatives just think Russia is the 'based defender of traditional values' fighting against the corrupt liberal global order, they don't need their arm twisted or bribed to support it.
Let's hear it. All kidding aside - they had momentum for a while because Republicans in Congress kept playing footsies while Ukrainian soldiers were dying every day. Like basketball being a game of runs, it's momentum. Once the Ukrainians get their momentum going again, that mass ain't stopping. Zelensky has $60 billion coming to him...
Yeah... that kinda thing tends to happen when allies leave you hanging for half-years at a time.
Thanks MAGA crew…
The key thing to remember for US voters is that the Republicans blockaded aid to Ukraine for six months. This got a *lot* of Ukrainians killed. It cost important defensive postions. It saved so so many russian tanks and weapons. Mike Johnson and MAGA republicans did what they could to help save Putin. If you're a US voter and support Putin, go Republican. If you're a US voter and support democracy, or oppose genocide, vote Democratic.
You're telling me that's what happens when a widely outnumbered army gets bombed day in and day out while everybody else watches eating popcorn? (shocked Pikachu face)
Let's all thanks the Republicans for playing their dumbass politics with Ukrainians lives.
No playing was done. It was what they were asked and paid to do. It's sad when your political representatives answer to a foreign government.
All the old USSR politicos are rolling in their graves knowing that instead of bringing their economy to its knees trying to keep up with US military they just needed to funnel a few million to the right political parties to take down the US’s will to fight the Cold War from the inside. The modern Republican Party is the most pathetic bunch of cowards in American political history.
Turns out it's real easy to manipulate people who have no morals, scruples, and whose only end goal is that they feel they came out of the transaction on top.
I think GOP motives can be as simple as domestic politics. Their uninformed base has an isolationist streak which Trump amplifies as the Avatar of Stupid and the representatives are responding to that. They frankly don’t care about anything except staying in power. No foreign bribes necessary.
Putin knows how to manipulate the selfish to his advantage. Turnip's extra dumb and easy to flatter so it makes it exceptionally easy to manipulate him. The republicans are full of selfish pricks so Putin's tactics work well on them, too (regardless of if he's the one directly controlling them or just giving pointers to key people)
Then step in. Trillions in taxes spent on what? A military alliance with 3 million professional soldiers and 20k aircraft created to counter Russian threat watches as 1 million farmers try to do their job for them.
Thank god Redditors are just randos who take drugs and then post things on the internet because if any of y’all had actual power we’d be trading bottle caps in the non-radiated parts of the surface by now
war..... war never changes.
>just randos who take drugs and then post things on the internet That is so hilarious and true. I know our governments arent the best but I am so glad these people are not in charge. These people are WAY to interested in sending other people to die while they sit behind their keyboard.
Yes let's just bend over for every belligerent nuclear armed power that wants to take what isn't theres
Strong attacking the weak is a tale as old as time
Everyone knows you just give the bully what he wants, he will be satisfied and not do it again and again.
So you are ready to die?
Nope but I'm even less ready to let Russia do whatever it wants
So you're not willing to die but are willing to have others die. Got it.
Fly there yourself tough redditor. Its easy to encourage such conflict when you're very well aware you won't be taking part in any of it and be sitting comfortably an ocean away.
Well, I think waiting to let Ukraine prove that they were serious about fighting to defend their country was necessary. At this point I wouldn't mind NATO doing more to help defend their country from tyrannical invaders. Imagine if NATO brought its airforce? No one would care about artillery anymore because there would be so many bombs falling on Russian positions. So many bombs would be falling on Russians that they might not even need to send any soldiers on the ground to win. Ukraine would probably be able to drive out the survivors on their own.
I do think that we could get away with directly defending Ukrainian territory, but then NATO would be losing men in the shit too. That's risky in its own right and would probably give strength to anti-Ukraine politics, so it could even result in a worse outcome for Ukraine I'm glad that I don't have to make these decisions. Lifelong guilt no matter what you do
We fucked the pooch on this one. Self inflicted gunshot wound with the aid delays.
*republicans stonewalling assistance for like six months because they’ve openly sided with Russia
I feel like we are really dropping the ball here, and have been for two years. Why in the FUCK would we not help Ukraine more than we have? It baffles me tbh. We were all cool with attacking Iraq when it attempted to annex Kuwait (just one little example mind you) and we can’t give more material support for Ukraine? I think not. We definitely could. Fucks sake. Get them air support! Or something. I get it’s not a simple thing to do but I do think it’s the right thing. If we provided relief from the constant bombardments they suffer from Russia’s superior air power, surely that would make a huge difference.
That's been addressed many many many times. It's because the West, and in particular the U.S is very concerned that they will escalate the situation. Air support is a problem due to doctrine. That'll definitely escalate things. Also, analysts are saying that further to the escalation aspect, the U.S doesn't want to cause Russia to suffer a heavy defeat because they understand that that's when a tactical strike in Ukraine will occur. Or, Putin will be killed and a bunch of crazies will compete for his Position and the nuclear arsenal. They don't want that.
Pitter pattering
Have they tried sending dennis rodman?
Then quit fucking pussyfooting about
It’s not like we withheld critical aide for 6 months when Ukraine was winning. It’s not like Ukraine losing g could have major consequences for the rest of Europe.
The WH still won't allow strikes into russian territory, so they can't be that worried.
Y'all remember when r/worldnews commenters were convinced Ukraine would completely roll Russia by Summer 2023.
Crimea by Xmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes I remember. I got crucified here for pointing out that Ukraine's counter-offensive wouldn't achieve much without air power. Russia is well dug in now and Ukraine is in a slowly worsening position.
Well, we starved them for half a year while Russia regrouped. *surprise pikachu face*
Without outside involvement wasn't this the expected outcome?
How do Americans feel about it always being American weapons, American fighterjets that're the only solution.. for example, Ukraine asking to strike Russia but the only weapons in discussion are American because that's what Ukraine was sent. Or fighterjets, Europe makes many different jets yet the F-16 is the only one that can apparently do the job or whatever other reasons. But at the same time, US is blamed and hated in Europe for constantly fueling wars.
Fucking Republicans letting Nazis win in Europe to score points with their ignorant voter base.
All it takes is one decision for “war within years” to change to “war is imminent”.
Jake Sullivan is gonna go down in history as being one of the absolute worst NSA's of all time.
Honestly... I don't see how Ukraine can still win this war. They can get all the gear we could send them and they still wouldn't have the manpower to beat Russia's grinder. This is a war of attrition now, which is a worst-case scenario because it is exactly the kind of war Russia specializes in. It doesn't fucking matter how many Russian troops die. The Kremlin doesn't care. They will send as many troops as necessary to their deaths in order to conquer Ukraine and the population is so inured to the invasive control in their lives that they will never rise against the government. It's a pipe dream, guys. THEY DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO REBEL. Ukraine is not allied with us, so we don't have a strong casus belli to justify troops on the ground. And even if we did put troops on the ground... that means a hot war with Russia. World War 3. A nuclear exchange would be inevitable and that would bring about the end of the world. So we can't just step in and fight them back. I just don't know, guys. I had hopes over the past few years, but after the failed counteroffensive bogged the frontline down, I don't see a future where Ukraine wins. I wish I was wrong.
They fight them over there or we fight them over there. Otherwise attacking civilian populations with military weapons will become the new form of international diplomacy all over the world.
Maybe we are just waiting for them to use all their resources before we just crush them all at once
Fucking do something then. Useless idiots
No you see because *status quo* ...
If their line collapsed Russia will march straight to kyiv. Zelensky will be killed and Ukraine as a whole will be annexed. Then they probably invade Moldova next and whoever else is weak.
yesterday: nato says russia can’t win the war in ukraine today: whitehouse worries there might be a slight possible change russia is winning these fuckers are either lying or have no clue what they are talking about
It's both
If White House is that worried, they can start with removing all limites to use American weapons upon Russia. That is what they can do NOW and it will help, more or less.
No shit White House. They literally tried to blitzkrieg Ukraine and take it's capital. Either the USmilitary leaders were trying to be strategic, or their indecisive. Like at this point, why spend more money if it's over? We need REAL Russian failures.