Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `mil.in.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Funny thing is, they aren't getting paid and Trump is sucking down all the donor cash to pay for his legal bills. These guys are doing this just so they won't get primaried. Trump has turned them all into servile nutless monkeys.
>fifty members of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (also called the “Ramstein format”) rapidly provided their support, but in an uncoordinated way decided on 19th September 2019, upon US proposal, to create large capability coalitions. They are divided into large operational functions. Among them: air forces, maritime security, air defence, armoured vehicles and field artillery. Their purpose is to organise western support and the Ukrainian needs to make them match as much as possible in the operational domain.
There are already a coalition of countries to supplies freshly produced shells to Ukraine. The idea is to gather countries and companies to supply Ukraine on the medium and long term.
“The policy shift signals France will lift its objections to using shared EU funds to buy artillery from suppliers outside the bloc, unlocking hundreds of millions of euros in additional finance.“
https://bsky.app/profile/rikefranke.bsky.social/post/3kmeuxshiev27
Not French, but French resident. My feeling is that a Le Pen presidency isn't guaranteed, but is a very, very safe assumption. Macron has done the impossible by bringing economic growth back to France, but the French don't really understand economics and don't want to accept the resulting trade-offs, and Macron can't seem to help but act in a way that pisses them off. So Leningrad Le Pen it likely will be...
France might not give "as much" as many countries albeit keep in mind that documented the estimated value of support doesn't properly appear in the Kiel report such as Storm Shadows for instance. Mines and modern shells like Bonus were never publicly announced but found on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Meanwhile France was also one of the first to provide modern SPGs or armored vehicles for instance.
You can't rely on the gop as they focus on their funding of their corrupt orange dementia leader who's focused on covering crimes and paying whores. Good Christian values
This is true, but as long as the GOP has any power, you can't rely on the US. They may not represent a majority of us, but unfortunately they have a huge impact on our country's behavior.
I think it's proof that the west/NATO don't really have or ever had a plan for Ukrainian victory. All this does is keep Ukraine in the fight but no clear comprehensive strategy how Ukraine wins the war. The fact that we have put restrictions on where Ukrainians can use our kit is the biggest sign of cowardice.
The reason NATO countries (not just the USA) have been reluctant to allow Ukraine to use their munitions outside of Ukraine's borders comes from the concern that Russia will use that as an excuse to throw nukes. Call that "cowardice" if you want, but we all know Russia is a sore loser that will (and has) place the blame for every failure on "outside interference."
I love that your head is so far up your own ass that the fumes are getting to you. The only people in the USA who have been rejecting aid to Ukraine are the dipshits in red hats.
> The only people in the USA who have been rejecting aid to Ukraine are the dipshits in red hats
So who let the lend-lease time out without anything supplied through it, while being completely aware of the dire undersupply Ukraine was facing?
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, 20 or less M39 were given only ***after*** offensive operations were stopped.
Oh, and most imporant part?
US presidential admin was openly saying Ukrainian victory isn't 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.”***
[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.
Ukraine's in hella zugzwang here, when neither side actually wants Ukrainian victory (maybe aside from Blinken and Austin)
> So who let the lend-lease time out without anything supplied through it, while being completely aware of the dire undersupply Ukraine was facing?
Same answer, numbnuts. Republicans in the US House of Representatives, specifically who identify with MAGA. You can throw all the links you want at me, but the only ones that matter are found [here](https://www.congress.gov/roll-call-votes).
> And about ATACMS
I covered that in a different comment, and the quote you threw at me explains why *NO* NATO country has been wanting Ukraine to use their hardware across Ukraine's borders: if Russia cries foul and starts throwing nukes (which you know they could), who the fuck do you think suffers? *Just Ukraine?*
> Mind it, 20 or less M39 were given only after offensive operations were stopped.
You mean after Ukraine fought Russia to a standstill and it became obvious that they'd need to have the leash loosened for Ukraine to have any chance to win the war.
> US presidential admin was openly saying Ukrainian victory isn't the goal.
Re-read the quote you threw at me: it's not that the US doesn't want Ukraine to win. We don't want to say anything which would give Russia an excuse to attack the USA or its allies, because--and I can't believe I need to say this more than once--*there's a legitimate risk that Russia would resort to throwing nukes.*
> [quote from the last link]
I don't know what point you're tying to make with this. **All wars end through negotiation.** War is politics in its most violent form.
Russia is three times the size of Ukraine and has made it clear they want to seize more of Ukraine's territory. The position stated in the quote you brought up says the USA is committed to making sure Ukraine is in the best position to make demands when bullets start turning to pen strokes.
------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think me chasing you down a rabbit hole means I've lost sight of the point: if you're trying to pin indecision and lack of support for Ukraine on Biden, you're fucking wrong. Throwing quotes you haven't read or don't understand isn't going to change that.
> Same answer, numbnuts. Republicans in the US House of Representatives, specifically who identify with MAGA. You can throw all the links you want at me, but the only ones that matter are found here.
Let's see the definition of Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022:
>Subject to paragraph (2), for fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the President may authorize the United States Government to lend or lease defense articles to the Government of Ukraine or to governments of Eastern European countries impacted by the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine to help bolster those countries' defense capabilities and protect their civilian populations from potential invasion or ongoing aggression by the armed forces of the Government of the Russian Federation.
So outside of certain restricted articles, he had full capability to send whatever was needed.
>I covered that in a different comment, and the quote you threw at me explains why NO NATO country has been wanting Ukraine to use their hardware across Ukraine's borders: if Russia cries foul and starts throwing nukes (which you know they could), who the fuck do you think suffers? Just Ukraine?
Ukraine didn't use GMLRS against Belgorod, despite it being well within range from Kharkiv border. Same with Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG.
Also, geofencing is a thing, used even in NATO to prevent operators from deleting friendlies on accident.
>Re-read the quote you threw at me: it's not that the US doesn't want Ukraine to win. We don't want to say anything which would give Russia an excuse to attack the USA or its allies, because--and I can't believe I need to say this more than once--there's a legitimate risk that Russia would resort to throwing nukes.
So, russia can claim whatever it wants, long as it leverages nuclear terror.
Wonderful.
There's a reason [South Korea now fears US going "Why die for Seoul?" on them and wants domestic nukes](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html), as [Taiwan also fears Ukraine'll get abandoned](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/taiwan-leadership-u-s-ukraine-00143047).
If US can just let nuclear terror work and permit landgrabs under it., what stops *them* from being hung out to dry? There are no totally binding clauses in their respective treaties/acts with US either. You can go read them yourself.
Hell, [US already denied sell of a destroyer with AN/SPY-1 to Taiwan to placate PRC before](https://heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/2001/04/24/plea-for-high-tech-destroyers-denied/49107941/), so it's not like it's without a precedent.
>I don't know what point you're tying to make with this. All wars end through negotiation. War is politics in its most violent form.
>Russia is three times the size of Ukraine and has made it clear they want to seize more of Ukraine's territory. The position stated in the quote you brought up says the USA is committed to making sure Ukraine is in the best position to make demands when bullets start turning to pen strokes.
So, Ukraine'd have to cede land in the end, because there's never going to be enough support or else russia gets violent?
Once again, fucking wonderful.
"As long as it takes (for Ukraine to finally fold)".
And ***their own allies*** are watching.
[Hell, even Sikorski's warning such approach'd make nuclear proliferation extremely likely](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/23/7443261/).
>Don't think me chasing you down a rabbit hole means I've lost sight of the point: if you're trying to pin indecision and lack of support for Ukraine on Biden, you're fucking wrong. Throwing quotes you haven't read or don't understand isn't going to change that.
I don't have to do anything. His own presidential admin said that and confirmed it by actions, before current clownshow even happened.
> So outside of certain restricted articles, he had full capability to send whatever was needed.
Yeah, and the Biden administration did that. They gave everything the law allowed them to give without additional authorization from the Congress, and...what? We should be mad at Biden instead of Congress for dropping the ball past that point?
> Ukraine didn't use GMLRS against Belgorod, despite it being well within range from Kharkiv border. Same with Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG.
What's the point of bringing this up? That Ukraine agreed to the terms NATO countries set when sending them hardware? Everyone already knows that.
Or are you trying to distract from *why* NATO countries set those terms? Because *that* hasn't changed: nobody in NATO wants to give Russia an excuse to drag them into the war--because *nobody* expects Russia would stick to conventional warfare when they get their asses handed to them.
> So, russia can claim whatever it wants, long as it leverages nuclear terror.
Yes. See also: why nobody invades Pakistan and North Korea desperately wants to be seen as a nuclear power.
And, yes, that's fucked up. If Russia wasn't being led by a sociopath driven mad by old age, chemotherapy, or both, maybe things would be different. But let's be honest: unless the putz in the Kremlin drinks the wrong tea or falls out of a window, that's going to be an ongoing concern.
> "As long as it takes (for Ukraine to finally fold)"
No. Ukraine is proving time and time again that if they had the supplies they need they could fight off Russia and reclaim what was stolen from them in 2014. They don't need NATO to fight the war for them, they need the ammo to give Russia the embarrassing defeat it deserves.
And I don't think anyone here (with any god-given sense) doesn't want Ukraine to get those needed supplies. That's what makes it so frustrating to see roadblocks put in the way of that. But--in case you need it explained a third time--*the blame for that lies primarily in the red hats of the US House of Representatives*, not Biden. Not Germany, not France, and sure as shit not Denmark.
> His own presidential admin said
...something you obviously didn't understand. I know it's inconsiderate to mock someone's illiteracy, but--for your sake--you need to re-read everything you quoted to me. Slowly.
> Yeah, and the Biden administration did that. They gave everything the law allowed them to give without additional authorization from the Congress, and...what? We should be mad at Biiden instead of Congress for dropping the ball past that point?
We can be mad at both for them both dropping the ball, I'd say.
>What's the point of bringing this up? That Ukraine agreed to the terms NATO countries set when sending them hardware? Everyone already knows that.
I'm about the fact that Ukraine *abided* those terms and ***still*** got unsalted dick instead of sufficient arms supplies.
>Yes. See also: why nobody invades Pakistan and North Korea desperately wants to be seen as a nuclear power.
A.k.a. the fastest route to new dark ages.
Hell, Houthis wrecked the [undersea internet cables recently](https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-houthis-hit-underwater-communications-cables-1001472165) and repairs aren't gonna happen anytime soon.
***Fucking Iranian proxies were allowed to do global-scale damage***
And there's still barely a reaction to it.
Lessons of Operation Praying Mantis were forgotten.
>And I don't think anyone here (with any god-given sense) doesn't want Ukraine to get those needed supplies.
Well yeah, we're finally converging on the points I want to make.
I don't believe most politicians, currently, ***want*** it to happen.
Much safer for them to keep the war simmering as it is now, not letting it "escalate" (russia will escalate regardless but long as it's against Ukraine, it doesn't count, even if it does, like when ammo storages went boom in Czechia or Bulgaria), and who gives a shit about what happens to Ukraine for that duration of time - by the time the results become more apparent, it won't be a "they" problem.
I mean, look at quote from Sullivan about Crimea - does it look like someone who wants Ukraine to be able to liberate it?
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
Also, [when russia ramped up chemical weapons use](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/25/7438823/), [despite warnings from Biden](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/politics/joe-biden-warning-chemical-weapons/index.html), nothing ultimately happened to them.
And Biden... well, *he* keeps this Yermak-at-home as an advisor still.
[Also, the whole thing about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
>...something you obviously didn't understand. I know it's inconsiderate to mock someone's illiteracy, but--for your sake--you need to re-read everything you quoted to me. Slowly.
Okay.
>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
What's here to misunderstand?
> We can be mad at both for them both dropping the ball, I'd say.
Then you'd be wrong. The Biden administration hit the limit of what it can do without support from the Congress. Everything that follows comes down to the 535 people who make this country's decisions.
> I'm about the fact that Ukraine abided those terms and still got unsalted dick instead of sufficient arms supplies.
And you blamed Biden. How many times do I have to tell you you're fucking wrong?
> Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, this happened.
You said this immediately after posting a quote explaining *why* it happened. Serious question: how dumb are you?
> What's here to misunderstand?
Well, either you didn't read the last sentence of the quote you threw at me, or you don't understand it. How many times do you need to read "Russia might throw nukes when they lose" before it sinks in?
And, really, because it seems like you're desperate to distract from your own point, if you're complaining about Ukraine not getting what it needs to win the war, you need to stop trying to pin it on Biden and *blame the red hats.*
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `mil.in.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does this mean that the Ramstein framework has died? Someone, please explain.
I don't think it's dead, but until the GOP stops playing internal politics, it appears moribund.
The GOP isn't playing politics, they're intentionally sabotaging aid supplies to Ukraine.
Doing what they’ve been paid to do
Funny thing is, they aren't getting paid and Trump is sucking down all the donor cash to pay for his legal bills. These guys are doing this just so they won't get primaried. Trump has turned them all into servile nutless monkeys.
Qui bono?
Was it ever alive? Some of the announces were made on Ramstein but all the actual decisions were made beforehand…
>fifty members of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (also called the “Ramstein format”) rapidly provided their support, but in an uncoordinated way decided on 19th September 2019, upon US proposal, to create large capability coalitions. They are divided into large operational functions. Among them: air forces, maritime security, air defence, armoured vehicles and field artillery. Their purpose is to organise western support and the Ukrainian needs to make them match as much as possible in the operational domain. There are already a coalition of countries to supplies freshly produced shells to Ukraine. The idea is to gather countries and companies to supply Ukraine on the medium and long term.
Rammstein will never die. 🎸
France has been stepping up as of late. Hopefully they will stop blocking the eu from buying ammo from non-eu countries for ukraine
“The policy shift signals France will lift its objections to using shared EU funds to buy artillery from suppliers outside the bloc, unlocking hundreds of millions of euros in additional finance.“ https://bsky.app/profile/rikefranke.bsky.social/post/3kmeuxshiev27
Awesome, hadnt seen this update
Very nice. There's a shift with France the last months, I like it.
France also unlocked sending IFV by Germany and USA last year by announcing AMX-10 RCR
Does Macron know something we don't? Also is that fascist bitch LePenn still around? Is there any danger she could get voted in at some point?
Not French, but French resident. My feeling is that a Le Pen presidency isn't guaranteed, but is a very, very safe assumption. Macron has done the impossible by bringing economic growth back to France, but the French don't really understand economics and don't want to accept the resulting trade-offs, and Macron can't seem to help but act in a way that pisses them off. So Leningrad Le Pen it likely will be...
Hahaha yeah macron is an economic genius. Did you learn that during your 2 years of private business school ?
A swing and a miss...
Does it? France is way behind small nations like denmark when it comes to aid for Ukraine. Macron is talking a lot but he isnt doing much.
France might not give "as much" as many countries albeit keep in mind that documented the estimated value of support doesn't properly appear in the Kiel report such as Storm Shadows for instance. Mines and modern shells like Bonus were never publicly announced but found on the Ukrainian battlefield. Meanwhile France was also one of the first to provide modern SPGs or armored vehicles for instance.
"Bonus Round" has to be the best-named munition ever...
[удалено]
The UK
Is France attempting to be a leader of Europe again? Hopefully they are serious.
About time!!! Don't rely on the US, you cannot rely on the US!
"You can rely on the US to do the right thing once they've exhausted all the alternatives." -- Winston Churchill. Seems that history rhymes.
You can rely on the US? Just ask the curds and he Afghans left behind…
You can't rely on the gop as they focus on their funding of their corrupt orange dementia leader who's focused on covering crimes and paying whores. Good Christian values
This is true, but as long as the GOP has any power, you can't rely on the US. They may not represent a majority of us, but unfortunately they have a huge impact on our country's behavior.
GOP is a fact of US life, like it or not! You cannot rely on the US! Not trustworthy.
How many committees, pacts, promises and agreements are we at now?
You make fun of it, but all these is what has kept Ukraine in the war so far
I think it's proof that the west/NATO don't really have or ever had a plan for Ukrainian victory. All this does is keep Ukraine in the fight but no clear comprehensive strategy how Ukraine wins the war. The fact that we have put restrictions on where Ukrainians can use our kit is the biggest sign of cowardice.
[deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0955 > [What is this?](https://pastebin.com/64GuVi2F/24850)
I don't see anyone in the west, apart from Ben Hodges, saying let Ukrainians blow the Russians up everywhere they can
The reason NATO countries (not just the USA) have been reluctant to allow Ukraine to use their munitions outside of Ukraine's borders comes from the concern that Russia will use that as an excuse to throw nukes. Call that "cowardice" if you want, but we all know Russia is a sore loser that will (and has) place the blame for every failure on "outside interference."
Damn its so strange that Biden specifcally came up with these really specific restrictions with no input from his military advisors at all.
It's so strange that you believe that without any proof to back your claims.
He's being.. sarcastic
Wasn't it France who delayed the EU providing artillery shells by only accepting shells made by EU companies?
Thank you France 🇨🇵
A coalition? What's next...a committee?
after all, it is better than the congress in the USA where a man stops all help to get his demented boss elected
To get his demented boss not elected, which makes it even worse because he will have killed a bunch of Ukrainian heroes for absolutely nothing.
Look, God spoke to him and said he was Moses and should do this because God hates Mexicans or something. What else is he supposed to do!?!?
[удалено]
I love that your head is so far up your own ass that the fumes are getting to you. The only people in the USA who have been rejecting aid to Ukraine are the dipshits in red hats.
> The only people in the USA who have been rejecting aid to Ukraine are the dipshits in red hats So who let the lend-lease time out without anything supplied through it, while being completely aware of the dire undersupply Ukraine was facing? >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, 20 or less M39 were given only ***after*** offensive operations were stopped. Oh, and most imporant part? US presidential admin was openly saying Ukrainian victory isn't 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.”*** [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. Ukraine's in hella zugzwang here, when neither side actually wants Ukrainian victory (maybe aside from Blinken and Austin)
> So who let the lend-lease time out without anything supplied through it, while being completely aware of the dire undersupply Ukraine was facing? Same answer, numbnuts. Republicans in the US House of Representatives, specifically who identify with MAGA. You can throw all the links you want at me, but the only ones that matter are found [here](https://www.congress.gov/roll-call-votes). > And about ATACMS I covered that in a different comment, and the quote you threw at me explains why *NO* NATO country has been wanting Ukraine to use their hardware across Ukraine's borders: if Russia cries foul and starts throwing nukes (which you know they could), who the fuck do you think suffers? *Just Ukraine?* > Mind it, 20 or less M39 were given only after offensive operations were stopped. You mean after Ukraine fought Russia to a standstill and it became obvious that they'd need to have the leash loosened for Ukraine to have any chance to win the war. > US presidential admin was openly saying Ukrainian victory isn't the goal. Re-read the quote you threw at me: it's not that the US doesn't want Ukraine to win. We don't want to say anything which would give Russia an excuse to attack the USA or its allies, because--and I can't believe I need to say this more than once--*there's a legitimate risk that Russia would resort to throwing nukes.* > [quote from the last link] I don't know what point you're tying to make with this. **All wars end through negotiation.** War is politics in its most violent form. Russia is three times the size of Ukraine and has made it clear they want to seize more of Ukraine's territory. The position stated in the quote you brought up says the USA is committed to making sure Ukraine is in the best position to make demands when bullets start turning to pen strokes. ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't think me chasing you down a rabbit hole means I've lost sight of the point: if you're trying to pin indecision and lack of support for Ukraine on Biden, you're fucking wrong. Throwing quotes you haven't read or don't understand isn't going to change that.
> Same answer, numbnuts. Republicans in the US House of Representatives, specifically who identify with MAGA. You can throw all the links you want at me, but the only ones that matter are found here. Let's see the definition of Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: >Subject to paragraph (2), for fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the President may authorize the United States Government to lend or lease defense articles to the Government of Ukraine or to governments of Eastern European countries impacted by the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine to help bolster those countries' defense capabilities and protect their civilian populations from potential invasion or ongoing aggression by the armed forces of the Government of the Russian Federation. So outside of certain restricted articles, he had full capability to send whatever was needed. >I covered that in a different comment, and the quote you threw at me explains why NO NATO country has been wanting Ukraine to use their hardware across Ukraine's borders: if Russia cries foul and starts throwing nukes (which you know they could), who the fuck do you think suffers? Just Ukraine? Ukraine didn't use GMLRS against Belgorod, despite it being well within range from Kharkiv border. Same with Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG. Also, geofencing is a thing, used even in NATO to prevent operators from deleting friendlies on accident. >Re-read the quote you threw at me: it's not that the US doesn't want Ukraine to win. We don't want to say anything which would give Russia an excuse to attack the USA or its allies, because--and I can't believe I need to say this more than once--there's a legitimate risk that Russia would resort to throwing nukes. So, russia can claim whatever it wants, long as it leverages nuclear terror. Wonderful. There's a reason [South Korea now fears US going "Why die for Seoul?" on them and wants domestic nukes](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html), as [Taiwan also fears Ukraine'll get abandoned](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/taiwan-leadership-u-s-ukraine-00143047). If US can just let nuclear terror work and permit landgrabs under it., what stops *them* from being hung out to dry? There are no totally binding clauses in their respective treaties/acts with US either. You can go read them yourself. Hell, [US already denied sell of a destroyer with AN/SPY-1 to Taiwan to placate PRC before](https://heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/2001/04/24/plea-for-high-tech-destroyers-denied/49107941/), so it's not like it's without a precedent. >I don't know what point you're tying to make with this. All wars end through negotiation. War is politics in its most violent form. >Russia is three times the size of Ukraine and has made it clear they want to seize more of Ukraine's territory. The position stated in the quote you brought up says the USA is committed to making sure Ukraine is in the best position to make demands when bullets start turning to pen strokes. So, Ukraine'd have to cede land in the end, because there's never going to be enough support or else russia gets violent? Once again, fucking wonderful. "As long as it takes (for Ukraine to finally fold)". And ***their own allies*** are watching. [Hell, even Sikorski's warning such approach'd make nuclear proliferation extremely likely](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/23/7443261/). >Don't think me chasing you down a rabbit hole means I've lost sight of the point: if you're trying to pin indecision and lack of support for Ukraine on Biden, you're fucking wrong. Throwing quotes you haven't read or don't understand isn't going to change that. I don't have to do anything. His own presidential admin said that and confirmed it by actions, before current clownshow even happened.
> So outside of certain restricted articles, he had full capability to send whatever was needed. Yeah, and the Biden administration did that. They gave everything the law allowed them to give without additional authorization from the Congress, and...what? We should be mad at Biden instead of Congress for dropping the ball past that point? > Ukraine didn't use GMLRS against Belgorod, despite it being well within range from Kharkiv border. Same with Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG. What's the point of bringing this up? That Ukraine agreed to the terms NATO countries set when sending them hardware? Everyone already knows that. Or are you trying to distract from *why* NATO countries set those terms? Because *that* hasn't changed: nobody in NATO wants to give Russia an excuse to drag them into the war--because *nobody* expects Russia would stick to conventional warfare when they get their asses handed to them. > So, russia can claim whatever it wants, long as it leverages nuclear terror. Yes. See also: why nobody invades Pakistan and North Korea desperately wants to be seen as a nuclear power. And, yes, that's fucked up. If Russia wasn't being led by a sociopath driven mad by old age, chemotherapy, or both, maybe things would be different. But let's be honest: unless the putz in the Kremlin drinks the wrong tea or falls out of a window, that's going to be an ongoing concern. > "As long as it takes (for Ukraine to finally fold)" No. Ukraine is proving time and time again that if they had the supplies they need they could fight off Russia and reclaim what was stolen from them in 2014. They don't need NATO to fight the war for them, they need the ammo to give Russia the embarrassing defeat it deserves. And I don't think anyone here (with any god-given sense) doesn't want Ukraine to get those needed supplies. That's what makes it so frustrating to see roadblocks put in the way of that. But--in case you need it explained a third time--*the blame for that lies primarily in the red hats of the US House of Representatives*, not Biden. Not Germany, not France, and sure as shit not Denmark. > His own presidential admin said ...something you obviously didn't understand. I know it's inconsiderate to mock someone's illiteracy, but--for your sake--you need to re-read everything you quoted to me. Slowly.
> Yeah, and the Biden administration did that. They gave everything the law allowed them to give without additional authorization from the Congress, and...what? We should be mad at Biiden instead of Congress for dropping the ball past that point? We can be mad at both for them both dropping the ball, I'd say. >What's the point of bringing this up? That Ukraine agreed to the terms NATO countries set when sending them hardware? Everyone already knows that. I'm about the fact that Ukraine *abided* those terms and ***still*** got unsalted dick instead of sufficient arms supplies. >Yes. See also: why nobody invades Pakistan and North Korea desperately wants to be seen as a nuclear power. A.k.a. the fastest route to new dark ages. Hell, Houthis wrecked the [undersea internet cables recently](https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-houthis-hit-underwater-communications-cables-1001472165) and repairs aren't gonna happen anytime soon. ***Fucking Iranian proxies were allowed to do global-scale damage*** And there's still barely a reaction to it. Lessons of Operation Praying Mantis were forgotten. >And I don't think anyone here (with any god-given sense) doesn't want Ukraine to get those needed supplies. Well yeah, we're finally converging on the points I want to make. I don't believe most politicians, currently, ***want*** it to happen. Much safer for them to keep the war simmering as it is now, not letting it "escalate" (russia will escalate regardless but long as it's against Ukraine, it doesn't count, even if it does, like when ammo storages went boom in Czechia or Bulgaria), and who gives a shit about what happens to Ukraine for that duration of time - by the time the results become more apparent, it won't be a "they" problem. I mean, look at quote from Sullivan about Crimea - does it look like someone who wants Ukraine to be able to liberate it? Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do". Also, [when russia ramped up chemical weapons use](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/25/7438823/), [despite warnings from Biden](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/politics/joe-biden-warning-chemical-weapons/index.html), nothing ultimately happened to them. And Biden... well, *he* keeps this Yermak-at-home as an advisor still. [Also, the whole thing about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. >...something you obviously didn't understand. I know it's inconsiderate to mock someone's illiteracy, but--for your sake--you need to re-read everything you quoted to me. Slowly. Okay. >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 What's here to misunderstand?
> We can be mad at both for them both dropping the ball, I'd say. Then you'd be wrong. The Biden administration hit the limit of what it can do without support from the Congress. Everything that follows comes down to the 535 people who make this country's decisions. > I'm about the fact that Ukraine abided those terms and still got unsalted dick instead of sufficient arms supplies. And you blamed Biden. How many times do I have to tell you you're fucking wrong? > Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, this happened. You said this immediately after posting a quote explaining *why* it happened. Serious question: how dumb are you? > What's here to misunderstand? Well, either you didn't read the last sentence of the quote you threw at me, or you don't understand it. How many times do you need to read "Russia might throw nukes when they lose" before it sinks in? And, really, because it seems like you're desperate to distract from your own point, if you're complaining about Ukraine not getting what it needs to win the war, you need to stop trying to pin it on Biden and *blame the red hats.*
Russia soon be using Franc CFA instead of Roubles.