Yes, he is. Please don't ever give up on democracy! It's not just Putin. Every other oligarch is maneuvering to pounce on the free world. Don't be afraid to fight and die for your freedom.
Both can be true. EU needs to bring more to the table to help defend their continent. The US has been doing all the heavy lifting so to speak (not to down play the likes of the Baltic states, UK, Poland, and Denmark )
First time I'm seeing anyone mention Denmark, usually people forget that even though we're a small nation, we tried to make a meaningful impact with the resources we had available, so thanks for that, feels good to know that it was noticeable
The US sent more military equipment but in total support the EU surpasses the US and that is without counting individual support of each EU country.
https://app.23degrees.io/view/tAuBi41LxvWwKZex-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-2_csv_final
Not sure why I should, because you did neither, but here you go:
[https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
It’s definitely a more salient problem for Europe. I would hope this war makes the point that Europe maybe needs to spend a little more on its own fucking defense.
I’m all for US being the world leader we’ve historically been, but unfortunately the maga crowd…sucks.
What a lot of people don't realise is that 1. 95% of the US money spent, stays in the USA and is spent on US arms firms and boosts the local economy. 2 The US arms industry is currently experiencing record boom in profits due to the success in the field by the Ukrainians using US arms and demonstrating the worthlessness or Russian kit. So it s all a huge double win for the US economy even before you factor in that the Russian military have been destroyed for an investment of only 5% of US annual defense budget. Also the US is investing in its own economic and strategic future. If Russia won and Ukraine lost the US would end up loosing one by one its military allies, its future markets and standard of living and ... the Russian empire would do the the exact opposite -in gains. Anyone with even half a brain cell realises that this conflict, though fought in the lands of Ukraine - has little to do with Ukraine at all.
I should think a war torn Europe under Moscow control would suit MAGA very nicely.
Trump should have taught us we can’t rely on the US to defend us. Even if Trump looses the Republicans have shown a remarkable capacity to surprise us by coming up with even worse candidates when we thought the last one couldn’t be less suitable
But do MAGA see Europe as an ally, or a competitor? They have a pretty tenuous grasp of world trade. And wouldn’t a democratic Europe be a source of rebellion if they eliminate democracy at home? A refuge for troublesome liberals and liberal ideas?
> 95% of the US money spent, stays in the USA and is spent on US arms firms and boosts the local economy
This isn’t really an accurate picture. Yes, the money is ‘spent’ locally but then the product of the goods and labor is shipped off to another country. To explode.
Those laborers could have been building other, useful things.
Now, because those munitions are being used to good effect and save us from having to spend more, later, to arm our own troops and troops in NATO, the cost is worth it to me. But just because one hand pays the other, doesn’t mean that the body isn’t paying the price because those hands could be doing something else.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
To repeat myself and be clear, I support providing aid to Ukraine. I just think people will see the 95% and think that it means there’s almost no cost to us and it’s just accounting tricks shifting money from one hand to another.
Im sure most children dont hope to be raped or see their parents murdered and get kidnapped in their thousands - but those weapons are preventing it from taking further place in Ukraine. the US arms industries current record breaking boom is no accounting trick- neither were the 150,000 Ukrainian troops who went to US aid to fight alongside their troops in Afghanistan even though they were not a part of NATO.
What will Putin do after Ukraine? He doesnt have the manpower nor vehicles to take on any other country than Ukraine. If he attacks any Nato country its over for Russia.
Anders Puck Nielsen a navy officer from Denmark explained this very well on YouTube. Yeah Russia straight up physically attacking Nato is super dumb and very unlikely. What Russia really wants is to dismantle Nato not fight them.
The most likely action will be to challenge article 5. Minor incursions, hybrid attacks with continued escalation just below open confrontation. huge propaganda especially in US. Will EU then send troops without US to take back some remote land in north of Finland or a shitty border town in Estonia that Russia has occupied and are now just defending.
EU is led by populists and they will say -"No we don't want to escalate we will negotiate" and that's where Nato dies.
And people underestimate the propaganda part. We just had that dude this week who beheaded his father in the US (for being a federal employee) and ranted about the Biden regime and how US should get out of Ukraine.
Moldova is likely next and could easily be taken by Russia.
Then he'll sow unrest in the Baltic states as he knows direct conflict with NATO is a huge risk.
>He doesnt have the manpower
You know why mobilization was not needed for a while? Because all men from captured territories were sent to fight. The same would happen when Ukraine is captured. Take slaves, make them fight. The more territory you capture the more slaves you have.
Can you regards stop with this copium? Russia is in a war economy and one step from full mobilization. They don’t give a shit about losses and can fully Zerg rush NATOs eastern flank.
They don’t need to take entire countries, they just need president trump to not respond so they can grind down Europes military while their proxy right wing parties grind the EU political process.
So if the Russians invade Poland they will just surrender? Or any other country? It will be guerrila warfare from the citizens. People rise up against them. How about infighting between the Russians?
And now life is absolute shit for millions of people for years on end, a way worse outcome than deterring Russia altogether or pushing them back swiftly
Copium for what?
Apologies we have enough brain cells and education to look at the wider picture.
You want full scale EU war by the looks of it.
You should be jailed for promoting war
Yes yes, it'll be over for Russia when Ukraine gets support... It'll be over for Russia when Ukraine gets better western tanks... It'll be over for Russia this summer because they don't have xyz
Somehow it still keeps going, I'm beginning to think most don't know what they're talking about
What actual manpower do countries like France, Germany, the UK... really have? I'm part of a generation in France where mandatory military service was abolished and we grew up with the idea that the threat of war and mobilization was a thing of the past. I admit I'm far from being a warrior and I can say the same for most people I know of. You can't just take any civilian and turn him overnight into a devoted soldier willing to die for his country if he went about his whole life without even mentally preparing himself for the possibility.
France: 12 million, Germany: 15 millon, UK: 12 million.
War and mobilization is not a thing of the past. Goverments make laws and when push comes to shove, laws get changed and you get mobilized.
Minimal is generous. Inadequate, late, but until the invasion actually began, Macron apparently believed he was negotiating with putin to prevent it happening. Which is about as deluded as a person can be.
> Macron apparently believed he was negotiating with putin to prevent it happening. Which is about as deluded as a person can be.
Despite evidence (multiple phonecalls between Putin and Macron as well as Macron and Zelensky literally made public for all to listen to, which is as tangible as it gets), people are still regurgitating this rubbish. We're still pretending in one of the phonecalls with Zelensky a few days before the invasion, we didn't literally hear the latter explicitly ask Macron to talk to Putin and do his best to dissuade him... something Macron himself even believed he couldn't do. The boy fucking sighed at the request, with French foreign advisors calling Putin a pathological liar lmao. That whole documentary that aired at the peak of moronic "Macron is speaking to Putin; France is trying to sell off Ukraine" was seemingly in vain because it was forgotten about barely 2 weeks after seemingly.
Strange, then, that the morning after the invasion began, Macron was complaining to all who would listen that Putin's signature, presumably on a diplomatic document held by the French that denied any invasion would take place, was worthless. It's almost as though Macron believed there was value in it. Equally odd, is the fact that Zelensky had been asking friends and allies for weapons over the preceding months, specifically those suited to hold against an armoured invasion, in a manner that would match the behaviour of a leader who knew invasion to be imminent. It's almost as though you are actually the one regurgitating rubbish. Do you have any sources for your claims that might dispel such an impression?
> It's almost as though you are actually the one regurgitating rubbish.
No no, I reiterate my assessment regarding you spreading bollocks. I mean you just regurgitated the same kind of horseshit we saw in a number of outlets until the documentary was released in September 2022.
There were literally threads about the documentary on this very sub at the time. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/voxrnb/macron_riles_russia_with_documentary_releasing/
The documentary link is [here](https://www.france.tv/documentaires/politique/3558577-un-president-l-europe-et-la-guerre.html). It contains many conversations between Macron and Putin as well as Zelensky and Macron weeks before the invasion, days before the invasion, on the day of the invasion, days after the invasion as well as weeks and months after (the last call featured having been a July 2022 between Macron and Zelensky). The documentary was made by France's second largest TV channel. I don't know where you're from and if you can watch it on their site I linked. But in case it's geo blocked, there are a some excerpts that were shared by analysts on social media you can probably find. For example this convo with Zelensky on the morning of the invasion:
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712
Now it's your turn since we're all about sources. We'll start with this one:
> the morning after the invasion began, Macron was complaining to all who would listen that Putin's signature, presumably on a diplomatic document held by the French that denied any invasion would take place, was worthless.
Which diplomatic document (or anything signed by Putin for that matter) that denied any invasion would take place did the French claim to hold? When did Macron or anyone in the French administration claim the existent of such a thing? I'll wait. Take your time.
Macron has criticized Russia many times since he came to power for not being willing to follow the Minsk agreements, including in their phonecall three days before the invasion and in declarations after said invasion. The Minsk agreements were drafted in 2014 when Macron wasn't even president (his first mandate began in 2017). The Minsk agreements are what you're calling a document Putin signed promising the French he wouldn't invade in the context of the 2022 shitshow?
France doesn't not communicate by design what they send.
They have provided among other amx, cesar, stormshadow/scalps and glide bombs.
But yeah minimal.
0.061% of GDP (Rank: 29)
https://app.23degrees.io/view/x67vE7NsM3NeQu7z-atlas-slideshow_v4-atlantic/fY83zKIZpbLi3ll5-choro-ukraine-aid-tracker-final-data
“EU must defend Ukraine.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-12/france-won-t-deploy-nukes-if-russia-uses-them-against-ukraine But announces France won’t be using deterrents to help save the Ukraine (via deterrent) to cover their own asses. I’m not even mad they won’t use them. I’m upset he said it outloud to cover their own ass and make Ukraine look that much more vulnerable. Which makes all of the EU more vulnerable. We need to stand strong together. Not publicly announce we won’t do crap back to the enemy.
„Using deterrents“ is a euphemism for „publicly announcing that you’re willing to fight and die for a certain cause” - any nation that puts another under its nuclear umbrella is announcing “we are willing to protect this country with our own lives if need be, as we are willing to risk a nuclear war over it”.
Neither NATO nor the EU is willing to risk their civilians’ lives over Ukraine, and rightfully so - we’ve made that abundantly clear from the start, Russia knows this, and there’s no point in dancing around it.
I don’t think the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far" would exist if using deterrents involved announcing things. Or clarifying anything at all. When holding a large weapon I would say that is a deterrent, it doesn’t need to be announced because what could happen is known. The only way anyone would think otherwise is if they specified that they won’t use the deterrent. But until then it’s assumed they will be harmed by said deterrent. In other words all you have to do is let it be known you have something one time, that another wouldn’t want to be struck with. And it’s known and was known along time ago. After nukes were first used and the world knew they existed. Whoever had them after that automatically had a deterrent. To say publicly you won’t use them defeats the purpose of having them. Also. I’m not saying or thinking anyone else should be sending troops or putting civilians in harms way. All I want, is the deterrent to exist, and everyone knows it’s there. I don’t want anyone saying they will use nukes either! I just don’t want them saying theyll not use them. That’s my whole deal.
There’s three levels to this:
1) announcing publicly that you will defend and go to war for another country - that is what NATO is like
2) strategic ambiguity - that is the US policy towards Taiwan, for instance
3) announcing publicly that you will NOT defend or go to war for another country - that is US policy towards Ukraine
The fact that the US didn’t even opt for strategic ambiguity towards Ukraine, [but went out of their way to announce publicly that they would NOT fight for it](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/), also makes very clear that avoiding any misunderstandings with Russia is the top priority for the US.
The US however has not been clear about what they'd do in the event that Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, allowing for [statements suggesting conventional arms retaliation](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus) to be made.
True, we want to retain at least some strategic ambiguity for the heaviest escalation cases - but note that these statements so far come from sources with no official authority, there have been (to the best of my knowledge) no official statements on this.
The lack of official statements is exactly the point I have with that statement. Petraeus making statements like that without corrections or clarifications means that a level of strategic ambiguity with little concern for misunderstandings exists.
1) why would that be a credible threat to Russia - if we weren’t willing to even threaten this to prevent an invasion, why would they be willing to believe that all of a sudden we’re willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine?
2) There have been plenty of alarms sounded in the last few weeks alone from senior military commanders that there is a threat that Russia doesn’t even believe that NATO would be willing to go to war with Russia over longtime NATO members in the Baltics that as members are significantly more important to NATO than Ukraine and simultaneously significantly less important to Putin than Ukraine, and might be preparing to test whether we really are willing to risk it all - surely if we believe that Russia might not even deterred from an attack on NATO, then they will certainly not be deterred by a red line and ultimatum we suddenly draw over Ukraine, and would be more than willing to actually test our resolve there? In that case, we’d immediately be facing the choice between risking nuclear war with Russia or taking back our ultimatum, and that would be a terrible position for NATO (and all of us) to be in.
But NATO - and the vast majority of the population of the member countries - is absolutely not willing to risk war with Russia over Ukraine, [we’ve made that explicitly clear from the very beginning](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/).
You’re asking hundreds of millions of people for the willingness to immediately risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a country that is in no way even an official ally of the Western world and that has no immediate impact on their lives - that is (unfortunately for Ukraine) far too high of an ask.
I know it sounds terrible to say it out loud. But then again it clears the air from claims that Europe has enough nuclear deterrence. Now that we know this we should move towards combined nuclear deterrence agreements across Europe. With all due respect we cant expect France alone promising defense when they cant do it alone.
He wouldn’t be starting one technically if he was launching back. But he would be ending his own country. He technically would be finishing a nuclear war if Russia only launched back at France. But Tbh Russia would probably launch at every enemy they have if they were going under even ones who did nothing to them, all NATO for sure. Nothing against Russians just the Leader.
NaTO country red line has been from the start that if a tactical nuke is used they would expulse any Russian soldier from Ukraine.
It has not changed and Macron statement is in line with NaTO red line. It is a non issue.
Now if Russia use tactical nuke on nato soldier it is another matter but this was not covered here.
Even if the European nations in NATO or the EU had their own nuclear deterrent, that still would not cover Ukraine - and if the EU came with a nuclear umbrella, that would make entry to the EU come with much higher hurdles and put it out of reach for Ukraine entirely.
UN, like what?
Whatever they want to do, Russia or any other Russia friendly country will veto any USA suggestion, the same as USA will veto any Russian suggestion.
Do not count on UN, they are useless toothless organization, they were toothless before Ukraine crisis and they are even worse now.
Europe living the good life the past 40 years, always complaining about ignorant Americans, while America does the heavy lifting with defense against Russia. European leaders now finally recognize the inadequate amount of armaments being produced by Europe. The US shouldn’t be on the hook to defend Europe forever.
Almost half if not more than half of the population is getting tired of being involved in conflict 24-7. Not just because of the lives but the money being given out to others while we pay the price of rising costs to live in almost every category.
I’m tired of it. Would like to continue helping but seeing how much gets taken away from me after working 60+ hours a week ticks me off.
I mean you’re probably not wrong. Our government will always find a reason to tax us to hell, but I try to hope-cope that maybe it might be used on our systems instead of someone else.
24/7 conflict sucks for sure, and I'm sorry that you have to work and be taxed so much. But now is precisely the worst moment to be tired. Iraq/Afghanistan would have been fine, at least after a year or two. The problem with Ukraine and the current geopolitical climate in general is that a very clear alliance of non-democratic nations is emerging (China, Russia, Iran, NK) and they are belligerent towards democratic nations. The U.S. retreating now would yield the initiative to these nations, and the last time this happened WW2 happened, and the U.S. still had to get involved. The basic math is suck it up now, make sure Russia gets put in its place, and avoid a great power war, or retreat now and be forced to fight a great power war within the next decade. The situation is extremely shitty and both the U.S. and the E.U. should suck it up, continue arming Ukraine and be ready, because the only way to stop authoritarian regimes is to be armed and dangerous. Appeasement does not work.
Understand what you’re saying completely, but I look at Ukraine and see Russia struggling to take significant territory 2 years in. Living in the US I have doubt they could even keep their navy intact long enough to make it to out shores, same with China . As for Europe, I feel very neutral towards many of those countries for personal reasons.
I think no amount of aid can really help in a war of attrition. It will come down to who decides to cut their losses first , but Russia has much more meat for the grinder and a tougher population. That’s just my opinion though and honestly at this point I can’t be swayed so don’t waste your time, just recognize my opinion for what it is even if you think it’s a shit one.
On the contrary, it is a valid opinion and I appreciate you not wanting to change it, so I won't attempt to persuade you. I think the writing is on the wall and in the books on the history of the 20th century, but humans have failed to learn from history throughout, well, history, so maybe we are due for a lesson again.
Even though we disagree it’s nice to see normal dialogue on a site like this. I appreciate that. If you want to spend all the money I’m the world for Ukraine I won’t knock you for that, because maybe your values are different than mine. And I’m sure this means more than you than it does to me.
I will say you’re 100% correct that we have learned nothing from history, and it’s unfortunate there will always be bad men. Perhaps we are due for that next lesson, but I guess I’m willing to take the gamble on whether it affects me or not - in a sense that I would be forced to fight. Other than I hope things fall into place one way or another, and many of these wars that cause unnecessary bloodshed will end.
What reality do you live in where you think all of Europe has been complaining about the US for the last 40 years? Trumps? Because the general consensus in Europe (at least the west) is the complete opposite and has been since the Cold War.
And the US isn’t doing anything out of solidarity to Europe, they would never be in the position they are now without the close relationship they have had with Europe these last 100 years. Are the US going to back off now when the bond between the continents matter more than ever, or are they going to hold the promises they made to countries like Ukraine?
Source? To my knowledge, the US never promised that.
You're not mistakenly referring to [this](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) are you?
That doesn’t exist, it’s simply something you made up.
I assume you’re completely misquoting the agreement that the US would not invade Ukraine, which it has not.
“Ukraine is a very important country, and I feel a personal stake because I got them to agree to give up their nuclear weapons, and none of them believed that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons.”
- Bill Clinton.
I don’t see how the US shouldn’t feel some sort of responsibility for Ukraine atm.
Because they have no responsibility and never agreed to it? Perhaps sovereign countries are responsible for their own defense, or create alliances? A defensive alliance simply does not and did not exist between the US and Ukraine, which is across the world on a separate continent.
Should the US just defend every country in the World? This is absurd.
Yea that European conscription really scares Putin, eh? We’d actually like to get our American troops in Europe back home and let Europe defend itself. If they don’t tear each other apart first.
No you wouldnt actually like to pull out of Europe. Lmfao the reason why US has military presence all over the globe is to project power and influence not from the goodness of their heart what the fuck are you on about.
Its the same reason why China is pouring money into Africa.
Maybe increase French commitments to Ukraine? Its operations in africa never slowed down, maybe divert some resources towards Ukraine?
They’re clearly not sending their best.
Are you trolling ? The Scalp (300km missile) is french and same for AASM (70km bomb) and both new massive deliveries have been anounced less than 2 weeks ago. Unlike USA's aid it is probably already on the battlefield, like everything we communicate about. Except for the 70 newly promised caesars that need to be produced.
>Unlike USA's aid it is probably already on the battlefield
Like the Patriot systems, Bradleys, artillery, small arms and ammunition, AT systems, MANPADS, HIMARS, etc. that you claim aren't on the battlefield yet, but show up in pretty much every video?
Don't even THINK France sent more than the US.
And before you try it, I'm also not saying that the EU hasn't sent anything. But your statement makes it seem like they're still waiting for US materiel on the ground and France is the savior.
I think what he means is France, usually, announce stuff which are already or nearly on the battlefield when they talk about it (and if they talk about it. Mostly France doesn't talk about military supplies in detail).
Others have a tendency to announce big deliveries and several months later the stuff is on the field.
Nothing wrong with that, just different ways of doing it.
As for the quantity the US send, nobody can rival with it.
Absolutely 100% true - if Russia get anything here - just a little bit - Putin will take that as a victory and that the western world / Nato can be pushed arround - and in 3 - 5 years he will find an excuse to attack the rest of Ukraine. Then in 8 years they will find an excuse to attack somewhere else.
Why "the EU"? Why doesn't France simply provide arms and finances? Why attempt to go through the EU except to avoid responsibility, knowing Hungary will continually oppose aid
Lol did you even bother reading the article to get a grasp of the context in which this declaration was made? No, because it is pretty clear some of you don't even read anything beyond the title. The guy is on a state visit to Sweden, a fellow EU state. Franco-Swedish bilateral defence and industry cooperation and contract signings was the main topic with EU strengthening and consolidation also being discussed. Is it really surprising he is speaking of the EU as institution in regard to Ukraine? I mean he also mentioned joint Franco-Swedish production for Ukraine in his speech.
Also, considering all previous EU packages to Ukraine have ultimately been drafted despite Orban's best efforts with Germany, France and Italy carrying them, France should've found another excuse to save its billions by now because Orban clearly isn't an effective smokescreen.
The U.S. and Europe had the last 75 years to prepare for a war with Russia. Yet they seem hesitant and unprepared to do it, even under the favorable circumstances of it occurring in Ukraine, rather than a much riskier direct conflict.
"Gov. Romney, I'm glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida," Obama said. "You said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s," Obama
Really weird right? Almost like the greatest misinformation campaign in history is working on ignorant idiots. It’s the wholesale slaughter of our greatest enemy for the past 70 or so years, without any US troops being killed. And they hate that? It’s baffling.
Lots of people are simply too used to peace and are incapable to comprehend war.
Putin has been proclaiming war against west last 20 years. But some deluded themselves that it all is a joke. Some deluded themselves into “they cannot be so savage”, “aaaa nukes”, “but it is economically bad”, etc. As if their definitions of rational is something everyone subscribes to.
Additionally, politicians in the west are mostly impotent. Zombie parties. No new ideas, philosophies, worldviews. No answer to “why do this”. Full on going with the flow and sleeping, stagnating while the world around changes. What about thinking ahead? Nope, votes now. Thus, problems are not addressed, they fester from scratches to serious wounds.
Take a look at Iran. First some schmuck cancels Iran nuclear deal, then another is afraid of doing new deal because “poor pr”. Iran is angry and spends money on proxies.
Russians buy politicians, media and are pretty cozy with half of the world. They are pretty capable of curtailing threats from the west.
Just look at Israel. They procrastinated with solving their issues with Palestine and got another war on their hands.
If history teaches us anything it is that our issues are mostly of our own doing
Not a democracy issue as incompetency plagues any form of governance.
It’s up to a politician to properly convey needs for decisions, instead of taking the easy way out by populism and ostrichism (hiding head in the sand from the problems). No one said it’s an easy job.
That's not what the last 70 years have been. They hated Russia when Russia was left wing. Now it's right wing and they dont hate it anymore. And the left have just been fighting the right for their rights to exist for the last 70 years.
Everyones worst enemies here have always lived.. Well.. Here..
It's because the MAGA crowd identifies more with nationalist dictatorships than they do with European democracies, Putin is weaponising the vein of fascist sympathizers that runs through the American right.
Not really. As a US citizen it has nothing to do with the *support* to Ukraine. I don’t think you can find many people in the US who believe what Russia is doing to Ukraine is right.
What is really happening is that the US citizens themselves would just rather not involve itself in world affairs. We have been doing nothing but that for an entire generation and we’re tired of it. On top of that, US citizens are constantly hearing about the next multi-billion dollar aid package to support a war a world away that is not even ours to fight. This is a war that Ukraines neighbors should really step up to, and the US as a whole believes this whether you agree with it or not.
>What is really happening is that the US citizens themselves would just rather not involve itself in world affairs.
Funny how the American right only adopted this mentality the moment that Ukraine was invaded by Russia and it became clear that many Republicans have been compromised by Russia. Up until now these same people were telling the public that America needed to project strength and maintain global dominance and anyone who opposed the idea of projecting America's power was anti-American.
It used up alot of US citizen “goodwill” by sending US boots to Iraq and afghanistan for basically nothing other than turning US into what’s basically a pariah to any country not located in Europe or places with Sizeable Millitary presence.
Short a of US cruise ship / Carrier battle group landing in Crimea then self detonate, US public support will only deteriorate as time goes on.
NATO came to the defence of the US when called in Afghanistan, many helped in Iraq. These are not wars Europe had to fight in. Wars that destroyed tony Blair in the UK. The US should help Europe defeat Russia, especially when the US benefits from a broken Russia.
You say that but most people in the west who opposed the wars in the Middle East absolutely support the Ukrainians in their struggle to resist the Russian invasion. There's a big difference between sending troops to invade a random country to steal their resources and sending military technology to an allied democracy that's requesting it so they can fend off an unprovoked invasion.
The problem is that a sizable chunk of the GOP has been compromised by Russia and are feeding an anti-Ukraine narrative to their base on Russia's behalf.
“People” support it to the point their mouths allow, as long as their lives are not on the line, US gov has zero faith a draft will get any support.
There’s no difference between the middle east and Ukraine, the only real difference is if they have to be drafted and fight.
I don't understand why you're talking about a draft? The US was never going to send US troops to fight in Ukraine we're just talking about sending them the weapons they're asking for.
Everything starts with no support, then the support increases and increases till you actually declare war officially or unofficially and a draft happens, of course it won’t happen now but its the certain endgame for sure.
The public giving the okay for more better weapons means to the Gov its okay taking it the next level, a small section of Americans are waking up to the fact what it means..
Wait are you actually saying you believe that US troops will be sent to Ukraine? You actually think the US is going to get in a shooting war with a hostile nuclear power over the war in Ukraine?
There's issues for sure, but that might be a little far. Currently the US is doing more then any other nation to help where it can and giving more support then the next several closest combined in some instances.
It wouldn't hurt for more countries in the EU to pitch in.
GDP is the only honest way to measure it. That's why our NATO commitments are measured by percentage of GDP. In no logical or fair world should those tiny economies be expected to contribute as much, in raw numbers, as the largest economy in the world.
I don’t understand why people use the per capita argument. This isn’t an economic survey to determine the average income per citizen relative to GDP.
If the US sends hundreds of Bradleys and a poorer country sends 1 tank that’s worth more relative to their GDP, there’s no way you would say they contributed more compared to the US.
Let me explain in that case: giving in terms of percentage of what you have is more representative than absolute, in terms of effort and strain. Not in terms of total, but in terms of effort.
War doesn’t care who the donor’s income is. I could personally send Ukraine a gun and say my support is worth more relative to my GDP. It doesn’t mean that Ukraine would get more use out it compared to the HIMARS launchers, Patriot systems, and hundreds of Bradley that the US had already sent.
That's just a ridiculous example. We're talking about donation of arms and aid with regards to the GDP of individual countries, not how much is in your pocket. It is possible to simplify things too much you know.
The US should be fully behind their ally Ukraine but a lot of opposition politicians have clearly been compromised by Russia and are working against America's own best interest to try disrupt and shut down that support.
The US isn't the bad guy here but a sizable chunk of the GOP definitely are.
America isn't losing the plot.
America is extremely annoyed that European countries refuse to control their own damn plot. Ukranian defense and trade route defense.
America has its own western boarder to worry about.
China who is a far bigger threat to America than Russia is or will be for the foreseeable future Russia’s invasion has been a complete and utter failure what should’ve been their version of the invasion of Iraq in terms of military success is turned into trench warfare and humiliating Russian Defeat after humiliating Russian Defeat just the countries of Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and maybe financial help from Britain, France, and Germany should be all that’s needed to hold any Russian advances into Europe The US no longer needs to focus on that front, and can direct attention to the far East where it’s attention is desperately needed
To do what though? The US already has a string of alliances in Asia, and the most powerful fleet in the world besides. China wont be capable for a few more years.
Taiwan is obviously the one that needs support, but the US isnt willing to send them modern equipment. So its not like Ukraine is taking weapons desperately needed by Asian allies. Note that Biden doesnt seem to mind helping Ukraine
To apply continual military pressure on China cut them off from the artificial islands they built in the South China Sea constrict them make them feel the pressure do displays of force to show everyone in the region that China is a paper tiger, and that if shit hits the fan they’d rather the United States be on their side rather than against it, show everyone that although the US has spoken softly it still carries the biggest stick around and to never forget that, redouble our efforts to militarize our allies in the region and increase military presence in the region and reduce it in Europe as Russia can be dealt with by the Europeans unless they completely fuck it up which I find unlikely.
Ah the inability of the internet to understand that two thoughts are not intrinsically linked.
Yes the USA should support Ukraine.
Yes the EU needs to stop being a bitch ass leech state(s) and defend themselves.
The EU plus UK has sent more to Ukraine than the US. It should do more, but it's disingenuous to say they aren't doing their bit. Russia is the enemy of the US, and the US is backing down in the middle of the fight.
>The European Union is also providing non-lethal and lethal arms through its European Peace Facility (EPF). This is the first time the bloc has, in its history, approved the supply of lethal weapons to a third country. To date, the EU has committed just over €5.6 billion, including €1 billion of funds to reimburse EPF countries who have provided urgently needed munitions. €1 billion of EPF funds has also been set aside for the joint EU procurement of artillery ammunition. In October 2022, the EU approved a new training mission for the Ukrainian armed forces.
Longer term the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, has proposed establishing a dedicated Ukraine fund under the auspices of the EPF, worth €20 billion over four years. Agreement on those proposals has not yet been reached amid disagreements on how the fund should operate and the wider debate on future EU funding for Ukraine.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
EU military aid is crazy low at €5.6 billion. Its been \~16 months since they provided anything. There is the forever delayed plan to send aid in the future. I believe individual EU states have sent stuff, but the EU as an organization is a lot less reliable than the US.
I don't know why US and all people don't see Ukraine as being the most important priority of any of the issues at the moment. Putin, China, Iran, North Korea, India are a alliance against US and NATO and need to be stopped.
> Putin, China, Iran, North Korea, India
They simply aren't though. Russia, Iran and North Korea maybe, but China's situation is complicated at best, and while India may have sympathies toward Russia, they have interests with the west and conflict with China.
> India are a alliance against US
0 IQ take. clearly you know nothing about geopolitics if you think India is USA's enemy. The only enemy of India is Pakistan and India is in a complicated relation with China.
Germany & France should've expanded their more powerful defense industry business before making such a supportive sound for Ukraine. The two nations have focused on citizens' welfare instead until now, and it became the lower defense budget in the end. So, weapon makers in the two nations couldn't have enough fiscal support from their central government.
NATO should become the strongest one regardless of America's military plans for European nations. If the promising presidential candidate Donald Trump in the GOP becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will announce the controversial plan that NATO can't get military support from the US anymore. Macron's speech was nice. But he should've reminded the words "Easier said than done". The two leaders in the EU must build an urgent defense blueprint to raise NATO's actual physical power to overwhelm Russia's dark mind. NATO ought not to depend on the USA's military power anymore. Nobody protects others eternally.
>If the promising presidential candidate Donald Trump in the GOP becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will announce the controversial plan that NATO can't get military support from the US anymore.
If the Russian puppet Donald Trump becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will pull the US out of NATO to weaken both the US and the entire western world in order to benefit Putin.
And he’s right because Putin won’t stop at Ukraine
Yes, he is. Please don't ever give up on democracy! It's not just Putin. Every other oligarch is maneuvering to pounce on the free world. Don't be afraid to fight and die for your freedom.
Both can be true. EU needs to bring more to the table to help defend their continent. The US has been doing all the heavy lifting so to speak (not to down play the likes of the Baltic states, UK, Poland, and Denmark )
First time I'm seeing anyone mention Denmark, usually people forget that even though we're a small nation, we tried to make a meaningful impact with the resources we had available, so thanks for that, feels good to know that it was noticeable
The sorry state of our own military still gives me a bad feeling though...
The US sent more military equipment but in total support the EU surpasses the US and that is without counting individual support of each EU country. https://app.23degrees.io/view/tAuBi41LxvWwKZex-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-2_csv_final
Loans you want paid back isn't the same as giving actual missiles and ammo
[удалено]
Yes.
You really have no clue
[удалено]
And that's what's happening, so what is your point?
[удалено]
An individual country a fourth the population should pay more than the US with by far the biggest amount of stock that needs to be replaced anyway?
Alright, you may shush now
This is simply not true.
Care to explain and provide empirical data please?
Not sure why I should, because you did neither, but here you go: [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Actually EU has been paying more according to GPD size
It's the Baltics right after Ukraine, and there is no way they alone stop them, without a shit ton of US/NATO support
It's Moldova after Ukraine IMO
It’s definitely a more salient problem for Europe. I would hope this war makes the point that Europe maybe needs to spend a little more on its own fucking defense. I’m all for US being the world leader we’ve historically been, but unfortunately the maga crowd…sucks.
What a lot of people don't realise is that 1. 95% of the US money spent, stays in the USA and is spent on US arms firms and boosts the local economy. 2 The US arms industry is currently experiencing record boom in profits due to the success in the field by the Ukrainians using US arms and demonstrating the worthlessness or Russian kit. So it s all a huge double win for the US economy even before you factor in that the Russian military have been destroyed for an investment of only 5% of US annual defense budget. Also the US is investing in its own economic and strategic future. If Russia won and Ukraine lost the US would end up loosing one by one its military allies, its future markets and standard of living and ... the Russian empire would do the the exact opposite -in gains. Anyone with even half a brain cell realises that this conflict, though fought in the lands of Ukraine - has little to do with Ukraine at all.
\^\^Well said. I wish the US president would announce an address to the nation and say exactly this.
Which is why Russia is all in on trump and their republican useful idiots.
He's the perfect puppet for Russia.
I should think a war torn Europe under Moscow control would suit MAGA very nicely. Trump should have taught us we can’t rely on the US to defend us. Even if Trump looses the Republicans have shown a remarkable capacity to surprise us by coming up with even worse candidates when we thought the last one couldn’t be less suitable
A war torn Europe would damage the US economy, interest rates and economic prosperity
But do MAGA see Europe as an ally, or a competitor? They have a pretty tenuous grasp of world trade. And wouldn’t a democratic Europe be a source of rebellion if they eliminate democracy at home? A refuge for troublesome liberals and liberal ideas?
> 95% of the US money spent, stays in the USA and is spent on US arms firms and boosts the local economy This isn’t really an accurate picture. Yes, the money is ‘spent’ locally but then the product of the goods and labor is shipped off to another country. To explode. Those laborers could have been building other, useful things. Now, because those munitions are being used to good effect and save us from having to spend more, later, to arm our own troops and troops in NATO, the cost is worth it to me. But just because one hand pays the other, doesn’t mean that the body isn’t paying the price because those hands could be doing something else. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” To repeat myself and be clear, I support providing aid to Ukraine. I just think people will see the 95% and think that it means there’s almost no cost to us and it’s just accounting tricks shifting money from one hand to another.
Im sure most children dont hope to be raped or see their parents murdered and get kidnapped in their thousands - but those weapons are preventing it from taking further place in Ukraine. the US arms industries current record breaking boom is no accounting trick- neither were the 150,000 Ukrainian troops who went to US aid to fight alongside their troops in Afghanistan even though they were not a part of NATO.
Not like the same can't be said for every sports car, mansion, yacht and on and on.
Where else is Putin going to invade? NATO, no fucking way.
What will Putin do after Ukraine? He doesnt have the manpower nor vehicles to take on any other country than Ukraine. If he attacks any Nato country its over for Russia.
Anders Puck Nielsen a navy officer from Denmark explained this very well on YouTube. Yeah Russia straight up physically attacking Nato is super dumb and very unlikely. What Russia really wants is to dismantle Nato not fight them. The most likely action will be to challenge article 5. Minor incursions, hybrid attacks with continued escalation just below open confrontation. huge propaganda especially in US. Will EU then send troops without US to take back some remote land in north of Finland or a shitty border town in Estonia that Russia has occupied and are now just defending. EU is led by populists and they will say -"No we don't want to escalate we will negotiate" and that's where Nato dies.
And people underestimate the propaganda part. We just had that dude this week who beheaded his father in the US (for being a federal employee) and ranted about the Biden regime and how US should get out of Ukraine.
Link me to this pls Cant belive some nut job did that to his own dad.
vast zonked squalid fear cagey resolute ring attractive thumb aspiring
Moldova is likely next and could easily be taken by Russia. Then he'll sow unrest in the Baltic states as he knows direct conflict with NATO is a huge risk.
>He doesnt have the manpower You know why mobilization was not needed for a while? Because all men from captured territories were sent to fight. The same would happen when Ukraine is captured. Take slaves, make them fight. The more territory you capture the more slaves you have.
Are you mad? If Ukraine falls putin will ride shirtless on a white horse across all of Europe and north America, he'll be unstoppable!
Can you regards stop with this copium? Russia is in a war economy and one step from full mobilization. They don’t give a shit about losses and can fully Zerg rush NATOs eastern flank. They don’t need to take entire countries, they just need president trump to not respond so they can grind down Europes military while their proxy right wing parties grind the EU political process.
So if the Russians invade Poland they will just surrender? Or any other country? It will be guerrila warfare from the citizens. People rise up against them. How about infighting between the Russians?
And now life is absolute shit for millions of people for years on end, a way worse outcome than deterring Russia altogether or pushing them back swiftly
Copium for what? Apologies we have enough brain cells and education to look at the wider picture. You want full scale EU war by the looks of it. You should be jailed for promoting war
Coward
Yes yes, it'll be over for Russia when Ukraine gets support... It'll be over for Russia when Ukraine gets better western tanks... It'll be over for Russia this summer because they don't have xyz Somehow it still keeps going, I'm beginning to think most don't know what they're talking about
Manpower and vehicles can be built over a decade. Think long term for once
What actual manpower do countries like France, Germany, the UK... really have? I'm part of a generation in France where mandatory military service was abolished and we grew up with the idea that the threat of war and mobilization was a thing of the past. I admit I'm far from being a warrior and I can say the same for most people I know of. You can't just take any civilian and turn him overnight into a devoted soldier willing to die for his country if he went about his whole life without even mentally preparing himself for the possibility.
France: 12 million, Germany: 15 millon, UK: 12 million. War and mobilization is not a thing of the past. Goverments make laws and when push comes to shove, laws get changed and you get mobilized.
[удалено]
The other upside of investing in military buildup is that the European economy will grow, and it could reverse some of their stagnancy issues.
Yes! Europe must defend Europe. That includes the french actually sending aid to Ukraine (which has been minimal.)
Minimal is generous. Inadequate, late, but until the invasion actually began, Macron apparently believed he was negotiating with putin to prevent it happening. Which is about as deluded as a person can be.
> Macron apparently believed he was negotiating with putin to prevent it happening. Which is about as deluded as a person can be. Despite evidence (multiple phonecalls between Putin and Macron as well as Macron and Zelensky literally made public for all to listen to, which is as tangible as it gets), people are still regurgitating this rubbish. We're still pretending in one of the phonecalls with Zelensky a few days before the invasion, we didn't literally hear the latter explicitly ask Macron to talk to Putin and do his best to dissuade him... something Macron himself even believed he couldn't do. The boy fucking sighed at the request, with French foreign advisors calling Putin a pathological liar lmao. That whole documentary that aired at the peak of moronic "Macron is speaking to Putin; France is trying to sell off Ukraine" was seemingly in vain because it was forgotten about barely 2 weeks after seemingly.
Strange, then, that the morning after the invasion began, Macron was complaining to all who would listen that Putin's signature, presumably on a diplomatic document held by the French that denied any invasion would take place, was worthless. It's almost as though Macron believed there was value in it. Equally odd, is the fact that Zelensky had been asking friends and allies for weapons over the preceding months, specifically those suited to hold against an armoured invasion, in a manner that would match the behaviour of a leader who knew invasion to be imminent. It's almost as though you are actually the one regurgitating rubbish. Do you have any sources for your claims that might dispel such an impression?
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt22692282/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_pl The entire documentary...
> It's almost as though you are actually the one regurgitating rubbish. No no, I reiterate my assessment regarding you spreading bollocks. I mean you just regurgitated the same kind of horseshit we saw in a number of outlets until the documentary was released in September 2022. There were literally threads about the documentary on this very sub at the time. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/voxrnb/macron_riles_russia_with_documentary_releasing/ The documentary link is [here](https://www.france.tv/documentaires/politique/3558577-un-president-l-europe-et-la-guerre.html). It contains many conversations between Macron and Putin as well as Zelensky and Macron weeks before the invasion, days before the invasion, on the day of the invasion, days after the invasion as well as weeks and months after (the last call featured having been a July 2022 between Macron and Zelensky). The documentary was made by France's second largest TV channel. I don't know where you're from and if you can watch it on their site I linked. But in case it's geo blocked, there are a some excerpts that were shared by analysts on social media you can probably find. For example this convo with Zelensky on the morning of the invasion: https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712 Now it's your turn since we're all about sources. We'll start with this one: > the morning after the invasion began, Macron was complaining to all who would listen that Putin's signature, presumably on a diplomatic document held by the French that denied any invasion would take place, was worthless. Which diplomatic document (or anything signed by Putin for that matter) that denied any invasion would take place did the French claim to hold? When did Macron or anyone in the French administration claim the existent of such a thing? I'll wait. Take your time. Macron has criticized Russia many times since he came to power for not being willing to follow the Minsk agreements, including in their phonecall three days before the invasion and in declarations after said invasion. The Minsk agreements were drafted in 2014 when Macron wasn't even president (his first mandate began in 2017). The Minsk agreements are what you're calling a document Putin signed promising the French he wouldn't invade in the context of the 2022 shitshow?
In all fairness he negotiated on Ukraine's request
France doesn't not communicate by design what they send. They have provided among other amx, cesar, stormshadow/scalps and glide bombs. But yeah minimal.
0.061% of GDP (Rank: 29) https://app.23degrees.io/view/x67vE7NsM3NeQu7z-atlas-slideshow_v4-atlantic/fY83zKIZpbLi3ll5-choro-ukraine-aid-tracker-final-data
French notions of grandiosity are notoriously deluded.
France doesn't communicate on most things it sends to Ukraine so you'll never know for sure
“EU must defend Ukraine.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-12/france-won-t-deploy-nukes-if-russia-uses-them-against-ukraine But announces France won’t be using deterrents to help save the Ukraine (via deterrent) to cover their own asses. I’m not even mad they won’t use them. I’m upset he said it outloud to cover their own ass and make Ukraine look that much more vulnerable. Which makes all of the EU more vulnerable. We need to stand strong together. Not publicly announce we won’t do crap back to the enemy.
„Using deterrents“ is a euphemism for „publicly announcing that you’re willing to fight and die for a certain cause” - any nation that puts another under its nuclear umbrella is announcing “we are willing to protect this country with our own lives if need be, as we are willing to risk a nuclear war over it”. Neither NATO nor the EU is willing to risk their civilians’ lives over Ukraine, and rightfully so - we’ve made that abundantly clear from the start, Russia knows this, and there’s no point in dancing around it.
I don’t think the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far" would exist if using deterrents involved announcing things. Or clarifying anything at all. When holding a large weapon I would say that is a deterrent, it doesn’t need to be announced because what could happen is known. The only way anyone would think otherwise is if they specified that they won’t use the deterrent. But until then it’s assumed they will be harmed by said deterrent. In other words all you have to do is let it be known you have something one time, that another wouldn’t want to be struck with. And it’s known and was known along time ago. After nukes were first used and the world knew they existed. Whoever had them after that automatically had a deterrent. To say publicly you won’t use them defeats the purpose of having them. Also. I’m not saying or thinking anyone else should be sending troops or putting civilians in harms way. All I want, is the deterrent to exist, and everyone knows it’s there. I don’t want anyone saying they will use nukes either! I just don’t want them saying theyll not use them. That’s my whole deal.
There’s three levels to this: 1) announcing publicly that you will defend and go to war for another country - that is what NATO is like 2) strategic ambiguity - that is the US policy towards Taiwan, for instance 3) announcing publicly that you will NOT defend or go to war for another country - that is US policy towards Ukraine The fact that the US didn’t even opt for strategic ambiguity towards Ukraine, [but went out of their way to announce publicly that they would NOT fight for it](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/), also makes very clear that avoiding any misunderstandings with Russia is the top priority for the US.
The US however has not been clear about what they'd do in the event that Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, allowing for [statements suggesting conventional arms retaliation](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus) to be made.
True, we want to retain at least some strategic ambiguity for the heaviest escalation cases - but note that these statements so far come from sources with no official authority, there have been (to the best of my knowledge) no official statements on this.
The lack of official statements is exactly the point I have with that statement. Petraeus making statements like that without corrections or clarifications means that a level of strategic ambiguity with little concern for misunderstandings exists.
Perhaps that stance should be changed...
How and in what way?
A very simple way: Either Russia withdraws to the pre-invasion status quo, or there is an intervention. With boots.
1) why would that be a credible threat to Russia - if we weren’t willing to even threaten this to prevent an invasion, why would they be willing to believe that all of a sudden we’re willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine? 2) There have been plenty of alarms sounded in the last few weeks alone from senior military commanders that there is a threat that Russia doesn’t even believe that NATO would be willing to go to war with Russia over longtime NATO members in the Baltics that as members are significantly more important to NATO than Ukraine and simultaneously significantly less important to Putin than Ukraine, and might be preparing to test whether we really are willing to risk it all - surely if we believe that Russia might not even deterred from an attack on NATO, then they will certainly not be deterred by a red line and ultimatum we suddenly draw over Ukraine, and would be more than willing to actually test our resolve there? In that case, we’d immediately be facing the choice between risking nuclear war with Russia or taking back our ultimatum, and that would be a terrible position for NATO (and all of us) to be in.
1. It's up to us to make it credible. 2.Obviously it's risking war with Russia. That's what an ultimatum is.
But NATO - and the vast majority of the population of the member countries - is absolutely not willing to risk war with Russia over Ukraine, [we’ve made that explicitly clear from the very beginning](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/).
I'm aware. I'm saying that should change.
You’re asking hundreds of millions of people for the willingness to immediately risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a country that is in no way even an official ally of the Western world and that has no immediate impact on their lives - that is (unfortunately for Ukraine) far too high of an ask.
I know it sounds terrible to say it out loud. But then again it clears the air from claims that Europe has enough nuclear deterrence. Now that we know this we should move towards combined nuclear deterrence agreements across Europe. With all due respect we cant expect France alone promising defense when they cant do it alone.
France is not willing to start a nuclear holocaust over a non EU state. Shocked pikachu.
He wouldn’t be starting one technically if he was launching back. But he would be ending his own country. He technically would be finishing a nuclear war if Russia only launched back at France. But Tbh Russia would probably launch at every enemy they have if they were going under even ones who did nothing to them, all NATO for sure. Nothing against Russians just the Leader.
NaTO country red line has been from the start that if a tactical nuke is used they would expulse any Russian soldier from Ukraine. It has not changed and Macron statement is in line with NaTO red line. It is a non issue. Now if Russia use tactical nuke on nato soldier it is another matter but this was not covered here.
Even if the European nations in NATO or the EU had their own nuclear deterrent, that still would not cover Ukraine - and if the EU came with a nuclear umbrella, that would make entry to the EU come with much higher hurdles and put it out of reach for Ukraine entirely.
Heaven forbid the rest of the UN does something and not just the US.
UN, like what? Whatever they want to do, Russia or any other Russia friendly country will veto any USA suggestion, the same as USA will veto any Russian suggestion. Do not count on UN, they are useless toothless organization, they were toothless before Ukraine crisis and they are even worse now.
They haven’t had the teeth to do a damn thing since jadotville
Europe living the good life the past 40 years, always complaining about ignorant Americans, while America does the heavy lifting with defense against Russia. European leaders now finally recognize the inadequate amount of armaments being produced by Europe. The US shouldn’t be on the hook to defend Europe forever.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment America retreating into isolationism is one of the signs of an impending world war looking at history.
Almost half if not more than half of the population is getting tired of being involved in conflict 24-7. Not just because of the lives but the money being given out to others while we pay the price of rising costs to live in almost every category. I’m tired of it. Would like to continue helping but seeing how much gets taken away from me after working 60+ hours a week ticks me off.
Your taxes won't change after USA goes isolationist. But i kind of get the cope there
I mean you’re probably not wrong. Our government will always find a reason to tax us to hell, but I try to hope-cope that maybe it might be used on our systems instead of someone else.
24/7 conflict sucks for sure, and I'm sorry that you have to work and be taxed so much. But now is precisely the worst moment to be tired. Iraq/Afghanistan would have been fine, at least after a year or two. The problem with Ukraine and the current geopolitical climate in general is that a very clear alliance of non-democratic nations is emerging (China, Russia, Iran, NK) and they are belligerent towards democratic nations. The U.S. retreating now would yield the initiative to these nations, and the last time this happened WW2 happened, and the U.S. still had to get involved. The basic math is suck it up now, make sure Russia gets put in its place, and avoid a great power war, or retreat now and be forced to fight a great power war within the next decade. The situation is extremely shitty and both the U.S. and the E.U. should suck it up, continue arming Ukraine and be ready, because the only way to stop authoritarian regimes is to be armed and dangerous. Appeasement does not work.
Understand what you’re saying completely, but I look at Ukraine and see Russia struggling to take significant territory 2 years in. Living in the US I have doubt they could even keep their navy intact long enough to make it to out shores, same with China . As for Europe, I feel very neutral towards many of those countries for personal reasons. I think no amount of aid can really help in a war of attrition. It will come down to who decides to cut their losses first , but Russia has much more meat for the grinder and a tougher population. That’s just my opinion though and honestly at this point I can’t be swayed so don’t waste your time, just recognize my opinion for what it is even if you think it’s a shit one.
On the contrary, it is a valid opinion and I appreciate you not wanting to change it, so I won't attempt to persuade you. I think the writing is on the wall and in the books on the history of the 20th century, but humans have failed to learn from history throughout, well, history, so maybe we are due for a lesson again.
Even though we disagree it’s nice to see normal dialogue on a site like this. I appreciate that. If you want to spend all the money I’m the world for Ukraine I won’t knock you for that, because maybe your values are different than mine. And I’m sure this means more than you than it does to me. I will say you’re 100% correct that we have learned nothing from history, and it’s unfortunate there will always be bad men. Perhaps we are due for that next lesson, but I guess I’m willing to take the gamble on whether it affects me or not - in a sense that I would be forced to fight. Other than I hope things fall into place one way or another, and many of these wars that cause unnecessary bloodshed will end.
Obama told us Russia was harmless. FYI.
Wait who now worships Putin? The grand old conservatives.
If the Russian puppet wins the election in November the US is going to completely stop defending against Russia.
What reality do you live in where you think all of Europe has been complaining about the US for the last 40 years? Trumps? Because the general consensus in Europe (at least the west) is the complete opposite and has been since the Cold War. And the US isn’t doing anything out of solidarity to Europe, they would never be in the position they are now without the close relationship they have had with Europe these last 100 years. Are the US going to back off now when the bond between the continents matter more than ever, or are they going to hold the promises they made to countries like Ukraine?
What promises has the US made to Ukraine that it hasn't already met?
Making them give up nuclear weapons by making them a promise that the US will stand by them against a potential Russian invasion.
Source? To my knowledge, the US never promised that. You're not mistakenly referring to [this](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) are you?
That doesn’t exist, it’s simply something you made up. I assume you’re completely misquoting the agreement that the US would not invade Ukraine, which it has not.
“Ukraine is a very important country, and I feel a personal stake because I got them to agree to give up their nuclear weapons, and none of them believed that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons.” - Bill Clinton. I don’t see how the US shouldn’t feel some sort of responsibility for Ukraine atm.
Because they have no responsibility and never agreed to it? Perhaps sovereign countries are responsible for their own defense, or create alliances? A defensive alliance simply does not and did not exist between the US and Ukraine, which is across the world on a separate continent. Should the US just defend every country in the World? This is absurd.
All talk, get back to me when you have conscription.
Yea that European conscription really scares Putin, eh? We’d actually like to get our American troops in Europe back home and let Europe defend itself. If they don’t tear each other apart first.
You think a war torn Europe is somehow not going to be bad for the US?
Most of us could care less honestly. We have enough of our own problems.
No you wouldnt actually like to pull out of Europe. Lmfao the reason why US has military presence all over the globe is to project power and influence not from the goodness of their heart what the fuck are you on about. Its the same reason why China is pouring money into Africa.
Time for Europe to put on the big boy pants and stop relying on the US.
Id love to see that, unified army is a must
sorry, EU has more important things to care about, like raising taxes and refugees.
Maybe increase French commitments to Ukraine? Its operations in africa never slowed down, maybe divert some resources towards Ukraine? They’re clearly not sending their best.
SCALP and CAESAR are pretty much the best
Quantity is very much a quality by itself, especially when lacking
Are you trolling ? The Scalp (300km missile) is french and same for AASM (70km bomb) and both new massive deliveries have been anounced less than 2 weeks ago. Unlike USA's aid it is probably already on the battlefield, like everything we communicate about. Except for the 70 newly promised caesars that need to be produced.
>Unlike USA's aid it is probably already on the battlefield Like the Patriot systems, Bradleys, artillery, small arms and ammunition, AT systems, MANPADS, HIMARS, etc. that you claim aren't on the battlefield yet, but show up in pretty much every video? Don't even THINK France sent more than the US. And before you try it, I'm also not saying that the EU hasn't sent anything. But your statement makes it seem like they're still waiting for US materiel on the ground and France is the savior.
I think what he means is France, usually, announce stuff which are already or nearly on the battlefield when they talk about it (and if they talk about it. Mostly France doesn't talk about military supplies in detail). Others have a tendency to announce big deliveries and several months later the stuff is on the field. Nothing wrong with that, just different ways of doing it. As for the quantity the US send, nobody can rival with it.
France is also a heck of a lot closer to Ukraine than the US. Logistics takes time, no matter how bad people need it.
Where are the 1M shells you promised?
Absolutely 100% true - if Russia get anything here - just a little bit - Putin will take that as a victory and that the western world / Nato can be pushed arround - and in 3 - 5 years he will find an excuse to attack the rest of Ukraine. Then in 8 years they will find an excuse to attack somewhere else.
Why "the EU"? Why doesn't France simply provide arms and finances? Why attempt to go through the EU except to avoid responsibility, knowing Hungary will continually oppose aid
Lol did you even bother reading the article to get a grasp of the context in which this declaration was made? No, because it is pretty clear some of you don't even read anything beyond the title. The guy is on a state visit to Sweden, a fellow EU state. Franco-Swedish bilateral defence and industry cooperation and contract signings was the main topic with EU strengthening and consolidation also being discussed. Is it really surprising he is speaking of the EU as institution in regard to Ukraine? I mean he also mentioned joint Franco-Swedish production for Ukraine in his speech. Also, considering all previous EU packages to Ukraine have ultimately been drafted despite Orban's best efforts with Germany, France and Italy carrying them, France should've found another excuse to save its billions by now because Orban clearly isn't an effective smokescreen.
The U.S. and Europe had the last 75 years to prepare for a war with Russia. Yet they seem hesitant and unprepared to do it, even under the favorable circumstances of it occurring in Ukraine, rather than a much riskier direct conflict.
[удалено]
"Gov. Romney, I'm glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida," Obama said. "You said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s," Obama
One of Obama's biggest blunders, unfortunately. Both Romney and McCain had it right, especially McCain.
r/ agedlikemilk content right there.
Really weird right? Almost like the greatest misinformation campaign in history is working on ignorant idiots. It’s the wholesale slaughter of our greatest enemy for the past 70 or so years, without any US troops being killed. And they hate that? It’s baffling.
Lots of people are simply too used to peace and are incapable to comprehend war. Putin has been proclaiming war against west last 20 years. But some deluded themselves that it all is a joke. Some deluded themselves into “they cannot be so savage”, “aaaa nukes”, “but it is economically bad”, etc. As if their definitions of rational is something everyone subscribes to. Additionally, politicians in the west are mostly impotent. Zombie parties. No new ideas, philosophies, worldviews. No answer to “why do this”. Full on going with the flow and sleeping, stagnating while the world around changes. What about thinking ahead? Nope, votes now. Thus, problems are not addressed, they fester from scratches to serious wounds. Take a look at Iran. First some schmuck cancels Iran nuclear deal, then another is afraid of doing new deal because “poor pr”. Iran is angry and spends money on proxies. Russians buy politicians, media and are pretty cozy with half of the world. They are pretty capable of curtailing threats from the west. Just look at Israel. They procrastinated with solving their issues with Palestine and got another war on their hands. If history teaches us anything it is that our issues are mostly of our own doing
>What about thinking ahead? Nope, votes now. Thus, problems are not addressed Democracy is a fair weather political system.
Not a democracy issue as incompetency plagues any form of governance. It’s up to a politician to properly convey needs for decisions, instead of taking the easy way out by populism and ostrichism (hiding head in the sand from the problems). No one said it’s an easy job.
That's not what the last 70 years have been. They hated Russia when Russia was left wing. Now it's right wing and they dont hate it anymore. And the left have just been fighting the right for their rights to exist for the last 70 years. Everyones worst enemies here have always lived.. Well.. Here..
It's because the MAGA crowd identifies more with nationalist dictatorships than they do with European democracies, Putin is weaponising the vein of fascist sympathizers that runs through the American right.
Not really. As a US citizen it has nothing to do with the *support* to Ukraine. I don’t think you can find many people in the US who believe what Russia is doing to Ukraine is right. What is really happening is that the US citizens themselves would just rather not involve itself in world affairs. We have been doing nothing but that for an entire generation and we’re tired of it. On top of that, US citizens are constantly hearing about the next multi-billion dollar aid package to support a war a world away that is not even ours to fight. This is a war that Ukraines neighbors should really step up to, and the US as a whole believes this whether you agree with it or not.
>What is really happening is that the US citizens themselves would just rather not involve itself in world affairs. Funny how the American right only adopted this mentality the moment that Ukraine was invaded by Russia and it became clear that many Republicans have been compromised by Russia. Up until now these same people were telling the public that America needed to project strength and maintain global dominance and anyone who opposed the idea of projecting America's power was anti-American.
Americans had this mentality for a long, long time.
For real, they got me with weapons of mass destruction.... will not be fear mongered into a war again.
The Republicans definitely didn't until only very recently.
[удалено]
It doesn’t change the way the US feels. Europe is dropping the ball on this.
It used up alot of US citizen “goodwill” by sending US boots to Iraq and afghanistan for basically nothing other than turning US into what’s basically a pariah to any country not located in Europe or places with Sizeable Millitary presence. Short a of US cruise ship / Carrier battle group landing in Crimea then self detonate, US public support will only deteriorate as time goes on.
NATO came to the defence of the US when called in Afghanistan, many helped in Iraq. These are not wars Europe had to fight in. Wars that destroyed tony Blair in the UK. The US should help Europe defeat Russia, especially when the US benefits from a broken Russia.
Ukraine isn't in nato and the US owes them nothing.
no and yet 150000 Ukrainians still fought alongside the US in Afghanistan!
You say that but most people in the west who opposed the wars in the Middle East absolutely support the Ukrainians in their struggle to resist the Russian invasion. There's a big difference between sending troops to invade a random country to steal their resources and sending military technology to an allied democracy that's requesting it so they can fend off an unprovoked invasion. The problem is that a sizable chunk of the GOP has been compromised by Russia and are feeding an anti-Ukraine narrative to their base on Russia's behalf.
“People” support it to the point their mouths allow, as long as their lives are not on the line, US gov has zero faith a draft will get any support. There’s no difference between the middle east and Ukraine, the only real difference is if they have to be drafted and fight.
I don't understand why you're talking about a draft? The US was never going to send US troops to fight in Ukraine we're just talking about sending them the weapons they're asking for.
Everything starts with no support, then the support increases and increases till you actually declare war officially or unofficially and a draft happens, of course it won’t happen now but its the certain endgame for sure. The public giving the okay for more better weapons means to the Gov its okay taking it the next level, a small section of Americans are waking up to the fact what it means..
Wait are you actually saying you believe that US troops will be sent to Ukraine? You actually think the US is going to get in a shooting war with a hostile nuclear power over the war in Ukraine?
Why not? Mission creep happens... We started out in vietnam sending advisors and material.....
A formal declaration of war and troop deployment is not "mission creep" and the Vietcong didn't have nukes. Rejoin us in reality mate.
There's issues for sure, but that might be a little far. Currently the US is doing more then any other nation to help where it can and giving more support then the next several closest combined in some instances. It wouldn't hurt for more countries in the EU to pitch in.
Well, America had supported Ukraine more than any other country if I’m not mistaken. Why are we the bad guys here?
Not in terms of GDP. Nowhere near top.
[удалено]
GDP is the only honest way to measure it. That's why our NATO commitments are measured by percentage of GDP. In no logical or fair world should those tiny economies be expected to contribute as much, in raw numbers, as the largest economy in the world.
You are confusing "Pledged Support" with delivered support. The actual delivered support from Western Europe is pathetic.
I don’t understand why people use the per capita argument. This isn’t an economic survey to determine the average income per citizen relative to GDP. If the US sends hundreds of Bradleys and a poorer country sends 1 tank that’s worth more relative to their GDP, there’s no way you would say they contributed more compared to the US.
Let me explain in that case: giving in terms of percentage of what you have is more representative than absolute, in terms of effort and strain. Not in terms of total, but in terms of effort.
In some sense they did. Billionaire giving 10k to charity or you giving 1k - who is more generous?
War doesn’t care who the donor’s income is. I could personally send Ukraine a gun and say my support is worth more relative to my GDP. It doesn’t mean that Ukraine would get more use out it compared to the HIMARS launchers, Patriot systems, and hundreds of Bradley that the US had already sent.
That's just a ridiculous example. We're talking about donation of arms and aid with regards to the GDP of individual countries, not how much is in your pocket. It is possible to simplify things too much you know.
Bad paypig!! BAD! *rolls up newspaper* 💥 *SMACK!*
The US should be fully behind their ally Ukraine but a lot of opposition politicians have clearly been compromised by Russia and are working against America's own best interest to try disrupt and shut down that support. The US isn't the bad guy here but a sizable chunk of the GOP definitely are.
America isn't losing the plot. America is extremely annoyed that European countries refuse to control their own damn plot. Ukranian defense and trade route defense. America has its own western boarder to worry about.
What's wrong with the Pacific Coast?
China who is a far bigger threat to America than Russia is or will be for the foreseeable future Russia’s invasion has been a complete and utter failure what should’ve been their version of the invasion of Iraq in terms of military success is turned into trench warfare and humiliating Russian Defeat after humiliating Russian Defeat just the countries of Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and maybe financial help from Britain, France, and Germany should be all that’s needed to hold any Russian advances into Europe The US no longer needs to focus on that front, and can direct attention to the far East where it’s attention is desperately needed
To do what though? The US already has a string of alliances in Asia, and the most powerful fleet in the world besides. China wont be capable for a few more years. Taiwan is obviously the one that needs support, but the US isnt willing to send them modern equipment. So its not like Ukraine is taking weapons desperately needed by Asian allies. Note that Biden doesnt seem to mind helping Ukraine
To apply continual military pressure on China cut them off from the artificial islands they built in the South China Sea constrict them make them feel the pressure do displays of force to show everyone in the region that China is a paper tiger, and that if shit hits the fan they’d rather the United States be on their side rather than against it, show everyone that although the US has spoken softly it still carries the biggest stick around and to never forget that, redouble our efforts to militarize our allies in the region and increase military presence in the region and reduce it in Europe as Russia can be dealt with by the Europeans unless they completely fuck it up which I find unlikely.
[удалено]
Sometimes I use that expression ironically, but on this occasion I did actually laugh out loud at that. Ridiculous.
Time to teach the EU a lesson by stabbing Ukraine in the back. Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
Ah the inability of the internet to understand that two thoughts are not intrinsically linked. Yes the USA should support Ukraine. Yes the EU needs to stop being a bitch ass leech state(s) and defend themselves.
The EU plus UK has sent more to Ukraine than the US. It should do more, but it's disingenuous to say they aren't doing their bit. Russia is the enemy of the US, and the US is backing down in the middle of the fight.
EU politicians don't care and the people are so weak that kids call the helpline in tears when Sweden tells them to be self sufficient.
Actions please, I’ve heard so much, but actions please. (As far as I understand, Germany has done a good lot)
Viva La France
More action, less talk
Bro is talk. He refuse to send the baguette mortar to Ukraine
If US leave Europe, dollar will go down, china will go up. Dollar is as strong as presence of american troops.
You are baking a bold assumption about people like Trump understanding negative aspects of isolationism.
>The European Union is also providing non-lethal and lethal arms through its European Peace Facility (EPF). This is the first time the bloc has, in its history, approved the supply of lethal weapons to a third country. To date, the EU has committed just over €5.6 billion, including €1 billion of funds to reimburse EPF countries who have provided urgently needed munitions. €1 billion of EPF funds has also been set aside for the joint EU procurement of artillery ammunition. In October 2022, the EU approved a new training mission for the Ukrainian armed forces. Longer term the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, has proposed establishing a dedicated Ukraine fund under the auspices of the EPF, worth €20 billion over four years. Agreement on those proposals has not yet been reached amid disagreements on how the fund should operate and the wider debate on future EU funding for Ukraine. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/ EU military aid is crazy low at €5.6 billion. Its been \~16 months since they provided anything. There is the forever delayed plan to send aid in the future. I believe individual EU states have sent stuff, but the EU as an organization is a lot less reliable than the US.
This is correct, but I doubt your countries have the will or raw power to make up for the loss.
I don't know why US and all people don't see Ukraine as being the most important priority of any of the issues at the moment. Putin, China, Iran, North Korea, India are a alliance against US and NATO and need to be stopped.
> Putin, China, Iran, North Korea, India They simply aren't though. Russia, Iran and North Korea maybe, but China's situation is complicated at best, and while India may have sympathies toward Russia, they have interests with the west and conflict with China.
China and India in alliance? Tell me you know nothing about international relations, without saying so.
> India are a alliance against US 0 IQ take. clearly you know nothing about geopolitics if you think India is USA's enemy. The only enemy of India is Pakistan and India is in a complicated relation with China.
Says the country only contributing 0.061% of their GDP putting them 29th on the global stage.
Germany & France should've expanded their more powerful defense industry business before making such a supportive sound for Ukraine. The two nations have focused on citizens' welfare instead until now, and it became the lower defense budget in the end. So, weapon makers in the two nations couldn't have enough fiscal support from their central government. NATO should become the strongest one regardless of America's military plans for European nations. If the promising presidential candidate Donald Trump in the GOP becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will announce the controversial plan that NATO can't get military support from the US anymore. Macron's speech was nice. But he should've reminded the words "Easier said than done". The two leaders in the EU must build an urgent defense blueprint to raise NATO's actual physical power to overwhelm Russia's dark mind. NATO ought not to depend on the USA's military power anymore. Nobody protects others eternally.
>If the promising presidential candidate Donald Trump in the GOP becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will announce the controversial plan that NATO can't get military support from the US anymore. If the Russian puppet Donald Trump becomes the winner in the upcoming election, he will pull the US out of NATO to weaken both the US and the entire western world in order to benefit Putin.
>The two nations have focused on citizens' welfare instead until now, and it became the lower defense budget in the end. Not *citizens'* welfare.
Now you’re starting to get it. This is your ass before it’s the US’s.
Macaroni, why don't you try another call to kremlin?
And the poor people will pay for it, and more importantly vote for it!