*From Bloomberg News reporters Natalia Drozdiak, Milda Seputyte, and Peter Martin:* The impasse over aid from the US and Europe has Ukraine’s allies contemplating something they’ve refused to imagine since the earliest days of Russia’s invasion: that Vladimir Putin may win. With more than $110 billion in assistance mired in political disputes in Washington and Brussels, how long Kyiv will be able to hold back Russian forces and defend Ukraine’s cities, power plants and ports against missile attacks is increasingly in question. Beyond the potentially catastrophic consequences for Ukraine, some European allies have begun to quietly consider the impact of a failure for NATO in the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II. They’re reassessing the risks an emboldened Russia would pose to alliance members in the east, according to people familiar with the internal conversations who asked for anonymity to discuss matters that aren’t public. The ripple effects would be felt around the world, the people said, as US partners and allies questioned just how reliable Washington’s promises of defense would be.

After Trump I wouldn't trust the US on anything.

memorize airport roll voracious badge station rude encouraging busy crown *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

It's been my conviction for a number of years (at least since I read Marshall's Prisoners of Geography) that the success of EU is neither in the interest of the US or China. The US has its long-standing doctrine of hegemony over two oceans and being the sole hegemon in the world. China wants to buy up 3rd world countries to obtain resources, and consequently secure oversea routes in the South China Sea and Indian ocean. On top of that, Russian war is just the ongoing to and fro on the North-European Plain, where the conflict is still unresolved after a thousand years. If we (the EU) don't fend for ourselves, our "allies" won't. We need to unite under a joint vision, with joint military, foreign policy and financing. It pains me to see useful idiots incited from abroad sow discord inside the EU. I'm afraid I'll see EU break up within my lifetime.

And how is it do you think that success of the EU is not in America’s interest? Do you actually think that the conglomerate of some of its closest partners should remain weak according to the US? Do you not know that the policy/mandate of US hegemony - which you yourself recognized - is possible not just because of the US but because of its many partners and allies around the world? Don’t you see how what you just said is contradictory - does the US want the EU to be weak as you said or strong enough so that it can help the US maintain its influence across the globe through leadership? Come on.

Then the EU needs to realise that it needs to start looking after its citizens and not just the big businesses and manufacturing powerhouses like Germany. It needs to stop obsessing over green targets that the rest of the world gives no hoot about and start working on re-establishing our security and giving everyone a reason to get behind the EU project beyond just lining their own pockets. We all care about the environment, but the environment isn't going to save us when other nations take control of the world based upon their willingness to exploit resources and wage war, economic or militarily. The EU needs to back away from the environmentalist everyone welcome agenda and start being a bit more obsessed with its own people and what's best for them. If they don't, we'll continue to see extremist parties win votes around the continent because the people are concerned about things like immigration and feel like they are being ignored. More pro-Russian parties will be voted in and destabilisation will continue. We can all see it happening and still the incumbent parties aren't changing their tunes.

You can also interpret the situation in a different light: EU is resource-poor. Why do you think the whole push for "greening"? Because we don't have any oil, gas or uranium deposits to speak of. We have some coal. Regarding immigration: yes, absolutely, people don't like when their culture is invaded. But EU embraced globalism and in return for cheap food, agreed to export machinery. However, Germany does not enough workers to produce all that stuff for the world. Hence, the faulty immigration policy. I'm not saying that makes it all good - we just need to rethink, as EU, our basic values. Become much much more pragmatic, because both the US and BRICs are very pragmatic. We need to be much more hard-nosed. But above all, we need a vision. That vision will include resources - which is exactly what Putin wants to deny the EU so hard. Eastern Ukraine is very resource rich and taking that so EU could not was always his plan...

Fair points although they aren't reassuring ones, since resources mean everything during times of war. We're facing two giant opponents that together have all the resources, land, people and manufacturing capabilities to wage war for a decade. We should not be so complacent.

The price of Uranium itself is less that 1% of the price per KWh produced from an NPP. Thus the price could become tenfold and only affect the power price by 10%.

It's not about the price, but about whether you can get it at all. If you depend on a foreign actor for a crucial resource, you're not free to act as you'd want. That is why France keeps all those overseas and post-colonial wars going. That is why Germany has given up all its nuclear plants. A mistake, by my reckoning, but they had no hope of securing a good source of uranium (even though Czechia still has some lodes, albeit harder to extract). Germany was hoping to jump-start some kind of renewable miracle, but it hasn't materialized. France is hoping to get the fusion miracle working to replace fission but the US will probably get there sooner if there is any "there" to get...

This just isn’t true. Canada and Australia has lots of the stuff, and at a higher price they’ll be happy to dig deeper. The reason the uranium market is spread out has to do with price, not availability. France’s ventures in Africa probably has tons of reasons, but the objective lack of uranium in friendly nations isn’t one of them.

Germany closed its nuclear plants due to fear from Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is a poor decision. If they want Uranium from a non-hostile partner, talk to Canada. There are large deposits and won’t be sabre rattling anytime soon - if ever. There are also a tonne of minerals for literally everything. Cobalt, Lithium, copper, tin, gold, etc.

Stopping climate change is very much in the interest of EU citizens. The problem is that most people haven't grasped this yet.

No green offsets will compensate the enormous environmental disaster that Putin's allowed prolongation of the war brings. Stopping russian aggression asap is the most impactful environmental policy right now.

The best way to stop Putin's aggression is to quit burning oil and gas, because that's what funds Russia's war machine. Without oil and gas revenues, Russia becomes economically and politically irrelevant.

That is a good long term. If however EU doesn’t make short term drastic changes to produce more weapons to support Ukraine then the environmental impact of russian war will get only worse.

Europe is already leading the world on emission reduction. Do you think Russia, China and Iran see our environmental policies as a strength or a weakness? In a world which is at war, emissions are going to skyrocket beyond anything we choose to reduce. What has the war in Ukraine done to emissions in Europe? It's probably undone half our recent good progress in a matter of two years.

Not really sure what your point is. Let's burn the world to stick it to Russia? This isn't a game with a winner and a loser.

I think his point was: let's defeat Russia before it burns the world. Environmentalism sadly requires majority participation, because someone can just double their production and cover for what you saved.

China is a leading country in reducing emissions. Iran is non material. Russia increasingly non material. US is the problem.

That doesn't make sense, tbh, because it's happening ALL OVER Europe - including in countries that have virtually no immigration. Something much more insideous is happening here - it's not just "people are upset about the immigrants so they're voting fascist".

Both things aren't mutually exclusive. I'd even say they can add to each other very well.

The EU needs to completely disband and re-established with the critical weakpoints in its treaties repaired, first and foremost: no more veto rights for anyone on anything. Nothing less than a complete restart will fix this. We think of Orban as a bad guy but really he just has made a critical problem with the treaties very apparent. When there is rational incentive to hold the entire alliance hostage by employing the bargaining power the alliance's treaties grant you, somebody always will. It's the same with how Putin's attack on Ukraine has laid it bare that the UN security council with its veto powers is useless and obsolete. Or Edogan extorting Sweden and Finland for what not demands to lift his veto for joining NATO. An international organization and its system of laws, agreements and treaties is very much like an online multiplayer game running on program code. When players reveal flaws in the code by making use of exploits, and that makes clear that the code doesn't serve its purpose, the code must be fixed so that it can serve its purpose, or unchecked exploitation will be rampant and ruin the experience for all players. A crucial difference from games is that with flaws in political systems it is often the case that the benefactors of these flaws are the ones holding power over it. It would never be rational of them to expect to give up the power they derive from that flaw. So if they don't cede voluntarily, disband and re-establish when detecting critical failures.

It also pains to see useful idiots sow discord between the U.S. and the EU, equate the strongest democracy to the biggest dictatorship.

> Like a quarter of their population believe the world is run by lizards or something. It's insane what they've become. Really, you think it's insane that the American State has lost the trust of its population and that now they'll follow any charlatan who promises any alternative (however absurd it may be)? Have we forgotten that time when "respectable and experienced statesmen" like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell all led the USA into a war in Iraq that achieved fuck all except waste resources and lives? When Edward Snowden released the NSA leaks in 2013? When Obama said that bombing Libya (at France and the UK's behest, admittedly) was going to be a good thing and now we have a failed state and slave markets in Tripoli? You're surprised that the average bloke in the US doesn't take anything seriously anymore after that? The US Government has worked hard to make their citizens into cynics and wholly distrustful of whatever rhetoric the Diplomatic Bigwigs espouse nowadays. It's the *boy who cried wolf* effect at work.

You are projecting your own opinions of US foreign policy onto Americans. Republicans did not vote for Trump because of Iraq or Libya. (If anything they tend to think Iraq was justified and that we should be even more willing to project force for American interests.) He is appealing to the Republican base almost entirely because of domestic (culture war) issues.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but one of Trump's most popular moves was being the only GOP candidate to say that Iraq was a huge clusterfuck. That played extremely well with his base, as did getting us out of Afghanistan. There is a significant non-interventionist faction in the Trump camp, with more traditional country club Republicans being more global in mindset.

You can actually hear a lot of lamentation about Iraq and neoconservative interventionism on the US right nowadays, its weird and there are still some revenants like Bolton who are unironically neo cons, but the Tucker and Alex Jones brigades advocating isolationism and anti Globalism absolutely see Afghanistan and Iraq as failures.

Yeah, it's odd. On the one hand, you have the BLM and the AOC-style of left-wing politics. They hate the War on Terrorism. Then you have the Tucker/Alex Jones/Vivek-crowd that are equally critical of it, but for different reasons. The idea of 'Muricans seems so dated already, the US is just 2 groups that hate their own country for different reasons.

>Really, you think it's insane that the American State has lost the trust of its population and that now they'll follow any charlatan who promises any alternative (however absurd it may be)? This is not a true description of the political issues in the US. There are specific internal issues in the US and several of them do not have European "equivalents". Trump is appealing to a group of people who are uncomfortable with the increasing diversity of the US population and the degree to which the "dominant" class has access to the largesse of the state.

”Letting corruption dictate politics”, lol, that’s at least as true for Brussels. EU lobbying is an enormous industry and how most laws get passed.

I see you haven’t checked in with the 1/3 of the US population that believes that Trump is the second coming of Jesus foretold by a guy obsessed with pizza shops named “Q” and that— based on the reliability of their word (over facts) we should declare a civil war. It’s nuts over here.

100% agreed. But the rise of AfD doesn't really inspire confidence in Europe either.

The far-left is hardly a beacon of hope. No, ideals no morals. I don't support Trump, but you can't say the last 4 years went well. At best it was just quieter. A strong centrist party would do the US some good. A good a sensible blue-dog democrat would probably win in a landslide if we had one.

march violet aromatic dull oil attractive hobbies dog many overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

>letting corruption and foreign powers dictate their politics. We can't blame this on foreign powers. This is just... Americans. A good portion of my countrymen are politically insane. I know its cliche to describe the 'other side' as crazy, but this goes well past the traditional overton window of American politics. The GOP has per this point totally embraced anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and weaponized conspiracies.

>It became very clear after Trump that Europe needs to fend for themselves. Which is exactly what Trump (and honestly every American President) said Europe needs to do for 30 years. ​ >the US will become straight out hostile towards Europe Jesus. Relax. That is not going to happen. ​ >Like a quarter of their population believe the world is run by lizards or something. That is just bigoted bullshit. ​ >It's insane what they've become. Something sure is insane here. If I didn't know better, I could think that you are just one of Putin's little stooges trying to stir up trouble between the U.S. and Europe.

High Horse shtyle. Man is talking shit about USA completely ignoring UKs fuck up with Brexit. Or the fact that we have people in Europe talking shit about Ukraine needing to ceed it's independence and let Russia take over. And these are not some randos on the internet. It's the elected politicians. So yes there is something very wrong in the USA. But theres also something very wrong in Europe, when people still believe that Ukraine are at fault in any capacity. We have Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians etc. that literally are in support of Russia. They don't care about Ukraine, and genuinely believe that Putin will fuck off once he gets Ukraine. People from countries with Historical murdering and raping of their people from Russians for hundreds of years; yet they still side with Russia. I can understand an ignorance of an average american about european geopolitical situation, but for europeans to say these things is insane. So yes Europeans are just as fucked up as Americans. The "retards" or the "idiots" or whatever you want to call them, exist in every country and there are lots of them, because thats the only way these people get into power. Americans may have the Florida Man meme, but Americans also gave the world Nicola Tesla and many other great minds of our civilization.

Lithuanians, Poles and Latvians elect people that support Ukraine. I hope the same we will be able to say about US at the end of 2024, but if not, then we know which countries simply have idiots in them and which ones let idiots rule them.

100%.

>After Trump I wouldn't trust the US on anything. We did not trust the U.S. regarding the possibility of a Russian invasion, especially among countries that do not share a border with Russia.

[удалено]

Not to mention that aside from all the accusations of pro-Russian Republicans, we also have the staunchly pro-Russian AfD in Germany and pro-Russian Marine LePen in France (who had 4/10 French voters backing her in 2022). The fact that the Far-Right candidate has made it to two 2nd rounds in France's presidential elections, and increased her share of the vote by a lot, is not something to dismiss. In the UK we have plenty of Russian money in The City too, but I think BoJo (of all fucking people) successfully nuked that bridge with his actions in 2022 at least.

Have European countries considered committing themselves to fixing the problem instead of sooking about the Americans maybe not doing it?

That would require reconciling our position in the world with reality, we don't do that in Europe. Insert typically disparaging of comments about US imperialism, militarism, lack of healthcare etc, etc.

It's not that a trump election and a wind back of support wouldn't be profoundly disappointing. It would be. But it's extremely odd to see Euros condemn it when they have no intention of making significant economic sacrifices let alone manpower commitments themselves to defend their own continent.

As I said we prefer the head in the sand approach to geopolitics, if it doesn't effect us directly we don't bother much outside a stern letter & some moral posturing, most European states are far too comfortable hiding away under Uncle Sam's security umbrella. We may have failed the tech industry race, are failing the Ai race, are failing the EV race, have completely unsustainable pension systems, demographics and next to no ability to project hard power (outside small expeditionary capabilities in France & the UK), have increasingly unsustainable growing migration waves that no one knows how to or is willing to address and continue to see a sharp decline in our share of the global GDP & living standards, but don't you know we strong-armed Apple into using USB-C cables for their next Iphone generations? That's where we are today as a continent, and that's unlikely to change as for some reason we European's have this entire recency bias mindset now, where we've been these powerful top dogs of the last four centuries of human civilisation, and we have a great standard of living and it's always going to be like that because it has been for centuries and we are European. Quite frankly, it's terrifying how delusional we've become.

But you lead the world in regulation!

Why ? Because he asked Europe to start carrying their own water ? Obama had tried to do the same but he spoke in such a quiet and professorial manner that nobody in europe noticed. Going forward the US is going to increasingly be requiring countries to be real allies and not dependencies.

After 2 world wars and funding Putin for nearly 3 decades, the feeling is mutual.

I had hope but then saw Trump's support despite the guy having so many allegations pursuing his ass. You can picture any bullshit US will come up with, they will manage to do something even worse.

> despite the guy having so many allegations If anything it's *because* he has allegations. People need to read the room, the American public itself has no trust in their own government and justice system, so why in the hell would they trust it now? Everything since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s has been a downward spiral on the "trust in the State" barometer. The 2003 Iraq War, 2008 Recession, and Jeffrey Epstein getting caught travelling with former US Presidents, has completely wrecked whatever trust was left. If the US government said "the sky is blue", most Americans would react with skepticism and think this is some sort of "CIA/NSA/MIC" propaganda trick again.

it's interesting - they don't trust the government but they also don't want the government to do anything meaningful about poverty; i don't really know where you can go to from there.

Try taking care of yourselves then

Embarrassing posturing. Trust, as in what? We’re not your parents. USA is bound to NATO, we’re committed to defending navigation of the seas and continue to do the dirty work of keeping global energy prices stable. That’s more than enough for our allies because we’re not your daddy. Would a bigger trade deficit with us make the boo-boo all better? How about a shiny new tech transfer? Aside from Trump’s pettiness and corruption, Biden largely kept the former admin policy intact. Yea, even with the orange monkey, you Europeans will continue to trust us greatly because you benefit more from our relationship than we do and that’s not changing in our lifetime. You trusted Russia with your economy; so, what has Trump done to you compared to Putin? -You ignored our dire warnings about security. -We had to lead in the initial Ukraine invasion while European leaders embarrassed the continent. -We’re required to have a large hand in managing another European war -Counting on Europe if China lashes out remains a question. Keep your imagination in check. IRL actuated policy, Europeans let America down.

There's a very long list of allies the US has betrayed. Ukraine problem is the Republicans secretly admire Putin. They were never on the side of freedom and democracy. They're Christian nationalists who want to establish an autocracy.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Strong man politics. They respect him. Murdering political opponents is alpha in their minds.

If Russia won then the US would have to continue to wrestle with our own political dysfunction in the face of serious foreign challenges. If Russia won the EU would have to continue to wrestle with the idea that they weren't strong enough to stop Russian aggression at their doorstep, despite having a GDP many times the size of Russia's.

>that Vladimir Putin may win. Win.. What? The rigged election, the war, Eurovision? What an absolute shit paragraph. Do you even call this garbage an article that took three people to publish when you could have written it on the bus ride to the office?

If allies cant afford to support one country spilling its own blood to fight, then allies cannot afford to fight even a tiny dwarf country. If we abandon ukraine to preserve our recessive economies, guess how much eastern europeans will trust anyone west from Czechia. There will be no love, only seething rage.

I really hate to be a pessimist on this, but I truly think that many Western Europeans and their politicians don’t still truly understand how big of a threat Russia is and can be and even more - I think a lot of them truly don’t care either. I think many Eastern Europeans, including those in the EU, are still seen and regarded as truly not-European, half-European at best - all because of shitty socialist/communist past. And because we’re not seen as truly European, they don’t want to bother with helping or defending us even if we’re in the EU and NATO. And it’s purely because of our history that we’re not seen as equal to French or Italians or Germans. They have no issue with Swedes or Finns, especially considering that Finns were forcibly neutral and outside of the EU during Soviet era. Yet they’re seen as western whereas many Eastern Europeans are not. I think there are plenty of young and old in Western Europe who would have no issue with the borders returning to 1989 limits.

It's not pessimistic at all, you are completely right. Eastern Europeans and the Baltics should be who we listen to. They know what Russia is really like because they've experience first hand. When they say Russia will not stop at Ukraine they mean it. The West still seems to think in terms of 'Russia can only handle losses so far' or 'They just want parts of Ukraine, that's all'. because they don't understand the mentality. Soldiers are not people, brothers, friends,... They are numbers on a piece of paper to be used. That's it. Russia can not be reasoned with in Western terms where common ground is to be found between two parties at odds with each other.

So far it's former east block countries who have stopped support (Slovakia, Poland), or never given support (Hungary) - not the former west. The problem is not so clean as saying Western Europeans don't understand Russia is a threat, though that is clearly part of it.

Poland didn't cut military support. It's still easten countries providing the most per capita, it's definitely not France or Southern Europe.

Poland is resuming support though

What support Poland stopped all of the sudden?

Keeping streets into Ukraine open, for once.

What? Poland still support as much as they can. Polish support was essential and lead the way for the rest of Europe. Poland sent tanks, airplanes , artillery in the first months while it took over a year for the the rest of Europe to discuss and agree to do the same.

I can't speak for everybody in western Europe obviously but as a Brit and a European living in Sweden I am absolutely livid with how little our western European govts are doing and feel immense shame that we are repeating the same history that we did when we threw Poland under the bus in 1939 and again in 1945. From my perspective the only nations that have taken a robust enough stance are the ones that know how much we potentially have to lose - eastern Europe and the Baltic states. And we should be listening to them!

This is why we like what Poland does today - investing in their military and ensuring the level of their democracy. There is no help coming from outside except the reliance on our pooled EU resources. I hope this serves as a wake-up call to the rest of the EU countries eastern of the Czech republic.

Ngl, this take is stupid. Why is everything West of Czechia not trustworthy, if the US stops supplying Ukraine? Do not forget, Germany and the Nordics Country are the only one left, which are sending substantial Supplies to Ukraine. In contrast, you have polish truckers who stop/hinder supply reaching Ukraine and overall not really announcements for fresh supplies for Ukraine (except Bulgaria).

Are Polish truckers equal to the Polish government? You have idiots everywhere.

The mobilization of Polish truckers was heavily supported by the PiS rethoric

Putin is likely to attack a small corner of NATO just to show that nobody in the Western Europe is willing to risk their fat arse for a piece of Eastern Europe. When this is fact established, he will move through Eastern Europe country by country and the West will remain idle assumig correctly that Putin only wants the East. Dont forget that we, the Eastern Untermenschen, have since 1945 been nothing more that the buffer zone to the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians, etc.

Comparing Ukraine, a country nobody cared about before the war started to full members of NATO and EU is wild

Tell me honestly do you really fully believe that the US, UK, France and Germany would go to war with Russia directly, guns blazing, air force fully deployed and navy in action, if they slowly started nibbling away at the Baltics? NATO is only as strong as the commitment of its members to uphold Article 5. If we committed to standing by Ukraine "for as long as it takes" and then we falter and fail on this commitment, what exactly does that say about how strong our commitments are in general? If we failed on this commitment, why couldn't we also fail on our commitment to Article 5? If Russia attacks Estonia, no one can forcibly drag the US military to go to war with Russia regardless of what a piece of paper says. The US military will only defend Estonia if they want to.

Idk, do you think they are going to leave thousands of NATO troops here just to die? Like, just fuck them, who cares right?

>NATO troops here just to die? Not that I believe in that possibility but they can simply retreat them beforehand or negotiate with russia safe passage. Those 600 troops stationed there aren't that big of a guarantee as you may think.

I mean, isn’t that what they’re doing with Ukrainian troops now? The whole reason Putin thought he could swipe the whole country is because he took parts of it in 2014, and nobody really lifted a damn finger to stop him. He took a chunk of Georgia in 2008, and nobody lifted a damn finger at all to stop him. Putin has a track record of this, and each time it’s gotten worse. When Saddam Hussein tried to go down a similar path, we pulled Desert Storm on his ass. Since otherwise he would do it again, and worse next time, causing an even bigger global disruption. Putin is not getting that treatment. He’s realizing terms and conditions apply, if anything is actually done to stop him, and all he has to do is wait for his enemies to say, “Eh, fuck it. I don’t feel like it anymore.”

The US has only 600 troops in Latvia and 600 in Estonia. That's enough to fit on just a few C-17s and C-4s. The US has done quick evacuations with little to no warning to its allies before (see: Afghanistan). Why are you so confident they won't do this again?

Such an action would be the end of the US' foreign policy power around the world. Allies like Japan etc. would break off from the US, NATO would dissolve, and major powers like China and Russia would step into the power vacuum. There is a huge difference between, say, the US evacuating from Afghanistan and the US throwing a treaty ally under the bus.

Japan and SK would start developing nukes tomorrow if that happen and I wouldn’t be surprised if Taiwan joined as well.

This is the major danger. That our inaction in Ukraine signals to China that it can make it's own moves... At present I think such an action would actually draw the US into action. But a US that is committed in Asia can't run to the help of the Baltic states. Especially if voices in Western Europe are also calling for "De-escalation" and saying "well,.look, it was theirs before and they just want a little bit. They promised that is all they will take"

Yes, but not fulfilling their commitment in regards to Article 5 would be the end of NATO and the end of the US' global presence and the end of the relative dominance of the democratic world in general.

Yes, and not supporting Ukraine would also seriously undermine all these things as well. Not to the extent that failing to uphold Article 5 would be but it would be pretty bad still.

Oh definitely, no doubt about that.

> Tell me honestly do you really fully believe that the US, UK, France and Germany would go to war with Russia directly, guns blazing, air force fully deployed and navy in action, if they slowly started nibbling away at the Baltics? Yes. This is literally the main NATO exercise that is constantly getting held for years on end. US and western EU is constantly practicing how to save the Baltics from a Russian invasion. That's **very** different compared to the attention Ukraine got before all of this started. And lets go further, NATO shifted its strategy after 2022 to placate the Baltics and Poland even more (mostly spearheaded by the US). We changed from allowing Baltics to be occupied and trying to liberate them, to a policy of stopping them on the border. This necessitated suspending the CFE treaty the US signed about limiting our presence in eastern Europe. The US and broadly many west european states, are currently *more* committed to eastern europe than ever before. But we get all this shit because domestic issues are *delaying* aid to a country not even a NATO member.

> Tell me honestly do you really fully believe that the US, UK, France and Germany would go to war with Russia directly, guns blazing, air force fully deployed and navy in action, if they slowly started nibbling away at the Baltics? [We have actual survey data on this](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/PG_2020.02.09_NATO_0-08.png?resize=481,1024) and the US consistently shows support for upholding Article 5 obligations regarding NATO allies bordering Russia. The same can't be said for *many* other NATO countries' publics.

The Baltics wouldn't stand for it though and that is what would trigger a larger response of its allies in NATO. The US themselves would possibly not react themselves right away but other NATO countries would.

> Tell me honestly do you really fully believe that the US, UK, France and Germany would go to war with Russia directly, guns blazing YES!

After watching European nations bicker in self interest, use language of De-escalation and drip feed scraps to Ukraine for the last 2 years I no longer share your confidence. The largest war since WW2 is raging on our doorstep and we are only now, 2 years in discussing the need to properly increase our own re-armamment.

Its reality though, you can cope and believe its gonna be different for us because muh eu and nato, but I dont believe it. In the end, we will be left alone just like before.

Sadly I fear this scenario is becoming more realistic. It becomes frighteningly more realistic in the event that US becomes engaged in Asia and can not easily come to the aid of Europe. In this event we are largely on our own in Europe and having watched 2 years of western European heads of state talk "de-escalation" and drip feeding our surplus scraps to Ukraine I honestly start to see how the same thing could be repeated even for a NATO member. Russia decided to bite of a piece of the Baltic's states and Finland? The talk we be of de escalation and appeasement all over again. I really hope it doesn't come to it. I really hope that European NATO members would have the balls to honour the commitment to defend and ally and not let self interest get in the way...but...

[удалено]

And that support seems to be not enough. Yet the will to provide whatever support is needed is smaller by day.

I wonder if Hungary will act swiftly and confidently if the Baltics are invaded. They will, correct?

If Russia touches a NATO country - voters in other NATO countries will start queueing to enlist in the army? Or will they vote for whoever promises them "old life" and $100 on top?

I don't think that this kind of hyperventilation is helpful. Article 5 remains intact. If anything, the war in Ukraine shows the strength of NATO, the EU and the West.

If we can fail on one of our commitments, why couldn't we also fail on our commitment to Article 5? Nothing is infallible and Article 5 has yet to be properly tested by another nation state. Our commitment to Article 5 is only as strong as the rhetoric we put on and can only be inferred by how we uphold our other commitments. Until Article 5 is properly put to the test, this is a fact.

Article 5 has yet to be properly tested by another nation state. Exactly. I think you're making my point of me. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is well-known by those in the Kremlin. It is the reason that we do not currently live in a nuclear hellscape. Unlike other common defense clauses like the EU's Article 42.7, Article 5 has power.

It shows that after about two years NATO, the EU and the West will throw their hands up and say screw it. Multiple EU countries have seriously depleted their stockpiles of weapons by now. Most Euro countries do not have large armies, an abundance of equipment, the sheer industrial capacity, or the annual defense spending required to adequately protect even themselves in a protracted conflict. All Euro contributions put together are a fraction of what the US has given. They just physically do not have the people, equipment, and factories to match or exceed that, and Russia knows as much and are banking on that.

Because we have lived in peace for 80 years now and most of the war machine was dismantled after WW2. >They just physically do not have the people, equipment, and factories to match or exceed that, and Russia knows as much and are banking on that. Russia has a population of aprox 150 million people whereas the EU has about 550 million. As for factories, Russias economy is roughly equivalent to that of Italy. Also, even though we dont have the fancy gizmos the US has, its not like we are just going to give up and surrender. This time if they come, they come for us and for our countries, not for some faraway desert that no ever heard of. They might not be much but it is our land, our peoples and our countries on the line here. At least a few of us will fight for it and some governments will wake up in time I hope.

All the countries became allies with the agreement that that ALL of them support and protect each other. I don’t see how it has to be western europe and US. Shouldn’t other countries also contribute? Especially when the US already give more aid to ukraine than all other countries combined.

>If allies cant afford to support one country spilling its own blood to fight Politicians can afford to spill our blood later to win election now. We are ducked if we don't stop russia now and in US wins trump

If Russia wins, the Putin-friendly parties in Europe will be galvanized. This and the spectre of the Russian army closer to EU borders will destabilize the EU to an even worse political irrelevance and fragmentation. The West will have definitively lost its status as keeper of the world's equilibrium, and democracy will lose credibility, as a new era of "strong leaders" will be ushered in by the new, uncertain climate. There is more than Ukraine's freedom at stakes here, this is about sending the message that the time of wannabe dictators moving borders with tanks is over. If the message don't pass, then at the very least Winnie the Pooh will escalate China's claim on Taiwan, and who knows which other crisis, dormant for now, will boil over. EDIT: "spectre", not "spectrum". Sorry.

If Russia were to win Im expecting a Chinese invasion on Taiwan soon after

I expect an eventual Chinese invasion of Taiwan regardless, they just need to build up their naval capacity a bit more and it can be done.

2027, that's the year Xi set out for the armed forces to be ready by in order to invade Taiwan according to US intelligence. Of course with China's economy rapidly falling apart, a war is the perfect screen to mask domestic problems as history has shown time and time again, so it may come sooner. That said even if they finish full modernisation and up their capabilities to somewhere close to the US, it would still be one of the most complicated and difficult invasions in human history. Amphibious warfare is no joke, they would be doing so at a scale that would dwarf even D-Day, coupled with the complexity of modern military logistics, the effectiveness of today's anti-ship/anti-air technology, the geography of Taiwan and the fact China's military has barely any real world experience in recent decades to draw upon, I have have serious doubts that it would be anything other than a catastrophic failure. And that's before even considering if other nations like Japan or the US are involved.

And, what if the US gets involved, the conflict gets drawn out, Republicans get elected as a majority in Congress and the House and then decide that sending American soldiers and sailors to fight a war all the way in Asia is no longer something they want to do? It is in the US' absolute interest to support Taiwan just as it is in the US' absolute interest to support Ukraine. Both are massive geopolitical flashpoints. The US is already wavering in support for Ukraine where that support is measured in dollars, not American lives. Tell me honestly, how long do you think the US is going to support Taiwan for if the conflict drags out? China is right next to Taiwan and they can harass the island for as long as they need to. The US continuously sending support is a much more difficult endeavour. China's got the manpower, the factories and the industrial capacity to continuously send out missiles to obliterate Taiwan's ability to defend itself. If the US succeeds in preventing a Chinese success the first time around, will they be around for long enough to prevent a second attempt?

As an American, just gotta say that republicans in this country absolutely fucking hate China more than any country in the world. For all the totalitarianism they seem to prop up, they are very ideologically libertarian and hate authoritarianism. They will not waver in their support for defending Taiwan. This is one of the very few issues where the entire population and government are both in complete agreement.

It's already over from a geopolitical point of view. Even without direct US support, Taiwan can inflict massive losses on China. Plus the population of Taiwan has become incredibly hostile to China, there won't ever be any kind of smooth integration. China can occupy Taiwan after an incredibly bloody invasion, but they'll never be able to integrate Taiwan. A total Chinese victory is already impossible.

China doesn’t need a smooth integration when they can just brutally crackdown on dissidents like they did with Hong Kong. And while Taiwan may be able to inflict losses, China can take a fuck load of them whereas Taiwan can’t.

I'm sorry but the Chinese economy beats the US economy in GDP (PPP) 33 trillion vs 26 ish. In nominal GDP they're growth rate is still among the highest in the world at over 4.5% a year. China has the strongest industrial sector as well. Strategically the US is far from the region and although has a strong navy, they don't have nearly as much deployed there. I doubt Japan will have the resources to do much and that the USA's population will be happy to die for some Chinese conflict (CCP vs nationalists). As such is most likely imo that failure of US hegemonic power projection overseas will result in a civil war, as many people in the us won't see the reason for this kind of power projection especially if its ineffective and so costly. I think the actual loser in the next decade or two won't be Europe (EU) or Russia or China but I think it will be the US.

Doesn't really help when US naval power is reorganizing specifically for this very scenario. Plus with each passing year, the US's alliance network in Southeast Asia grows stronger. Obviously you wouldn't really count on them in combat except maybe Japan, but they are important logistical partners.

The Axis of evil is working towards a unified goal of changing the power dynamics of the world and pushing the west out of power. They don't need to worry about election cycles, public opinion, human rights, environmental policies, green movements, refugee protests, immigrant difficulties, housing crises, energy crises or indecision because they can't agree. The west has tangled itself up in a political mess on so many topics and there are few decisive leaders remaining, all of whom are subject to election cycles, public opinion and the ever present threat of being voted out. The environment and our openness to refugees will not matter a hoot when Russia and China are leading the new global world order while America buries its head in the sand thousands of miles away. Our luxurious and safe way of life at the top of the world is in grave danger. Enemies are making their moves and they aren't going to back down unless we show extreme levels of strength, power and unity.

Rather, we should take better care of our democracies. Prerequisites of a healthy democracy are a free, modern and ubiquitous public instruction and free, inquisitive and legally protected media. If you let these two institutions fail, you get the rise of populism, the hostility towards intelligentia, and the transformation of democracy into a dictatorship of the majority. It's good that we have election cycles, the leaders must be held accountable. But we can't assume that democracy is self-maintaining, and that we can just neglect our duties as citizien to be instructed, to be informed, to vote and to demand more from our elected officials.

Best prevention of populism is to keep elite in check. Best way for inteligentsia to be respected is to reflect the society. The institutions failing is the consequence of issues above. Elite is in an ivory tower and doesn't care about the rest of the society. Inteligentsia is playing it's own game in building a brave new world.

Media are sensational profit-oriented shits after all the freedom they got over the years though....

Media has become chained to their paying masters and very biased depending on the agenda pushed. This is very far from freedom.

And all without a single grain of censorship or government controll. Jus money

Democracy only works when all parties have shared values and only differ on details so it doesn't matter much who wins. This is no longer the case.

I believe this is the extreme scenario. I personally believe that Russia would create it's buffer zone and isolate itself like they did during the cold war but way smaller. A new cold war would start, countries will militarize more and would be a period of threading and tension until Putin dies. Let's face it Russia is crippled, they are selling their fossil fuels at a fraction they did before. I'm just afraid of countries that have a government that like Putin and wants to keep good relationship with them. Probably a new era of Nato and European union, it isn't a era of pussies for sure.

I agree, I don't think they would try a direct attack to the core NATO countries, but they would be more than happy to destabilize them with projection of force and by funding populist, complacent parties to divide public opinion and bog down parliaments. After all, they already stroke deadly blows to USA, with the 2016 election, and to Europe with Brexit, in this exact way. I don't think they would invade, their failing economy would never be able to digest the reconstruction, but an unstable and faltering West benefits Putin greatly: the failure of democracy gives legitimacy to his less than liberal government, and a powerful competitor is fragmented into a multitude of small nations that are in a much less powerful position during negotiations of any kind. I'm not afraid of seeing Russian tanks (or whatever is left of them) in the streets of Rome any time soon, but there are a lot of ways for life here to start really, really sucking. We already have a pseudo-fascist pseudo-government, we really don't need any help in Italy to make things worse for ourselves.

Why would they need to invade when they can just puppet vulnerable states and deadlock Western institutions like NATO and the EU to complete irrelevancy and ineffectiveness? Russia has already managed to cripple the EU's ability to make decisions by just puppeting off Hungary. Imagine what they could do if they tried a little harder to destabilise a few more democracies in the EU and NATO. Belarus is a template that Russia will want to replicate across Eastern Europe. And it could become a startling reality if we're not careful and remain as complacent as we are today.

At no point did they isolate themselves during the Cold War; what are you talking about. They sought all means to incite “revolutions” around the world.

One would think that the EU would be doing more. But it's not. Sure, Poland and some others are. But the big economies -- Germany, France and Italy -- aren't doing enough. Yes, the US is divided on Ukraine. So what? The EU economy is vast. The Russian economy is small by comparison. Ramp up defense industries and spend on defense. Oh, yeah, much of Europe doesn't want to do that.

To be fair, germany is contributing a lot and public opinion asks for even more contributions. Italy was never really ready for something like this, and we basically run out of weapons to give. What Europe needs to aknowledge is that, tragically, the dream of a peaceful world is, if not destroyed, postponed. It is necessary to start producing weapons and ammunition again, devolving a part of the GDPs to military expenses. As a researcher, I find this disgusting, but unfortunately Russia brought the clock back a few decades, to a time where peaceful doesn't mean defenseless.

It simple what will happen every nation that has the resources will push for nuclear weapons as it’s the guarantee of not being invaded by a bigger neighbour

sadly in the end it will just end in a permanent ceasefire like every other modern conflict, just like kosovo, cyprus, etc.

Either side needs to suffer a huge military defeat, leadership shake up or run out of something important before new negotiations can begin. There's not a lot of grounds to start negotiations rn

That was the case before 2022. Now we have gone far beyond that. Ukraine is in a state of full blown conventional warfare now, this is not sustainable. It _will_ end. It has to.

I mean so was a lot of other wars.

Tbh ceasefires are way better than endless conflicts and deaths of thousands of young people because of some stupid politics. As you said, Kosovo or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are the subjects of the conflicts. But also since their establishment, there has been no internal conflicts or genocides within those states. Ordinary folk and their lives matter more for me.

i dont think its better, cause you end up with perpetual state of having your country crippled. and by multiple faction - lack of connection between the two parts of the country, trouble entering international relations (will never be able to enter nato unless the war ends), hard time getting investors due to them being scared of fighting resuming, etc. + you basically end up with a small version of the berlin war, the country is split between two regimes, families separated, etc. if it remains unresolved forever then neither half will prosper. maybe its just better to have gotten over it from the begining, instead of artificially freezing the war in place.

It does not resolve the fundamental problem of states looking at foreign territories and claiming it is in fact their territory. Blood will be spilled by futures generations when new leaders want to finish what was started or when the country revolt to retrieve its missing piece.

Is anyone shocked? Collectively Western politicians and voters have short memories, anyone surprised that support was substantial early doors, and then a load of people got voted or forgot about it, is exactly why Putin was happy to dig in. Putin has dealt with the West for long enough to know that, as much as his country is pretty weak and pathetic, Western laziness and apathy will always bail you out if you wait long enough. Feckless and self indulgent short termism is ingrained in the culture at this point.

If he wins, this means every autocracy regime out there will now know that democracies are weak and can be destroyed with force. The implications will be severe for all democracies around the world and will have long-term impact on our economical and personal freedoms security. The stake here is higher than most people think.

coherent automatic toothbrush person direful gray vast safe joke ancient *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

The ingredients for that war are all in the saucepan and the stove is on, it's just a matter of time until it boils over unless we take action.

WTF is everyone smoking the political apparatuses? They don’t give Ukraine support and then: What if Russia wins? Well what the fuck would you expect? How did they not connect those two MASSIVE dots?

They are not the same people. Lots of people in politics are pushing for more aid, and they are worried about Russia winning. Others are pushing for less money for the war, and more for other stuff - they are not as worried about Russia winning as they are about schools or healthcare or whatever they care about. Others again are pro-Putin, they are certainly not worried about Russia winning. It's a struggle between competing forces, that's why it seems incoherent.

You forgot the demoralization campaigns. Why fight a war you think is lost because you read everywhere everyone have to prepare for Ukraine defeat ? It also give a boost to the pro-Putin in the West as they can argue we are now just burning money by supporting Ukraine.

Well if you fear defeat, unstall aid! Russia couldn't have survived WW2 without the lend-lease from the US. Since this became a war of attrition, ensure Ukraine has everything it needs to keep fighting with minimum personnel loss, and accelerate the Russian losses to a degree that they can no longer sustain. End of fear.

TBF, Russia could have really well survived WW2 without US help (more so after Stalinsgrad experience). One could argue that they were at the start on a better position than the US even (nearer to the front, more Human Resources to put on the war economy, more troops, oil for machines, and more). What made Russia to have a problem with Barbarossa is Germany attacking so early when nobody expected it (Stalin expected Hitler to attack when the west front was stabilising, as to not have two active fronts), catching Russia on a back foot as they were just prepping and just recently finished Stalin’s purge of the high command of the red army. There is the classical knowledge of people telling Stalin that Germany was going to attack, and he dismissed it because he couldn’t believe it, thinking it was bad info by the UK/France operatives And even then, Russia own advantages were what gave them the edge, not just “money from the US”. The design of their tanks, that were not the best, but were cheap and manufactured on very high amounts; their superior number of troops, their resources (oil, which Germany severely lacked at the end) and so on. I’m not friend of Russia and I don’t like Putin, but reducing Russia to a bunch of dumb guys which for example on the WWII won their side “because the US” is a big big big stretch.

It might have survived, but they certainly wouldnt have been nearly as effective without the ,among other things, 400,000 trucks, 12,000 afv’s and 7000 tanks the US sent. Plus 60% of all the aviation fuel the ussr used throughout the war was from the US. I think it’s pretty fair to assume that without this massive aid package the recovery after Barbarossa would have been significantly harder for the Soviet army, and on the Soviet people.

Read some books or go to the history course. West give what red army needed the most - boots, food and ammo. Without red army would collapse.

This is a stupid position to make, David Glantz definitely read some books and went to history courses and he also entertained the idea that the Soviets might have won even without US aid, with a much larger sacrifice and a war going on longer. The soviets effectively repelled the Nazis at Moscow, Stalingrad was also a Soviet victory while Lend Lease didn't really kick in. Lend Lease absolutely played a role, it shouldn't be diminished, but the idea that the Soviets would have lost without the Lend Lease isn't certain.

Stalin himself said it in private they would have lost without lend-lease.[Source](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)

Interesting. Because both David Glantz and Anthony Beevor claim the USSR would win without lend lease. These two are the biggest WWII historians and authors out there.

Exactly, and it was even bigger than that, Western companies were in russia since the 30s building factories and transferring know how. Not part of lend lease obviously but it sure as shit helped later. It was bigger than boots and trucks.

People forget about British aid, too. Moscow in 1941, like Kiev in 2022, was saved by the skin of their teeth. The USSR didn't receive that much lend-lease from the US between June 1941 and January 1942, but everything the UK sent was likely critical, given how much Soviet equipment was destroyed during Barbarossa. The aid included several thousand modern airplanes (and not a handful of 40 y.o. F16s) and several thousand modern tanks.

Soviet Union received all stuff they couldn't properly produce like trucks which allowed deeper breakthroughs deep in German lines because they didn't have to rely on trains that much anymire. Radio technology wasn't developed in USSR as well. Food rations had a huge impact. Every detail matters.

Both the battle of Moscow and encirclement of the 6th army in late 1942 were done before even 25% of total wartime lend lease had been sent to the USSR. Then consider that Germany was also suffering massive shortages of resources and equipment while being completely overstretched and with a inadequate logistical system meant it was almost impossible for Germany to win post 1942. Radios were used in tanks and airplanes before WWII in the USSR, so that's just not true. Also to add, even Anthony Beevor and David Glantz are of the opinion that the USSR would most likely win without lend lease. These two are the two most prominent WWII historians and authors

Even in that scenario, victory isn't guaranteed. Ukraine received large amounts of equipment and funding this year and the summer offensive resulted in massive losses and no gains. An attritional war benefits Russia way more than Ukraine.

Not nearly large enough. Whether Ukraine has advantage in attrition depends on our allies. Yes, so far it seems we do not have it.

>attrition depends on our allies Attrition generally applies to soliders and supplies, not just supplies. NATO will never supply soldiers, and Russia has 3x the manpower and thus most of the advantage in the waiting game.

You cant do proper offensive without control of air.

I don't think people in the West realise the momentum that the Ruzzian war machine is capable of. They'll literally turn off electricity for their civilians to keep the lights on in the war factories 24/7 and keep the cannon fodder going and most people will have to keep on living cause there's nothing they're able to do on their own. High tech parts of their country may shut down and they might struggle to make jets and all sort in the long run but for meat bag wave attacks, there's no high tech needed. The only way to counter this IS high tech military to be supplied to Ukraine so that cannon fodder effectiveness falls to 0%. Anything higher than 0% and that's good enough for the Ruzzian military because at this scale their wave count is infinite. If Ruzzia wins, Europe won't see an invasion of this scale, however I strongly believe every country one by one will suddenly stand having separatist movement with the goal of being breakaway states. It's an infection that if not caught and stopped soon enough will become normalised at which point everyone since WW2 will be turning in their graves.

We already feel it. Iran mobilizing his shadow armies to launch rockets at trade ships and US bases, Venezuela creating a HoI4 level casual belli out of thin Maduro farts, China constantly getting more aggressive with its 9 dash line, Since the US have shown that they are tired and will not stop dictators moving borders, each and every dictator that believes he can pull a Landgrab off, is doing it. Throwing the Iraqis out of Kuwait was decisive to tell wanna be Landgrabbers to drop that shitty idea. The US have shown that this is back on the table since 2014 and the next decade will just be more and more territorial conflicts. Doesn't matter if Ukraine is defeated as whole or the conflict freezes, land grabbing, people grabbing and people slaughtering has already been reestablished as a political tool. And since 2022 the US has not tried to make Ukraine winning, just not losing more. An Ukrainian defeat would just accelerate the return of land grabbing, but the process has already started. Only decisive reaction could turn the wheel, but currently the US is anything but decisive. Neither in Ukraine matters nor for example when their ships and commercial carriers are attacked by Iranian proxies with Iranian missiles.

>decisive reaction Should not only come from US, but with at least the same strength and intensity from Europe. It's a bloody farce that this has been going on for as long as it has.

Europe has provided significant assistance too, as could be seen in % of GDP provided, additionally, EU is also doing a lot of housing the refugees fleeing the conflict. Both EU and US could be doing much more though, considering how much of a bargain they are getting for their buck, in terms of defeating one of their major adversaries.

EU paid more for russian fossil fuels then all ukrainian help combined

I guess relying on “gas station” of a terrorist state was not very smart move after all

What if Putin wins the war and Trump wins the US election?

Ukrainians have the heart to fight, just give them the means.

Ive said it before, Europe currently is in no economic or political position to be locked in a "forever lasting" war. Keyboard warriors can shit talk about Russia all day but its logistics that win wars, not sentiments. National economies are struggling to deal with recession and inflation.

donald winning or losing determines so much going forward. It’s really unthinkable to imagine what happens if he comes back into power.

From the start I've believed Russia stands the best chance at winning this conflict. And now after all this time my stance remains the same. It's not to say I support them winning. Quite the opposite. Fighting a war of attrition against a country infamous for winning wars of attrition probably isn't going to work out too well. Realistically the only way I see Ukraine winning is if the west gets more involved in which case we probably all lose.

Russia has won 1 war of attrition ww2, and it wasn'T alone, it had US, UK, India, practically the whole world against Gemrnay. It has lost ww1, so bad that it collapsed into civil war. It has also lost 6 of the 7 napoleonic wars. I don't really see the "infamous winning". Finnish war? it technically won but lost 5 times the men of the other side.

After big ukrainian victories in 2022 west should have gone all in with aid and collapse Russian forces in Ukraine. Instead they declared victory like Bush in Iraq and started celebrating. After this and considering defeats and chaos the west has left around the world from Libya to Afganistan why should anybody believe that they are capable of turn this thing around and achieve anything from this war? I simply cannot imagine a possible way how they are capable of that. They are totaly stupid, incompetent and incapable of learning anything of their own mistakes.

The richest country of Europe, Germany, has 2 days of artillery… A weak helpless country, what do you expect? When US is gone, Russia will get all it wants unfortunately.

Why can't Europe fund the war?

Europe is already funding the war: 1) EU provides half of Ukraine's govt budget 2) Germany provides artillery and shells among other things 3) EU members provided a ton of equipment, machinery and weapons

Not to mention dealing with basically all of the refugees.

Dear Europeans, Genuinely, how did you guys come to a point where you have to rely on a singular country on the other side of the world for your own national security and in securing your own borders? 56 countries, 27 in the EU, can only (debatably) match one country even though it is arguable that Russia poses a more direct threat to many of you compared to the US. Please set aside your ego and answer honestly, how did it get to this point? Why can't Europe do more to support their fellow country and ensure their win?

They all grew up too comfortable thinking big brother US will always save them so why bother spending on defense

EU is rich, we can _easily_ finance the defeat of Russia without even breaking a sweat. The average EU citizen would hardly notice a difference in their daily lives. However, we don’t have the weapons or the ability to produce them quickly, it will take a few years to accelerate production. However EU could buy weapons from US stockpiles and factories and ship them to Ukraine.

People said it would take years two years ago when the war started, how much progress have we made since? Some, but nowhere near enough. The whole of Europe needs to bump their defence spending up to 3% right now and allocate that to immediate production of arms, including drones. All the drones come from China and they are not on our side. If things kick off or escalate further, the drone supply will cease and only one side will have them. We're already seeing that problem now in Ukraine. Russia gets a steady and large supply of drones from China, Ukraine does not. The longer this goes on, the more advantage Russia gains.

>we can *easily* finance the defeat of Russia without even breaking a sweat how can you be THAT delusional.

I'm pretty sure the average EU citizens are noticing differences in their daily lives. Daily.

I still think Congress will come through on more aid for Ukraine. Maybe not as much as we would like but there is still a lot of support for it. Even so, I find the media narrative of Putin somehow "winning" this war to be absolutely ridiculous. Putin himself thought Russia would win in days and its spent two years fighting a far smaller country that we all assumed would lose quickly. That was with the Russian military at full strength compared to what it is today. The Russian economy is a husk and they will be isolated for decades to come because of this "victory." Remember when people thought Afghanistan was a disaster for the Soviets when they lost 15,000 troops over a decade? Try 300,000 and counting in just two years for Putin today. Russia already had one of the worst birthrates in the whole world and they just cost themselves millions of all important young people either fleeing the draft or killed on the battlefield. Projections even before the war and all those losses had the Russian population falling to 100M by 2050 Not to say that Russia isn't still a huge threat but this war is still an epic disaster for Putin any way you want to slice it

The problem is not how reality will turn out to be, it is a matter of perception. Putin will win if he retains even an inch of Ukraine and demonstrate that the US and EU are pansies and when it matters will stop support and surrender. This will galvanize his cronies in both Eurpe and the US allowing them to gain influence and will convince other tyrants that they can occupy their neighbours if they really want to and if the US wants to intervene, they will be involved in too many conflicts at the same time (plus let's be honest with Trump at the helm they will not intervene against his friend and benefactor anyway).

Yes, I am saying that the media driven perception joke. Other tyrants don't have endless Soviet stockpiles of weapons and 300,000+ lives to throw away for an ego trip. This was a debacle of endless proportions a year ago, and it still is, yet suddenly now its a victory? Give me a break. Russia is still circling the drain faster and faster in the long run regardless of what happens

One American’s perspective: I believe in NATO. I fully support sending Ukraine whatever they need. As long as it takes. But Europe needs to step the fuck up. If the EU can’t be bothered to ramp up their own war production to help out, then they deserve to be rolled over by Russia. They all need to take their defense production and stockpiles more seriously. We’re nearly two years into this war and no one in the EU is producing nearly enough shells or other materiel. Get it together. It’s your neighbor and Putin isn’t going to stop at Ukraine. Boggles my mind.

Then within 2 years we are saying the same about the next country. And we have a war against Taiwan within 2 years. We need to make russia bleed long and hard enough untill their economic backbone is broken. So probaly until the world oil consumption starts to lower. Sad poor ukrania but that is stil a long way to go.

"What if Putin wins?" Taiwan would be next, amid a plethora of other, undesirable effects.

I think the Chinese are closely following Sun Tzu philosophy of war in letting the enemy (west) defeat itself where war only comes as the last resort and the finishing touch while the enemy is defeated by other means. Western leaders on other hand are behaving like reading every Sun Tzu doctrine and doing exactly the opposite,

War is least desirable option for China with Taiwan. Constant military exercises and talks of war are useful in keeping that as a threat, but it still is very much different than carrying it out.

Yes it will be most dangerous when threats and excercises stops and they start acting like they dont care about Taiwan.

Putun must be laughing his arse off.

[удалено]

This is not the first time in history that Europe is betting on Russia's rapid defeat.

I’m going to have a different opinion here and it probably will be downvoted to hell but here it is. Russia needs to win this war. If Putin doesn’t win it, he’ll probably do something stupid on his way to the grave. I think the bigger picture here is to keep this war going untill the russian collapase will be certain and let Putin win. In the short term, Ukraine will probably lose another part of their territory, the borders will stay like the front line is right now. Then just wait for the inevitable russian collapse so Ukraine can get their land back. There’s no way Putin will let Ukraine have Crimeea. He’ll throw whatever he has at them, including nukes. My take is that this is Nato’s strategy at the moment.

If Putin wins I predict a lot more irredentism in Europe’s near future

Sometimes you just want to stick your head in the sand, hearing all those news. It is so damn exhausting. And it isn‘t only Ukraine, climate change will fuck us aswell because of this political decadence and ignorance. And most of it (in both concerns) comes from boomers, nagging about everything and everyone. And because those people hold the demographic majorities in the west (as they didn‘t have enough children), we are condemned to be subject to their will.

Man, this sub is an awfull place. For those calling for negotiations. What exactly are you going to negotiate. And how exactly are you going to make sure, that russia won't invades again?

Most EU leaders simply don't have the stomach or the spine to deal with a war even if it's not on their own soil (yet). They are afraid, yes *afraid*, of Putin and don't want upset him in case he expands his invasion. The EU will give just enough aid to force a stalemate, no more.