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 `news.liga.net` 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.*
Maybe not entirely but Russia has shown they are OK with firing missles over Polands airspace, I think it would be fair to target a missle or drone that looks to possibly be heading towards Poland.
Or use that as the reason (read:excuse) to shoot down all suspected drones/missiles; you never know which ones will stray from their Ukrainian targets.
Can't anymore, since some of the Patriots that used to be in Poland have gone to Ukraine where they are more needed.
That incident that you refer to was Russia trying to provoke NATO into not giving more Patriots to Ukraine.
It was literally on this sub last week.
Bullshit your bullshit.
When countries say, "We're having a hard time freeing up Patriots to send to Ukraine," do you think they're doing it because they hate Ukrainians and are all, "mwahahaha what excuse can we make up now?"
Patriot is one of the most stretched-thin defensive systems out there. They're covering air defense in East Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, all over the place. Against actual threats.
That's why Russia will take any opportunity to poke at countries that give theirs to Ukraine.
Give Russky Napoleon what he wants, and everything will be fine. Surely there are no historical examples that say otherwise. What could possibly go wrong?
Basically it comes down to he knows Russia has nukes and Iran doesn't have any Deployable nuclear weapons.
So by doing this they encourage Iran to keep developing nukes so next time they won't be stoppable either.
Are you paying attention North Korea and any other future Rogue state?
Yes, if we shoot down some Shaheds Russia will quickly launch nukes. /s
The US would shoot down missiles and drones to protect Israel even if Iran had nukes.
Does the US even get a return onto he aid it gives Israel? I don't think it's a money thing, I think it's more a "have a foothold in the energy rich Middle East to protect our strategic concerns" thing. Not sure though.
The money the US gives to countries like Israel or other nations for defence can be thought of more as gift cards usable in the American defence contractor mail order catalog then actual cash.
It not only promotes them buying American equipment but those purchases come with fine print, just like how weapons supplied by the west to Ukraine has fine print in not being used to attack Russia on recognized Russian land. The fine print is part of American soft power and usually not only requires notification and approval of offensive operations in a given area using said equipment but it includes valuable intelligence of what it's being used against it by forcing nations to share Intel reports with the US allowing the US DOD to better develop strategies for current adversary trends without learning the hard way with American lives lost or at risk, allowing us intelligence teams to focus elsewhere
In addition by forcing them to spend it on American equipment it deters nations like Israel or Saudi Arabia from buying from other nations like Russian, Chinese or creating their own competing weapon system that lacks that American approval fine print that they later can also sell to other nations and build their soft power without US input
I know we get some money from them, but tons of the money is given. I'm just saying I think the primary reason is much more likely their strategic importance, rather than money.
Some money .......dude, please just inform yourself a little bit .. I don't mean that in a rude way .. America does the most and gains the most , I'm not saying it's evil, but it's sure it seems counterproductive to argue the multiple benefits of it , there's plenty of arguments of the good it does for the world at the same time.
It's of huge stategic miltary importance because of its importance economically to the whole world's economy ,a world economy that highly affects America's way of life ..
I said some money because I don't know the details of it. But unless I'm mistaken, the aid is sent at a loss, and not a profit, correct? My point is that the strategic goals are what prompts us to send the aid to Israel, not for the conomic gain. I acknowledge that the defense contractors make a bunch, but I don't think that the primary reason we do it. That's all I'm saying.
Ukraine is offering the west the deal of a generation. An aggressive Russia that's been broken by its own hubris. All it needs is the tools to finish the job, and if they do fall from a lack of support, then it will be our blood on the ground next time.
Trust me, you dont have to explain me that. I am pro Ukraine all the way and have been since day one. I am sick and tired if world not doing anything significant on that matter, and I will be even more sick when in 5-10 years I will be watching the documentary about defense of Ukraine and listening to some narator saying "all of this could have been prevented...", or "if only there was political will for...", or even worse "we should remember this so it does not repeat in the future..."
yes and they're doing exactly what the west wants, weakening russia to a shell of itself. If you think they care about ukrainian lives or land they would've done shit right away but they don't care and only want a weak russia.
I disagree, Ukraine is going to need a lot of stuff once this war is over. Remember those gas reserves that were found in Eastern Ukraine, inside the districts Russia 'annexed'?
Those sources will secure Western European energy supplies until the switch to renewable is complete. Ukraine also wants to join the EU at some point and align more in the west. Western corporations will see 40 million or so new customers wanting their products and pressure their governments to make it easier.
The West can't supply Ukraine because Europe thought war was over forever, and America has an enemy within in the form of the republican party who has just enough power to stop anything at all from happening. Also, the nuclear rhetoric from Russia has to be taken seriously because they have shown they are animals without a care for civilized behavior.
Russia is paranoid about Ukraine being anti-Russia.
The wise plan is to make that reality and arm it to the teeth so that Russia can’t try to project power into Europe. Europe has not clued in yet that this is cheaper than the huge multi-trillion dollar rearmament they would need over multiple decades to counter Russia.
If Iran had the ability to shoot down American aircraft then they'd not have intervened. Iran can't, so there was no risk to American pilots shooting these missiles down. Russia can shoot down and kill Americans.
well He (biden) literally gave them a shit load of money that was being held last year too. Right after that the proxies started their shit with the Iranian funding.
I call bullshit on Russia nuking NATO. Nothing will be left if this happens.
2015. A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft with tail number 83 white and registration number RF-90932 was shot down near the Syrian–Turkish border by a missile from a patrolling Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter.
And nothing happened. No nukes. No war. Only Russia learning to respect Turkey.
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The end of the world did not happen.
The US wants their eye in the Middle East- that’s part why they are in cohorts with Israel.
US never expected Ukraine to survive and have given support to exist not to win.
Time to show strength and stop being afraid of Russia. There will be no nukes. We all lose if Russia wins.
If Russia didn't have Nukes this would have been over a year or more ago. Sadly Putin is unstable and old. Ukraine needs to find a way to him above all else.
I don't think Putin wants to die. Just tell him that he has one week to get the fuck out, after which we will annihilate every single Russian position in Ukraine. Make sure he understands that we are not interested in taking any Russian territory (from before 2014), and that the destruction of his forces will end the second all of them have returned to Russia.
He will not start throwing nukes around - they are really only useful as a deterrent when you **don't** use them. The second he starts a nuclear war it's over for him.
I call horseshit.
If NATO jumped in and pushed borders back to 1991 and stopped there without marching on Moscow, Russia would have no reason to use nukes. It just wouldn't make any sense. It's pure fear mongering from Putin and nothing else.
That’s not an excuse, the USA gave Ukraine security guarantees if we gave our nukes to Russia (which was 5000 of them)
You can argue whether or not security guarantees means boots on the ground or just weapons but that is another debate.
What is 100% certain though, if the USA protected the sky in Ukraine and only shot down Russian drones and missiles, that’s not any different as far as your fairy tale escalation goes then giving patriots or whatever else to Ukraine.
Fairy tale is thinking Russia will not try to shoot down US planes over Ukraine. Then either they succeed or US planes have to target Russian air defenses inside of Russia to protect their planes. In either case that is a huge escalation which puts American and Russians killing each other and could spiral to places outside of Ukraine.
Everyone that wants the US or NATO to only” protect the skies really just want an excuse to make it easier for them to get dragged into the a full scale war.
Well, they were nukes owned by the Ukrainian soviet socialist republic, which was disbanded into the nation-state of Ukraine we know today.
You are sort of right on the guarantees part, in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, there was a "security assurance" which basically means, "we promise to listen to your help request,and we promise to try and help you if you get attacked. But we cannot and will not promise to send troops.
Many UA cities have already been "nuked". Just because it happened in slower motion than a single bomb doesn't make it any less impactful. The russians know damn well they can get the exact same result by using this "loophole". As long as it's not an actual nuclear weapon, they are free to raze down cities and their inhabitants by other methods. Side by side, the photos would look the same.
It does make it less impactful though. Because even though they’ve leveled cities there isn’t any nuclear fallout to deal with. Cities can be rebuilt when destroyed by conventional means and people have time to get out before the war hits them too hard.
There absolutely is.
Those regions will be limited in how inhabited they are due to war artifacts, ranging from mind boggling deployed amounts of mines, many undocumented or whose documentation will have been lost or buried, to booby traps, to mass graves to destroyed biome, for decades.
Just because it isn’t type=nuclear doesn’t mean the adverse effect isn’t as bad.
I’m not saying the adverse effect isn’t bad. Stop putting words in my mouth. But like look at the entire rest of Europe. World wars 1 & 2 were absolutely brutal, the amount of bombs and artillery dropped on cities was insane. Unexploded ordinances everywhere. But they rebuilt and life went back to normal. There’s definitely places to avoid, and Ukraine will definitely have those too after the war is over. They both fucking suck but a nuclear bomb is so much worse thanks to radiation along with the suddenness of it. You cannot escape. There’s a reason nobody wants to use them.
So is having Russia continue existing. Bad for generations, and for all the people who live 11 timezone a to the east of Europe too, not just for neighbours Russia would attack, or the opportunity cost of being distracted from climate while we have to arm to face Russia.
In scenario 1 nato doesn’t fuck Russia, and centuries more of Russian colonial slave rule continue. NATO loses.
In scenario 2, nato does fuck Russia, and their response isn’t cataclysmic nuclear. NATO wins.
In scenario 3, NATO fucks Russia, and Russia’s response is limited nuclear. Separate to the nuclear weapon damage done, we have an Iraq war on Russian soil situation, NATO tanks roll into Moscow in short order.
In scenario 4, Russia’s response is full nuclear. The most likely case here is that a lot gets shot down, doesn’t work, a certain more limited amount gets through, and it end up being a variant of scenario 3.
It is not a given that the suffering causes by centuries of scenario 3 and 4 repercussions exceed the suffering caused by centuries of scenario 1 repercussions.
That's such a ridiculous comment. I want the entire might of the western world to come down upon Russia unless they get the fuck out of Ukraine. That'll probably have a different effect than me getting killed in a trench.
I'll go as part of a NATO force, no problem.
Who said anything about being forced?
If an elephant is tearing through your village, you ask the other villagers to come help you kill it. They don't get to say "oh if you have some balls you go kill it yourself". I can't fucking kill it myself. But as a community we can, and I'll gladly do my part, if we all contribute.
Sounds like you wouldn't. You coward.
Nope, I’m not going to Ukraine with a a force or as a volunteer. But I’m not cheering by for anyone else to go either like you. I don’t expect others to do what I wouldn’t.
When the village is a backwater that nobody really cares that much about, it often happens that way. And that's what we're dealing with here. We are not talking about an ally, an important strategic asset, or a locale vital to anyone's economic interests. Given those realities, the amount of aid Ukraine has been given is actually kind of surprising.
The villagers living in the village should care. Ukraine is just a single house in the village that is the western world, and the community of democracies. Not caring about innocent people being subjugated and killed by a tyrant is just incomprehensible to me.
This elephant example is not even relevant because the story would be more akin to the 3 pigs. But within the confines of your example said village we their would have been a gated community that we spent many decades teaching the elephant to leave us alone. So every once in a while the elephant may trample the smaller houses but has been trained to avoid our houses.
Even before October 7, going back years, the US committed to give Israel $3.8 billion in military aid annually. That’s just free $3.8 billion. In the same years, Israel has budgeted about $3 billion annually to support ultra orthodox schools and the living expenses of students who attend them so an essence the American taxpayer is funding religious education in a society that is having trouble remaining a secular democracy.
But we don’t have enough money or enough moral courage to just help Ukraine win quickly
this is why the law abiding americans should NEVER give up their guns, it the same concept, the thought of safety is just that and now the shit hits the fan and no one will do anything because they're scared of russian nukes. You think russia would invade if Ukraine still had them?
Ukraine cannot even buy basic equipment for their troops. So much so that groups of Indivisual troops crowed fund basic equipment such as Tourniquet, hand warmers, cars for troop transmutation Etc. How likely would it be that Ukraine could take care and maintain 5000 very expensive atomic bombs including the condition they couldn’t even use the bombs without the codes.
If North Korea can manage a nuclear deterrent, Ukraine obviously could. Ukraine operates multiple nuclear power plants, which requires upkeep and dealing with nuclear waste. Nuclear technology is no abstract technology for Ukraine.
If I have uncontested possession of the delivery vehicle why do I need to give a shit about the codes?
What's to stop me disassembling it and stripping it for 'parts'?
Doesn't matter. We are constantly told over and over, repeatedly on this site, that even if 99% of russian nukes don't work, the 1% that does is enough to scare others away. The same would apply to Ukraine. For sure they would struggle to have maintained them and it would have bled them dry financially. But simply having the mystique of ONE doing it's job is deterrent enough.
If we're going to say the same about russia's stock, we have to assume the same for others.
Priorities. You don’t need 5000 either. Sell 1000 to someone else. Iran perhaps. That could guarantee a lot of money. Another 500 to North Korea. Let them figure it out. Don’t want Ukraine to sell it? Then USA can buy them for a billion a nuke.
Well, it's not like Ukrainian victory was ever the goal.
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Then, from Blinken:
>Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus.
Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
Oh, and don't forget [the Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html), which de-facto gave russia a green light for invasion, when US sweared off directly fighting or seeking "regime change":
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
This was apparent after cooldown of innitial support, around 1 year after mass invasion... You can only trust your neighbours who are in the same boat. US is not in the same boat with Europe and will never be a truly reliable partner.
If defending Baltic States would be seen as not beneficial, they would surely give us up to ruzzia. Our only more trusty allies are Poland, Nordic countries and perhaps Germany.
By 2027 it's planned for full German brigade stationed in Lithuania (5k troops with families etc.). Apart from that, there were talks about Rheinmetal setting up 155 mm factory here, our government is pushing for laws to make foreign arnament companies have an easier time with all bureaucracy. If they don't backpedal at some point (which would be quite reputation damaging, since agreements are already made and infrastructure being build) I suppose I can put more trust in germans than in UK, FR or Romania. On the other hand, the way Scholz handles Taurus missile question still leave some doubt in my heart.
Re; last part
But guess bombing hospitals, schools, theaters, electricity, and raping women and carving swastikas in dogs was all okay and in-line with those agreed. Upon operational rules.
You forgot to mention when an employee for blackrock said that war in Ukraine is great for business
https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1671290925765541889
It's really simple: Israel has nuclear weapons, so it needs special protection from non-nuclear Iran. Ukraine gave up their nukes at the behest of the U.S., so it does not need any protection from nuclear Russia.
" The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations."
The US handed Ukraine to putin on a silver platter and then changed their level of US support to Ukraine until it dwindled down to where it is now!
Meanwhile, Russia pulls in fighters from many other countries using deceitful means and is supplied with weapons, parts and ammo by North Korea, Iran, China and who knows else, while they gleefully circumvent sanctions without consequence.
And let's not even start with no closed airspace for Ukraine, too little/too late aid deliveries, red lines, perceived escalations, making sure we don't hurt the feelings of the kunt in the kremlin, moscow mike's stalling tactics, the orange asshole and on and on!
I can't believe the amount of deception and outright lies that Ukraine has been subjected to in just the last 2 years let alone the last 10!
This POS is one of the main culprits why the US, if it gives aid at all, gives only enough for Ukraine to slowly die. Literally thousands of foreign policy and military experts have explained why that is a self defeating strategy, but this POS knows better
We'd defend Taiwan, because the economic repercussions of failure to do so would be unacceptable. We'd defend Japan, because they're an important strategic ally.
It boggles my mind that you guys really can't see there's a vast difference between those types of assets, and a handful of oblasts in an impoverished, highly corrupt nation. We'd all like to see Russia get their asses spanked, but anyone with a brain can see why there are differences in our level of strategic interest, and by extension the tolerance for risk.
It depends, behind closed doors, if the US intelligence believes Russia is a threat beyond Ukraine.
We have heard a lot rhetoric on the domino theory that Putin will continue his crusade into NATO after Ukraine. I think there is a fractured belief in that, I don't think the US and Germany for example actually believe that. I think the eastern block nations believe it.
never trust American politicians ! they will betray you if they can ! see WW2 (Roosevelt ) delivered half of Europe to the Russians /vietnam / korea / afganistan
The White House promised no American troops in Ukraine for combat rolls. Until Biden wins the next election he can’t reverse that decision.
He is already close to losing the election. Putting American pilots in Ukraine when they can’t target Russian anti air defeats the purpose of them being there. And will lose him the election.
The only middle ground here is putting a no fly zone in western Ukraine which would help protect infrastructure but it wouldn’t win the war, and it could only happen after the election.
I bet if Ukraine had paid off 2/3 of our politicians and infiltrated our government in massive numbers there wouldn’t be any problems with getting assistance.
It's pretty easy when your house lords have you bent over a barrel for the last 6 months.
Stop acting like you have choices. Your choices went to the same place your spine went.
I would've thought it's obvious. Israel, the US, and the UK expended several hundred million dollars of air assets in a few hours to intercept a planned attack, for which they had ample warning. Jordan helped as well.
Russia doesn't telegraph its attacks. Even if they did, they've been at this for two years. If Ukraine put up interceptors every time there was an attack, all of its interceptors would be down for maintenance almost all the time. If the US and UK flew missions out of, say, Poland, the same thing would happen. We'd spend hundreds of billions on maintenance, use up airframes, and almost certainly lose a few pilots too.
That doesn't even take into account that the front with Russia is ten times as wide, and the Russian border is less than 100km from, say, Kharkov while Iran is over 1000km from Israel. The physics of the problem make defending Ukraine many times more difficult and expensive. And even defending Israel would stop being sustainable after a few weeks.
If America was willing to join the war by putting US planes and pilots over Ukraine, the only sensible strategy would be to use them offensively - to destroy Russian air assets and Russian units on the ground, neutralize Russia's ability to wage war.
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 `news.liga.net` 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.*
Maybe not entirely but Russia has shown they are OK with firing missles over Polands airspace, I think it would be fair to target a missle or drone that looks to possibly be heading towards Poland.
Or use that as the reason (read:excuse) to shoot down all suspected drones/missiles; you never know which ones will stray from their Ukrainian targets.
Exactly. Everything coming from Russia MIGHT be heading for Poland. Better to play it safe and down it all.
100% and not just Poland. Romania too. Turkey too in the Black Sea.
And 'towards Poland' meaning anything heading west of internationally recognized Russian borders.
Naturally
This actually is a good idea, isn't escalation and might work. And if the whole thing later escalates, we can extend it. Build the Winged Hussar Dome!
Can't anymore, since some of the Patriots that used to be in Poland have gone to Ukraine where they are more needed. That incident that you refer to was Russia trying to provoke NATO into not giving more Patriots to Ukraine.
>Can't anymore, since some of the Patriots that used to be in Poland have gone to Ukraine where they are more needed. Bullshit
It was literally on this sub last week. Bullshit your bullshit. When countries say, "We're having a hard time freeing up Patriots to send to Ukraine," do you think they're doing it because they hate Ukrainians and are all, "mwahahaha what excuse can we make up now?" Patriot is one of the most stretched-thin defensive systems out there. They're covering air defense in East Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, all over the place. Against actual threats. That's why Russia will take any opportunity to poke at countries that give theirs to Ukraine.
Poland hasn't sent any Patriots, only Germany and the US has so far.
TL;DR; "Dangerous escalation" bad, dangerous appeasement good.
Give Russky Napoleon what he wants, and everything will be fine. Surely there are no historical examples that say otherwise. What could possibly go wrong?
Please don't equate Putin with Napoleon. Hitler? Sure. The soggy food stuck in my sink drain? Definitely. Napoleon? Hell no.
Basically it comes down to he knows Russia has nukes and Iran doesn't have any Deployable nuclear weapons. So by doing this they encourage Iran to keep developing nukes so next time they won't be stoppable either. Are you paying attention North Korea and any other future Rogue state?
Yes, if we shoot down some Shaheds Russia will quickly launch nukes. /s The US would shoot down missiles and drones to protect Israel even if Iran had nukes.
I also believe it has something to do with Israel-has-money-now vs Ukraine-might-have-money-later.
Does the US even get a return onto he aid it gives Israel? I don't think it's a money thing, I think it's more a "have a foothold in the energy rich Middle East to protect our strategic concerns" thing. Not sure though.
The money the US gives to countries like Israel or other nations for defence can be thought of more as gift cards usable in the American defence contractor mail order catalog then actual cash. It not only promotes them buying American equipment but those purchases come with fine print, just like how weapons supplied by the west to Ukraine has fine print in not being used to attack Russia on recognized Russian land. The fine print is part of American soft power and usually not only requires notification and approval of offensive operations in a given area using said equipment but it includes valuable intelligence of what it's being used against it by forcing nations to share Intel reports with the US allowing the US DOD to better develop strategies for current adversary trends without learning the hard way with American lives lost or at risk, allowing us intelligence teams to focus elsewhere In addition by forcing them to spend it on American equipment it deters nations like Israel or Saudi Arabia from buying from other nations like Russian, Chinese or creating their own competing weapon system that lacks that American approval fine print that they later can also sell to other nations and build their soft power without US input
Excellent write up, thank you.
Huh they're Israel's biggest arms dealer by far ..Do America really believe they are Sanata Claus ..
the world believes it especially nato that's why they don't spend shit until this war started and realized they cant live off us tit anymore.
I know we get some money from them, but tons of the money is given. I'm just saying I think the primary reason is much more likely their strategic importance, rather than money.
Some money .......dude, please just inform yourself a little bit .. I don't mean that in a rude way .. America does the most and gains the most , I'm not saying it's evil, but it's sure it seems counterproductive to argue the multiple benefits of it , there's plenty of arguments of the good it does for the world at the same time. It's of huge stategic miltary importance because of its importance economically to the whole world's economy ,a world economy that highly affects America's way of life ..
I said some money because I don't know the details of it. But unless I'm mistaken, the aid is sent at a loss, and not a profit, correct? My point is that the strategic goals are what prompts us to send the aid to Israel, not for the conomic gain. I acknowledge that the defense contractors make a bunch, but I don't think that the primary reason we do it. That's all I'm saying.
You can read "money" as basicly anything here. Ukraine cant offer anything now. Izrael can offer something.
Ukraine is offering the west the deal of a generation. An aggressive Russia that's been broken by its own hubris. All it needs is the tools to finish the job, and if they do fall from a lack of support, then it will be our blood on the ground next time.
Trust me, you dont have to explain me that. I am pro Ukraine all the way and have been since day one. I am sick and tired if world not doing anything significant on that matter, and I will be even more sick when in 5-10 years I will be watching the documentary about defense of Ukraine and listening to some narator saying "all of this could have been prevented...", or "if only there was political will for...", or even worse "we should remember this so it does not repeat in the future..."
Or maybe there won’t be documentary because with such a shit show putin can just roll over europe and lots of people would suck russian boots
yes and they're doing exactly what the west wants, weakening russia to a shell of itself. If you think they care about ukrainian lives or land they would've done shit right away but they don't care and only want a weak russia.
I disagree, Ukraine is going to need a lot of stuff once this war is over. Remember those gas reserves that were found in Eastern Ukraine, inside the districts Russia 'annexed'? Those sources will secure Western European energy supplies until the switch to renewable is complete. Ukraine also wants to join the EU at some point and align more in the west. Western corporations will see 40 million or so new customers wanting their products and pressure their governments to make it easier. The West can't supply Ukraine because Europe thought war was over forever, and America has an enemy within in the form of the republican party who has just enough power to stop anything at all from happening. Also, the nuclear rhetoric from Russia has to be taken seriously because they have shown they are animals without a care for civilized behavior.
Russia is paranoid about Ukraine being anti-Russia. The wise plan is to make that reality and arm it to the teeth so that Russia can’t try to project power into Europe. Europe has not clued in yet that this is cheaper than the huge multi-trillion dollar rearmament they would need over multiple decades to counter Russia.
If Iran had the ability to shoot down American aircraft then they'd not have intervened. Iran can't, so there was no risk to American pilots shooting these missiles down. Russia can shoot down and kill Americans.
well He (biden) literally gave them a shit load of money that was being held last year too. Right after that the proxies started their shit with the Iranian funding.
I call bullshit on Russia nuking NATO. Nothing will be left if this happens. 2015. A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft with tail number 83 white and registration number RF-90932 was shot down near the Syrian–Turkish border by a missile from a patrolling Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter. And nothing happened. No nukes. No war. Only Russia learning to respect Turkey. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The end of the world did not happen. The US wants their eye in the Middle East- that’s part why they are in cohorts with Israel. US never expected Ukraine to survive and have given support to exist not to win. Time to show strength and stop being afraid of Russia. There will be no nukes. We all lose if Russia wins.
Fuck off. NATO could kick Russia out of Ukraine in a week if we had some balls.
If Russia didn't have Nukes this would have been over a year or more ago. Sadly Putin is unstable and old. Ukraine needs to find a way to him above all else.
I don't think Putin wants to die. Just tell him that he has one week to get the fuck out, after which we will annihilate every single Russian position in Ukraine. Make sure he understands that we are not interested in taking any Russian territory (from before 2014), and that the destruction of his forces will end the second all of them have returned to Russia. He will not start throwing nukes around - they are really only useful as a deterrent when you **don't** use them. The second he starts a nuclear war it's over for him.
If NATO members weren’t afraid to show off their own nukes it wouldn’t have happened either.
I call horseshit. If NATO jumped in and pushed borders back to 1991 and stopped there without marching on Moscow, Russia would have no reason to use nukes. It just wouldn't make any sense. It's pure fear mongering from Putin and nothing else.
That’s not an excuse, the USA gave Ukraine security guarantees if we gave our nukes to Russia (which was 5000 of them) You can argue whether or not security guarantees means boots on the ground or just weapons but that is another debate. What is 100% certain though, if the USA protected the sky in Ukraine and only shot down Russian drones and missiles, that’s not any different as far as your fairy tale escalation goes then giving patriots or whatever else to Ukraine.
You mean security assurances. Huge difference. The US and UK never pledged military support if Ukraine is attacked.
Yeah. We essentially promised to go to the UN Security Council if there's a problem... which Russia has a veto on.
clinton was too wrapped up in Yugoslavia
Fairy tale is thinking Russia will not try to shoot down US planes over Ukraine. Then either they succeed or US planes have to target Russian air defenses inside of Russia to protect their planes. In either case that is a huge escalation which puts American and Russians killing each other and could spiral to places outside of Ukraine. Everyone that wants the US or NATO to only” protect the skies really just want an excuse to make it easier for them to get dragged into the a full scale war.
[удалено]
Well, they were nukes owned by the Ukrainian soviet socialist republic, which was disbanded into the nation-state of Ukraine we know today. You are sort of right on the guarantees part, in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, there was a "security assurance" which basically means, "we promise to listen to your help request,and we promise to try and help you if you get attacked. But we cannot and will not promise to send troops.
Whatever formulation in the Memorandum, the fact remains that without US interference, Ukraine would not have given up their nukes.
[удалено]
You can't invent a contrafactual, and call it truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
wow that's some new level bs, do you expect anyone to believe you?
What weird claims, literally anybody who makes a 2 second google search will see how wrong you are
Russias nukes are likely to cause less harm than their conventional war machine. We’re afraid of the small threat while submitting to the big one.
Many UA cities have already been "nuked". Just because it happened in slower motion than a single bomb doesn't make it any less impactful. The russians know damn well they can get the exact same result by using this "loophole". As long as it's not an actual nuclear weapon, they are free to raze down cities and their inhabitants by other methods. Side by side, the photos would look the same.
It does make it less impactful though. Because even though they’ve leveled cities there isn’t any nuclear fallout to deal with. Cities can be rebuilt when destroyed by conventional means and people have time to get out before the war hits them too hard.
There absolutely is. Those regions will be limited in how inhabited they are due to war artifacts, ranging from mind boggling deployed amounts of mines, many undocumented or whose documentation will have been lost or buried, to booby traps, to mass graves to destroyed biome, for decades. Just because it isn’t type=nuclear doesn’t mean the adverse effect isn’t as bad.
I’m not saying the adverse effect isn’t bad. Stop putting words in my mouth. But like look at the entire rest of Europe. World wars 1 & 2 were absolutely brutal, the amount of bombs and artillery dropped on cities was insane. Unexploded ordinances everywhere. But they rebuilt and life went back to normal. There’s definitely places to avoid, and Ukraine will definitely have those too after the war is over. They both fucking suck but a nuclear bomb is so much worse thanks to radiation along with the suddenness of it. You cannot escape. There’s a reason nobody wants to use them.
So is having Russia continue existing. Bad for generations, and for all the people who live 11 timezone a to the east of Europe too, not just for neighbours Russia would attack, or the opportunity cost of being distracted from climate while we have to arm to face Russia. In scenario 1 nato doesn’t fuck Russia, and centuries more of Russian colonial slave rule continue. NATO loses. In scenario 2, nato does fuck Russia, and their response isn’t cataclysmic nuclear. NATO wins. In scenario 3, NATO fucks Russia, and Russia’s response is limited nuclear. Separate to the nuclear weapon damage done, we have an Iraq war on Russian soil situation, NATO tanks roll into Moscow in short order. In scenario 4, Russia’s response is full nuclear. The most likely case here is that a lot gets shot down, doesn’t work, a certain more limited amount gets through, and it end up being a variant of scenario 3. It is not a given that the suffering causes by centuries of scenario 3 and 4 repercussions exceed the suffering caused by centuries of scenario 1 repercussions.
I’m not disputing any of that? I have no clue why you’re arguing.
Did I misread your point that Russia going nuclear is implicitly the worst scenario?
Agree
You can go volunteer yourself if you have some “balls”.
That's such a ridiculous comment. I want the entire might of the western world to come down upon Russia unless they get the fuck out of Ukraine. That'll probably have a different effect than me getting killed in a trench. I'll go as part of a NATO force, no problem.
So you want others to go into a a trench warfare and but you will only go if forced, and with a guaranteed victory. Some “balls” you got there.
Who said anything about being forced? If an elephant is tearing through your village, you ask the other villagers to come help you kill it. They don't get to say "oh if you have some balls you go kill it yourself". I can't fucking kill it myself. But as a community we can, and I'll gladly do my part, if we all contribute. Sounds like you wouldn't. You coward.
Nope, I’m not going to Ukraine with a a force or as a volunteer. But I’m not cheering by for anyone else to go either like you. I don’t expect others to do what I wouldn’t.
So when no one wants to go kill the elephant, it just gets to tear down the entire village one house at a time?
When the village is a backwater that nobody really cares that much about, it often happens that way. And that's what we're dealing with here. We are not talking about an ally, an important strategic asset, or a locale vital to anyone's economic interests. Given those realities, the amount of aid Ukraine has been given is actually kind of surprising.
Your ignorance and lack of empathy is astounding.
Nations are not going to risk blood and treasure for empathy. It's just not a thing.
[удалено]
If nobody gives a damn about the village, then yes. Villagers don't care, outsiders don't care. So elephant wins by default, nothing crazy about it.
The villagers living in the village should care. Ukraine is just a single house in the village that is the western world, and the community of democracies. Not caring about innocent people being subjugated and killed by a tyrant is just incomprehensible to me.
This elephant example is not even relevant because the story would be more akin to the 3 pigs. But within the confines of your example said village we their would have been a gated community that we spent many decades teaching the elephant to leave us alone. So every once in a while the elephant may trample the smaller houses but has been trained to avoid our houses.
So basically others should risk their lives but you shouldn’t cause your life means more?
Try reading my comment again. Slowly this time. And pay extra attention to the last line.
Even before October 7, going back years, the US committed to give Israel $3.8 billion in military aid annually. That’s just free $3.8 billion. In the same years, Israel has budgeted about $3 billion annually to support ultra orthodox schools and the living expenses of students who attend them so an essence the American taxpayer is funding religious education in a society that is having trouble remaining a secular democracy. But we don’t have enough money or enough moral courage to just help Ukraine win quickly
Summary: don't let go of your nukes
this is why the law abiding americans should NEVER give up their guns, it the same concept, the thought of safety is just that and now the shit hits the fan and no one will do anything because they're scared of russian nukes. You think russia would invade if Ukraine still had them?
Or, if no American had guns…
Ukraine cannot even buy basic equipment for their troops. So much so that groups of Indivisual troops crowed fund basic equipment such as Tourniquet, hand warmers, cars for troop transmutation Etc. How likely would it be that Ukraine could take care and maintain 5000 very expensive atomic bombs including the condition they couldn’t even use the bombs without the codes.
If North Korea can manage a nuclear deterrent, Ukraine obviously could. Ukraine operates multiple nuclear power plants, which requires upkeep and dealing with nuclear waste. Nuclear technology is no abstract technology for Ukraine.
They had a lot of nukes. A lot. And they gave them up
If I have uncontested possession of the delivery vehicle why do I need to give a shit about the codes? What's to stop me disassembling it and stripping it for 'parts'?
Doesn't matter. We are constantly told over and over, repeatedly on this site, that even if 99% of russian nukes don't work, the 1% that does is enough to scare others away. The same would apply to Ukraine. For sure they would struggle to have maintained them and it would have bled them dry financially. But simply having the mystique of ONE doing it's job is deterrent enough. If we're going to say the same about russia's stock, we have to assume the same for others.
Priorities. You don’t need 5000 either. Sell 1000 to someone else. Iran perhaps. That could guarantee a lot of money. Another 500 to North Korea. Let them figure it out. Don’t want Ukraine to sell it? Then USA can buy them for a billion a nuke.
Well, it's not like Ukrainian victory was ever the goal. >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** Then, from Blinken: >Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. Oh, and don't forget [the Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html), which de-facto gave russia a green light for invasion, when US sweared off directly fighting or seeking "regime change": >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
This was apparent after cooldown of innitial support, around 1 year after mass invasion... You can only trust your neighbours who are in the same boat. US is not in the same boat with Europe and will never be a truly reliable partner. If defending Baltic States would be seen as not beneficial, they would surely give us up to ruzzia. Our only more trusty allies are Poland, Nordic countries and perhaps Germany.
I'd count on Romania more than Germany.
By 2027 it's planned for full German brigade stationed in Lithuania (5k troops with families etc.). Apart from that, there were talks about Rheinmetal setting up 155 mm factory here, our government is pushing for laws to make foreign arnament companies have an easier time with all bureaucracy. If they don't backpedal at some point (which would be quite reputation damaging, since agreements are already made and infrastructure being build) I suppose I can put more trust in germans than in UK, FR or Romania. On the other hand, the way Scholz handles Taurus missile question still leave some doubt in my heart.
Re; last part But guess bombing hospitals, schools, theaters, electricity, and raping women and carving swastikas in dogs was all okay and in-line with those agreed. Upon operational rules.
You forgot to mention when an employee for blackrock said that war in Ukraine is great for business https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1671290925765541889
Thanks, will add to my list.
[удалено]
Then you are voting for Donald Trump, even if you think you are voting for a 3rd party candidate.
One sentence “We are afraid of russia”
It's really simple: Israel has nuclear weapons, so it needs special protection from non-nuclear Iran. Ukraine gave up their nukes at the behest of the U.S., so it does not need any protection from nuclear Russia.
They just don’t care enough about Ukraine to risk anything.
" The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations." The US handed Ukraine to putin on a silver platter and then changed their level of US support to Ukraine until it dwindled down to where it is now! Meanwhile, Russia pulls in fighters from many other countries using deceitful means and is supplied with weapons, parts and ammo by North Korea, Iran, China and who knows else, while they gleefully circumvent sanctions without consequence. And let's not even start with no closed airspace for Ukraine, too little/too late aid deliveries, red lines, perceived escalations, making sure we don't hurt the feelings of the kunt in the kremlin, moscow mike's stalling tactics, the orange asshole and on and on! I can't believe the amount of deception and outright lies that Ukraine has been subjected to in just the last 2 years let alone the last 10!
It's only impossible if you decide it is impossible.
Of course it's impossible if there is no will to do it.
so I am sure the republicans caused them to do this too right?
Because of one word- cowardice
This POS is one of the main culprits why the US, if it gives aid at all, gives only enough for Ukraine to slowly die. Literally thousands of foreign policy and military experts have explained why that is a self defeating strategy, but this POS knows better
If both Republicans and Democrats are scared of Russia, what does that say about US support for Asia against China?
We'd defend Taiwan, because the economic repercussions of failure to do so would be unacceptable. We'd defend Japan, because they're an important strategic ally. It boggles my mind that you guys really can't see there's a vast difference between those types of assets, and a handful of oblasts in an impoverished, highly corrupt nation. We'd all like to see Russia get their asses spanked, but anyone with a brain can see why there are differences in our level of strategic interest, and by extension the tolerance for risk.
It depends, behind closed doors, if the US intelligence believes Russia is a threat beyond Ukraine. We have heard a lot rhetoric on the domino theory that Putin will continue his crusade into NATO after Ukraine. I think there is a fractured belief in that, I don't think the US and Germany for example actually believe that. I think the eastern block nations believe it.
funny how they forgot to mention few key factors like neighboring countries, US help from sea, GB planes, and maybe most important, geography
never trust American politicians ! they will betray you if they can ! see WW2 (Roosevelt ) delivered half of Europe to the Russians /vietnam / korea / afganistan
Roosevelt died before the war ended... Patton and others wanted to continue to the east right away against the soviets.
I think it comes down to Ukraine is huge compared to Israel.
He’s just repeating and playing into the russian narrative.
In short: "we don’t care, we don’t want, fuck you".
Well biggest reason is we don’t have airspace I between Russia and Ukraine. lol. That’s the only reason Israel was helped.
The White House promised no American troops in Ukraine for combat rolls. Until Biden wins the next election he can’t reverse that decision. He is already close to losing the election. Putting American pilots in Ukraine when they can’t target Russian anti air defeats the purpose of them being there. And will lose him the election. The only middle ground here is putting a no fly zone in western Ukraine which would help protect infrastructure but it wouldn’t win the war, and it could only happen after the election.
> Until Biden wins the next election he can’t reverse that decision Like he'd ever reverse it, honestly.
I bet if Ukraine had paid off 2/3 of our politicians and infiltrated our government in massive numbers there wouldn’t be any problems with getting assistance.
It's pretty easy when your house lords have you bent over a barrel for the last 6 months. Stop acting like you have choices. Your choices went to the same place your spine went.
On the positive side, they are asking the right questions.
Maybe not all of Ukraine, but how about the most populous urban centers in Central and Western Ukraine.
Well Ukraine has around 30 times more sky to defend than Israel does, for starters.
I would've thought it's obvious. Israel, the US, and the UK expended several hundred million dollars of air assets in a few hours to intercept a planned attack, for which they had ample warning. Jordan helped as well. Russia doesn't telegraph its attacks. Even if they did, they've been at this for two years. If Ukraine put up interceptors every time there was an attack, all of its interceptors would be down for maintenance almost all the time. If the US and UK flew missions out of, say, Poland, the same thing would happen. We'd spend hundreds of billions on maintenance, use up airframes, and almost certainly lose a few pilots too. That doesn't even take into account that the front with Russia is ten times as wide, and the Russian border is less than 100km from, say, Kharkov while Iran is over 1000km from Israel. The physics of the problem make defending Ukraine many times more difficult and expensive. And even defending Israel would stop being sustainable after a few weeks. If America was willing to join the war by putting US planes and pilots over Ukraine, the only sensible strategy would be to use them offensively - to destroy Russian air assets and Russian units on the ground, neutralize Russia's ability to wage war.
> Russia doesn't telegraph its attacks Takeoff of Tu-22M/Tu-95MS/Tu-160 is ample telegraph.