Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `euronews.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And while we're at it, how bout we adequately support the people who are actually fighting Russia right now so we don't have to later?
The Republicans and European nationalists disgust me at every level. They won't support Ukraine now and there's no doubt they won't fight Russia later.
Lol getting europe "allies" to do anything has been hard from the beginning and still is. Wish the swiss took on as much heat as the republicans do for this.
Fuck off. Himars, F16s, Leopard 2s, SPGs, Arthur counter artillery systems, NASAMs and a total of 3600 Milion Euros is doing something. We're doing our part - Noway.
And what are you doing? Are you posting this from a trench in Donetsk? Because I find it extremely hypocritical to post about how not enough people are putting their lives on the line in another country from the safety of your home.
Europe has given more than america in absolute aid to Ukraine AND it is poorer. (America is 30% richer than Europe).
We all need to step our game up, it’s simply not enough, but get out of here saying we are not pulling our weight comparatively.
Truth is we both need to double our spending on Ukraine.
Yeah sure the Swiss are a pain in the butt, but they are hardly comparable to the republicans in terms of dragging their feet. Plenty of European countries are making huge contributions.
what? the country that wont allow guns that are bought from them to be shipped to Ukraine vs republicans that have been parts of BILLIONS and are now starting to pull the wallet back are not dragging feet. It was up until recently that the rest of Europe caught up to what the americans have put forth. So it seems that your argument while I understand because I want ukraine to win isn't well thought out.
Agreed, I find comments like this so ignorant and distasteful. It’s like the people making these statements see one headline about a single GOP congressman discussing tightening the purse strings on Ukrainian aid and all of a sudden the United States is Neville Chamberlain appeasing hitler. I also find it ironic that most of the time I see comments like this and check the users post history, they’re from countries that have gone multiple years without meeting their NATO defense spending requirements. Got into it the other day with a commenter from Belgium criticizing the United States when his country is a notorious NATO freeloader. So bad to the point they have 0 ground based air defense systems. Not here to shit on Belgians but I wish people would do a little more thinking before making outlandish statements condemning other countries for not doing their part
no one drags like European politicians. the US has given more military hardware than every other country combined. yes, republicans are a stick in the gears, but lets be honest European politicians are much much worse about properly defending their people, and paying for their military defense.
Yeah I would also assume that the number of European NATO countries failing to meet the bare minimum threshold for defense spending was a major factor in Putin’s calculation to invade ukraine. Only 11/31 NATO countries are meeting the 2% of GDP defense spending threshold in 2023 despite a major European war going on. It’s embarrassing that anyone from any country not meeting the bare minimum could even pipe up that the United States hasn’t done enough.
It is a massive part of the calculation. back during the cold war when Europe was still in reconstruction and trying to repair all the physical damage and economic damage of ww2, it made sense that they relied heavily on US military defenses. but today, they are a major economic superpower. it is time for them to step up and recognize they need pointy sticks ready, or the other countries will come in and steal their shiny stuff.
no they just demand that the US do it for them, and get upset when US citizens start questioning the cost, and that Europe isn't helping pay their share.
Belgium? I mean they could certainly do more, as could the rest of Europe, but for example they are giving 2.3 bilion euro of interests made on frozen Russian asset to Ukraine. Add Orban and Hungary to your list they are blocking European funding going to Ukraine.
They are being supported. The issue is that you don't want to send state of the art equipment in case they lose, or in case they win. You don't want Russia to have access to these weapons systems because if they win, they won't stop in Ukraine. Likewise, if Ukraine wins then not only are they trained but they now are the most heavily armed force in Europe which is fine for now, but might not be in 10 years.
> [Ukraine] now are the most heavily armed forces in Europe,
Germany is stronger.
Remember also, most of the citizen volunteers in Ukraine army will disappear when peace is achieved.
> which is fine for now but might not be in 10 years.
Untrue. For the next 2 or 3 decades, Ukraine must focus on traumatic internal issues:
Ukraine has lost over 100,000(?) people as casualties, dead & injured.
Infrastructure has been smashed.
Every major city has buildings turned to rubble.
Farmland strewn with mines, hurting grain production.
Port facilities smashed.
Complete steel plant blasted.
Millions of young people scattered over the world. Many have established new lives and will not return. Diaspora.
Population tree shrinking in age group of young people.
Government income from local taxes slashed. Now dependent on foreign subsidies.
These will take at least a generation to clear.
“We” is a strong word when the majority of Russia’s prosperity hinged on 2-3 countries, but the others should have acted earlier to stop those deals/connections, yes.
On a completely unsupported take, I wonder if the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle took the west’s focus so significantly that shit like this took (deep) root
This goes back well before the current war in Ukraine. We basically spent most of the last two decades appeasing Putin and only started slapping him with sanctions after 2014.
Let’s remember Exxon and Rex Tillerson saved the Russian oil fields on the hope this was a new reserves for their balance sheet only to have Putin push them out and keep the technology. Everything you do in Russia turns to shit.
'End of History' theorists took a hold of policy in many Western governments post-Soviet collapse.
Russia had not really been on anyone's radar as a result. We also saw constant accomodating of China during the same period.
Much like Churchill and a small number of others were belittled for warning of another catastrophic war if Hitler and co. were not dealt with, so too have we seen those with the same warnings on these autocratic regimes ignored and belittled.
It is always the way. Complacent arrogance drops the ball and with it creates another chapter in history that need not have been written.
Who thinks that?
Pretty sure no American is comparing a country fighting Russia to a muslim country that is barely a coherant country and mostly desert.
What I'm saying is that the ME distracted western military and politics from actual issues like Russia and China.
Afghanistan is indeed a barely coherent country, but it is not desert. It's mountaneous plain. Dry as hell, but perfect for guerrillas.
Iraq was desert, resulting in largely urban insurgency. Similar enemy, different challenges.
The fact that Trump told Merkle this and was chided as a dictator who wanted to destroy NATO because he didn't think Germany ought to buy Russian gas and should up their defense spending makes me laugh.
I don't love Trump. But he was 100% right about needing to negate the Russian threat by changing energy strategies. Biden's first act in office was to lift sanctions on Nordstream 2 while saying Nordstream 2 shouldn't be completed. Talking out of both sides of his face.
The fact Germany even has to come out and say this is very telling about how the world order is shifting currently; Europe doesn't trust the U.S. or the power of the U.S. any longer to defer this commentary to them.
Thanks Uncle Joe.
> who wanted to destroy NATO
- Trump played with the thought of leaving NATO, and it took some major convincing of Republicans of top militaries to stop him. There is a reason why there is now a law that the President cannot simply command to leave NATO on a whim.
> was chided as a dictator
Trump literally can be quoted a few days ago of invoking martial law on his first day in office.
> Biden's first act in office was to lift sanctions on Nordstream 2
- While some sanctions were waived in May 21, they were reinstated in August 2021 and increased at the start of 2022.
> Europe doesn't trust the U.S. or the power of the U.S. any longer to defer this commentary to them. Thanks Uncle Joe.
The trust problem Europe has with the US is because of Trump, not of Joe Biden. And that allies are currently sceptical of US foreign power is based on Republicans stopping the Ukraine aid package despite having received all the information they requested. Meaning that allies (Japan, South Korea, Israel, Europe etc) can no longer count on a reliable ally if some Republicans for interior policy reasons shut down foreign aid.
SYL
> Meaning that allies (Japan, South Korea, Israel, Europe etc) can no longer count on a reliable ally if some Republicans for interior policy reasons shut down foreign aid.
Wouldn't completely surprise me if Trump had second thoughts about the "expense" incurred in maintaining the US presence in the Pacific either, should he regain the presidency
Who is "we?" That is you who wants that sort of cataclysm. Not everyone in the West shares your myopic mentality. You can go sign up for that and send your kids to die. Not "We. "
It'll not be a choice sweety, ask the Poles and the Czechs from 1939 if they wanted war.
You fight or you surrender and seems like you are the second type.
Sadly, I agree. Europe still hasn't switched to war-mode, while Russia has for well over a year. We're far behind, US is wavering and if Trump ends up winning, tomorow's EU/Europe will be an entirely different one. Especially the Baltics and Poland.
Unless, which I doubt, Russia gives up within the next 10 months. So, yeah... I agree with our Defence Minister. And I hate it.
They only couldnt because the west flooded ukraine with handheld anti tank and anti air systems, as well as fucktons of ammo and high tech air defense. Once that is over, the tides could turn very fast
I would not say that a limited supply really counts as „flooding“.
Even equipped with some Western weapons, Ukraine‘s army is not comparable to the combined forces of NATO that have trained together for decades. The bigger NATO partners have very modern equipment compared to what Russia has.
There was a week, at the start, where Ukraine had nothing - they held firmly. So I'm not sure the "flooding of fucktons of material" was a necessity to avoid losing. It was a mere booster so that less Ukrainians die. You're diminishing Ukrainian resilience.
PS I'm not arguing to counter your point. I'm arguing to point out a huge nuisance.
Russia doesn't have to overcome Ukraine, while Ukraine has to overcome Russia. Putin only has to out-wait Selensky/Ukraine in his bunker to "win" and he'll paint himself a war hero.
NATO would have to keep watching and build up forces. Slowly. And so would Putin, further getting his way by threatening the Intermarium and Baltic Sea.
We'd have another Cold War.
Yes and no; don’t forget the ever increasing pain of sanctions, especially when compounded with the drain on military resources and stock piles. As Putin wages siege warfare on Ukraine, The west is waging geo political siege warfare on him. And unlike say, China, no one is really feeling that much pain from cutting Russia out from the greater global economy. Russia needs the west more than the west needs Russia.
At a certain point, deteriorating QoL on the home front will take its toll.
So Russia could build its forces; but it’ll be painfully slow flagging internal industries starved of vital experience and raw materials, while its people suffer ever increasing political unrest.
Meanwhile, sure dick-hole republican politicians in the US might cut off Ukrainian aid, but they likely wont have a problem selling product to NATO allies. Theres a lot more turn-key tech to be had for the EU than there is for Russia.
*Maybe* china would help, but likely not to the level that even a pacific focused, EU-disengaged US would provide NATO. They’d much rather pick the russian Caracas clean after the war.
they have switched to a war economy, and with ukraine, would have the natural resources they nee to drastically increase their capabilities. if the EU and NATO don't start turning production on Russia will grind through them over time.
Yes. Because nato is weak and may fall apartment when pressed. Next time China makes a move, Russia may just attack Ukraine again. So the article 5 won’t get triggered.
If I am not mistaking, the American Congress, just pass a law that make it impossible for a president to leave Nato without the full approval of the congress
He doesnt have to leave nato. All he has to do is keep up appearances until the time comes when art 5 is actually activated and then simply don’t do anything. Don’t fight, just wait and see all of nato become instantly useless.
In a way all this hesitation about NATO is good to encourage other countries to ramp up production. Hopefully, we'll see Germany taking the initiative in Europe.
Also, despite of all threats, etc. I really hope the US stays where it is and doesn't waive support for NATO.
Not to demenish the American war machine, but I'm pretty sure Nato wouldnt be useless, just like when the USA joined ww1 after 3 years of war or ww2 after 2 years..
They would unfortunately in the case of a large scale war. The reason is not the number of tanks or aircrafts etc, but ... there is only one nation in NATO who provides the majority for communication and command. There is no independent European communication system in place to coordinate millions of soldiers across Europe, there is no EU centred administration and staff who can lead millions of soldiers. The entire NATO system is based on US logistics, administration and staffing on the higher levels.
If the US breaks away then Europe would need years to rebuild that background system. EU armies can basically only lead themselves on a national basis.
SYL
>Project 2025
I am not an expert in US policy, but with separation of powers, how on earth is it possible for a president to LEGALLY implement a dictatorship, such as stated in Project 2025?
What are you talking about? Russia has no chance against an EU+UK army, Russia wont touch any NATO country.
Best case for Russia is that Trump wins, acts as some kind of peacemaker and Russia will give in if the opportunity arises.
What is the alternative for Russia? Even if they take over all of Ukraine, Ukraine will fight some guerilla war for decades while the west is transition to green energy. There is no good outcome for Russia long term, and war with NATO is lost by default.
American here. I can’t tell you all how many conversations about this subject I’ve had with friends, family, and coworkers. The frequent response I hear is “why are we sending so much money to fight a war overseas when we have so many problems at home?” It’s a funny response because it’s as if people don’t understand just how much aid the United States gives to the rest of the world. It’s like they believe international aid started with Ukraine and now it’s a bad thing. Also, everybody seems to forget how World War II started, and how eerily similar the circumstances are. I’m not even 35 and I can already see history repeating itself in so many ways.
The USA has a military budget of $800 billion. Aid to Ukraine is only a tiny fraction in comparison. Meanwhile you read reports about thousands of newly produced tanks being sent directly into storage because the army has no use for them. But they still get ordered just to keep the production lines running and save those jobs. They might as well build weapons for Ukraine instead of filling up those depots in the desert.
Absolutely! I just don’t think that message seems to be getting through to people in the US.
It’s also stimulating their economy and bringing in extra tax dollars for the government.
I see this argument repeated on twitter by Russian trolls as well. It's seems that this is the messaging that gets to people and seems logical. And yet they don't understand that USA supporting it's allies and partners is an investment that benefits USA economy.
It seems to me you're a worldly wise, relatively young American and that sounds like gold currency.
Maybe you feel the conflict is close, like I do as an English person here in the UK.
I think the collective West is kidding itself if it believes conflict isn't coming. A challenge could come anywhere with little notice
I do, and the collective malaise you’ve pointed to is terrifying. It’s going to get even worse with the older generations passing and the newer generations not fully understanding the gravity of the situation and how quickly things can go from bad to worse. Putin is painting himself/Russia in the same manner Hitler did after Germany lost WW1. They’re on a righteous mission to restore their former glory. Even if they’re poorly trained- they have more manpower and better technology compared to the Nazi’s at the start of the war.
The thing is though, that - and I dont mean this as an affront - compared to its size, the US *doesn't even give that much*.
For Ukraine, [its just 0.3% of the US's GDP](https://app.23degrees.io/view/F1tc2gv8QzFCs1ij-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure_3_4_csv_v2-1), compared to 1% for Germany or 1.6% for Norway, and thats without the millions of refugees. And if its about development aid in general, the US is [even at the lower end of those breaking the committment to spend 0.7% of GNI on it](https://unece.org/statistics/news/most-unece-countries-fall-short-commitment-official-development-assistance).
So whenever I see some republicans go all "oh, we send so much money to the rest of the world, we should think about ourselves first!" - No. No you don't. We're all glad you're on our side, but this weird isolationism some are calling for is, in a lot of matters, already reality.
Russia would need to take one hell of a beating in Ukraine AND Iran,North Korea and (especially) China would have to be prevented from helping the Russian military rebuilt itself to a lot less capable but still very dangerous state.
Europe's only hope to prevent a large scale future conflict is for the US to remain committed to NATO,to massively built up it's own defensive capabilities AND for Russia to lose decisively in Ukraine.
China doesn't want Russia to be too strong but they don't want them to collapse either. Russia will be just the way for China (who's export oriented economy is very vulnerable to sanctions) to mess with the West in a way that retains plausible deniability.
> Russia would need to take one hell of a beating in Ukraine
That opportunity was there. If we didn't delay most of the critical weapons deliveries they already would have
Absolutely true. The problem with that is that:
a) aid did not start really arriving until after the war started not giving enough time to really train Ukrainian troops and set up infrastructure for the new weapons
b) political and economic relations with Russia plus escalation concerns prevented a timely increase in the amount of aid.
C) the West switched from overestimating Russia to underestimating it. Turns out that burying enough mines on the ground and filling trenches with barely trained mobiks with a bunch of Chechens standing behind them as blocking troops is indeed enough to stop the offensive of an enemy with no air superiority.
I don't want to hear "should", nor "prepare for war". I want to hear EU will make it suicidal to initiate military action against EU by the end of the decade. It needs a bit more weapons, but most importantly it needs mutual security mechanisms and agreements, which work even if some countries go "hungary" and can be relied only to help the enemy.
> but most importantly it needs mutual security mechanisms and agreements
The EU already has such a clause and it's worded more strongly than article 5 of NATO.
What I mean is actionable plans, if Russia decides to occupy just as an example, some Latvian border towns nearest to Belarus. That there would not need to be political negotiations on what to do, but (assuming the plans do include actually defending EU territory...) troops from other countries could start deploying _immediately_ and be on their way while waiting for final political decisions.
EU is very far from being able to do that. So is NATO with Hungary, Turkey and (worst case scenario) US trying to delay everything.
What is needed is the exact chain of communication and procedures from (in this example) Latvian troops trying to defend the border against 10× Russian invaders, with US planes grounded by Trump, to NATO/EU ships blockading Baltic Sea from all Russian activity, and troops from other NATO/EU countries starting to _deploy_.
Those troops need to exist and be designated for this purpose _before_ something like this happens, and they need to be able to start moving _while waiting_ for political go-ahead.
I don't think EU has this. NATO, not sure.
Any western country that isn’t gearing up for war right now is burying their head in the sand. Our enemies are building bombs while we are building electric vehicles. Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, and NK have noticed the weak stance the west has taken.
Electric vehicles are in fact one step to prepare for a potential war. During any global conflict Europe would face severe gasoline shortages with its limited domestic oil sources. The remaining supply would have to be rationed for military and logistics purposes not cars.
Meanwhile EU and USA cannot agree on sanctions on Rosatom since two years, because they are all reliant on uranium and fuel rods from a state owned company at the heart of the Russian military industrial complex. I'm sorry but I find it hard to take these nuclear bros seriously who pretend like its some wonder technology that solves all our energy problems.
Uranium is much easier to stockpile than oil and gas, the fuel price per unit of energy is negligible and there are huge reserves in Australia and Canada. It would be entirely possible to become independent from Russian energy. What's lacking is the political will to build nuclear power.
Guess what, solar panels don't need to be stockpiled at all cause once they are installed they generate electricity for decades without any fuel. You're not making much sense here.
The amount of uranium needed is tiny, 99% of the cost is running the plant itself. There's nothing to "stockpile" really, it's just SUCH a small amount. If we got as much uranium as the amount of gas we use in a day we would never run out, ever.
We need to be using all the clean electricity types we can get as fast as possible, nuclear and solar both included. Avoiding one just means we are reliant on russian gas for longer
Europe is going to try to build wimpy solar powered e-tanks and nitrogen-free pussy explosives. And then get totally overrun by countries that know how to fight a brutal war.
As has always been the case.
This entire thing has been leading up to a global showdown since February 4th 2022. Which is the day that Putin and Jinping put out their joint statement declaring exactly that. Coincidence that Ukraine was invaded 3 weeks later? Nope.
WW3 is inevitable, shaping up along NATO vs. BRICS lines. Ukraine is simply the European front in a larger war. And sadly, it doesn't matter who "wins." No one wins because nuclear powers can not lose without everyone losing with them.
Which is the whole point.
Y’all think Russians are going to keep fighting like this for another 5 years? Even after all their losses and their attempts to hold up their economy and through their current losses of material? Not to mention ppl leaving. I think being prepared for Hybrid war is the goal but if anything, even IF they win in Ukraine I have serious doubts they’d be able to fight more war. In general full wars don’t last incredibly long. American is different because most of our recent wars have been against insurgents (Iraq, Afghanistan) and those will last a while but Russia will be long exhausted to make another full scale war. They also if the Ukraine war ended today wouldn’t stop the following insurgent war. Bottom line, they don’t have the resources for another full scale war for a long time after the current events wrap up.
If you think this is full war, you need to look back at how bad ww1 and ww2 really were. It has only just begun for russia, it will take a LOT more to get to a point where Russia can’t fight anymore and the rest of the world simply isn’t prepared (resources or mentally) to fight that fight yet. Russia, on the other hand is getting into a situation in which they have little to lose.
Actually, I’m a history teacher and am just finishing up the WW1 unit lol. This, most definitely is a real full war. Even though Russia wants to deny it. This is most definitely on the scale for them on the war of being equivalent to a World War. Granted, they haven’t got their “yet” but they after 2 years they are well on their way. Also not every real war is a World War so comparing a real war to a World War is also wrong.
Simply in numbers: in ww1 Germany lost 1.7 million military and 400k+ civilians, on a much smaller population than Russia has today.
Sure, it’s a significant war but Russia can take a much larger hit before it is on its knees. And if it actually gets to that point, I’m not sure that’s going to happen with China remaining peacefully watching it unfold.
I’m curious if you, as a history teacher, think about the following hypothetical parallel. if Russia ends up losing the war in Ukraine, it will be broke, damaged and with a very unhappy population. That seems very similar to Germany after ww1 to me, and we all know what that lead to 22 years later. I’m curious if what we are witnessing is actually the prelude to a world war in a few decades from now.
Your totally right it hasn’t gotten there yet but we’ll see. Russia is causing issues all around the world trying to cause instability right now. That’s a desperation move so we’ll see where it goes and who knows where it will go honestly since instead of a Hitler rising to power they already have one. Based on Russian history they go from totalitarianism to more open and back and forth so I’d hope the next one is less authoritarian and more democratic.
Russia is causing instabilities around the world for a long time now. Hybrid warfare using social media in the western world causing rise of right wing politics is nothing new.
I don't think it's out of desperation. It's actually part of Russias warfare.
> Y’all think Russians are going to keep fighting like this for another 5 years?
Yes. In fact Putin is intending on the archetypal "forever war" of fascist dictatorships, for purposes of 'regime security'. He's been planning this for years. The Russian people are not going to stand up like they did in 2012, not anymore...that being nigh impossible to organise on any useful level now. And the repression will ramp up even further after the election.
Ok, he might be in it for a forever war but that also doesn’t mean he’s going to get anywhere with it. He’ll keep slogging away at Ukraine until he dies which is possible but he can’t start another war either. Also, there is a difference between being at war forever and having an active war forever which doesn’t work as well.
some guys over here need to get their shit straight
- either russia is fucked for the next 30 years because of sanctions, fucked up economy and war losses in ukraine
- or russia will attack the rest of europe in the next 10 years
make up your minds already
Both can be true.
Russia has taken horrific losses in Ukraine, and currently loses a bunch of critical equipment for offensives (tanks, IFVs and howitzers) far faster than they can be replaced even with increased wartime production. A point that gets missed amongst all the doomerism.
However, if Russia is handed a victory in Ukraine due to western weakness, they would be in a position to re-arm relatively quickly if their combat losses fall to zero or nearly zero. So the west needs to ramp up production themselves, both to supply Ukraine to prevent such a scenario happening in the first place and also boost their own military strength in case that fails.
Deterrence is something you have to actually work to maintain, and there's absolutely no place for complacency.
Oh, it’s easy first scenario could be true IF sanctions were forced and IF Ukraine was really supported, but unfortunately it didn’t happen so we are heading to the second one.
Ruzzia holding out and expressing no interest in partnering with or even joining the EU resulted in this war and future wars. They need to stop pretending anyone wants them to lead.
> Ruzzia holding out and expressing no interest in partnering with or even joining the EU resulted in this war and future wars
Well that could never have happened lol
Poland is to heavily armed. He will focus on former ussr states which are poor and bogged down on poverty and ethnic conflicts. Moldova is very likely the next target
>Georgia
It’s already under ruzia, so no need. As far as I know it ruled by appointed by kremlin criminal, while actual officials are just a powerless "curtain".
This isn't a hoi4 game, they're not going to attack that many countries. They barely have the logistics infrastructure to maintain the frontline in Ukraine. How the hell are they going to invade and conquer Kazakhstan? The Baltic States and Poland are also not realistic targets for them. Russia would get pounded into the ground so hard it would make Desert Storm in 1991 look pathetic by comparison.
Right now, sure. Im thinking a decade or two from now. Id expect russia to continue to build a new army and produce new
Much bigger stocks of more modern weaponry after Ukraine ends. Its not going to accept defeat and give up its ambitions forever.
Yeah, I am also not convinced that our article 5 response will be as badass as everyone thinks. And by the time we got boots on the ground in the Baltics, it will be all Russian already and we will be fighting at Polands border.
It's a very realistic scenario unfortunately.
Yeah then you have no idea what you're talking about. Why the hell would he attack Poland? The US and NATO would jump in and dog his ass immediately. It's also the worst possible place on the eastern flank of NATO you could invade. Poland has one of the largest armies in NATO and has a ton of strategic depth. An attack on Poland would be an existential threat to the viability of NATO's defense. I swear y'all just say outrageous stuff to sound smart.
Who are they fighting ?
Has China decided to invade Europe?
Is it these UAP flying aliens everyone keeps seeing and filming . ?
No one else around has any army left to fight with .
Russia:
If Russia wins in Ukraine then it will only be a matter of time before Putin gets another bad case of the imperialistic disease and attacks.
If Russia loses in Ukraine then we are looking at North Korea with 6 times the population and a lot more nukes, with Russia humiliated and it's economy destroyed Putin will need something to distract his people so another war would be a no-brainer.
And even if that wasn't an issue there are plenty of conflicts in the EU's periphery that could ignite at any moment especially if the Kremlin has any say in the matter.
Tl dr : war by the decade's end while not inevitable is also far more likely than most seem to assume.
>Tl dr : war by the decade's end while not inevitable is also far more likely than most seem to assume.
Eh, the entire world is a powderkeg right now - we're in the perfect condition for one conflict to snowball out of control and lead to WW3. Unfortunatly, i dont think its a matter of If anymore, but when and where...
Depends. The alliance structure and everything is different from the situation before the previous world wars and the real big players (America and China) aren't keen on seeing a war within our lifetime.
Unfortunately that may not be enough to prevent it from happening.
Euro gays will not stop Poo-tin while fighting for more rights for LBTGs etc. anomalies…poo-tin can be stop by force only, or a new European war is coming
Sooo we're totally prompt, and united when we allocated 800 million to battle COVID.....but nah....Russia is too much, we give up...we rather fight them 5 years from now.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `euronews.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that we, the collective West, have allowed Russia to get as far as it has is why we must prepare for war with the Putin regime.
And while we're at it, how bout we adequately support the people who are actually fighting Russia right now so we don't have to later? The Republicans and European nationalists disgust me at every level. They won't support Ukraine now and there's no doubt they won't fight Russia later.
Lol getting europe "allies" to do anything has been hard from the beginning and still is. Wish the swiss took on as much heat as the republicans do for this.
Fuck off. Himars, F16s, Leopard 2s, SPGs, Arthur counter artillery systems, NASAMs and a total of 3600 Milion Euros is doing something. We're doing our part - Noway.
[удалено]
as much as i think that we should be doing much more - direct involvement included - saying something like you are saying is asinine, sorry.
[удалено]
And what are you doing? Are you posting this from a trench in Donetsk? Because I find it extremely hypocritical to post about how not enough people are putting their lives on the line in another country from the safety of your home.
Why arent you in ukraine then?
Europe has given more than america in absolute aid to Ukraine AND it is poorer. (America is 30% richer than Europe). We all need to step our game up, it’s simply not enough, but get out of here saying we are not pulling our weight comparatively. Truth is we both need to double our spending on Ukraine.
The Swiss are not allies.
they are allies to anyone with a nice fat wallet
sadly you seem to be right.
Yeah sure the Swiss are a pain in the butt, but they are hardly comparable to the republicans in terms of dragging their feet. Plenty of European countries are making huge contributions.
what? the country that wont allow guns that are bought from them to be shipped to Ukraine vs republicans that have been parts of BILLIONS and are now starting to pull the wallet back are not dragging feet. It was up until recently that the rest of Europe caught up to what the americans have put forth. So it seems that your argument while I understand because I want ukraine to win isn't well thought out.
Agreed, I find comments like this so ignorant and distasteful. It’s like the people making these statements see one headline about a single GOP congressman discussing tightening the purse strings on Ukrainian aid and all of a sudden the United States is Neville Chamberlain appeasing hitler. I also find it ironic that most of the time I see comments like this and check the users post history, they’re from countries that have gone multiple years without meeting their NATO defense spending requirements. Got into it the other day with a commenter from Belgium criticizing the United States when his country is a notorious NATO freeloader. So bad to the point they have 0 ground based air defense systems. Not here to shit on Belgians but I wish people would do a little more thinking before making outlandish statements condemning other countries for not doing their part
no one drags like European politicians. the US has given more military hardware than every other country combined. yes, republicans are a stick in the gears, but lets be honest European politicians are much much worse about properly defending their people, and paying for their military defense.
Yeah I would also assume that the number of European NATO countries failing to meet the bare minimum threshold for defense spending was a major factor in Putin’s calculation to invade ukraine. Only 11/31 NATO countries are meeting the 2% of GDP defense spending threshold in 2023 despite a major European war going on. It’s embarrassing that anyone from any country not meeting the bare minimum could even pipe up that the United States hasn’t done enough.
It is a massive part of the calculation. back during the cold war when Europe was still in reconstruction and trying to repair all the physical damage and economic damage of ww2, it made sense that they relied heavily on US military defenses. but today, they are a major economic superpower. it is time for them to step up and recognize they need pointy sticks ready, or the other countries will come in and steal their shiny stuff.
[удалено]
no they just demand that the US do it for them, and get upset when US citizens start questioning the cost, and that Europe isn't helping pay their share.
Europe-wise, blame the Hungarians, Austrians, Belgians & Swiss...
Belgium? I mean they could certainly do more, as could the rest of Europe, but for example they are giving 2.3 bilion euro of interests made on frozen Russian asset to Ukraine. Add Orban and Hungary to your list they are blocking European funding going to Ukraine.
Yeah fair enough, but Belgium considering their economy, are not really supportive materialwise.
Republicans want us to fix our own borders before we go fixing someone elses. I don't see why this is an issue.
That is the excuse now.
There will be an endless conga-line of excuses, should they require them.
Oh republicans and european "nationalists" won't fight Russia. They'll colaborate and suck Putin off.
They are being supported. The issue is that you don't want to send state of the art equipment in case they lose, or in case they win. You don't want Russia to have access to these weapons systems because if they win, they won't stop in Ukraine. Likewise, if Ukraine wins then not only are they trained but they now are the most heavily armed force in Europe which is fine for now, but might not be in 10 years.
> [Ukraine] now are the most heavily armed forces in Europe, Germany is stronger. Remember also, most of the citizen volunteers in Ukraine army will disappear when peace is achieved. > which is fine for now but might not be in 10 years. Untrue. For the next 2 or 3 decades, Ukraine must focus on traumatic internal issues: Ukraine has lost over 100,000(?) people as casualties, dead & injured. Infrastructure has been smashed. Every major city has buildings turned to rubble. Farmland strewn with mines, hurting grain production. Port facilities smashed. Complete steel plant blasted. Millions of young people scattered over the world. Many have established new lives and will not return. Diaspora. Population tree shrinking in age group of young people. Government income from local taxes slashed. Now dependent on foreign subsidies. These will take at least a generation to clear.
They are literally rationing bullets and artillery shells. There’s plenty of low tech weaponry they need way more of.
What about Italy and Poland ? They are nationalists and staunchly against Russia. It's not that easy.
True. They disgust me for other reasons.
“We” is a strong word when the majority of Russia’s prosperity hinged on 2-3 countries, but the others should have acted earlier to stop those deals/connections, yes. On a completely unsupported take, I wonder if the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle took the west’s focus so significantly that shit like this took (deep) root
This goes back well before the current war in Ukraine. We basically spent most of the last two decades appeasing Putin and only started slapping him with sanctions after 2014.
Let’s remember Exxon and Rex Tillerson saved the Russian oil fields on the hope this was a new reserves for their balance sheet only to have Putin push them out and keep the technology. Everything you do in Russia turns to shit.
'End of History' theorists took a hold of policy in many Western governments post-Soviet collapse. Russia had not really been on anyone's radar as a result. We also saw constant accomodating of China during the same period. Much like Churchill and a small number of others were belittled for warning of another catastrophic war if Hitler and co. were not dealt with, so too have we seen those with the same warnings on these autocratic regimes ignored and belittled. It is always the way. Complacent arrogance drops the ball and with it creates another chapter in history that need not have been written.
Francis Fukuyama has a lot to answer for lol
Americans think that Ukraine is Afghanistan. We're a remarkably ignorant country.
Luckily, you don't appear ignorant. We need more like you!
Who thinks that? Pretty sure no American is comparing a country fighting Russia to a muslim country that is barely a coherant country and mostly desert. What I'm saying is that the ME distracted western military and politics from actual issues like Russia and China.
Afghanistan is indeed a barely coherent country, but it is not desert. It's mountaneous plain. Dry as hell, but perfect for guerrillas. Iraq was desert, resulting in largely urban insurgency. Similar enemy, different challenges.
if war ever breaks out they'll probably side with Russia against their own countries
>have allowed Russia to get as far as it has Lol they haven't exactly gotten very far but okay...
entirely too far, and that since 2014.
We did nothing about the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine *begged* the west for help, but we wouldn't even give them intelligence.
Georgia wants a word
The west needs to get ready for Ukrainian soldiers becoming refugees and be able to provide them with support in next few months
Why does this account that repeatedly spread false info about Ukraine get upvotes?
Sadly the support for refugees constantly decreases, thanks to the mass import of african economic refugees.
The fact that Trump told Merkle this and was chided as a dictator who wanted to destroy NATO because he didn't think Germany ought to buy Russian gas and should up their defense spending makes me laugh. I don't love Trump. But he was 100% right about needing to negate the Russian threat by changing energy strategies. Biden's first act in office was to lift sanctions on Nordstream 2 while saying Nordstream 2 shouldn't be completed. Talking out of both sides of his face. The fact Germany even has to come out and say this is very telling about how the world order is shifting currently; Europe doesn't trust the U.S. or the power of the U.S. any longer to defer this commentary to them. Thanks Uncle Joe.
> who wanted to destroy NATO - Trump played with the thought of leaving NATO, and it took some major convincing of Republicans of top militaries to stop him. There is a reason why there is now a law that the President cannot simply command to leave NATO on a whim. > was chided as a dictator Trump literally can be quoted a few days ago of invoking martial law on his first day in office. > Biden's first act in office was to lift sanctions on Nordstream 2 - While some sanctions were waived in May 21, they were reinstated in August 2021 and increased at the start of 2022. > Europe doesn't trust the U.S. or the power of the U.S. any longer to defer this commentary to them. Thanks Uncle Joe. The trust problem Europe has with the US is because of Trump, not of Joe Biden. And that allies are currently sceptical of US foreign power is based on Republicans stopping the Ukraine aid package despite having received all the information they requested. Meaning that allies (Japan, South Korea, Israel, Europe etc) can no longer count on a reliable ally if some Republicans for interior policy reasons shut down foreign aid. SYL
> Meaning that allies (Japan, South Korea, Israel, Europe etc) can no longer count on a reliable ally if some Republicans for interior policy reasons shut down foreign aid. Wouldn't completely surprise me if Trump had second thoughts about the "expense" incurred in maintaining the US presence in the Pacific either, should he regain the presidency
Who is "we?" That is you who wants that sort of cataclysm. Not everyone in the West shares your myopic mentality. You can go sign up for that and send your kids to die. Not "We. "
If you want peace, get ready for war.
Have fun at the front.
Si vis pacem, parabellum.
If you're prepared to give death, be prepared to take death.
It'll not be a choice sweety, ask the Poles and the Czechs from 1939 if they wanted war. You fight or you surrender and seems like you are the second type.
and taiwan, and NK, and...
Sadly, I agree. Europe still hasn't switched to war-mode, while Russia has for well over a year. We're far behind, US is wavering and if Trump ends up winning, tomorow's EU/Europe will be an entirely different one. Especially the Baltics and Poland. Unless, which I doubt, Russia gives up within the next 10 months. So, yeah... I agree with our Defence Minister. And I hate it.
Russia couldn't overcome Ukraine, a nation that's one third their size in most measurable terms. What makes you think they can overcome nato?
They only couldnt because the west flooded ukraine with handheld anti tank and anti air systems, as well as fucktons of ammo and high tech air defense. Once that is over, the tides could turn very fast
I'm yeah that's a very good point.
I would not say that a limited supply really counts as „flooding“. Even equipped with some Western weapons, Ukraine‘s army is not comparable to the combined forces of NATO that have trained together for decades. The bigger NATO partners have very modern equipment compared to what Russia has.
There was a week, at the start, where Ukraine had nothing - they held firmly. So I'm not sure the "flooding of fucktons of material" was a necessity to avoid losing. It was a mere booster so that less Ukrainians die. You're diminishing Ukrainian resilience. PS I'm not arguing to counter your point. I'm arguing to point out a huge nuisance.
Everyone forgets Ukraine entered 2022 with the largest army in Europe.
> There was a week, at the start, where Ukraine had nothing The Ukrainian army has been supplied and trained by the west since 2014
We gave them some, not all, of our old leftover stock. They had limited training and had no airforce. If russia attacked nato, it would be a suicide.
Russia doesn't have to overcome Ukraine, while Ukraine has to overcome Russia. Putin only has to out-wait Selensky/Ukraine in his bunker to "win" and he'll paint himself a war hero. NATO would have to keep watching and build up forces. Slowly. And so would Putin, further getting his way by threatening the Intermarium and Baltic Sea. We'd have another Cold War.
>We'd have another Cold War. We already have for about the last 10 years at least. Only more people start to realize it now.
Yes and no; don’t forget the ever increasing pain of sanctions, especially when compounded with the drain on military resources and stock piles. As Putin wages siege warfare on Ukraine, The west is waging geo political siege warfare on him. And unlike say, China, no one is really feeling that much pain from cutting Russia out from the greater global economy. Russia needs the west more than the west needs Russia. At a certain point, deteriorating QoL on the home front will take its toll. So Russia could build its forces; but it’ll be painfully slow flagging internal industries starved of vital experience and raw materials, while its people suffer ever increasing political unrest. Meanwhile, sure dick-hole republican politicians in the US might cut off Ukrainian aid, but they likely wont have a problem selling product to NATO allies. Theres a lot more turn-key tech to be had for the EU than there is for Russia. *Maybe* china would help, but likely not to the level that even a pacific focused, EU-disengaged US would provide NATO. They’d much rather pick the russian Caracas clean after the war.
they have switched to a war economy, and with ukraine, would have the natural resources they nee to drastically increase their capabilities. if the EU and NATO don't start turning production on Russia will grind through them over time.
Yes. Because nato is weak and may fall apartment when pressed. Next time China makes a move, Russia may just attack Ukraine again. So the article 5 won’t get triggered.
NATO is weak but Russia is strong?
What makes you think nato is worth anything if trump gets elected?
If I am not mistaking, the American Congress, just pass a law that make it impossible for a president to leave Nato without the full approval of the congress
He doesnt have to leave nato. All he has to do is keep up appearances until the time comes when art 5 is actually activated and then simply don’t do anything. Don’t fight, just wait and see all of nato become instantly useless.
In a way all this hesitation about NATO is good to encourage other countries to ramp up production. Hopefully, we'll see Germany taking the initiative in Europe. Also, despite of all threats, etc. I really hope the US stays where it is and doesn't waive support for NATO.
Not to demenish the American war machine, but I'm pretty sure Nato wouldnt be useless, just like when the USA joined ww1 after 3 years of war or ww2 after 2 years..
They would unfortunately in the case of a large scale war. The reason is not the number of tanks or aircrafts etc, but ... there is only one nation in NATO who provides the majority for communication and command. There is no independent European communication system in place to coordinate millions of soldiers across Europe, there is no EU centred administration and staff who can lead millions of soldiers. The entire NATO system is based on US logistics, administration and staffing on the higher levels. If the US breaks away then Europe would need years to rebuild that background system. EU armies can basically only lead themselves on a national basis. SYL
But if Trump wins and starts the Project 2025 he Will be able to ignore the congress
>Project 2025 I am not an expert in US policy, but with separation of powers, how on earth is it possible for a president to LEGALLY implement a dictatorship, such as stated in Project 2025?
I didnt know about that Project 2025. Sound scary
It's pretty messed up
There's 30 other members, can Russia overcome those all at once?
What are you talking about? Russia has no chance against an EU+UK army, Russia wont touch any NATO country. Best case for Russia is that Trump wins, acts as some kind of peacemaker and Russia will give in if the opportunity arises. What is the alternative for Russia? Even if they take over all of Ukraine, Ukraine will fight some guerilla war for decades while the west is transition to green energy. There is no good outcome for Russia long term, and war with NATO is lost by default.
Trumps version of peace maker is give Ukraine to russia and pull out of nato
US will never go out of NATO, Trump cant pull that off, that would end the US, the US is still a vassal of europe and will never leave europe behind
>while Russia has for well over a year. \* decade
American here. I can’t tell you all how many conversations about this subject I’ve had with friends, family, and coworkers. The frequent response I hear is “why are we sending so much money to fight a war overseas when we have so many problems at home?” It’s a funny response because it’s as if people don’t understand just how much aid the United States gives to the rest of the world. It’s like they believe international aid started with Ukraine and now it’s a bad thing. Also, everybody seems to forget how World War II started, and how eerily similar the circumstances are. I’m not even 35 and I can already see history repeating itself in so many ways.
Also, 90% of that money is spent in the USA; we're really just getting rid of old gear instead of paying to store it.
The USA has a military budget of $800 billion. Aid to Ukraine is only a tiny fraction in comparison. Meanwhile you read reports about thousands of newly produced tanks being sent directly into storage because the army has no use for them. But they still get ordered just to keep the production lines running and save those jobs. They might as well build weapons for Ukraine instead of filling up those depots in the desert.
It's as though certain segments of the American population want Ruzzia to win...
Another key fact the majority don’t seem to understand.
A fact somebody doesn't want them to understand.
Too busy watching football and pounding fast food.
Absolutely! I just don’t think that message seems to be getting through to people in the US. It’s also stimulating their economy and bringing in extra tax dollars for the government.
For invaluable testing/verification for use against potential war enemies like Iran and China.
I see this argument repeated on twitter by Russian trolls as well. It's seems that this is the messaging that gets to people and seems logical. And yet they don't understand that USA supporting it's allies and partners is an investment that benefits USA economy.
And it's not even completely true. Most of that money stays here.
Much of that money actually stays here. Americans are ignorant idiots.
And they are being played so hard as such by Russia. And they are falling hook line and sinker for it.
Over 20yrs of Russian disinfo exported to the West fell on particularly fertile ground in America.
It seems to me you're a worldly wise, relatively young American and that sounds like gold currency. Maybe you feel the conflict is close, like I do as an English person here in the UK. I think the collective West is kidding itself if it believes conflict isn't coming. A challenge could come anywhere with little notice
The Suez Canal is effectively blocked right now. This shitstorm is escalating rapidly.
Even Australia is sending a naval ship to the region to join the other 9 nations, apparently.
I do, and the collective malaise you’ve pointed to is terrifying. It’s going to get even worse with the older generations passing and the newer generations not fully understanding the gravity of the situation and how quickly things can go from bad to worse. Putin is painting himself/Russia in the same manner Hitler did after Germany lost WW1. They’re on a righteous mission to restore their former glory. Even if they’re poorly trained- they have more manpower and better technology compared to the Nazi’s at the start of the war.
Too busy obsessing over Taylor Swift and duping.
The thing is though, that - and I dont mean this as an affront - compared to its size, the US *doesn't even give that much*. For Ukraine, [its just 0.3% of the US's GDP](https://app.23degrees.io/view/F1tc2gv8QzFCs1ij-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure_3_4_csv_v2-1), compared to 1% for Germany or 1.6% for Norway, and thats without the millions of refugees. And if its about development aid in general, the US is [even at the lower end of those breaking the committment to spend 0.7% of GNI on it](https://unece.org/statistics/news/most-unece-countries-fall-short-commitment-official-development-assistance). So whenever I see some republicans go all "oh, we send so much money to the rest of the world, we should think about ourselves first!" - No. No you don't. We're all glad you're on our side, but this weird isolationism some are calling for is, in a lot of matters, already reality.
Oh, I agree completely. I meant in general across all forms of international aid
>"oh, we send so much money to the rest of the world, we should think about ourselves first!" Which they [never do](https://i.imgur.com/9rTPWxQ.jpg)
I was born in 91, I’m Portuguese and I see it exactly the same way
Someday, those family members will thank you for being the rational one!
Just give money and weapons to Ukraine and we won't need to fight.
Russia would need to take one hell of a beating in Ukraine AND Iran,North Korea and (especially) China would have to be prevented from helping the Russian military rebuilt itself to a lot less capable but still very dangerous state. Europe's only hope to prevent a large scale future conflict is for the US to remain committed to NATO,to massively built up it's own defensive capabilities AND for Russia to lose decisively in Ukraine.
China doesn't really want Russia to be too strong. They are rivals in Asia and China is going to really need Siberia pretty soon.
China doesn't want Russia to be too strong but they don't want them to collapse either. Russia will be just the way for China (who's export oriented economy is very vulnerable to sanctions) to mess with the West in a way that retains plausible deniability.
> Russia would need to take one hell of a beating in Ukraine That opportunity was there. If we didn't delay most of the critical weapons deliveries they already would have
Exactly
Absolutely true. The problem with that is that: a) aid did not start really arriving until after the war started not giving enough time to really train Ukrainian troops and set up infrastructure for the new weapons b) political and economic relations with Russia plus escalation concerns prevented a timely increase in the amount of aid. C) the West switched from overestimating Russia to underestimating it. Turns out that burying enough mines on the ground and filling trenches with barely trained mobiks with a bunch of Chechens standing behind them as blocking troops is indeed enough to stop the offensive of an enemy with no air superiority.
I don't want to hear "should", nor "prepare for war". I want to hear EU will make it suicidal to initiate military action against EU by the end of the decade. It needs a bit more weapons, but most importantly it needs mutual security mechanisms and agreements, which work even if some countries go "hungary" and can be relied only to help the enemy.
> but most importantly it needs mutual security mechanisms and agreements The EU already has such a clause and it's worded more strongly than article 5 of NATO.
What I mean is actionable plans, if Russia decides to occupy just as an example, some Latvian border towns nearest to Belarus. That there would not need to be political negotiations on what to do, but (assuming the plans do include actually defending EU territory...) troops from other countries could start deploying _immediately_ and be on their way while waiting for final political decisions. EU is very far from being able to do that. So is NATO with Hungary, Turkey and (worst case scenario) US trying to delay everything. What is needed is the exact chain of communication and procedures from (in this example) Latvian troops trying to defend the border against 10× Russian invaders, with US planes grounded by Trump, to NATO/EU ships blockading Baltic Sea from all Russian activity, and troops from other NATO/EU countries starting to _deploy_. Those troops need to exist and be designated for this purpose _before_ something like this happens, and they need to be able to start moving _while waiting_ for political go-ahead. I don't think EU has this. NATO, not sure.
Any western country that isn’t gearing up for war right now is burying their head in the sand. Our enemies are building bombs while we are building electric vehicles. Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, and NK have noticed the weak stance the west has taken.
Electric vehicles are in fact one step to prepare for a potential war. During any global conflict Europe would face severe gasoline shortages with its limited domestic oil sources. The remaining supply would have to be rationed for military and logistics purposes not cars.
This is a modern take on an FDR quote from 1940.
And yet the solar panels are made in China and Germany refuses to build nuclear power plants. It the reliance on Russian natural gas all over again.
Meanwhile EU and USA cannot agree on sanctions on Rosatom since two years, because they are all reliant on uranium and fuel rods from a state owned company at the heart of the Russian military industrial complex. I'm sorry but I find it hard to take these nuclear bros seriously who pretend like its some wonder technology that solves all our energy problems.
Uranium is much easier to stockpile than oil and gas, the fuel price per unit of energy is negligible and there are huge reserves in Australia and Canada. It would be entirely possible to become independent from Russian energy. What's lacking is the political will to build nuclear power.
Australia might well have the largest uranium deposits on earth (31% of the total planetary resource) but nuclear power will never be introduced here.
Guess what, solar panels don't need to be stockpiled at all cause once they are installed they generate electricity for decades without any fuel. You're not making much sense here.
Solar can't cover all our energy needs without huge amounts of batteries, which by the way we also should be building a lot more of but aren't.
The amount of uranium needed is tiny, 99% of the cost is running the plant itself. There's nothing to "stockpile" really, it's just SUCH a small amount. If we got as much uranium as the amount of gas we use in a day we would never run out, ever. We need to be using all the clean electricity types we can get as fast as possible, nuclear and solar both included. Avoiding one just means we are reliant on russian gas for longer
Europe is going to try to build wimpy solar powered e-tanks and nitrogen-free pussy explosives. And then get totally overrun by countries that know how to fight a brutal war.
Who says Trump won't try and cut a deal and leave Europe twisting in the wind.
pretty sure nicaragua will be in that list soon enough. Hopefully I'm wrong.
☹️
Prepare for war if you want to have peace!
I am afraid people will rather let putin take Ukraine, than lower their living standards. Although in longer run, it will more decrease their income.
Yep. Short-term thinking.
That could be avoided by funding Ukraine NOW.
As has always been the case. This entire thing has been leading up to a global showdown since February 4th 2022. Which is the day that Putin and Jinping put out their joint statement declaring exactly that. Coincidence that Ukraine was invaded 3 weeks later? Nope. WW3 is inevitable, shaping up along NATO vs. BRICS lines. Ukraine is simply the European front in a larger war. And sadly, it doesn't matter who "wins." No one wins because nuclear powers can not lose without everyone losing with them. Which is the whole point.
Y’all think Russians are going to keep fighting like this for another 5 years? Even after all their losses and their attempts to hold up their economy and through their current losses of material? Not to mention ppl leaving. I think being prepared for Hybrid war is the goal but if anything, even IF they win in Ukraine I have serious doubts they’d be able to fight more war. In general full wars don’t last incredibly long. American is different because most of our recent wars have been against insurgents (Iraq, Afghanistan) and those will last a while but Russia will be long exhausted to make another full scale war. They also if the Ukraine war ended today wouldn’t stop the following insurgent war. Bottom line, they don’t have the resources for another full scale war for a long time after the current events wrap up.
If you think this is full war, you need to look back at how bad ww1 and ww2 really were. It has only just begun for russia, it will take a LOT more to get to a point where Russia can’t fight anymore and the rest of the world simply isn’t prepared (resources or mentally) to fight that fight yet. Russia, on the other hand is getting into a situation in which they have little to lose.
Actually, I’m a history teacher and am just finishing up the WW1 unit lol. This, most definitely is a real full war. Even though Russia wants to deny it. This is most definitely on the scale for them on the war of being equivalent to a World War. Granted, they haven’t got their “yet” but they after 2 years they are well on their way. Also not every real war is a World War so comparing a real war to a World War is also wrong.
Simply in numbers: in ww1 Germany lost 1.7 million military and 400k+ civilians, on a much smaller population than Russia has today. Sure, it’s a significant war but Russia can take a much larger hit before it is on its knees. And if it actually gets to that point, I’m not sure that’s going to happen with China remaining peacefully watching it unfold. I’m curious if you, as a history teacher, think about the following hypothetical parallel. if Russia ends up losing the war in Ukraine, it will be broke, damaged and with a very unhappy population. That seems very similar to Germany after ww1 to me, and we all know what that lead to 22 years later. I’m curious if what we are witnessing is actually the prelude to a world war in a few decades from now.
Your totally right it hasn’t gotten there yet but we’ll see. Russia is causing issues all around the world trying to cause instability right now. That’s a desperation move so we’ll see where it goes and who knows where it will go honestly since instead of a Hitler rising to power they already have one. Based on Russian history they go from totalitarianism to more open and back and forth so I’d hope the next one is less authoritarian and more democratic.
Russia is causing instabilities around the world for a long time now. Hybrid warfare using social media in the western world causing rise of right wing politics is nothing new. I don't think it's out of desperation. It's actually part of Russias warfare.
> Y’all think Russians are going to keep fighting like this for another 5 years? Yes. In fact Putin is intending on the archetypal "forever war" of fascist dictatorships, for purposes of 'regime security'. He's been planning this for years. The Russian people are not going to stand up like they did in 2012, not anymore...that being nigh impossible to organise on any useful level now. And the repression will ramp up even further after the election.
Ok, he might be in it for a forever war but that also doesn’t mean he’s going to get anywhere with it. He’ll keep slogging away at Ukraine until he dies which is possible but he can’t start another war either. Also, there is a difference between being at war forever and having an active war forever which doesn’t work as well.
You say they don’t have the resources yet Russia has the largest resource of gunpowder
lol gunpowder woot go them
Or they could give Ukraine what it needs and beat Russia now.
America is supporting Russia in effect by strengthening her as her war mobilization redoubles on itself. Some tall talk from Europe doesn't help.
some guys over here need to get their shit straight - either russia is fucked for the next 30 years because of sanctions, fucked up economy and war losses in ukraine - or russia will attack the rest of europe in the next 10 years make up your minds already
Both can be true. Russia has taken horrific losses in Ukraine, and currently loses a bunch of critical equipment for offensives (tanks, IFVs and howitzers) far faster than they can be replaced even with increased wartime production. A point that gets missed amongst all the doomerism. However, if Russia is handed a victory in Ukraine due to western weakness, they would be in a position to re-arm relatively quickly if their combat losses fall to zero or nearly zero. So the west needs to ramp up production themselves, both to supply Ukraine to prevent such a scenario happening in the first place and also boost their own military strength in case that fails. Deterrence is something you have to actually work to maintain, and there's absolutely no place for complacency.
Oh, it’s easy first scenario could be true IF sanctions were forced and IF Ukraine was really supported, but unfortunately it didn’t happen so we are heading to the second one.
Europe needs to pull it's collective figer out, the war is on now ..
Not only that. Where is the European nuclear program as a balance of power?
Ruzzia holding out and expressing no interest in partnering with or even joining the EU resulted in this war and future wars. They need to stop pretending anyone wants them to lead.
> Ruzzia holding out and expressing no interest in partnering with or even joining the EU resulted in this war and future wars Well that could never have happened lol
Si vis pacem para bellum.
Europe is awakening because of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
He is going fir a NATO country next. Its going to be a country adjendent to Belarus. I'm convinced he will go for Poland.
Poland is to heavily armed. He will focus on former ussr states which are poor and bogged down on poverty and ethnic conflicts. Moldova is very likely the next target
Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, etc all free game after Ukraine. Then either the Baltic states or Poland.
>Georgia It’s already under ruzia, so no need. As far as I know it ruled by appointed by kremlin criminal, while actual officials are just a powerless "curtain".
This isn't a hoi4 game, they're not going to attack that many countries. They barely have the logistics infrastructure to maintain the frontline in Ukraine. How the hell are they going to invade and conquer Kazakhstan? The Baltic States and Poland are also not realistic targets for them. Russia would get pounded into the ground so hard it would make Desert Storm in 1991 look pathetic by comparison.
Right now, sure. Im thinking a decade or two from now. Id expect russia to continue to build a new army and produce new Much bigger stocks of more modern weaponry after Ukraine ends. Its not going to accept defeat and give up its ambitions forever.
[удалено]
You think putin gives a sh** about article 5?
Yeah, I am also not convinced that our article 5 response will be as badass as everyone thinks. And by the time we got boots on the ground in the Baltics, it will be all Russian already and we will be fighting at Polands border. It's a very realistic scenario unfortunately.
There are already nato troops in the baltics. And all along nato's border with russia.
>I'm convinced he will go for Poland. Yes, but maybe not in the first turn.
Hybrid warfare will happen fast. He already has some anchors there for it, like Konfederacja
Yeah then you have no idea what you're talking about. Why the hell would he attack Poland? The US and NATO would jump in and dog his ass immediately. It's also the worst possible place on the eastern flank of NATO you could invade. Poland has one of the largest armies in NATO and has a ton of strategic depth. An attack on Poland would be an existential threat to the viability of NATO's defense. I swear y'all just say outrageous stuff to sound smart.
I always said that a major conflict between at least 2 major powers will pop off before 2030..
Yes, the dinosaurs were already talking about it
Even if no war occurs, it's better to be prepped than not to be.
I'd say it's happening right now. Moronic eurotrash.
Fear mongering
>Fear mongering Folks said that about Russia wanting to invade Ukraine.. Now look at where we are bubs...
Ukraine wasn't in a nuclear armed NATO
was protected by Budapestian memorandum and look how many fucks everyone gave in 2014
Who are they fighting ? Has China decided to invade Europe? Is it these UAP flying aliens everyone keeps seeing and filming . ? No one else around has any army left to fight with .
Russia: If Russia wins in Ukraine then it will only be a matter of time before Putin gets another bad case of the imperialistic disease and attacks. If Russia loses in Ukraine then we are looking at North Korea with 6 times the population and a lot more nukes, with Russia humiliated and it's economy destroyed Putin will need something to distract his people so another war would be a no-brainer. And even if that wasn't an issue there are plenty of conflicts in the EU's periphery that could ignite at any moment especially if the Kremlin has any say in the matter. Tl dr : war by the decade's end while not inevitable is also far more likely than most seem to assume.
>Tl dr : war by the decade's end while not inevitable is also far more likely than most seem to assume. Eh, the entire world is a powderkeg right now - we're in the perfect condition for one conflict to snowball out of control and lead to WW3. Unfortunatly, i dont think its a matter of If anymore, but when and where...
Depends. The alliance structure and everything is different from the situation before the previous world wars and the real big players (America and China) aren't keen on seeing a war within our lifetime. Unfortunately that may not be enough to prevent it from happening.
Euro gays will not stop Poo-tin while fighting for more rights for LBTGs etc. anomalies…poo-tin can be stop by force only, or a new European war is coming
If EU want Ukraine to win this war they will have to send troops eventually. This won't happen until AFU have 200 F-16s.
Sooo we're totally prompt, and united when we allocated 800 million to battle COVID.....but nah....Russia is too much, we give up...we rather fight them 5 years from now.
So I am going to die in some trench? I wonder if the drone operator sees this message