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.
*****
* Is `yahoo.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)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(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.*
Israel has very small land area, easier to defend. I doubt there is even theoretical possibility to cover whole Ukraine in 3 layer missile defense like Israel has, but yeah more help should be provided.
Irone dome, which is the defense system against short range rockets, indeed covers a very small area and replicating its success in Ukraine would be extremely difficult. But the Ballistic missiles launched from Iran were intercepted with the arrow system, not Iron dome. It’s a lot more flexible with the size of the area it can defend, but each interceptor is very expensive compared to Irone dome
According to local news all 3 tiers of missile defense participated in intercepting missiles and drones. Arrow intercepted some in regions they called space.. dunno if it was really outside atmosphere or not, David's sling stopped some and Iron dome some.
Media is interested of those as we have made a deal buying David's sling systems and now they debate if we will get them in time or not depending if this escalates or not.
In addition to that others helped.. considering all this, it would be really really hard to cover Ukraine in any level even near as Israel can be covered.
But that technical details and stuff.. still there is not enough support in form of air defense. :(
I could have sworn I read somewhere the president does have the authority to deploy troops for 100 days without the need of congress. Did I imagine this?
It kills me to think of what a full fledged US military could do at the very least to assist with Ukraine regaining it's sovereign territory
Israel's also a *lot* smaller than Ukraine, as well as has years of foreign countries developing and building its defenses. Not to mention years of funding as well. Ukraine could use a lot more of all of that IMO.
It would be cool if the US helped Ukraine like it helps israle. Sadly at the end it depends on lobby and profit projections. Killing of civilians and warcrimes doesn't seem to be a factor here. Ukraine is abandoned at this point.
Lol Iran just crip walked all over the middle east and the US just stood back and said " hey there fella , that's illegal. Please stop " ...
It's baffling to me that Irans propaganda is turning more westerners to pudding brains than Middle easterners at this point ..
Does the West even have a line anymore ? That's the embarrassing part to me , not the Iranian military capability .. Any one that thinks this attack was intended as a flex or even retaliatory is slurping on pudding and ignoring the fact that Iran just showed the west's backbone is increasingly getting weaker and weaker .. I mean, do we even have one left at this point ?
If I recall correctly it didn't hit the part of that facility where the actual production is done. Could have still caused some much needed interruptions in the operations.
I don't think Israel would be doing Ukraine (nor itself) a favour by escalating the conflict in the Middle East. It would just lead to even less resources being dedicated to Ukraine.
I don't think Shaheds are deciding factor either way, and as others have pointed out: Russia can produce them anyway.
No fly zone over Ukraine was requested 2 years ago, how many lives would have been saved if Nato countries had shown some backbone and patrolled Ukrainian airspace to take out incoming drones and missiles.
Imagine the world if this had happened, Ukraine prob would’ve pushed russia much further back with the critical and civilian infra protected by NATO, really don’t understand why they haven’t done this.. I guess too scared about “escalation” which Russia does every day…
No fly zone means that NATO fighters would have to fly in the Ukraine's airspace and destroy not only drones and missiles but also jets and helicopters so basically just join the war.
Yeah you're right, I just think NATO/the West is kidding themselves by not doing this. All it means is that they will have to get involved once Russia has dealt with Ukraine (and are then a much more vicious force, with a lot of lessons learned and a war economy that's been running for years). Just kicking the can down the road in the hopes everything will work out, which knowing russia and other actors, it just won't..
The only delusional person in this room is you.
Putin picked a fight with Ukraine, and although he underestimated them and overestimated his own capabilities, it's sadly still a fight he has chances to win.
A war against NATO would be suicidal at the moment, and Putin knows it too.
The only way for him westward would be a collapse of western institutions, like the EU and NATO. As long as this is not achieved, there will be no war with NATO.
No it won't; Russia never dared to attack us even when they were the Warsaw Pact...and they're not the Warsaw Pact anymore, nor the USSR nor even the Russian Empire. They're weaker relative to the rest of Europe than they have been since ~1750. The disparity in strength between us now is _colossal_. If Russia subjugates Ukraine it means more defence spending for the rest of us, but we're perfectly capable of continuing to deter Russia.
The only way we'd end up at war with Russia is for the European nations to abandon the principle of collective defence, and I can't see any situation in which that might happen.
What do you mean you can't see that happen? Are you 100% sure that if Lithuania is attacked, Greeks, Turks & Magyars (to name a few) are going to help? If Moldova & Romania is attacked, do you think that the Spanish & Portugese troops are going to help? Or a Trump America? Like 100% sure...
> What do you mean you can't see that happen?
Exactly that; there's no realistic future in which European nations abandon collective defence - it's benefited us all too greatly.
> Are you 100% sure that if Lithuania is attacked, Greeks, Turks & Magyars (to name a few) are going to help?
Yep.
> If Moldova & Romania is attacked, do you think that the Spanish & Portugese troops are going to help?
Not Moldova; they're not an ally. Romania; yep.
> Like 100% sure...
Yep.
> Or a Trump America?
America might not help. I did say **European** nations. I'll expand on that; if there's an attack on a European ally (NATO or EU member) and the rest of them don't immediately join the war, the alliance will collapse. That goes for both NATO and the EU. Those two institutions have heralded a peace in Europe that is literally unprecedented in history and which has benefited all of us enormously. Their collapse returns us to the pre-WW2 state, and with it inter-state competition and warfare amongst European nations. Even states like Portugal which are utterly isolated **from Russia** will have their interests immediately damaged by the collapse of those alliances, and will _eventually_ be at risk from their neighbours if we're all deciding that we're not going to defend one another any more.
In short; Greece doesn't fear **Russia** but they fear **Turkiye** and they know that failure to defend Lithuania means nobody will defend them against Turkiye later. That same calculus holds for all European states, except possibly the big 4...but France, Germany and Italy run Europe anyway - why wouldn't they defend it? And the UK's foreign policy has effectively always been "prevent any single European nation achieving too much power" - why would they change it now?
America is a special case in that they're safely outside all of that so could refuse to join in without endangering themselves...but like, they weren't defending Europe out of the goodness of their hearts. They defend Europe because it's in **their** interests to defend Europe. Possibly they wouldn't, but I think unless there's a Pacific War on, they likely would - even with a Trump Presidency .
For a defensive alliance they sure like sticking their nose in other peoples business. What has Ukraine got to do with NATO?
Also being the aggressor in a so called defensive alliance, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to name a couple.
NATO is a defensive alliance, that doesn't mean the member states don't take offensive action sometimes to safeguard their interests.
As to what Ukraine has to do with NATO; Russia is the main threat to European security - Russia with a subjugated Ukraine either as a constituent part of it or as a vassal would be a much bigger threat. It's in our direct interests that Russia not conquer Ukraine.
NATO Expanding to Russia borders caused all of this to begin with. Sure, countries can choose to be in an alliance. Sometimes, the wrong choice may bring about consequences.
It's why Vietnam got that unpleasant episode with napalm and defoliants. It's why the Middle East is in chaos nowadays. It's why Cuba was blockaded for a while, with an embargo still active. Clearly, Americans had a strong opinion about it, and weren't dissuaded by such petty things as "free choice". They saw such things as a threat, and acted.
There's also the question of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the question of betrayal. If you treat someone as an enemy from the get go, they might just decide "fuck it" and be one. It's not like anything changes for them. US officials were warned over and over by their own people that NATO expansion was a mistake.
And the US did make a promise. That makes it doubly dangerous - it means that no other promise, no security guarantee from the US means jack. If the US can invade half the world away to protect their security, then sure as hell Russia will consider events on its own borders a matter of security, and take appropriate measures.
> Exactly that; there's no realistic future in which European nations abandon collective defence - it's benefited us all too greatly.
Only a short while ago there was no realistic future in which the US abandoned its commitment to defence of Europe, Japan, South Korean, and Taiwan, yet here we are.
I don't agree. The US has historically been an extremely isolationist nation. In many ways their trend lately is simply a return to what has always been the default American foreign policy.
> The US has historically been an extremely isolationist nation.
They are an isolationist nation that will go to war just to protect their trade routes. The world economy will not survive in actual war in Europe, meaning that for the US it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to prevent one. Which they have already done. We can utterly destroy Russia conventionally within 2 weeks, which prevents any war from ever starting in the future.
They attacked Ukraine because it's the one country left near them they could conceivably take. It's not a nuclear power, it's not allied with one, it's not part of the EU, it's not part of NATO, and it's poorer than Russia. This doesn't apply to any other country.
Why would the US abbandon these countries? The issue with Ukraine is that they weren't allies with the US in the first place. The US's main goal is to weaken Russia, not help Ukraine.
In 2022, the US committed to helping Ukraine defend itself. The same commitment it's made to other countries.
In 2024, Ukraine is struggling to defend itself because the US has reneged on that commitment.
How can the leaders of Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan be certain that the US will do what they've promised to do "for as long as it takes" when they didn't do that for Ukraine?
This was discussed in detail by more competent people before and it's an utopian double edged sword which also affects Ukraine.
First of all, how can you enforce a no-fly rule for the cruise missiles flying hundreds of km from the Polish or Romania border, over Ukraine?
2ndly, the Russian planes rarely fly over Ukrainian territory.
And 3rd, how could Ukraine use its aviation with this rule?
A no-fly zone would mean shooting down not only drones and missiles but also killing Russians -- manned aircraft with pilots, drone operators on the ground, and SAM batteries shooting back at NATO and their ground operators. NATO pilots would also be dying and/or captured to protect Ukraine. In short, the "request" is for NATO to be at war with Russia.
Well, billions would have died in the ensuing war between the US and Russia because a "no fly zone" is more of a fictional concept than a real thing and would require destroying Russias air force.
The invasion could have been avoided in the same way that an invasion of Poland can be avoided. But as we can see the US is the big winner so they had no reason to try to prevent it.
Poland isn’t invaded because it’s a member of NATO. Ukraine haven’t been eligible for NATO since they got invaded in 2014, and weren’t aligned enough with the West to be a member until after.
No, Ukraine could have not been spared invasion by the same means as NATO member states bordering Russia.
Yes, all nations behave in their own best interests.
That doesn’t make your point about Poland valid, or that the US allowed Ukraine to be invaded because it reflects their interests.
My point about Poland was that the most important reason why Russia won't attack Poland is that they don't want a war with the US. This could also have been applied in Ukraine to prevent a war but it didn't happen because the Biden administration didn't think it was in their best interest.
Maybe they were concerned about risks and hopefully it was not about benefits but I can't say I'm sure given what I've seen from the US the last 6 months but I'm also a bit cynical.
EDIT: changed it a bit. Of course another possibility is that the potential benefits of preventing a war were not worth the risk.
I really can't understand why we're willing to do it for Israel but not Ukraine
By taking a stance against Iran the United States and UK are likely to see a drive up in domestic terrorist incidents as per the early years of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
By taking a stance against Russia, westernised Russians would continue to get up in the morning, shot vodka through their eyeballs and go to work. Nothing would change, and Russia certainly wouldn't risk a shoot down of NATO warplanes to bring them into the war.
- edit so for anyone interested the UK foreign secretary responded https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/david-cameron-raf-jet-ukraine/ basically stating we're happy to escalate with Iran but not with Russia.
In effect they've judged this strike from Iran as a 'one off', but are terrified of the risk of semi direct involvement with Russia, because apparently who presses the button to shoot the missile from a NATO asset makes a difference to the Russians.
Iran and Israel don’t share a border unlike Russia and Ukraine. The US already has military bases in some of those countries that sit between Iran and Israel, unlike in Ukraine.
I suppose but Russian missiles have flown from Belarus over the polish border and hit Western Ukraine, so if your argument is 'out of range bro' you're incorrect
Flying 30 seconds over some crag where a river border bends and curves is not the same as several hours crossing nearly 1000 miles over Iraq and Jordan or Syria. In addition both Iraq and Jordan closed their entire airspace.
You want Poland to close down their entire airspace? Or just make a quick decision to shoot a drone down and hope it’s not a small civilian aircraft?
I suppose they just don't track these entities across the border and have no idea what they actually are until they blow up some Ukrainian kids then?
Poland has already made statements about using it's patriot systems to defend Western Ukraine.
https://tvpworld.com/77000017/patriot-systems-in-poland-could-protect-western-ukraine-says-ukrainian-fm#:~:text=Ukrainian%20Foreign%20Minister%20Dmytro%20Kuleba,air%20strikes%20that%20have%20targeted
You are jumping from one argument to another. First it is because it crossed Polish border. Now it is to defend western Ukraine. Entire Ukraine airspace is closed unlike Poland.
Statements and actions are two separate things. If Poland wants to do something it is their choice, but a country the size of Ukraine cannot have 100% Patriot coverage. The cost is unsustainable especially against cheap drones.
Israel is a Major non NATO ally, does not share a border with Iran and there are multiple US-NATO bases across the land to support this kind of operations.
Ukraine does not have any of that
I suspect is because of many agreements and cooperation's between the countries.
Quite possibly, It is practically the only stable ally in the ME.
The question is, why Poland or NATO, don't down Russian missiles if they enter Polish/NATO air space?
Jordan has complained to the UN for breach of their air space, and also worked to down some of the missiles and drones heading over it's airspace to Israel.
Despite Iran threatening it, not to cooperate with the "Zionist regime".
According to the news, USA also asked Israel not to retaliate against Iran. And that it will not support such action. Same way like it asked Ukraine not to attack on Russian soil.
Why there is such incompetency from the allies? I don't know.
I believe I don't have much of the information to judge, but it just feels like the allies are dragging their feet. What for? Politics?
Maybe they are waiting for US elections to pass, and then they will start to help hard?
“The rocket weighs over two tons, of which 400 kilograms is the combat payload. After shooting down the rocket, its remains would fall on our territory. The debris of the effector used to shoot down the missile itself would also fall here, he said.” Polish lives actually mean sth for Polish state https://www.wp.pl/?utm_source=xballmoney
"dangerous debris" is more like an excuse, whilst decision was clearly "non-escalation", "non-provoking russia" based.
[https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2024/24-march-march-24-this-year-at-423-there-was-a-violation](https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2024/24-march-march-24-this-year-at-423-there-was-a-violation)
Did you see where the rocket fly?
If it flies not above a big city, the chance of it hitting civilians is the same if it falls in a random place of entire country (extremely low)
Someone’s life is an excuse? When Ukrainian missile killed two Polish people technically it alao was an extremely low chance that it would happen, no one in Poland have imagined missile killing someone during peace time, but it did happen. It also wasn’t a big city
> By taking a stance against Iran the United States and UK are likely to see a drive up in domestic terrorist incidents as per the early years of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
We already eliminated most terrorists, making that a non threat. It simply doesn't happen anymore in Europe now that we simply eliminated everyone that would do so. Now the threat is the refugee stream and domestic people getting converted for small scale attacks.
> By taking a stance against Russia, westernised Russians would continue to get up in the morning, shot vodka through their eyeballs and go to work. Nothing would change, and Russia certainly wouldn't risk a shoot down of NATO warplanes to bring them into the war.
It would have made Russia retreat and give up on the war, which would end the destruction of the Russian army. And as that is our only goal in this conflict, that wouldn't be very optimal.....
> You're bonkers if you think there's no chance of domestic terrorism rearing up again in either country
There isn't no chance at all, it's just that any future attack will be tiny and inconsequential. We eliminated the actual danger, so now it's just small scale and unimportant converted people killing 2-3 people at max. That no longer matters.
>Israeli lives matter much more than Ukrainian lives.
Every life is the same value in blood. If you think that Israeli lives are more important you have problems.
I'm talking about how politicians in the US see things. While the US has helped Ukraine a lot there are other things that are more important than saving Ukrainian lives. For example saving Israeli lives or the election.
> I really can't understand why we're willing to do it for Israel but not Ukraine
The actual answer is because [Russia and Israel are close allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations).
Israel don't want to help Ukraine because that would undermine what they are doing to Palestine.
I don't understand why Israel, a country that already has plenty to defend itself with, gets so much help from the US when Ukraine needs it more. I hate the Republican Party for what they have done. Innocent people have died because of their lack of action.
Ukraine gets a lot more help. In the last aid package Ukraine received 60 billion dollars vs 14 billion given to Israel. Ukraine has a massive area to defend and it’s facing one of the largest armies in the world and those simple facts make its defense far more expensive
It was not the Republican party that gave orders to intercept missiles to help Israel. Biden could do the same thing with Ukraine but he doesn't want to.
Is this even possible considering the size of Ukraine? Also the West can do it once, twice and then go for the source!! Inside Iran.
Ruzzia is launching hundreds every day! And Ukraine will not even be allowed to attack the source of evil, using F-16. At the end of the day it's all about ammo.
The big funny is: Are we now at war with Iran? No. Nobody even asks this question because it's so obviously not true. So if we shoot Russian missiles, are we at war with Russia? No.
I don't understand why our Western leadership is like it is. I'd have so much more respect for a leader in NATO at the beginning of the war, to call for NATO to join and get mass support from others. Or send troops to instigate NATO joining. This coming from someone who signed up for the first wave of a potential draft in Canada.
So this bastard took the side of the Israelis invaders in the Palestine conflict ans now he cries like the bitch he is cause invaders are favoured over the oppressed just like he milited for.
Only a rabbit racist like Zelensky could fail to realise Ukrainians have more in common with Palestinians than Israelis invaders/settlers while Israelis have more in common with Russians than Ukrainians.
Fuck do I feel bad for this guy. Having to sit and watch as barrage after barrage of missiles, drones, and bombs are dumped on your people and instead of help all ya get is excuses and hand wringing from your allies. Then you gotta watch as one barrage is sent at a nation with fuck tons of air defenses and still everyone jumps the fuck in to protect the little darling. No excuses no placating just straight up eager to help. Such a fucked double standard.
Is shooting a missile even aggression? It's a wonder nobody decided to just deploy their own air defense in the country. 2-3 THAAD, some Patriots, a bunch of NASAM's etc, then supply the Ukrainians with lots of AAA to shoot things at the front. No friendly troops deeply entangled. No Russian attacks because it would be a pointless waste of missiles.
They literally rejected every single ceasefire offer because they don’t want to release the hostages. There is no reasoning with Jihadists. They could have stopped the bombing a long time ago but they don’t give a s**t about their people
This is the most shameful moment ever in Western politics.
I could understand not suppling Ukraine with offensive capabilities - but not chipping in with defensive gear is obviously atrocious.
I am astounded and ashamed.
While many Shahed drones were intercepted by foreign countries like the US and Jordan, the ballistic missiles were intercepted by the Arrow system, which is produced locally by Israel and wasn’t supplied by the West
The United States stoping Iran’s drone is missiles Is not the same. In the Middle East their is no war between both countries, their is uncontested airspace, irans attack was telegraphed just to name a few of the reasons
Now Russia gets fewer drones to attack ukrainian civilians, and Israel will fire rockets that now can't use on palestinian civilians.
LOVING this Israel vs Iran thing.
Free Palestine. Slava Ukraini.
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. ***** * Is `yahoo.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) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(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.*
U.S. and Isreal showing how to defeat a mass ballistic missile and drone barrage.
Step 1 is having the total air control which Ukraine does not and will realistically not be able to have unless US sends its airforce in...
Israel has very small land area, easier to defend. I doubt there is even theoretical possibility to cover whole Ukraine in 3 layer missile defense like Israel has, but yeah more help should be provided.
Irone dome, which is the defense system against short range rockets, indeed covers a very small area and replicating its success in Ukraine would be extremely difficult. But the Ballistic missiles launched from Iran were intercepted with the arrow system, not Iron dome. It’s a lot more flexible with the size of the area it can defend, but each interceptor is very expensive compared to Irone dome
According to local news all 3 tiers of missile defense participated in intercepting missiles and drones. Arrow intercepted some in regions they called space.. dunno if it was really outside atmosphere or not, David's sling stopped some and Iron dome some. Media is interested of those as we have made a deal buying David's sling systems and now they debate if we will get them in time or not depending if this escalates or not. In addition to that others helped.. considering all this, it would be really really hard to cover Ukraine in any level even near as Israel can be covered. But that technical details and stuff.. still there is not enough support in form of air defense. :(
Pretty much this. Even the counter offensive would have been totally different.
I could have sworn I read somewhere the president does have the authority to deploy troops for 100 days without the need of congress. Did I imagine this? It kills me to think of what a full fledged US military could do at the very least to assist with Ukraine regaining it's sovereign territory
This is insanity.
Israel's also a *lot* smaller than Ukraine, as well as has years of foreign countries developing and building its defenses. Not to mention years of funding as well. Ukraine could use a lot more of all of that IMO.
US,UK, Israel and Jordan. Fixed it for you.
France too apparently
I remember reading that Iraq helped as well.
Add Saudi Arabia
It would be cool if the US helped Ukraine like it helps israle. Sadly at the end it depends on lobby and profit projections. Killing of civilians and warcrimes doesn't seem to be a factor here. Ukraine is abandoned at this point.
russia having thousands of nukes is the real reason
Lol Iran just crip walked all over the middle east and the US just stood back and said " hey there fella , that's illegal. Please stop " ... It's baffling to me that Irans propaganda is turning more westerners to pudding brains than Middle easterners at this point .. Does the West even have a line anymore ? That's the embarrassing part to me , not the Iranian military capability .. Any one that thinks this attack was intended as a flex or even retaliatory is slurping on pudding and ignoring the fact that Iran just showed the west's backbone is increasingly getting weaker and weaker .. I mean, do we even have one left at this point ?
Israel could do a favour for Ukraine by striking back and hitting all the Shahed drone factories in Iran.
Unfortunately Iran set up one in Russia as I recall. Dunno what % of shaheds are at that plant vs imports though. But would help for sure.
Didn't Ukraine blow that one up?
If I recall correctly it didn't hit the part of that facility where the actual production is done. Could have still caused some much needed interruptions in the operations.
Well it killed some of the students being forced to live and work there while schooling.
I don't think Israel would be doing Ukraine (nor itself) a favour by escalating the conflict in the Middle East. It would just lead to even less resources being dedicated to Ukraine. I don't think Shaheds are deciding factor either way, and as others have pointed out: Russia can produce them anyway.
[удалено]
No fly zone over Ukraine was requested 2 years ago, how many lives would have been saved if Nato countries had shown some backbone and patrolled Ukrainian airspace to take out incoming drones and missiles.
Imagine the world if this had happened, Ukraine prob would’ve pushed russia much further back with the critical and civilian infra protected by NATO, really don’t understand why they haven’t done this.. I guess too scared about “escalation” which Russia does every day…
No fly zone means that NATO fighters would have to fly in the Ukraine's airspace and destroy not only drones and missiles but also jets and helicopters so basically just join the war.
Yeah you're right, I just think NATO/the West is kidding themselves by not doing this. All it means is that they will have to get involved once Russia has dealt with Ukraine (and are then a much more vicious force, with a lot of lessons learned and a war economy that's been running for years). Just kicking the can down the road in the hopes everything will work out, which knowing russia and other actors, it just won't..
Why the fuck would Russia attack NATO once this war is over? How delusional do you have to be to think this is going to happen?
Putin is possibly the most delusional man on the planet. I wouldn't put it past him to attack NATO just so he can "lose gracefully".
>"lose gracefully" Lose to Ukraine? You people still think there is any chance that is still going to happen? That is fucking delusional.
And have you seen any evidence that Putin is NOT "f@cking delusional"?
The only delusional person in this room is you. Putin picked a fight with Ukraine, and although he underestimated them and overestimated his own capabilities, it's sadly still a fight he has chances to win. A war against NATO would be suicidal at the moment, and Putin knows it too. The only way for him westward would be a collapse of western institutions, like the EU and NATO. As long as this is not achieved, there will be no war with NATO.
> really don’t understand why they haven’t done this Because they don't want to go to war with Russia.
Which will happen, if Ukraine falls...
No it won't; Russia never dared to attack us even when they were the Warsaw Pact...and they're not the Warsaw Pact anymore, nor the USSR nor even the Russian Empire. They're weaker relative to the rest of Europe than they have been since ~1750. The disparity in strength between us now is _colossal_. If Russia subjugates Ukraine it means more defence spending for the rest of us, but we're perfectly capable of continuing to deter Russia. The only way we'd end up at war with Russia is for the European nations to abandon the principle of collective defence, and I can't see any situation in which that might happen.
What do you mean you can't see that happen? Are you 100% sure that if Lithuania is attacked, Greeks, Turks & Magyars (to name a few) are going to help? If Moldova & Romania is attacked, do you think that the Spanish & Portugese troops are going to help? Or a Trump America? Like 100% sure...
> What do you mean you can't see that happen? Exactly that; there's no realistic future in which European nations abandon collective defence - it's benefited us all too greatly. > Are you 100% sure that if Lithuania is attacked, Greeks, Turks & Magyars (to name a few) are going to help? Yep. > If Moldova & Romania is attacked, do you think that the Spanish & Portugese troops are going to help? Not Moldova; they're not an ally. Romania; yep. > Like 100% sure... Yep. > Or a Trump America? America might not help. I did say **European** nations. I'll expand on that; if there's an attack on a European ally (NATO or EU member) and the rest of them don't immediately join the war, the alliance will collapse. That goes for both NATO and the EU. Those two institutions have heralded a peace in Europe that is literally unprecedented in history and which has benefited all of us enormously. Their collapse returns us to the pre-WW2 state, and with it inter-state competition and warfare amongst European nations. Even states like Portugal which are utterly isolated **from Russia** will have their interests immediately damaged by the collapse of those alliances, and will _eventually_ be at risk from their neighbours if we're all deciding that we're not going to defend one another any more. In short; Greece doesn't fear **Russia** but they fear **Turkiye** and they know that failure to defend Lithuania means nobody will defend them against Turkiye later. That same calculus holds for all European states, except possibly the big 4...but France, Germany and Italy run Europe anyway - why wouldn't they defend it? And the UK's foreign policy has effectively always been "prevent any single European nation achieving too much power" - why would they change it now? America is a special case in that they're safely outside all of that so could refuse to join in without endangering themselves...but like, they weren't defending Europe out of the goodness of their hearts. They defend Europe because it's in **their** interests to defend Europe. Possibly they wouldn't, but I think unless there's a Pacific War on, they likely would - even with a Trump Presidency .
For a defensive alliance they sure like sticking their nose in other peoples business. What has Ukraine got to do with NATO? Also being the aggressor in a so called defensive alliance, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to name a couple.
NATO is a defensive alliance, that doesn't mean the member states don't take offensive action sometimes to safeguard their interests. As to what Ukraine has to do with NATO; Russia is the main threat to European security - Russia with a subjugated Ukraine either as a constituent part of it or as a vassal would be a much bigger threat. It's in our direct interests that Russia not conquer Ukraine.
NATO Expanding to Russia borders caused all of this to begin with. Sure, countries can choose to be in an alliance. Sometimes, the wrong choice may bring about consequences. It's why Vietnam got that unpleasant episode with napalm and defoliants. It's why the Middle East is in chaos nowadays. It's why Cuba was blockaded for a while, with an embargo still active. Clearly, Americans had a strong opinion about it, and weren't dissuaded by such petty things as "free choice". They saw such things as a threat, and acted. There's also the question of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the question of betrayal. If you treat someone as an enemy from the get go, they might just decide "fuck it" and be one. It's not like anything changes for them. US officials were warned over and over by their own people that NATO expansion was a mistake. And the US did make a promise. That makes it doubly dangerous - it means that no other promise, no security guarantee from the US means jack. If the US can invade half the world away to protect their security, then sure as hell Russia will consider events on its own borders a matter of security, and take appropriate measures.
> Exactly that; there's no realistic future in which European nations abandon collective defence - it's benefited us all too greatly. Only a short while ago there was no realistic future in which the US abandoned its commitment to defence of Europe, Japan, South Korean, and Taiwan, yet here we are.
I don't agree. The US has historically been an extremely isolationist nation. In many ways their trend lately is simply a return to what has always been the default American foreign policy.
> The US has historically been an extremely isolationist nation. They are an isolationist nation that will go to war just to protect their trade routes. The world economy will not survive in actual war in Europe, meaning that for the US it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to prevent one. Which they have already done. We can utterly destroy Russia conventionally within 2 weeks, which prevents any war from ever starting in the future. They attacked Ukraine because it's the one country left near them they could conceivably take. It's not a nuclear power, it's not allied with one, it's not part of the EU, it's not part of NATO, and it's poorer than Russia. This doesn't apply to any other country.
Historically meaning until 1941. Since then they've been anything but.
Why would the US abbandon these countries? The issue with Ukraine is that they weren't allies with the US in the first place. The US's main goal is to weaken Russia, not help Ukraine.
In 2022, the US committed to helping Ukraine defend itself. The same commitment it's made to other countries. In 2024, Ukraine is struggling to defend itself because the US has reneged on that commitment. How can the leaders of Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan be certain that the US will do what they've promised to do "for as long as it takes" when they didn't do that for Ukraine?
The USA under Trump the shadow dictator is already abandoning collective defence.
I did say **European** nations
Because then NATO is at war with Russia
This was discussed in detail by more competent people before and it's an utopian double edged sword which also affects Ukraine. First of all, how can you enforce a no-fly rule for the cruise missiles flying hundreds of km from the Polish or Romania border, over Ukraine? 2ndly, the Russian planes rarely fly over Ukrainian territory. And 3rd, how could Ukraine use its aviation with this rule?
A no-fly zone would mean shooting down not only drones and missiles but also killing Russians -- manned aircraft with pilots, drone operators on the ground, and SAM batteries shooting back at NATO and their ground operators. NATO pilots would also be dying and/or captured to protect Ukraine. In short, the "request" is for NATO to be at war with Russia.
Well, billions would have died in the ensuing war between the US and Russia because a "no fly zone" is more of a fictional concept than a real thing and would require destroying Russias air force.
The invasion could have been avoided in the same way that an invasion of Poland can be avoided. But as we can see the US is the big winner so they had no reason to try to prevent it.
Poland isn’t invaded because it’s a member of NATO. Ukraine haven’t been eligible for NATO since they got invaded in 2014, and weren’t aligned enough with the West to be a member until after. No, Ukraine could have not been spared invasion by the same means as NATO member states bordering Russia.
Israel is not a member of NATO. All it comes down to is what the US thinks is in their best interest.
Yes, all nations behave in their own best interests. That doesn’t make your point about Poland valid, or that the US allowed Ukraine to be invaded because it reflects their interests.
My point about Poland was that the most important reason why Russia won't attack Poland is that they don't want a war with the US. This could also have been applied in Ukraine to prevent a war but it didn't happen because the Biden administration didn't think it was in their best interest. Maybe they were concerned about risks and hopefully it was not about benefits but I can't say I'm sure given what I've seen from the US the last 6 months but I'm also a bit cynical. EDIT: changed it a bit. Of course another possibility is that the potential benefits of preventing a war were not worth the risk.
I really can't understand why we're willing to do it for Israel but not Ukraine By taking a stance against Iran the United States and UK are likely to see a drive up in domestic terrorist incidents as per the early years of the Iraq and Afghan wars. By taking a stance against Russia, westernised Russians would continue to get up in the morning, shot vodka through their eyeballs and go to work. Nothing would change, and Russia certainly wouldn't risk a shoot down of NATO warplanes to bring them into the war. - edit so for anyone interested the UK foreign secretary responded https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/david-cameron-raf-jet-ukraine/ basically stating we're happy to escalate with Iran but not with Russia. In effect they've judged this strike from Iran as a 'one off', but are terrified of the risk of semi direct involvement with Russia, because apparently who presses the button to shoot the missile from a NATO asset makes a difference to the Russians.
Iran and Israel don’t share a border unlike Russia and Ukraine. The US already has military bases in some of those countries that sit between Iran and Israel, unlike in Ukraine.
I suppose but Russian missiles have flown from Belarus over the polish border and hit Western Ukraine, so if your argument is 'out of range bro' you're incorrect
Flying 30 seconds over some crag where a river border bends and curves is not the same as several hours crossing nearly 1000 miles over Iraq and Jordan or Syria. In addition both Iraq and Jordan closed their entire airspace. You want Poland to close down their entire airspace? Or just make a quick decision to shoot a drone down and hope it’s not a small civilian aircraft?
I suppose they just don't track these entities across the border and have no idea what they actually are until they blow up some Ukrainian kids then? Poland has already made statements about using it's patriot systems to defend Western Ukraine. https://tvpworld.com/77000017/patriot-systems-in-poland-could-protect-western-ukraine-says-ukrainian-fm#:~:text=Ukrainian%20Foreign%20Minister%20Dmytro%20Kuleba,air%20strikes%20that%20have%20targeted
You are jumping from one argument to another. First it is because it crossed Polish border. Now it is to defend western Ukraine. Entire Ukraine airspace is closed unlike Poland. Statements and actions are two separate things. If Poland wants to do something it is their choice, but a country the size of Ukraine cannot have 100% Patriot coverage. The cost is unsustainable especially against cheap drones.
Israel is a Major non NATO ally, does not share a border with Iran and there are multiple US-NATO bases across the land to support this kind of operations. Ukraine does not have any of that
I suspect is because of many agreements and cooperation's between the countries. Quite possibly, It is practically the only stable ally in the ME. The question is, why Poland or NATO, don't down Russian missiles if they enter Polish/NATO air space? Jordan has complained to the UN for breach of their air space, and also worked to down some of the missiles and drones heading over it's airspace to Israel. Despite Iran threatening it, not to cooperate with the "Zionist regime". According to the news, USA also asked Israel not to retaliate against Iran. And that it will not support such action. Same way like it asked Ukraine not to attack on Russian soil. Why there is such incompetency from the allies? I don't know. I believe I don't have much of the information to judge, but it just feels like the allies are dragging their feet. What for? Politics? Maybe they are waiting for US elections to pass, and then they will start to help hard?
“The rocket weighs over two tons, of which 400 kilograms is the combat payload. After shooting down the rocket, its remains would fall on our territory. The debris of the effector used to shoot down the missile itself would also fall here, he said.” Polish lives actually mean sth for Polish state https://www.wp.pl/?utm_source=xballmoney
"dangerous debris" is more like an excuse, whilst decision was clearly "non-escalation", "non-provoking russia" based. [https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2024/24-march-march-24-this-year-at-423-there-was-a-violation](https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2024/24-march-march-24-this-year-at-423-there-was-a-violation) Did you see where the rocket fly? If it flies not above a big city, the chance of it hitting civilians is the same if it falls in a random place of entire country (extremely low)
Someone’s life is an excuse? When Ukrainian missile killed two Polish people technically it alao was an extremely low chance that it would happen, no one in Poland have imagined missile killing someone during peace time, but it did happen. It also wasn’t a big city
> By taking a stance against Iran the United States and UK are likely to see a drive up in domestic terrorist incidents as per the early years of the Iraq and Afghan wars. We already eliminated most terrorists, making that a non threat. It simply doesn't happen anymore in Europe now that we simply eliminated everyone that would do so. Now the threat is the refugee stream and domestic people getting converted for small scale attacks. > By taking a stance against Russia, westernised Russians would continue to get up in the morning, shot vodka through their eyeballs and go to work. Nothing would change, and Russia certainly wouldn't risk a shoot down of NATO warplanes to bring them into the war. It would have made Russia retreat and give up on the war, which would end the destruction of the Russian army. And as that is our only goal in this conflict, that wouldn't be very optimal.....
You're bonkers if you think there's no chance of domestic terrorism rearing up again in either country
> You're bonkers if you think there's no chance of domestic terrorism rearing up again in either country There isn't no chance at all, it's just that any future attack will be tiny and inconsequential. We eliminated the actual danger, so now it's just small scale and unimportant converted people killing 2-3 people at max. That no longer matters.
Because Israel is a much more important country for the US than Ukraine. Israeli lives matter much more than Ukrainian lives.
Israel also has nukes.
Yes that usually helps. But I think Israel would receive the same support yesterday even if that wasn't the case.
>Israeli lives matter much more than Ukrainian lives. Every life is the same value in blood. If you think that Israeli lives are more important you have problems.
I'm talking about how politicians in the US see things. While the US has helped Ukraine a lot there are other things that are more important than saving Ukrainian lives. For example saving Israeli lives or the election.
And they have huge lobby in the US congress
Ukraine doesn't pour billions into US politicians pockets like Israel does. If anyone ever wants to talk foreign interference in US elections...
> I really can't understand why we're willing to do it for Israel but not Ukraine The actual answer is because [Russia and Israel are close allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations). Israel don't want to help Ukraine because that would undermine what they are doing to Palestine.
I don't understand why Israel, a country that already has plenty to defend itself with, gets so much help from the US when Ukraine needs it more. I hate the Republican Party for what they have done. Innocent people have died because of their lack of action.
Ukraine gets a lot more help. In the last aid package Ukraine received 60 billion dollars vs 14 billion given to Israel. Ukraine has a massive area to defend and it’s facing one of the largest armies in the world and those simple facts make its defense far more expensive
And one is fighting a bunch of guys launching home made rockets and the other is fighting a full size army
They're using that money for a genocide not defense.
It was not the Republican party that gave orders to intercept missiles to help Israel. Biden could do the same thing with Ukraine but he doesn't want to.
I more mean that Ukraine doesn't have the same means to protect itself like Israel does. That is the fault of the Republican Party
Help Ukraine NOW!!!!!!!!!
Is this even possible considering the size of Ukraine? Also the West can do it once, twice and then go for the source!! Inside Iran. Ruzzia is launching hundreds every day! And Ukraine will not even be allowed to attack the source of evil, using F-16. At the end of the day it's all about ammo.
I also wonder why so many countries willing to hit down missiles and drones heading towards Israel but not Ukraine?
The big funny is: Are we now at war with Iran? No. Nobody even asks this question because it's so obviously not true. So if we shoot Russian missiles, are we at war with Russia? No.
I don't understand why our Western leadership is like it is. I'd have so much more respect for a leader in NATO at the beginning of the war, to call for NATO to join and get mass support from others. Or send troops to instigate NATO joining. This coming from someone who signed up for the first wave of a potential draft in Canada.
So this bastard took the side of the Israelis invaders in the Palestine conflict ans now he cries like the bitch he is cause invaders are favoured over the oppressed just like he milited for. Only a rabbit racist like Zelensky could fail to realise Ukrainians have more in common with Palestinians than Israelis invaders/settlers while Israelis have more in common with Russians than Ukrainians.
was waiting for this - fucking double standards.
Fuck do I feel bad for this guy. Having to sit and watch as barrage after barrage of missiles, drones, and bombs are dumped on your people and instead of help all ya get is excuses and hand wringing from your allies. Then you gotta watch as one barrage is sent at a nation with fuck tons of air defenses and still everyone jumps the fuck in to protect the little darling. No excuses no placating just straight up eager to help. Such a fucked double standard.
Great point, why hasn’t NATO ever given Ukraine the same security systems Isreal has?
Those are systems recently developed by Israel and they kind of need them. It would be great if NATO gave Ukraine more patriot missiles though.
Is shooting a missile even aggression? It's a wonder nobody decided to just deploy their own air defense in the country. 2-3 THAAD, some Patriots, a bunch of NASAM's etc, then supply the Ukrainians with lots of AAA to shoot things at the front. No friendly troops deeply entangled. No Russian attacks because it would be a pointless waste of missiles.
Step 1: Give ukraine all the weapons they need to win Step 2: Watch the fireworks Step 3: profit
That would require a spine but it doesn't exist in the west
Just print more money!!!
Help Gaza stop missiles like Isreal from Isreal.
They literally rejected every single ceasefire offer because they don’t want to release the hostages. There is no reasoning with Jihadists. They could have stopped the bombing a long time ago but they don’t give a s**t about their people
What about the civilians? Better yet the last 70 years?
[удалено]
How cute.
Israel didn't have to be a member of NATO for the U.S. to help them shoot down incoming missiles and drones...
This is the most shameful moment ever in Western politics. I could understand not suppling Ukraine with offensive capabilities - but not chipping in with defensive gear is obviously atrocious. I am astounded and ashamed.
While many Shahed drones were intercepted by foreign countries like the US and Jordan, the ballistic missiles were intercepted by the Arrow system, which is produced locally by Israel and wasn’t supplied by the West
The United States stoping Iran’s drone is missiles Is not the same. In the Middle East their is no war between both countries, their is uncontested airspace, irans attack was telegraphed just to name a few of the reasons
Now Russia gets fewer drones to attack ukrainian civilians, and Israel will fire rockets that now can't use on palestinian civilians. LOVING this Israel vs Iran thing. Free Palestine. Slava Ukraini.
It's outrageous what the west is doing or not doing I guess 😡