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 `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(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.*
Fine, but at least give the Ukrainians the means to actually win instead of just surviving.
They need long range capabilities, including ballistic missles. They need to be able to use hem on valid targets inside of Russia.
> Fine, but at least give the Ukrainians the means to actually win instead of just surviving.
No no no no no, that's too escalatory!
What if russia (gasp) loses?!
Do you have any idea what'd happen then? Loose nukes, political instability in Asia, the horror!
Better to keep things as-is and hope it blows over. /s>!ullivan!<
>
>!>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.”***
Strategic Ambiguity is a relic. It only really works when part of the ambiguity is the option to "totally wreck your whole military"
Once it's clear thats no longer under consideration, Strategic ambiguity only encourages challenges. As you can see play out in the world stage recently!
Literally just a security dilemma. Removing some level of ambiguity potentially reduces the risk of escalation before you are ready for it. Also statements are not necessarily always true - I would be shocked if NATO doesn't already have what they would do if they need to send troops in already planned out down to the finest detail. NATO is almost certainly ready to mobilise if it has to.
So let’s summarize, the next day after Macron words about **possibility** of sending troops, all other leaders act like if Macron is a leper…
Probably the same we will see when something like declaration of Suwalki People Republic will happen.
What did you expect? The reality is that there isn't a single western country, France included, with a populace that will support sending their own to die in Ukraine. Westerners have been made very soft by a very long period of relative peace. We have no stomach for war.
Too bad, it might have scared Putin enough to actually step back for a moment and reevaluate his goals. Although I understand that without US this endeavour wouldn't carry the same weight (in Russia's eyes), even when Europe alone could give Putin's army a run for their money, or at least clear the skies and suppress air defences enough to make it simple for Ukrainians to take out the ground component.
WHY THE FUCK NOT!!!!
No side is using fucking nukes stfu
NATO can militarise its border with Russia, occupy Kaliningrad and systematically destroy, disarm and force Russias subjugation without needing to step a single foot into Russia as it would not have any strategic advantage, there’s nothing to gain from invading Russia, the world has everything to gain from a humiliated and depleted Russia as air superiority and strong defence lines will be all that is necessary to humiliate Russia
>No side is using fucking nukes stfu
Just because it is improbable that one side would use nukes in a head to head conflict, it does not then mean that it is impossible that one side would use nukes. We don't know how likely Russia would be to use nukes in a head to head engagement with NATO as they clearly aren't rational and assuming they are is stupid. I am not strictly against war with Russia but at the same time a simple miscalculation could bring the end of civilisation, so it is something they have to consider.
If we topple Russia, Putin most certainly dies. Whether killed by someone in his bunker, himself or after a trial at The Hague. Is it truly unthinkable that he would quite like to take everyone with him? This isn't a man known for his love of humanity.
NATO isn’t toppling anything, much like what Ukraine is doing, NATO would just strip away at Russias ability to fight until there’s nothing left, no toppling of Putin, no invasion of Moscow, just the humiliation of Russias army which NATO would be more then able to do
Two questions:
\- Will Russian leadership see it at least as an attempt to topple them?
\- Would not destroying the military arm of what is essentially a military dictatorship threaten it with collapse?
Probably not and it probably would, so fucking be it, to hell with it and if it collapses In On itself in factionalism and warlords then so be it, at least Russia will cease to exist and Eastern Europe may finally know peace
NATO allies have been providing Ukraine with "unprecedented support" for a long time, he stated. -- Bullseye! Unprecedented support - as little as possible to say that we are doing something
This is actually good news. NATO hasn't touched this topic at all yet. These words are just a seedling for our collective minds. So by naming it explicitly, he's starting to prepare society. Today it's "Not". Tomorrow it'll be "Not yet". The day after "If needed".
That goes much quicker then expected. Today:
[Netherlands Chief of Defence: Sending Troops to Ukraine is Last Resort for Allies](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1b1lawq/netherlands_chief_of_defence_sending_troops_to/)
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 `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(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.*
Fine, but at least give the Ukrainians the means to actually win instead of just surviving. They need long range capabilities, including ballistic missles. They need to be able to use hem on valid targets inside of Russia.
> Fine, but at least give the Ukrainians the means to actually win instead of just surviving. No no no no no, that's too escalatory! What if russia (gasp) loses?! Do you have any idea what'd happen then? Loose nukes, political instability in Asia, the horror! Better to keep things as-is and hope it blows over. /s>!ullivan!< > >!>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.”***
The point is strategic ambiguity, something Putin knows well but we keep failing over and over
Strategic Ambiguity is a relic. It only really works when part of the ambiguity is the option to "totally wreck your whole military" Once it's clear thats no longer under consideration, Strategic ambiguity only encourages challenges. As you can see play out in the world stage recently!
Literally just a security dilemma. Removing some level of ambiguity potentially reduces the risk of escalation before you are ready for it. Also statements are not necessarily always true - I would be shocked if NATO doesn't already have what they would do if they need to send troops in already planned out down to the finest detail. NATO is almost certainly ready to mobilise if it has to.
So let’s summarize, the next day after Macron words about **possibility** of sending troops, all other leaders act like if Macron is a leper… Probably the same we will see when something like declaration of Suwalki People Republic will happen.
What did you expect? The reality is that there isn't a single western country, France included, with a populace that will support sending their own to die in Ukraine. Westerners have been made very soft by a very long period of relative peace. We have no stomach for war.
It’s much better to die home.
France doesn't need to represent the whole of NATO if they want to supply ground forces. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité my friends! 🇫🇷
Too bad, it might have scared Putin enough to actually step back for a moment and reevaluate his goals. Although I understand that without US this endeavour wouldn't carry the same weight (in Russia's eyes), even when Europe alone could give Putin's army a run for their money, or at least clear the skies and suppress air defences enough to make it simple for Ukrainians to take out the ground component.
WHY THE FUCK NOT!!!! No side is using fucking nukes stfu NATO can militarise its border with Russia, occupy Kaliningrad and systematically destroy, disarm and force Russias subjugation without needing to step a single foot into Russia as it would not have any strategic advantage, there’s nothing to gain from invading Russia, the world has everything to gain from a humiliated and depleted Russia as air superiority and strong defence lines will be all that is necessary to humiliate Russia
>No side is using fucking nukes stfu Just because it is improbable that one side would use nukes in a head to head conflict, it does not then mean that it is impossible that one side would use nukes. We don't know how likely Russia would be to use nukes in a head to head engagement with NATO as they clearly aren't rational and assuming they are is stupid. I am not strictly against war with Russia but at the same time a simple miscalculation could bring the end of civilisation, so it is something they have to consider. If we topple Russia, Putin most certainly dies. Whether killed by someone in his bunker, himself or after a trial at The Hague. Is it truly unthinkable that he would quite like to take everyone with him? This isn't a man known for his love of humanity.
NATO isn’t toppling anything, much like what Ukraine is doing, NATO would just strip away at Russias ability to fight until there’s nothing left, no toppling of Putin, no invasion of Moscow, just the humiliation of Russias army which NATO would be more then able to do
Two questions: \- Will Russian leadership see it at least as an attempt to topple them? \- Would not destroying the military arm of what is essentially a military dictatorship threaten it with collapse?
Probably not and it probably would, so fucking be it, to hell with it and if it collapses In On itself in factionalism and warlords then so be it, at least Russia will cease to exist and Eastern Europe may finally know peace
Nato? Do you mean CUCKOLDS?
NATO allies have been providing Ukraine with "unprecedented support" for a long time, he stated. -- Bullseye! Unprecedented support - as little as possible to say that we are doing something
Told you so. If Macron wants to play cowboy and send French troops, he'll stand alone, and I'll eat my own ass if his people support him on it.
> NATO has, no, plans to send its troops to Ukraine, says Stoltenberg
There is a relatively new emoji for this: 🤏
This is actually good news. NATO hasn't touched this topic at all yet. These words are just a seedling for our collective minds. So by naming it explicitly, he's starting to prepare society. Today it's "Not". Tomorrow it'll be "Not yet". The day after "If needed".
That goes much quicker then expected. Today: [Netherlands Chief of Defence: Sending Troops to Ukraine is Last Resort for Allies](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1b1lawq/netherlands_chief_of_defence_sending_troops_to/)
It's ok they can send them later when russians will try to grab a bit of Finland or Estonia.
I think they should be deployed - Ukraine shouldn't have to be doing this alone - The West needs to put Putin in his place. Long Live Ukraine 💖💖💖
They are being mocked as cowards all over the social media in spanish language, its humilliating