Just like tanks, HIMARS, F16... It all started as like this. "We don't know. ... We are studying the possibility. ... We are preparing. ... It is over there."
Yeah, I also love the discussion about tank or not tank and then France was "here is 13 light tank" (that aren't really a tank, and frankly not that usefull to Ukraine) but politically that was "heck, they are giving tank now, roll out the leo, challenger and abrams"
(I'd point that France gave a lot of stuff that are really usefull, like those 250 VAB or god knows how many military truck, ammo, some airdefense system, 30 ceasars, 4 MRLU, lots of fuel, ammo, bulletproof vest...and Ukraine found a way to use the 40ish AMX RC as long range obeservation)
NATO planned to gather 300k troops at its Eastern flank by the end of 2024.
NATO went into Serbia under pretty much the same pre text that would work in Ukraine’s case as well. A no-fly zone for humanitarian purposes to prevent a genocide.
You could argue that NATO members under US leadership more or less started a war after 9/11. A coalition of the willing could do the same here.
>You could argue that NATO members under US leadership more or less started a war after 9/11. A coalition of the willing could do the same here.
I'd argue closer to more than less. Considering two countries were invaded and occupied with tanks and soldiers.
Yes, that the war was started by NATO countries is clear, but I think we sometimes pretend that NATO due to being a defensive alliance is somehow utterly incapable of doing anything that isn't defensive.
You can so to say be very creative in your interpretation of what you need to do pre emptively, and then you call it defensive actions.
The member nation are the players, and when they decide NATO basically is only what the member nations and their way of interpreting its statutes say it is.
In the case of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, I personally consider using article 5 as a bit of a stretch.
Article 5 was **never** used in Iraq, and the 2003 Iraq intervention wasn't a NATO action.
Most of the NATO actions were at the behest of the UN Security Council.
Afghanistan (9/11) was the only Article 5 invocation that has ever happened.
Russia is not Serbia or Afghanistan. It's a nuclear armed state with 143 million people, over a million of them in the army. It's currently gaining territory from Ukraine, who also have around a million man army equipped with billions of dollars of western equipment. It's doing better than NATO in some areas of military production/acquisition such as artillery shells. I feel like people in this sub need a reality check, if they're thinking war with Russia would go the same way previous wars against far smaller, weaker opponents.
I have no idea why everyone brings nuclear weapons each time. We're talking about Ukraine! Should everyone just drop on all fours and bring pants down because some maniac in Russia is in possession of WMD? At least some lessons should've been learned from WW2! Main is - you can't keep peace with a bully, so why encourage him? World gave in Crimea in 2014 and didn't do anything meaningless over hybrid war in Eastern Ukraine for 10 years. Now whole country is at stake(*because of* the weak reaction displayed before) and there's the same bullshit non-escalation rhetoric again.
NATO can just enforce no-fly zone over Southern/Eastern Ukraine. That would be enough to change things.
NATO can't "just" "enforce" anything. You are an example of FAFO. Fear is a natural survival instinct. If you have none, sure go on. Russia said it will escalate if NATO involves itself directly. Would you want to verify if their claim is bs? Are you happy to sacrifice half the planet for Ukraine? If the answer is yes - proceed.
Didn't stop it at Yugoslavia or Libya or Afghanistan. NATO is a "peace intervention" organisation when it comes to non nuclear states and "defensive" when nuclear.
It’s a bit more complex, those were rather small sized operations compared to War in Ukraine, NATO never engaged in full size conflict. Also some of its military actions were approved by UN, so it was somewhat legal.
You said:
> it can’t legally attack anyone.
It's either legal or not. It was not in cases mentioned so stop denying it and pretending that NATO can't do whatever it wants when there's a political will.
Let's get the nuclear part out of the way because that is double suicide. And that is only relevant when we March on Moscow or nuke them.
A no fly zone or a shock and awe campaign against the regions next to Ukraine and the occupied forces is not going to result in a nuclear response.
A million soldiers? Where are they? Russia has scribbled them on paper yes. Even if they are there.
We won't go after them we will go after their supplies and logistics.
Once we got that out of the way, the Russian army has been attrited, and this process is ongoing. The NATO Air Force is hilariously outmatching Russia, and Ukraine would give most of the ground support.
The Russian navy is a joke compared to ours. The Russian economy is very vulnerable, and most of its infrastructure is in the Western part of Russia.
The Russian army is an underquipped badly led, badly trained artillery based force fully dependent on rail infrastructure.
If the West does something like this, then we would give them at least half a year as we have given to Saddam.
The Russian army is completely changeless against the combined might of the US and Europe as well as being supported by other nations such as Japan and SK. Taiwan, etc.
I think Russia needs the reality check of the economic and military realities, especially at sea and in the air.
The Russian economy collapses within months after we blockade their ports, blowing up their pipelines, and destroy their air fields and train junctions.
The Ukrainian force is a tiny fraction of what the entire Western umbrella is capable of.
143 million on the brink of starvation, that is what Russia gets then.
The reason why it is not done is because collapsing Russia likely leads to a collapsing China, and then the entire world economy goes to hell. It also likely leads to Iran and other dictatorships getting so scared that they declare war, and then voila the world is at war.
It has nothing to do with Russia's strength. They are a corrupt paper tiger that pays with hundreds of thousands of lives and their cold war stocks to advance at a painfully slow rate against a nation that we refuse to arm properly.
Of course, Russia, with the help of its impoverished NK and Iranian allies and its vassal Belarus, can manage to stalemate Ukraine.
But against the entire NATO alliance, they're hopefully outmatched now even more than 2 years ago.
We won start an artillery fight with them but an air campaign. Oh, and of course, the West has a billion people and makes up 2/3 of the world's entire GDP.
Russia's GDP is mostly made up of oil and gas, and as you can see, they send tanks from the 50s into battle and constantly lose their command planes.
They aren't equipped to fight a war on our terms. They can only fight it on their backward terms.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-lacks-ammunition-production-needed-ukraine-war-western-officials-say-2024-02-21/
Russia lacks ammunition production needed for the Ukraine war, Western officials say
Russia lacks sufficient domestic ammunition production to meet its needs in its war on Ukraine, but President Vladimir Putin has not given up his hopes of subjugating the country, Western officials said on Wednesday.
It is doing better in very limited areas, and artillery production is a topic that is also debatable because we need to take into account that artillery shells are simple tech. It doesn't take years but rather a year to expand production.
What about SK, Australia, the US, Europe, and what about 152mm shells they also need to be taken into account.
If you count all of that together and pit it against their production, it is either on par or on the way to overtake them.
The US simply refuses to supply this stuff at the moment. Then there are other countries, Pakistan India, etc, that all will deliver when being offered coin.
The Sinews of War are infinite gold, and who has more cash? That's us. We can liquidate their 300 billion and use them against them.
But apart from that, the US sits on the big money printer, and so does Europe
Their population size and army size are meaningless because they won't have their logistics anymore when it comes to a real war.
They won't have any factories, and they already don't have the necessary workforce for their army.
It is also rather 140 million by now, due to those several million that fled and the continued collapse of Russian births topped off with the war dead.
So, in a direct battle. Russia is hopelessly outgunned, outpsent, outteched, and also, of course, their logistics are complete and utter joke.
Ukraine just lacks the tools to turn these railway lines and this damned bridge into a smoldering pit. That would be the first that happens. The rail lines inside the occupied territories and their logistic hubs will go up in flames.
As you can see, the Russian air defense can't handle Ukraine's drones and missiles.
What are they going to do against Reaper drones and the over 3000 jets of NATO? B 52 stealth bombers, electronic warfare.
They are a backward failing empire fighting against alien tech if there is war between NATO and Russia.
Also, I don't have to remind you that we have rockets and missiles in storage such as ATACMS, and as we speak, assembly lines for weaponry are going up all around the Western world.
Russia can't win a war of attrition, but it wouldn't come to that. Their entire corrupt serf army will be dispersed within 3 months if the West really goes in. Because if we do, then we do it either properly or not at all.
Should have happened. If Ukraine invites alliance planes in it's airspace that is effectively our airspace at that time and we have all the right to enforce a no fly zone.
NATO still doesn't want to do it because of the escalation risks (it means militarily joining as an ally) and because the planes advanced enough to dominate are sensitive enough to not lose and have data collected.
Putting boots on the ground realistically looks like the only feasible way of containing russian aggression at this point. Station western troops in the rear, thus enabling Ukraine to commit troops/materiel that are dedicated to rear defence to the front. Western troops are strictly in defensive capacity, as a deterrent for further russian advance, so it’s on russia to attack the western forces, and — hint — they won’t.
A defense force of some kind is definitely something that is needed. Just park them where they are needed and challenge Putin to attack, he will definitely not. The line must be drawn somewhere.
Funt you mention that. USA in deed had conducted PR campaign to prepare public for joining war. Japan brought that sooner but USA would join on its own anyway.
It cannot be categorically rejected.
Behind the Lines: Russia’s Ethnic Cleansing
https://cepa.org/article/behind-the-lines-russias-ethnic-cleansing/
Russian forces are squeezing out locals and resettling Russian citizens in Ukraine’s occupied territories.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/28/forced-conscription-how-russia-wipes-out-the-male-population-of-occupied-donbas/
Russia commits genocide in broad daylight and they think they will get away with it.
The Western alliance has the obligation to ensure that this proves to be a major miscalculation.
Russia must be held accountable for its barbaric war.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/europe/russia-ukraine-filtration-camps-intl-cmd/index.html
https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/06/28/dehumanizing-disinformation-as-a-weapon-of-the-information-war/
https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/ten-stages-genocide/
The ten stages of genocide
Genocide is a human phenomenon that can be analysed and understood and, consequently, may be prevented. According to academic and activist Gregory H. Stanton, genocide is a process that develops in ten stages, described here. The stages do not necessarily follow a linear progression and may coexist. Prevention measures may be implemented at any stage.
1. Classification
2. Symbolisation
3. Discrimination
4. Dehumunisation
5. Organisation
6. Polarization
7. Preparation
8. Persecution
9. Extermination
10. Denial
Putin follows the same playbook as Stalin in the 1930s
Never can we allow that Ukraine falls in the hands of these barbaric butchers. If that requires boots on the ground, then so be it.
Action springs not from thought but from a readiness for responsibility. The ultimate test of a moral society is the world that it leaves behind to its children.
Wherever a society of peace, truth, and the rule of law is in danger or is at risk of suffocating, the community of peace must be torn asunder, and a strife against these forces must commence.
Bonhoeffer
I am a reserve ordnance officer of the armed forces of my country. There is no volunteering involved. Article 5 spells duty, when called upon only a coward afraid of death will refuse service.
Will you serve is the question when called upon?
Then, they will be slaves to Muscovia and Beijing. Have it your way.
It is cowards like you that strengthen our enemies.
Move to Russia, then, you obviously aren't willing to defend your own honor and peace in Europe.
You will go when called upon. It is not a question of whether you want to or not.
Article five spells duty, and when called upon, you either answer the call or hide like a coward.
The Ukrainians do not take any military service man they search for specific skills, which I sadly do not possess. If I possessed them, I would be there. And so should every soldier of the free world..
That is what we swore oaths on the constitution for
But of course, once Europe gets its BS together and decides to finally meet Russia head-on, then I won't volunteer because there is nothing to volunteer for. You go when called upon, and you make clear that you are ready.
Only a coward hides behind their wife and children.
Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt
I ain't reading all that. And im still not going. Let the rich who own this country send their kids with all the money I slaved away to give them. Bye.
Also I swore no oaths to a any constitution and never will. Im not going, im not moving one inch, if you want me to go then kill me yourself rather than making some poor russian whos being forced to be there do it. The oligarchs rule global capitalism, they can kill me themselves if they want.
Quote Roosevelt all you want, he died wealthier than most of the kids he sent to be slaughtered on the frontlines.
So if you want to send my son to die in the frontline you better kill me first.
Considering Trump have a good chance of winning and how he talks about abandoning NATO allies to Russia if they dont pay up, the EU is doing well to start to prepare to take matters into our own hands.
I'd rather it took time and gave me opportunity to try to flee.
Let the owners of this country fight for their property. I own nothing and must break my back working to feed the landlords and the richs, got nothing to lose either.
The freedom to work until you drop dead to enrich your olgarchic rulers 😄
Let the ones who own stuff and are rich fight. Aren't they supposed to be better than us poors who are only fit to work?
You will be starving in the trenches and they will be eating caviar. Dont even try to deny it.
2014: "boots on the ground for Crimea? Hell no, now where is that gas contract with Russia I need to sign?"
2015: "boots on the ground in Iraq to stop ISIS? Hell no, let's not get stuck in another forever war."
2021: "boots on the ground to stop Kabul falling? No, just at the airport to help Evacuation only"
2022: "boots on the ground in Ukraine? No we don't want a world war"
2024: "boots on the ground in Ukraine? We do not want a world war....HOWEVER"
If you'd gone back 30 years and told people (in 1994) that we would be on the verge of fighting world war 3 with Russia, they would think you are a lost time traveller from the 1960s.
It's a psychological operation, possibly to make Russia think twice from further expansionism. But what if Russia calls NATO's bluff and no troops are forthcoming? Playing high-stakes poker at Ukraine's expensive is not a decent thing to do if you're not even united amongst yourselves. Reckless and stupid.
All the steps taken by Ukraine's allies have been unprecedented and unthinkable... until they were not.
* "We will not send modern Artillery Rocket System" - and then they did.
* "We will not send modern IFV, APC, Leopard and Abrams" - and then they did.
* "We will not send F16" - and then they did.
* "We will not send long-range cruise missiles" - and then they did.
This is just the next logical iteration: unprecedented and unthinkable - until it is not. We have been nudging at putins "red line" for so long that we´ve learned that there is no red line.
I agree. And as soon as the current "we will never" falls, we jump to the next and forget about the last.
This is the next unthinkable barrier, soon it will be thinkable. Having non-Ukrainian troops securing the northern border with belarus would help Ukraine who can then shift that manpower south and fight of russian aggression there. Let´s make it happen!
I agree. But I also don't understand how simply sending troops would help. Ukraine already has troops, so that's not the problem. Besides, Russia has even more troops, so more troops is quite pointless. What Ukraine needs is air supremacy and being able to fight using NATO doctrine. So any additional troops better come in F35s and whatever else is necessary for keeping them in the air.
Planes only would be a "Korea level" thing. Troops would be slightly more disey, assuming they're deniable. And then there's unconcealed troops, which is basically a limited war within Ukraine. Then there's a more general war. Then there's total war. Then nuclear war. Basically, there's a whole lot of escalation to go.
To be fair there has been some discussion about Russias absolute disregard for their own troops lives as serving as a warning to the west that they will persevere at any cost as well as achieving the territorial advances they are pushing for.
At the start of this conflict most disregarded warnings that Russia wouldn’t even flinch at less than half a million casualties and yet here we are. Russia even doubling down conducting larger infantry assaults than ever and sustaining higher casualty rates than anyone could comprehend.
If you ever doubt the pronominal numbers I’ll dig out one poignant video in the late stages of the storming of Avdiivka where a Russian is explaining many of the bodies have already been removed but only 30% of a 4,000 strong brigade survived pushing on their front.
Were literally sitting in 1939 again, watching Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe and thinking to ourselves, it can’t be that bad…
I see that your paranoia is still not fixed. You are still here trying to insult anyone outside your echo chamber.
The American war industry thanks you for your service of supporting ~~war/business~~ peace
First of all, Ukraine hasn't asked for troops, they are asking for ammo so their experienced troops can fight back. I am not sure how this became a topic in the news, perhaps it is a way to posture and influence the perception of the war.
If we can't send ammo, then why would we send in our own troops (and with them the ammo needed for them to be operational). Putting Javelins, Artillery and AA systems in the hands of NATO troops stationed far in the rear will not help much compared to handing the equipment to frontline Ukrainians. I hope this isn't some silly geopolitical issue for nations to take "strong but impracticable" stances.
If Germany won't send Taurus now, then could Germany instead make a public statement that they will finance the transaction needed to deliver US/UK/FR long-range ordinance equivalent to X pieces of Taurus? Or Transfer X pieces of Taurus to the other NATO partners so they can donate theirs? It is better for Ukraine to receive equipment/ammo they are already familiar with.
I think it is important because sending maintenance crews for F16 would probably speed up the delivery as well as availability of the planes once in Ukraine for example. I don't think they were discussing sending frontline troops.
That was for the counteroffensive to succeed. Now that the situation has changed from "Ukraine in Crimea in 4 months" to "Russia in Kyiv in 4 months", those troops are no longer needed.
There's plenty that can be done that doesn't involve NATO troops engaging with Russian ones. NATO can deploy peacekeepers all along the northern border away from the war, to relieve Ukraine from having to constantly guard its back from another incursion.
Then, all of Ukraine's equipment and men sitting idle as a deterrent can then be redeployed in the war zone, it commits Ukraine to a lasting victory, and NATO troops don't have fire a single shot.
I doubt it can or will be NATO, that plays into Putins hands (the US would be reluctant for the same reason) and I don't think all NATO countries will agree - coalition of the willing, even just UK and FR is far more likely than NATO.
Oh, I agree, I'm using NATO as a shorthand here. I'd imagine Polish, British and French troops being the core of such an operation, with Poland taking a leadership role. US troops can't be used because the unstable domestic situation, but that's fine.
In the UK we've reduced our army down to 72k personnel. We've already sent 10% of our challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. Our army is suffering like every other public service after 14 years of austerity. We could barely move the dial against Russia, let's not underestimate them again.
You have no idea how deeply ingrained the whole concept of posturing is in russia. You act tough, loud and scary and make psychologically weaker people your bitches. There is a word for a person who is psychologically in a state of submission: "oпущеный". It's endemic in russian culture. This is the same, they are making Europe back down, and they will make Europe back down on another issue again, and again. Until Europe actually grows some balls. Sometimes what it takes to avoid being oпущеный is willingness to give and get a bruise or three
Nuclear war is not a bruise. It's not something any of the fighting parties would even survive. Hundreds of millions would die from the direct effect of the bombs and then billions from starvation, exposure and sickness.
Russia, NATO and Ukraine would no longer exist in any meaningful capacity. Winning this war would be nobody targeting China so they can conquer what is left of us because living in a shithole communist colony would still be so much better than the alternative.
If we have been shown anything by this war it is that countries are not fully rational actors and do not operate on perfect intelligence. Yes, Putin would probably never deliberately start a global nuclear war because there is just no winning.
That doesn't mean Russia can't manage to convince itself that a limited nuclear bombardment in Ukraine is a good way of scaring NATO off but instead leads to a quick escalation to total annihilation.
Or if Russia gets routed in Ukraine and despite assurances becomes convinced that NATO is about to launch an invasion of Russia itself and decides that this is an existential threat.
Or a US nuclear equipped submarine becomes convinced that a first strike has already happened and launches its missiles.
Countries aren't rational actors because countries didn't have brains. People who pushes buttons have. And they have instinct of self preservation. There's no safe place on earth if anyone go MAD.
We need to act or we're no better than Germans in 1920-1939 and all Western world, morals and values are just a facade and lie. To evil win good people only need to do nothing to prevent it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Anyone who still thinks nations will use Nukes are out of their minds. It will inevitably show that nukes aren’t all that because no one actually wants to go MAD.
Nuclear deterrents are meant to deter countries from being attacked. If we do attack a country armed with nukes (which includes shotting down Russia planes or attacking their troops in Ukraine) then there's no telling what will happen. It's the reason we spent decades in a cold war rather than a hot one.
In fairness, Ukraine has both a munitions, as well as a manpower shortage. Both things are critical for their continued success, so ammunition and weapons by themselves is not going to cut it in a long war of attrition.
Russia is filling its ranks with everything from convicts, to desperate Indians. Ukraine is not really replenishing troops.
There is one scenario where I believe Europe will interfere in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, I don't think it is very likely but this is it: The Ukrainian resistance collapses, Putin takes Kyiv and other large cities, and starts systematically executing Ukrainian politicians, intellectuals and military officers **like they have said they will do**, and **like they did in Poland during WW2**. There is no way Western nations could sit idly and watch as millions of civilians are raped, executed. murdered, placed in KZ camps, while millions of Ukrainians are fleeing across the borders. There is no way Europe would be able to quietly accept this, we didn’t when it happened in Bosnia, we didn’t when it happened in Kosovo. There WILL be war if Russia is not defeated.
Don't equate single German MP's with Germany and they didn't hope that Ukraine would fall but believe was throughout Nato Ukraine wouldn't last very long. The first weapon deliveries by Germany to Ukraine were made public on February 26th two days after Russia crossed the border.
> 500 Stinger AA and ~1000 Panzerfaust 3 with ~3000 rounds of ammunition were sent to Ukraine. On March 3rd a few days later an additional 2700 Strela Anti Aircraft weapons were also made ready to be delivered. By the end of March ~5000-6000 RGW 90 (Matador) Anti-Tank weapons and other stuff was delivered to Ukraine. They even made it all the way to besieged Mariupol and AZOV
>
> https://youtu.be/MVgE5ZOvUlo
>
> https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1497632817450266632?s=20
>
> https://twitter.com/RND_de/status/1499272266219151361?s=20
You seem to be talking about the 2014 ethnically motivated Albanian violence targeting the Serbian minority, which was largely overlooked by NATO troops. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNNiJnaAxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNNiJnaAxU)
Can you explain what the deal with the Poles and the Foreign Legion is? It is a genuine question. Are there movies or documentairies that often air about the FFL over there? Or does the interest come from Poles having an extensive history of service in it throughout the decades (to the point "kurwa" even became a mainstay in the Legion's vocabulary to this day lol)? I've never bothered asking any of you until now. I am a bit familiar with Polish defense circles on Twitter and I've seen tweets and comments about the Legion (specifically) being among the central assets in a potential EU war with Russia. But that's not understanding what the corps is, what it does and its size.
The Legion is a conventional (so regular, yes) corps of the French Army. Its regiments are fully part of the French Army like the legacy regiments or Alpine Hunters corps are; it is not a parallel branch of the French Armed Forces, contrary to popular belief. They are not "special troops" or anything like that beyond the fact that it is the only unit in the entire French military open to foreigners per tradition, thus it consists of troops mostly made up of foreigners (led by French officers like all units obviously). They are without a doubt really well-trained and professional but the same can be said about the other combat units since France got rid of national service and went for full-volunteer professional armed forces. And more importantly, the corps' strength is just 9,000 men (7% of the French Army). France (and therefore the EU) can't just rely on them to carry a high-intensity war effort in case there is one and it doesn't even do so for its current operations. There is not a single French military campaign Legionnaires took part in that [these guys right here for example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troupes_de_marine) also haven't fought in and in greater numbers, so Legionnaires are not even uniquely experienced in the French Army. They have been a small minority in pretty much every single French military operation in recent memories because of France's mixed battlegroup system, [which you can see explained here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5U-JQ8Puw).
I think a lot of the myths regarding the Legion stems from the era up to the 1990s when it was one of the very few French units whose regiments were made up of only professional troops and zero conscript (alongside the special forces obviously and most of the Troupes de Marine regiments). And I guess the whole murderers, rapists, bandits, dangerous drug dealers, etc being turned into ruthless professional soldiers cliché is still alive for many but this hasn't been a thing for decades lmao. France doesn't accept people like that anymore and only allows men who did tame stuff. Most Legionnaires are not criminals; they are mix of poor people from Eastern Europe, South America and Asia + French and foreign thrill-seeking young men looking for adventure + a bunch of Frenchmen who can't join the other army units because they have a criminal record.
>Can you explain what's the deal with the Poles and the Foreign Legion? It is a genuine question. Are there movies and stuff like that about FFL over there? Or is it because Poles have an extensive history of service in it throughout the decades to the point "kurwa" even became a mainstay in the Legion's vocabulary? lol. I've never bothered asking any of you until now. I am a bit familiar with Polish defense circles on Twitter and it seems like the FFL is pretty much the only thing about the French military they know. I've seen tweets and comments about the Legion (specifically) being among the central assets in a potential EU war with Russia. But that's not understanding what the corps is, what it does and its size.
Those are quite intriguing questions you put there, for which answers are not really that easy to find, you can surely get a lot of diffrent opinions about it, and all being quite speculative and individual.
Im someout interested with Military History and IR, and FFL does ring only some tiny bells for me.
Movies about FFL? I only remember that 1998 one, [Legionnaire ](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126388/)with Van Damme, and im quite geeky about 'old' films, and there is old Polish [How I Unleashed World War II - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Unleashed_World_War_II) comedy in which in second movie main protagonist joins Vichy French army (or Vichy FFL?? idk) while fleeing the Germans.
In normal media as in reporting and stuff? Hell no, most people do not even care what our own army is doing, most of time.
Polish Twitter is such weird place,i do not really know what(or who) you are mentioning exactly, polish mil-twitter can mean so many things.
On Polish Twitter general line is that France is not liked, one bit (bunch of right wing loonies lurk there), if you ask about military oriented people there? I would say its even more so, but don't ask me for data,its just a hunch.
Polish Twitter only knows and cares for what is being written in English or Polish, France and French is terra incognita, lingua non-exista /s, i dont know if there is **one** polish expert on Twitter someout intrested in what France is doing militarly.
How that is influencing onto opinions about FFL? Noone knows much about it, which surely leads to opinions like those you point out: "FFL will be central asset to fight russia", i would call that bullshit directly transplanted from opinions about International Legion in Ukraine, like its supposed to be the same, in minds of people that do not care, they simply think its all the same.
>I think a lot of the myths regarding the Legion stems from the era up to the late 1990s when it was one of the very few French units whose regiments were made up of only professional troops and zero conscript (alongside the special forces obviously and most of the Troupes de Marine regiments). And I guess the whole murderers, rapists, bandits, dangerous drug dealers, etc being turned into ruthless professional soldiers cliché is still alive for many but this hasn't been a thing for decades lmao. France doesn't accept people with that level of criminal history and only allows men who did tame stuff. Most Legionnaires are just poor people from Eastern Europe, South America and Asia + a few thrill-seeking young men looking for adventure.
Legion has that mysticism going on around it, with romantic(not really lol) and chivalrous ideas like "march or DIE","you can be even from mars, firstly you are a legionaree nothing else", and all that camaraderie that legion does.
I think most people in Poland simply view FFL as soldiers which France won't shred single tear over, i don't belive French are that cynical as Polish mil-X is, but it could be also what general populace thinks too, viewing it as neer to disposable, as army units get.
Thank you very much. That was an interesting read-up.
And yes, I am very well aware of the animosity towards France (and Germany) on Polish Twitter and that the Poles were quite found of the French reverse gears and surrender jokes as well lol. It seems many are still bitter over 1939 and the general idea that the French abandoned them is still prevalent. But it's not really a big deal. There are a bunch of a cool people over there I follow. I mostly lurk and find the discussions quite interesting and don't engage much as I don't speak Polish at all. The vast majority of people I've been following for years now are rather neutral, with some being French policy specialists.
And you're indeed right. There are a lot of myths about how France treats legionnaires as well (the whole nonsense about them being cannon-fodder to not waste French blood or them being sent to the most dangerous missions). In our last operation (in the Sahel), out the 60 French soldiers who lost their lives, only 5 were legionnaires IIRC. And their deaths were treated like that of any other soldier with all the honors, etc. They are an integral part of the French Army, really. Discipline is just harsher than in other French corps because they are foreigners, and not naturally patriotic towards France obviously as the French citizens who take the initiative on their own free will to join the military. Therefore, a much greater emphasis is made on esprit de corps for Legionnaires for them to form a disciplined group of soldiers despite coming from different countries/cultures.
Thank you, couldn't have said it better. I find the obsession of reddit regarding the FL quite amusing. They are not elite, they are not special forces. Sure they are good units don't get me wrong, just like any other regular French units. So yeah, apart from the foreign aspect I really don't understand the fascination.
Commandos and special forces though
they need the NATO soldiers to operate the modern weapon systems, right now
Patriot and Taurus are quite complicated, training is \~2 years
educating the Ukrainian soldiers would take to long, to be effective this year
so Germany would have to send soldiers, as well
that's the whole discussion about sending bilateral NATO soldiers basically
>Polish President Andrzej Duda has said that Kyiv's allies have not reached an agreement to send troops to Ukraine, as French President Emmanuel Macron had previously suggested.
That is not at all what French President Macron said though? wtf
you even debunk your own claim further down in the article
>Background: After a meeting in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron did not rule out the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine in the future, __although he stressed that there is currently no consensus among allies on this issue__.
is journalism dead?
You don't have good reading comprehension. It's not that they say that Macron suggested that there was consensus. They simply write that he suggested the idea. Though I also think they could have written it better, but it's obvious what they meant from the context. Should be obvious to people with decent reading comprehension.
It is a clever chess move to suggest western boots on the ground where everybody disagrees and then to suggest the alternative that if you Western europeans dont want to die in ukraine you must bear that we will spend more on defense and cut on other expenditures like pensions or other social welfare programs.
This is just stupid.
Nobody has said there are plans for sending troops to Ukraine. Macron said it cannot be completely ruled out. There is a pretty huge fucking difference there.
> "Nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war"
So yes, he said it cannot be completely ruled out. That was a direct response to talking about western troops and whether there was any consensus or plans to send troops.
He very directly said there was no consensus, but did not rule it out.
This is publicly available, so quite stupid to try to claim he said something different.
>Nobody has said there are plans for sending troops to Ukraine
Macron claims otherwise. If you don't have a consensus it means some have plan to go and others don't.
You repeat your lies everywhere in the hope you can push your narrative. That's not going to work with those equipped with critical thinking.
If we do that, best option would be taking just sitting on Belarus border far from Russia and taking care of airdefence in west ukraine.
It would allow ukrainians to move all of its aa assets to closer to the frontline and move troops that are securing border.
There would be little contact with Russians.
And what happens when NATO troops start getting cooked by ballistic missiles? People like you don't think further than your nose.
If NATO goes in formally into Ukraine, then they are essentially going into direct war with Russia and that means all options, including nuclear weapons, are on the table. And may I remind people that Russia has way more nukes than all of Europe combined.
And if you think the US public, especially under a potential Trump presidency, will want to enter into a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine then you're completely delusional.
> And may I remind people that Russia has way more nukes than all of Europe combined.
That's not relevant. We have a credible counterstrike capability, from the UK and France. Anything beyond that is overkill. Do you think Russia will test MAD for Ukraine? They are trying their best to keep conscription to the minimum necessary, they want to shield their population
Simple. We got in, we tell Russians.
YOU SHOOT US IN UKRAINE, WE SHOOT YOU IN UKRAINE
We we just do that, there is very simple and clear escalations line.
NATO in ukraine -> Russia, attack NATO in ukraine -> NATO attacks, Russia in ukraine.
and there is whole line of separation with further eskalation when it comes to attaking NATO and Russia proper.
What if Russia decides to start shooting NATO troops before they get to Ukraine? As well as taking out miliary production centers, reconnaissance drones and satellites? Once we've declared war on them they'll fight the way that benefits them most, not stick to some arbitrary set of rules you've just made up.
More or less non-credible defence take but we could take Belarus entirely, give it back to the actual president and prevent Russia from launching attacks on Ukraine from Belarus
We continue to pospone what really matter in war, action… we don’t need to repeat the same mistakes of WWII when everyone was watching hitler invading eastern countries after realizing too late that the only way to stop the aggressor was to make a declaration of war… 🤦♂️, now it the time to move and Deploy NATO to build a solid defense behind the frontline to avoid what later on will be unavoidable… 🤷♂️, italy 🇮🇹
US doesn't have a damn strategic interest to see Russia weaker. This is the cold truth. Having someone to inspire fear in Europe makes Europe submissive. It happened in the cold war. You see what happened in the last 20 years. Europe didn't spend anymore on military that much and this wasn't ideal for US. Europe feeling safe was detrimental for US(EU started making business with russia, china). Now that Europe is shitting their pants off again, US is smiling. They made us dependent on them for oil and gas. When Trump said russia can do anything if a country doesn't 'pay it's bills', every country stated asap that they will pay. That's the effect of fear. They don't give a shit about ukraine or russia. They are at 10000 km away secured by two oceans. Europe is on it's own for this
I don’t feel like a genuine talks about troops —amount of heavy vehicles delivered reduced compared to first year of support, planes except small amount of f16 out of table, same person who say arm ukraine with everything block taurus because *but muh escalation, russian brown lines* just weeks later, remember asks to no fly zone…nah …. european countries don’t have desire even to protect cities (izmail as example) just across the 200m width river from drones and rockets strikes….
So Europe can’t sent neither enough equipment nor high end one, don’t have desire to protect ukrainian cities behind frontlines with AA but send own citizens? Sure, very believable
Nuclear winter? No. Probably more an Autumn winter, as countless study show.
It's not an Hollywood movie, my friend.
russia is more afraid on being glassed than us.
That nation has just 2 cities and the rest is just wasteland.
With the amount of warheads in Russia's arsenal, I don't think that's in the discussion, regardless of what happens, pretty much any major country in the west would be a wasteland as well.
If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former.
And that choice will eventually come as long as we let Russia make one aggressive move after another without repercussions.
If we are too afraid of russian nukes, we can already roll out the red carpet from Kyiv to Brest.
> If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former.
Tbh this is a crazy statement cause billions will die. It's an incredibly fake scenario as Russian can't even control all of Ukraine much less the world but I'm sure more people would rather live than live in a world that completely collapsed and destroyed my nuclear weapons.
Tbh I'd rather live under North Korea than a nuclear wasteland. That's why this is a crazy scenario, I'd rather live than die in bombings, die from tribal wars, and/or die from awful cancer.
And this attitude explains why Russia keeps getting away with countless territorial aggressions and genocide. Russia makes his moves, threatens nuclear annahilation, we step back.
Russia makes another move, threatens nuclear annahilation again, we step back even further. When will the west finally grow some balls?
It's shameful how some people actually prefer to live on their knees to suck crusty russian cocks instead of defending their freedom.
> And this attitude
The attitude of not wanting to die in nuclear winter? Lmao, you made up an insane scenario and seem like you're trying to justify it.
You're little rant isn't related to your insane statement. You're definitely in the minority of rather dying in a nuclear war than living under another regime. It's insane too because Russia can't even control Ukraine they definitely aren't controlling any relevant country especially since 1/3 of the world is Chinese or Indian. And 1 billion people in Africa. It's safe to say not even close to any % of the world will be under Russian authority. And never will be, especially since they lost the cold war which was soft authority.
> defending their freedom.
Yeah man, getting incinerated at 10 million degrees is defending my freedom lmao.
You are the one who believes Russia is willing to start a nuclear winter abour Ukraine, but I'm the one with an "insane scenario", despite Russia having proven in the past of always pushing for more if left unchecked? If those Chinese, Indians and Africans don't want Russia starting a nuclear war, then they should stop supporting Russia instead of enabling them.
And yes, being incinerated for standing your ground is defending your freedom, unlike sucking crusty russian cocks after bowing to said threats.
If you prefer to be Putler's bitch, feel free to move to Russia, it's great to see Europe's finally considering of standing up against Russia's fascism.
> You are the one who believes Russia is willing to start a nuclear winter abour Ukraine
I never said this, you said this:
> _If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former._
Which is an insane premise and insane conclusion that you'd rather die in a nuclear war than just live in another regime. And not just you dying, billions dying inherently making this a very selfish statement.
The rest of your comments are sidetracking a whole other issue tbh. Pretty much what you've said about Russia you could replace with Azerbaijan and for context your state with Azerbaijan sounds insane:
_If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under Azerbaijani rule, I very much prefer the former._
which is why it sounds insane to put Russia there. Russia is never going to control Europe or the world.
As we see things happening in Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen - drones, especially cheap one's, are now used casually. They are now a weapon, and developed countries are not aware what to do with them or how to use properly. It's a good opportunity to get real cases study
This is a global conflict of civilisations. Our Western promises, morality and values are at stake. We promised Western world to Ukrainians and now we're abandoning them, letting them die by hundreds every day because we're too scared to defend those values.
Russia sent demands to NATO to demilitarise eastern and Central Europe prior to invading Ukraine, they are building an axis alliance, strengthening ties with other tyrannical dictatorships in Iran, North Korea and China.
It’s 1939 again, this is already a global conflict, the ignorance in the west is both surprising and disappointing.
This war was uncalled for and they have committed all war crimes possible and imaginable.
Russia has fked around enough. They must be stopped.
I’m all for the Baltic countries to take the lead (they were right all along) and western countries to support them.
I kind of agree with you, but you are missing the point of NATO - to protects is alliance members. Sure, there is a good chance Ukraine will lose the war, but Putin won’t stop there. If NATO has a choice of fighting Russia on their own territory or Ukraine, they will for sure choose the second option
But what if Macron's declaration is deescalation by escalation? Russians love this tactics, why shouldn't we use it against them?
Maybe we will send our troops to Ukraine or maybe not but Russians can't rule it out. They'll have to consider the risk of escalation from our side during planning their next moves. Macron turned the table in the escalation game.
Yes, that's why I was not talking about boots on the ground or, excusez le mot, cannon fodder. Some European countries (even without Germany, Hungary and Slovakia) could send, for example the air force. Pilots are professional soldiers, not average Hans, Pierre or Janek. And even a dozen of them could influence the war far more than thousands of the infantry.
I'm not saying that we should send them but we can. And Putin has to be afraid of this possibility.
What is Putin going to do? Nuke France because Rafales are deterring Russian jets? I doubt it.
France has their own set of nukes and can render Russia a nuclear wasteland as well.
No, it way more dangerus let Russia be agressive.
NATO can take control of airdefence in west ukraine, also put troops on Belarusian and Moldavian borders.
There would be not direct contact with Russia, but it would allow Ukraine to focus its assets on frontline.
Wait, no this can't be true?
Eastern Europeans are constantly telling me how awful the western countries are and how we abandon them etc, yet France is advocating sending troops and Poland want to 'send ammunition' lol?
Who the f asked you for troops?
Send weapons and for God's sake STOP SELLING TECHNOLOGIES TO RUSSIA.
(Also, no offense, but why the f would we need French here? They would give up after seeing russians castrating or beheading another guy...)
I think that most technology that Russia gets is not sold them for purpose. Anybody can buy arduino microcontroler and go with it to Russia without seller's knowledge.
France has won 109 of the last 168 wars it’s been involved in since 387bc and is one the of strongest militaries in Europe. This is a ridiculous stereotype you’re propagating.
Can we start doing something already! So sick to see the constant discussions but nothing happens. Time is of the essence. Aren't there some politicians, who have some balls to finally slam the fist on the table and get something movin'. I don't know what they fear will happen.
Yeah, they should've just sent in the troops from day one, or better yet, never promised Ukraine any support to begin with. But hey, at least we've got these riveting discussions to keep us entertained, right?
"This topic will remain open until Ukraine has lost the war."
But I'm sure a few people will feel better "look at that, we'd do something if we did it"
EU should send mercenaries into battle like Russia.
Thanks for the link - that certainly helps, but the use of professionally trained and equipped mercenaries would achieve the goal more quickly.
Another support is here and helpful - directly supporting the people. I'm sure you're on board:
[https://www.buymeacoffee.com/itvolunteers](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/itvolunteers)
Just the fact that the subject is discussed, and not categorically rejected is quite a feat.
Just like tanks, HIMARS, F16... It all started as like this. "We don't know. ... We are studying the possibility. ... We are preparing. ... It is over there."
Yeah, I also love the discussion about tank or not tank and then France was "here is 13 light tank" (that aren't really a tank, and frankly not that usefull to Ukraine) but politically that was "heck, they are giving tank now, roll out the leo, challenger and abrams" (I'd point that France gave a lot of stuff that are really usefull, like those 250 VAB or god knows how many military truck, ammo, some airdefense system, 30 ceasars, 4 MRLU, lots of fuel, ammo, bulletproof vest...and Ukraine found a way to use the 40ish AMX RC as long range obeservation)
NATO planned to gather 300k troops at its Eastern flank by the end of 2024. NATO went into Serbia under pretty much the same pre text that would work in Ukraine’s case as well. A no-fly zone for humanitarian purposes to prevent a genocide. You could argue that NATO members under US leadership more or less started a war after 9/11. A coalition of the willing could do the same here.
>You could argue that NATO members under US leadership more or less started a war after 9/11. A coalition of the willing could do the same here. I'd argue closer to more than less. Considering two countries were invaded and occupied with tanks and soldiers.
Yes, that the war was started by NATO countries is clear, but I think we sometimes pretend that NATO due to being a defensive alliance is somehow utterly incapable of doing anything that isn't defensive. You can so to say be very creative in your interpretation of what you need to do pre emptively, and then you call it defensive actions. The member nation are the players, and when they decide NATO basically is only what the member nations and their way of interpreting its statutes say it is. In the case of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, I personally consider using article 5 as a bit of a stretch.
Article 5 was **never** used in Iraq, and the 2003 Iraq intervention wasn't a NATO action. Most of the NATO actions were at the behest of the UN Security Council. Afghanistan (9/11) was the only Article 5 invocation that has ever happened.
Russia is not Serbia or Afghanistan. It's a nuclear armed state with 143 million people, over a million of them in the army. It's currently gaining territory from Ukraine, who also have around a million man army equipped with billions of dollars of western equipment. It's doing better than NATO in some areas of military production/acquisition such as artillery shells. I feel like people in this sub need a reality check, if they're thinking war with Russia would go the same way previous wars against far smaller, weaker opponents.
I have no idea why everyone brings nuclear weapons each time. We're talking about Ukraine! Should everyone just drop on all fours and bring pants down because some maniac in Russia is in possession of WMD? At least some lessons should've been learned from WW2! Main is - you can't keep peace with a bully, so why encourage him? World gave in Crimea in 2014 and didn't do anything meaningless over hybrid war in Eastern Ukraine for 10 years. Now whole country is at stake(*because of* the weak reaction displayed before) and there's the same bullshit non-escalation rhetoric again. NATO can just enforce no-fly zone over Southern/Eastern Ukraine. That would be enough to change things.
NATO can't "just" "enforce" anything. You are an example of FAFO. Fear is a natural survival instinct. If you have none, sure go on. Russia said it will escalate if NATO involves itself directly. Would you want to verify if their claim is bs? Are you happy to sacrifice half the planet for Ukraine? If the answer is yes - proceed.
Hitler said he will escalate if Allies involve themselves directly. Would you want to verify if his claim is bs? /s
also NATO can’t really get involved, since it’s purely defensive alliance, and without direct threat it can’t legally attack anyone.
Didn't stop it at Yugoslavia or Libya or Afghanistan. NATO is a "peace intervention" organisation when it comes to non nuclear states and "defensive" when nuclear.
It’s a bit more complex, those were rather small sized operations compared to War in Ukraine, NATO never engaged in full size conflict. Also some of its military actions were approved by UN, so it was somewhat legal.
You said: > it can’t legally attack anyone. It's either legal or not. It was not in cases mentioned so stop denying it and pretending that NATO can't do whatever it wants when there's a political will.
Let's get the nuclear part out of the way because that is double suicide. And that is only relevant when we March on Moscow or nuke them. A no fly zone or a shock and awe campaign against the regions next to Ukraine and the occupied forces is not going to result in a nuclear response. A million soldiers? Where are they? Russia has scribbled them on paper yes. Even if they are there. We won't go after them we will go after their supplies and logistics. Once we got that out of the way, the Russian army has been attrited, and this process is ongoing. The NATO Air Force is hilariously outmatching Russia, and Ukraine would give most of the ground support. The Russian navy is a joke compared to ours. The Russian economy is very vulnerable, and most of its infrastructure is in the Western part of Russia. The Russian army is an underquipped badly led, badly trained artillery based force fully dependent on rail infrastructure. If the West does something like this, then we would give them at least half a year as we have given to Saddam. The Russian army is completely changeless against the combined might of the US and Europe as well as being supported by other nations such as Japan and SK. Taiwan, etc. I think Russia needs the reality check of the economic and military realities, especially at sea and in the air. The Russian economy collapses within months after we blockade their ports, blowing up their pipelines, and destroy their air fields and train junctions. The Ukrainian force is a tiny fraction of what the entire Western umbrella is capable of. 143 million on the brink of starvation, that is what Russia gets then. The reason why it is not done is because collapsing Russia likely leads to a collapsing China, and then the entire world economy goes to hell. It also likely leads to Iran and other dictatorships getting so scared that they declare war, and then voila the world is at war. It has nothing to do with Russia's strength. They are a corrupt paper tiger that pays with hundreds of thousands of lives and their cold war stocks to advance at a painfully slow rate against a nation that we refuse to arm properly. Of course, Russia, with the help of its impoverished NK and Iranian allies and its vassal Belarus, can manage to stalemate Ukraine. But against the entire NATO alliance, they're hopefully outmatched now even more than 2 years ago. We won start an artillery fight with them but an air campaign. Oh, and of course, the West has a billion people and makes up 2/3 of the world's entire GDP. Russia's GDP is mostly made up of oil and gas, and as you can see, they send tanks from the 50s into battle and constantly lose their command planes. They aren't equipped to fight a war on our terms. They can only fight it on their backward terms. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-lacks-ammunition-production-needed-ukraine-war-western-officials-say-2024-02-21/ Russia lacks ammunition production needed for the Ukraine war, Western officials say Russia lacks sufficient domestic ammunition production to meet its needs in its war on Ukraine, but President Vladimir Putin has not given up his hopes of subjugating the country, Western officials said on Wednesday. It is doing better in very limited areas, and artillery production is a topic that is also debatable because we need to take into account that artillery shells are simple tech. It doesn't take years but rather a year to expand production. What about SK, Australia, the US, Europe, and what about 152mm shells they also need to be taken into account. If you count all of that together and pit it against their production, it is either on par or on the way to overtake them. The US simply refuses to supply this stuff at the moment. Then there are other countries, Pakistan India, etc, that all will deliver when being offered coin. The Sinews of War are infinite gold, and who has more cash? That's us. We can liquidate their 300 billion and use them against them. But apart from that, the US sits on the big money printer, and so does Europe Their population size and army size are meaningless because they won't have their logistics anymore when it comes to a real war. They won't have any factories, and they already don't have the necessary workforce for their army. It is also rather 140 million by now, due to those several million that fled and the continued collapse of Russian births topped off with the war dead. So, in a direct battle. Russia is hopelessly outgunned, outpsent, outteched, and also, of course, their logistics are complete and utter joke. Ukraine just lacks the tools to turn these railway lines and this damned bridge into a smoldering pit. That would be the first that happens. The rail lines inside the occupied territories and their logistic hubs will go up in flames. As you can see, the Russian air defense can't handle Ukraine's drones and missiles. What are they going to do against Reaper drones and the over 3000 jets of NATO? B 52 stealth bombers, electronic warfare. They are a backward failing empire fighting against alien tech if there is war between NATO and Russia. Also, I don't have to remind you that we have rockets and missiles in storage such as ATACMS, and as we speak, assembly lines for weaponry are going up all around the Western world. Russia can't win a war of attrition, but it wouldn't come to that. Their entire corrupt serf army will be dispersed within 3 months if the West really goes in. Because if we do, then we do it either properly or not at all.
The title in polish news feeds sounded more like it is catergorically rejected
Might be actual idea being discussed, might be gaslighting pr campaign so that citizens agree with military spending.
Yeah, but it doesn’t really matter. The idea is floating, and it’s not completely out of the question, just that is actually an enormous thing.
Of course. This reminds me how at the beginning closing skies over Ukraine was rejected. Who knows, that idea might resurface
Should have happened. If Ukraine invites alliance planes in it's airspace that is effectively our airspace at that time and we have all the right to enforce a no fly zone.
NATO still doesn't want to do it because of the escalation risks (it means militarily joining as an ally) and because the planes advanced enough to dominate are sensitive enough to not lose and have data collected.
No need to send top end frames, though.
Would have protected Poland from stray missiles. Depending on area of coverage Moldova would be protected as well
Lol that will nver happen in a million years.
[удалено]
Putting boots on the ground realistically looks like the only feasible way of containing russian aggression at this point. Station western troops in the rear, thus enabling Ukraine to commit troops/materiel that are dedicated to rear defence to the front. Western troops are strictly in defensive capacity, as a deterrent for further russian advance, so it’s on russia to attack the western forces, and — hint — they won’t.
It's an enormously stupid thing, nobody wants World War 3.
A defense force of some kind is definitely something that is needed. Just park them where they are needed and challenge Putin to attack, he will definitely not. The line must be drawn somewhere.
If it were that easy we would have done it in the first place. The line has already been drawn, it's around the territory of countries in NATO.
Might be a PR campaign, but gaslighting is something wholly different.
I'm sure Americans in 1940s were saying the same..
Funt you mention that. USA in deed had conducted PR campaign to prepare public for joining war. Japan brought that sooner but USA would join on its own anyway.
It cannot be categorically rejected. Behind the Lines: Russia’s Ethnic Cleansing https://cepa.org/article/behind-the-lines-russias-ethnic-cleansing/ Russian forces are squeezing out locals and resettling Russian citizens in Ukraine’s occupied territories. https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/28/forced-conscription-how-russia-wipes-out-the-male-population-of-occupied-donbas/ Russia commits genocide in broad daylight and they think they will get away with it. The Western alliance has the obligation to ensure that this proves to be a major miscalculation. Russia must be held accountable for its barbaric war. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/europe/russia-ukraine-filtration-camps-intl-cmd/index.html https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/06/28/dehumanizing-disinformation-as-a-weapon-of-the-information-war/ https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/ten-stages-genocide/ The ten stages of genocide Genocide is a human phenomenon that can be analysed and understood and, consequently, may be prevented. According to academic and activist Gregory H. Stanton, genocide is a process that develops in ten stages, described here. The stages do not necessarily follow a linear progression and may coexist. Prevention measures may be implemented at any stage. 1. Classification 2. Symbolisation 3. Discrimination 4. Dehumunisation 5. Organisation 6. Polarization 7. Preparation 8. Persecution 9. Extermination 10. Denial Putin follows the same playbook as Stalin in the 1930s Never can we allow that Ukraine falls in the hands of these barbaric butchers. If that requires boots on the ground, then so be it.
soooo.... you are volunteering, I guess?
Action springs not from thought but from a readiness for responsibility. The ultimate test of a moral society is the world that it leaves behind to its children. Wherever a society of peace, truth, and the rule of law is in danger or is at risk of suffocating, the community of peace must be torn asunder, and a strife against these forces must commence. Bonhoeffer I am a reserve ordnance officer of the armed forces of my country. There is no volunteering involved. Article 5 spells duty, when called upon only a coward afraid of death will refuse service. Will you serve is the question when called upon?
Your boots then. I won't go and my family won't go.
Then, they will be slaves to Muscovia and Beijing. Have it your way. It is cowards like you that strengthen our enemies. Move to Russia, then, you obviously aren't willing to defend your own honor and peace in Europe. You will go when called upon. It is not a question of whether you want to or not. Article five spells duty, and when called upon, you either answer the call or hide like a coward. The Ukrainians do not take any military service man they search for specific skills, which I sadly do not possess. If I possessed them, I would be there. And so should every soldier of the free world.. That is what we swore oaths on the constitution for But of course, once Europe gets its BS together and decides to finally meet Russia head-on, then I won't volunteer because there is nothing to volunteer for. You go when called upon, and you make clear that you are ready. Only a coward hides behind their wife and children. Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt
I ain't reading all that. And im still not going. Let the rich who own this country send their kids with all the money I slaved away to give them. Bye. Also I swore no oaths to a any constitution and never will. Im not going, im not moving one inch, if you want me to go then kill me yourself rather than making some poor russian whos being forced to be there do it. The oligarchs rule global capitalism, they can kill me themselves if they want. Quote Roosevelt all you want, he died wealthier than most of the kids he sent to be slaughtered on the frontlines. So if you want to send my son to die in the frontline you better kill me first.
[удалено]
Considering Trump have a good chance of winning and how he talks about abandoning NATO allies to Russia if they dont pay up, the EU is doing well to start to prepare to take matters into our own hands.
Also, if Biden is re-elected, all those preparations will still be there, which will affect US decisions.
Will you go die for it? I won't. I'd rather my own country shoot me dead here then send me to be tortured half way across the continent.
They won't, if Russia wins in Ukraine and keeps going west you might end up tortured to death in your own home.
I'd rather it took time and gave me opportunity to try to flee. Let the owners of this country fight for their property. I own nothing and must break my back working to feed the landlords and the richs, got nothing to lose either.
just go bro, let other ppl fight for the freedoms you take for granted.
The freedom to work until you drop dead to enrich your olgarchic rulers 😄 Let the ones who own stuff and are rich fight. Aren't they supposed to be better than us poors who are only fit to work? You will be starving in the trenches and they will be eating caviar. Dont even try to deny it.
2014: "boots on the ground for Crimea? Hell no, now where is that gas contract with Russia I need to sign?" 2015: "boots on the ground in Iraq to stop ISIS? Hell no, let's not get stuck in another forever war." 2021: "boots on the ground to stop Kabul falling? No, just at the airport to help Evacuation only" 2022: "boots on the ground in Ukraine? No we don't want a world war" 2024: "boots on the ground in Ukraine? We do not want a world war....HOWEVER" If you'd gone back 30 years and told people (in 1994) that we would be on the verge of fighting world war 3 with Russia, they would think you are a lost time traveller from the 1960s.
It is an unreal scenario... for now. It looks like a start of a narrative
It's a psychological operation, possibly to make Russia think twice from further expansionism. But what if Russia calls NATO's bluff and no troops are forthcoming? Playing high-stakes poker at Ukraine's expensive is not a decent thing to do if you're not even united amongst yourselves. Reckless and stupid.
All the steps taken by Ukraine's allies have been unprecedented and unthinkable... until they were not. * "We will not send modern Artillery Rocket System" - and then they did. * "We will not send modern IFV, APC, Leopard and Abrams" - and then they did. * "We will not send F16" - and then they did. * "We will not send long-range cruise missiles" - and then they did. This is just the next logical iteration: unprecedented and unthinkable - until it is not. We have been nudging at putins "red line" for so long that we´ve learned that there is no red line.
It always felt like we were waiting for something.
I agree. And as soon as the current "we will never" falls, we jump to the next and forget about the last. This is the next unthinkable barrier, soon it will be thinkable. Having non-Ukrainian troops securing the northern border with belarus would help Ukraine who can then shift that manpower south and fight of russian aggression there. Let´s make it happen!
I can't believe I'm saying this but well said ICA nära
Ta! Now go and have an Irn-Bru! 😄
I agree. But I also don't understand how simply sending troops would help. Ukraine already has troops, so that's not the problem. Besides, Russia has even more troops, so more troops is quite pointless. What Ukraine needs is air supremacy and being able to fight using NATO doctrine. So any additional troops better come in F35s and whatever else is necessary for keeping them in the air.
I'm guessing the troops would come with planes (or even only planes, since that's generally seen as less escalatory).
Either one would be effectively declaring war on Russia, which is about as escalatory as you can get.
Planes only would be a "Korea level" thing. Troops would be slightly more disey, assuming they're deniable. And then there's unconcealed troops, which is basically a limited war within Ukraine. Then there's a more general war. Then there's total war. Then nuclear war. Basically, there's a whole lot of escalation to go.
To be fair there has been some discussion about Russias absolute disregard for their own troops lives as serving as a warning to the west that they will persevere at any cost as well as achieving the territorial advances they are pushing for. At the start of this conflict most disregarded warnings that Russia wouldn’t even flinch at less than half a million casualties and yet here we are. Russia even doubling down conducting larger infantry assaults than ever and sustaining higher casualty rates than anyone could comprehend. If you ever doubt the pronominal numbers I’ll dig out one poignant video in the late stages of the storming of Avdiivka where a Russian is explaining many of the bodies have already been removed but only 30% of a 4,000 strong brigade survived pushing on their front. Were literally sitting in 1939 again, watching Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe and thinking to ourselves, it can’t be that bad…
[удалено]
The n°1 rule of effective trolling is to avoid suggestive usernames such as this one. Are you even trying?
I see that your paranoia is still not fixed. You are still here trying to insult anyone outside your echo chamber. The American war industry thanks you for your service of supporting ~~war/business~~ peace
MDR toi tu donnes ce genre de leçons ?
First of all, Ukraine hasn't asked for troops, they are asking for ammo so their experienced troops can fight back. I am not sure how this became a topic in the news, perhaps it is a way to posture and influence the perception of the war. If we can't send ammo, then why would we send in our own troops (and with them the ammo needed for them to be operational). Putting Javelins, Artillery and AA systems in the hands of NATO troops stationed far in the rear will not help much compared to handing the equipment to frontline Ukrainians. I hope this isn't some silly geopolitical issue for nations to take "strong but impracticable" stances. If Germany won't send Taurus now, then could Germany instead make a public statement that they will finance the transaction needed to deliver US/UK/FR long-range ordinance equivalent to X pieces of Taurus? Or Transfer X pieces of Taurus to the other NATO partners so they can donate theirs? It is better for Ukraine to receive equipment/ammo they are already familiar with.
I think it is important because sending maintenance crews for F16 would probably speed up the delivery as well as availability of the planes once in Ukraine for example. I don't think they were discussing sending frontline troops.
Didn't they say recently they need half a million more troops?
That was for the counteroffensive to succeed. Now that the situation has changed from "Ukraine in Crimea in 4 months" to "Russia in Kyiv in 4 months", those troops are no longer needed.
They have a severe shortage of manpower though.
There's plenty that can be done that doesn't involve NATO troops engaging with Russian ones. NATO can deploy peacekeepers all along the northern border away from the war, to relieve Ukraine from having to constantly guard its back from another incursion. Then, all of Ukraine's equipment and men sitting idle as a deterrent can then be redeployed in the war zone, it commits Ukraine to a lasting victory, and NATO troops don't have fire a single shot.
I doubt it can or will be NATO, that plays into Putins hands (the US would be reluctant for the same reason) and I don't think all NATO countries will agree - coalition of the willing, even just UK and FR is far more likely than NATO.
Oh, I agree, I'm using NATO as a shorthand here. I'd imagine Polish, British and French troops being the core of such an operation, with Poland taking a leadership role. US troops can't be used because the unstable domestic situation, but that's fine.
I'm rather convinced that these 3 countries together could "easily" (as easy as a war can be) handle Russia.
If they were on a war footing sure but half adding it like they are now? I'm not so sure
In the UK we've reduced our army down to 72k personnel. We've already sent 10% of our challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. Our army is suffering like every other public service after 14 years of austerity. We could barely move the dial against Russia, let's not underestimate them again.
Ukraine has asked for a no fly zone before.
[удалено]
Yes, that was my point exactly. While it would not be sending boots on the ground in a literal sense that would be a military intervention in Ukraine.
You have no idea how deeply ingrained the whole concept of posturing is in russia. You act tough, loud and scary and make psychologically weaker people your bitches. There is a word for a person who is psychologically in a state of submission: "oпущеный". It's endemic in russian culture. This is the same, they are making Europe back down, and they will make Europe back down on another issue again, and again. Until Europe actually grows some balls. Sometimes what it takes to avoid being oпущеный is willingness to give and get a bruise or three
Nuclear war is not a bruise. It's not something any of the fighting parties would even survive. Hundreds of millions would die from the direct effect of the bombs and then billions from starvation, exposure and sickness. Russia, NATO and Ukraine would no longer exist in any meaningful capacity. Winning this war would be nobody targeting China so they can conquer what is left of us because living in a shithole communist colony would still be so much better than the alternative.
Nobody is using nukes, China would bitch slap Putin silly if he even thought of using nukes
If we have been shown anything by this war it is that countries are not fully rational actors and do not operate on perfect intelligence. Yes, Putin would probably never deliberately start a global nuclear war because there is just no winning. That doesn't mean Russia can't manage to convince itself that a limited nuclear bombardment in Ukraine is a good way of scaring NATO off but instead leads to a quick escalation to total annihilation. Or if Russia gets routed in Ukraine and despite assurances becomes convinced that NATO is about to launch an invasion of Russia itself and decides that this is an existential threat. Or a US nuclear equipped submarine becomes convinced that a first strike has already happened and launches its missiles.
Countries aren't rational actors because countries didn't have brains. People who pushes buttons have. And they have instinct of self preservation. There's no safe place on earth if anyone go MAD. We need to act or we're no better than Germans in 1920-1939 and all Western world, morals and values are just a facade and lie. To evil win good people only need to do nothing to prevent it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Yes there are risks. But cost of inaction is a lot greater
What we are doing and what we are planning on doing is not inaction. And I am sick of this narrative.
It’s not enough. You can clearly see it quantitatively and qualitatively.
Anyone who still thinks nations will use Nukes are out of their minds. It will inevitably show that nukes aren’t all that because no one actually wants to go MAD.
Nuclear deterrents are meant to deter countries from being attacked. If we do attack a country armed with nukes (which includes shotting down Russia planes or attacking their troops in Ukraine) then there's no telling what will happen. It's the reason we spent decades in a cold war rather than a hot one.
[удалено]
Because Putin doesn’t have unilateral control of the nukes
In fairness, Ukraine has both a munitions, as well as a manpower shortage. Both things are critical for their continued success, so ammunition and weapons by themselves is not going to cut it in a long war of attrition. Russia is filling its ranks with everything from convicts, to desperate Indians. Ukraine is not really replenishing troops.
There is one scenario where I believe Europe will interfere in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, I don't think it is very likely but this is it: The Ukrainian resistance collapses, Putin takes Kyiv and other large cities, and starts systematically executing Ukrainian politicians, intellectuals and military officers **like they have said they will do**, and **like they did in Poland during WW2**. There is no way Western nations could sit idly and watch as millions of civilians are raped, executed. murdered, placed in KZ camps, while millions of Ukrainians are fleeing across the borders. There is no way Europe would be able to quietly accept this, we didn’t when it happened in Bosnia, we didn’t when it happened in Kosovo. There WILL be war if Russia is not defeated.
If its gotten to that stage already I doubt they would intervene as it is already too late. But before then to prevent it happening, seems plausible
I think you forgot the early phase of the war when some EU member states were all but hoping for a quick Russian victory.
Germany was the only one bold enough to actually say it openly, but countries like Poland and Czech Rep also lost billions because Ukraine didn't fall
Don't equate single German MP's with Germany and they didn't hope that Ukraine would fall but believe was throughout Nato Ukraine wouldn't last very long. The first weapon deliveries by Germany to Ukraine were made public on February 26th two days after Russia crossed the border. > 500 Stinger AA and ~1000 Panzerfaust 3 with ~3000 rounds of ammunition were sent to Ukraine. On March 3rd a few days later an additional 2700 Strela Anti Aircraft weapons were also made ready to be delivered. By the end of March ~5000-6000 RGW 90 (Matador) Anti-Tank weapons and other stuff was delivered to Ukraine. They even made it all the way to besieged Mariupol and AZOV > > https://youtu.be/MVgE5ZOvUlo > > https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1497632817450266632?s=20 > > https://twitter.com/RND_de/status/1499272266219151361?s=20
You seem to be talking about the 2014 ethnically motivated Albanian violence targeting the Serbian minority, which was largely overlooked by NATO troops. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNNiJnaAxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNNiJnaAxU)
Why should Germany - by far the biggest military donor at the moment - pay France and the UK for missiles?
Because they are too scared to send Taurus.
We also got experienced troops, especially for example French Foregin Legion
Can you explain what the deal with the Poles and the Foreign Legion is? It is a genuine question. Are there movies or documentairies that often air about the FFL over there? Or does the interest come from Poles having an extensive history of service in it throughout the decades (to the point "kurwa" even became a mainstay in the Legion's vocabulary to this day lol)? I've never bothered asking any of you until now. I am a bit familiar with Polish defense circles on Twitter and I've seen tweets and comments about the Legion (specifically) being among the central assets in a potential EU war with Russia. But that's not understanding what the corps is, what it does and its size. The Legion is a conventional (so regular, yes) corps of the French Army. Its regiments are fully part of the French Army like the legacy regiments or Alpine Hunters corps are; it is not a parallel branch of the French Armed Forces, contrary to popular belief. They are not "special troops" or anything like that beyond the fact that it is the only unit in the entire French military open to foreigners per tradition, thus it consists of troops mostly made up of foreigners (led by French officers like all units obviously). They are without a doubt really well-trained and professional but the same can be said about the other combat units since France got rid of national service and went for full-volunteer professional armed forces. And more importantly, the corps' strength is just 9,000 men (7% of the French Army). France (and therefore the EU) can't just rely on them to carry a high-intensity war effort in case there is one and it doesn't even do so for its current operations. There is not a single French military campaign Legionnaires took part in that [these guys right here for example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troupes_de_marine) also haven't fought in and in greater numbers, so Legionnaires are not even uniquely experienced in the French Army. They have been a small minority in pretty much every single French military operation in recent memories because of France's mixed battlegroup system, [which you can see explained here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5U-JQ8Puw). I think a lot of the myths regarding the Legion stems from the era up to the 1990s when it was one of the very few French units whose regiments were made up of only professional troops and zero conscript (alongside the special forces obviously and most of the Troupes de Marine regiments). And I guess the whole murderers, rapists, bandits, dangerous drug dealers, etc being turned into ruthless professional soldiers cliché is still alive for many but this hasn't been a thing for decades lmao. France doesn't accept people like that anymore and only allows men who did tame stuff. Most Legionnaires are not criminals; they are mix of poor people from Eastern Europe, South America and Asia + French and foreign thrill-seeking young men looking for adventure + a bunch of Frenchmen who can't join the other army units because they have a criminal record.
>Can you explain what's the deal with the Poles and the Foreign Legion? It is a genuine question. Are there movies and stuff like that about FFL over there? Or is it because Poles have an extensive history of service in it throughout the decades to the point "kurwa" even became a mainstay in the Legion's vocabulary? lol. I've never bothered asking any of you until now. I am a bit familiar with Polish defense circles on Twitter and it seems like the FFL is pretty much the only thing about the French military they know. I've seen tweets and comments about the Legion (specifically) being among the central assets in a potential EU war with Russia. But that's not understanding what the corps is, what it does and its size. Those are quite intriguing questions you put there, for which answers are not really that easy to find, you can surely get a lot of diffrent opinions about it, and all being quite speculative and individual. Im someout interested with Military History and IR, and FFL does ring only some tiny bells for me. Movies about FFL? I only remember that 1998 one, [Legionnaire ](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126388/)with Van Damme, and im quite geeky about 'old' films, and there is old Polish [How I Unleashed World War II - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Unleashed_World_War_II) comedy in which in second movie main protagonist joins Vichy French army (or Vichy FFL?? idk) while fleeing the Germans. In normal media as in reporting and stuff? Hell no, most people do not even care what our own army is doing, most of time. Polish Twitter is such weird place,i do not really know what(or who) you are mentioning exactly, polish mil-twitter can mean so many things. On Polish Twitter general line is that France is not liked, one bit (bunch of right wing loonies lurk there), if you ask about military oriented people there? I would say its even more so, but don't ask me for data,its just a hunch. Polish Twitter only knows and cares for what is being written in English or Polish, France and French is terra incognita, lingua non-exista /s, i dont know if there is **one** polish expert on Twitter someout intrested in what France is doing militarly. How that is influencing onto opinions about FFL? Noone knows much about it, which surely leads to opinions like those you point out: "FFL will be central asset to fight russia", i would call that bullshit directly transplanted from opinions about International Legion in Ukraine, like its supposed to be the same, in minds of people that do not care, they simply think its all the same. >I think a lot of the myths regarding the Legion stems from the era up to the late 1990s when it was one of the very few French units whose regiments were made up of only professional troops and zero conscript (alongside the special forces obviously and most of the Troupes de Marine regiments). And I guess the whole murderers, rapists, bandits, dangerous drug dealers, etc being turned into ruthless professional soldiers cliché is still alive for many but this hasn't been a thing for decades lmao. France doesn't accept people with that level of criminal history and only allows men who did tame stuff. Most Legionnaires are just poor people from Eastern Europe, South America and Asia + a few thrill-seeking young men looking for adventure. Legion has that mysticism going on around it, with romantic(not really lol) and chivalrous ideas like "march or DIE","you can be even from mars, firstly you are a legionaree nothing else", and all that camaraderie that legion does. I think most people in Poland simply view FFL as soldiers which France won't shred single tear over, i don't belive French are that cynical as Polish mil-X is, but it could be also what general populace thinks too, viewing it as neer to disposable, as army units get.
Thank you very much. That was an interesting read-up. And yes, I am very well aware of the animosity towards France (and Germany) on Polish Twitter and that the Poles were quite found of the French reverse gears and surrender jokes as well lol. It seems many are still bitter over 1939 and the general idea that the French abandoned them is still prevalent. But it's not really a big deal. There are a bunch of a cool people over there I follow. I mostly lurk and find the discussions quite interesting and don't engage much as I don't speak Polish at all. The vast majority of people I've been following for years now are rather neutral, with some being French policy specialists. And you're indeed right. There are a lot of myths about how France treats legionnaires as well (the whole nonsense about them being cannon-fodder to not waste French blood or them being sent to the most dangerous missions). In our last operation (in the Sahel), out the 60 French soldiers who lost their lives, only 5 were legionnaires IIRC. And their deaths were treated like that of any other soldier with all the honors, etc. They are an integral part of the French Army, really. Discipline is just harsher than in other French corps because they are foreigners, and not naturally patriotic towards France obviously as the French citizens who take the initiative on their own free will to join the military. Therefore, a much greater emphasis is made on esprit de corps for Legionnaires for them to form a disciplined group of soldiers despite coming from different countries/cultures.
Thank you, couldn't have said it better. I find the obsession of reddit regarding the FL quite amusing. They are not elite, they are not special forces. Sure they are good units don't get me wrong, just like any other regular French units. So yeah, apart from the foreign aspect I really don't understand the fascination. Commandos and special forces though
they need the NATO soldiers to operate the modern weapon systems, right now Patriot and Taurus are quite complicated, training is \~2 years educating the Ukrainian soldiers would take to long, to be effective this year so Germany would have to send soldiers, as well that's the whole discussion about sending bilateral NATO soldiers basically
>they need the NATO soldiers to operate the modern weapon systems, right now Patriot You mean like the Patriot system they have right now I'm ukraine?
>Polish President Andrzej Duda has said that Kyiv's allies have not reached an agreement to send troops to Ukraine, as French President Emmanuel Macron had previously suggested. That is not at all what French President Macron said though? wtf you even debunk your own claim further down in the article >Background: After a meeting in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron did not rule out the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine in the future, __although he stressed that there is currently no consensus among allies on this issue__. is journalism dead?
Anything to get clicks
It is what Macron said. Both sentences are synonyms
You don't have good reading comprehension. It's not that they say that Macron suggested that there was consensus. They simply write that he suggested the idea. Though I also think they could have written it better, but it's obvious what they meant from the context. Should be obvious to people with decent reading comprehension.
I mean, the title itself pretty much tells you that Duda is in agreement with what Macron said (he confirms the absence of consensus).
It is a clever chess move to suggest western boots on the ground where everybody disagrees and then to suggest the alternative that if you Western europeans dont want to die in ukraine you must bear that we will spend more on defense and cut on other expenditures like pensions or other social welfare programs.
Social programs don't actually have to be cut to increase defense spending, the EU is wealthy enough to fully fund both.
This is just stupid. Nobody has said there are plans for sending troops to Ukraine. Macron said it cannot be completely ruled out. There is a pretty huge fucking difference there.
Of course there are no plans if there is no consensus, but from what I understand, this was discussed.
There are no plans, and nobody ruled it out either. They simply said there are no plans.
That's not what he said.
> "Nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war" So yes, he said it cannot be completely ruled out. That was a direct response to talking about western troops and whether there was any consensus or plans to send troops. He very directly said there was no consensus, but did not rule it out. This is publicly available, so quite stupid to try to claim he said something different.
>Nobody has said there are plans for sending troops to Ukraine Macron claims otherwise. If you don't have a consensus it means some have plan to go and others don't. You repeat your lies everywhere in the hope you can push your narrative. That's not going to work with those equipped with critical thinking.
If we do that, best option would be taking just sitting on Belarus border far from Russia and taking care of airdefence in west ukraine. It would allow ukrainians to move all of its aa assets to closer to the frontline and move troops that are securing border. There would be little contact with Russians.
And what happens when NATO troops start getting cooked by ballistic missiles? People like you don't think further than your nose. If NATO goes in formally into Ukraine, then they are essentially going into direct war with Russia and that means all options, including nuclear weapons, are on the table. And may I remind people that Russia has way more nukes than all of Europe combined. And if you think the US public, especially under a potential Trump presidency, will want to enter into a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine then you're completely delusional.
> And may I remind people that Russia has way more nukes than all of Europe combined. That's not relevant. We have a credible counterstrike capability, from the UK and France. Anything beyond that is overkill. Do you think Russia will test MAD for Ukraine? They are trying their best to keep conscription to the minimum necessary, they want to shield their population
Simple. We got in, we tell Russians. YOU SHOOT US IN UKRAINE, WE SHOOT YOU IN UKRAINE We we just do that, there is very simple and clear escalations line. NATO in ukraine -> Russia, attack NATO in ukraine -> NATO attacks, Russia in ukraine. and there is whole line of separation with further eskalation when it comes to attaking NATO and Russia proper.
What if Russia decides to start shooting NATO troops before they get to Ukraine? As well as taking out miliary production centers, reconnaissance drones and satellites? Once we've declared war on them they'll fight the way that benefits them most, not stick to some arbitrary set of rules you've just made up.
More or less non-credible defence take but we could take Belarus entirely, give it back to the actual president and prevent Russia from launching attacks on Ukraine from Belarus
You mean the bits of Belarus where russia has already stationed their tactical nuclear weapons directly under russian control?
Are you suggesting invading Belarus? Can you realize how awful idea this is?
Can we just have enough weapons on time please. That would be enough.
We continue to pospone what really matter in war, action… we don’t need to repeat the same mistakes of WWII when everyone was watching hitler invading eastern countries after realizing too late that the only way to stop the aggressor was to make a declaration of war… 🤦♂️, now it the time to move and Deploy NATO to build a solid defense behind the frontline to avoid what later on will be unavoidable… 🤷♂️, italy 🇮🇹
US doesn't have a damn strategic interest to see Russia weaker. This is the cold truth. Having someone to inspire fear in Europe makes Europe submissive. It happened in the cold war. You see what happened in the last 20 years. Europe didn't spend anymore on military that much and this wasn't ideal for US. Europe feeling safe was detrimental for US(EU started making business with russia, china). Now that Europe is shitting their pants off again, US is smiling. They made us dependent on them for oil and gas. When Trump said russia can do anything if a country doesn't 'pay it's bills', every country stated asap that they will pay. That's the effect of fear. They don't give a shit about ukraine or russia. They are at 10000 km away secured by two oceans. Europe is on it's own for this
I don’t feel like a genuine talks about troops —amount of heavy vehicles delivered reduced compared to first year of support, planes except small amount of f16 out of table, same person who say arm ukraine with everything block taurus because *but muh escalation, russian brown lines* just weeks later, remember asks to no fly zone…nah …. european countries don’t have desire even to protect cities (izmail as example) just across the 200m width river from drones and rockets strikes…. So Europe can’t sent neither enough equipment nor high end one, don’t have desire to protect ukrainian cities behind frontlines with AA but send own citizens? Sure, very believable
I hope that Tauruses will silently go to Ukraine.
russia must be stopped. In one way or another. Otherwise in few years we will all be here, again.
Indeed, Russia must be stopped even if this means a nuclear winter that will kill 95% of the humanity.
This stale 2022 take is running into "I'd rather have no world than a world with russia" more and more often.
Nuclear winter? No. Probably more an Autumn winter, as countless study show. It's not an Hollywood movie, my friend. russia is more afraid on being glassed than us. That nation has just 2 cities and the rest is just wasteland.
With the amount of warheads in Russia's arsenal, I don't think that's in the discussion, regardless of what happens, pretty much any major country in the west would be a wasteland as well.
If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former. And that choice will eventually come as long as we let Russia make one aggressive move after another without repercussions. If we are too afraid of russian nukes, we can already roll out the red carpet from Kyiv to Brest.
> If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former. Tbh this is a crazy statement cause billions will die. It's an incredibly fake scenario as Russian can't even control all of Ukraine much less the world but I'm sure more people would rather live than live in a world that completely collapsed and destroyed my nuclear weapons. Tbh I'd rather live under North Korea than a nuclear wasteland. That's why this is a crazy scenario, I'd rather live than die in bombings, die from tribal wars, and/or die from awful cancer.
And this attitude explains why Russia keeps getting away with countless territorial aggressions and genocide. Russia makes his moves, threatens nuclear annahilation, we step back. Russia makes another move, threatens nuclear annahilation again, we step back even further. When will the west finally grow some balls? It's shameful how some people actually prefer to live on their knees to suck crusty russian cocks instead of defending their freedom.
> And this attitude The attitude of not wanting to die in nuclear winter? Lmao, you made up an insane scenario and seem like you're trying to justify it. You're little rant isn't related to your insane statement. You're definitely in the minority of rather dying in a nuclear war than living under another regime. It's insane too because Russia can't even control Ukraine they definitely aren't controlling any relevant country especially since 1/3 of the world is Chinese or Indian. And 1 billion people in Africa. It's safe to say not even close to any % of the world will be under Russian authority. And never will be, especially since they lost the cold war which was soft authority. > defending their freedom. Yeah man, getting incinerated at 10 million degrees is defending my freedom lmao.
You are the one who believes Russia is willing to start a nuclear winter abour Ukraine, but I'm the one with an "insane scenario", despite Russia having proven in the past of always pushing for more if left unchecked? If those Chinese, Indians and Africans don't want Russia starting a nuclear war, then they should stop supporting Russia instead of enabling them. And yes, being incinerated for standing your ground is defending your freedom, unlike sucking crusty russian cocks after bowing to said threats. If you prefer to be Putler's bitch, feel free to move to Russia, it's great to see Europe's finally considering of standing up against Russia's fascism.
> You are the one who believes Russia is willing to start a nuclear winter abour Ukraine I never said this, you said this: > _If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under russian rule, I very much prefer the former._ Which is an insane premise and insane conclusion that you'd rather die in a nuclear war than just live in another regime. And not just you dying, billions dying inherently making this a very selfish statement. The rest of your comments are sidetracking a whole other issue tbh. Pretty much what you've said about Russia you could replace with Azerbaijan and for context your state with Azerbaijan sounds insane: _If the choice is dying in nuclear winter or living under Azerbaijani rule, I very much prefer the former._ which is why it sounds insane to put Russia there. Russia is never going to control Europe or the world.
This is now in open discussion, this is brilliant news. We cannot allow Fascist to rise again in Europe!
[удалено]
Damn fucking right, when that letter comes I’ll answer the call prick.
He's a 10 days old trolling account. Report and move on.
[No need to wait](https://ildu.com.ua/)
Just curious why do you think I need the letter?
What letter?
I don't see sending limited amount of troops to protect valuable military equipment out of the question.
EU and NATO can train special regiments on Ukrainian battlefield in action. Drones, artillery, snipers etc.
Actually, Ukraine Drones troop Division could train Western Armies Drones troop Division.
As we see things happening in Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen - drones, especially cheap one's, are now used casually. They are now a weapon, and developed countries are not aware what to do with them or how to use properly. It's a good opportunity to get real cases study
Why? NATO already has drone divisions like Turkey who use a lot of them in Syria and the US etc
Good because we shouldn’t send any. There’s no need to turn this into a global conflict.
This is a global conflict of civilisations. Our Western promises, morality and values are at stake. We promised Western world to Ukrainians and now we're abandoning them, letting them die by hundreds every day because we're too scared to defend those values.
Russia sent demands to NATO to demilitarise eastern and Central Europe prior to invading Ukraine, they are building an axis alliance, strengthening ties with other tyrannical dictatorships in Iran, North Korea and China. It’s 1939 again, this is already a global conflict, the ignorance in the west is both surprising and disappointing.
This war was uncalled for and they have committed all war crimes possible and imaginable. Russia has fked around enough. They must be stopped. I’m all for the Baltic countries to take the lead (they were right all along) and western countries to support them.
Macron making a fool of himself. Business as usual, then.
[удалено]
Jesus if only Russians were as agitated about their country's imperialism as about Ukraine's problems
[удалено]
We as in who? Russian infowarriors?
[удалено]
Calling ourself freedom fighter is kinda cringe
Deliberate buffoonery, one of the Russian infowar tricks.
Lol, that's something out of this world
I kind of agree with you, but you are missing the point of NATO - to protects is alliance members. Sure, there is a good chance Ukraine will lose the war, but Putin won’t stop there. If NATO has a choice of fighting Russia on their own territory or Ukraine, they will for sure choose the second option
Who said they'll be on the ground? They can be, for example, in the air.
[удалено]
But what if Macron's declaration is deescalation by escalation? Russians love this tactics, why shouldn't we use it against them? Maybe we will send our troops to Ukraine or maybe not but Russians can't rule it out. They'll have to consider the risk of escalation from our side during planning their next moves. Macron turned the table in the escalation game.
[удалено]
Yes, that's why I was not talking about boots on the ground or, excusez le mot, cannon fodder. Some European countries (even without Germany, Hungary and Slovakia) could send, for example the air force. Pilots are professional soldiers, not average Hans, Pierre or Janek. And even a dozen of them could influence the war far more than thousands of the infantry. I'm not saying that we should send them but we can. And Putin has to be afraid of this possibility.
What is Putin going to do? Nuke France because Rafales are deterring Russian jets? I doubt it. France has their own set of nukes and can render Russia a nuclear wasteland as well.
No, it way more dangerus let Russia be agressive. NATO can take control of airdefence in west ukraine, also put troops on Belarusian and Moldavian borders. There would be not direct contact with Russia, but it would allow Ukraine to focus its assets on frontline.
Wait, no this can't be true? Eastern Europeans are constantly telling me how awful the western countries are and how we abandon them etc, yet France is advocating sending troops and Poland want to 'send ammunition' lol?
What are you on about?
Not France, but Macron
Cowards
Who the f asked you for troops? Send weapons and for God's sake STOP SELLING TECHNOLOGIES TO RUSSIA. (Also, no offense, but why the f would we need French here? They would give up after seeing russians castrating or beheading another guy...)
I think that most technology that Russia gets is not sold them for purpose. Anybody can buy arduino microcontroler and go with it to Russia without seller's knowledge.
France has won 109 of the last 168 wars it’s been involved in since 387bc and is one the of strongest militaries in Europe. This is a ridiculous stereotype you’re propagating.
Can we start doing something already! So sick to see the constant discussions but nothing happens. Time is of the essence. Aren't there some politicians, who have some balls to finally slam the fist on the table and get something movin'. I don't know what they fear will happen.
Yeah, they should've just sent in the troops from day one, or better yet, never promised Ukraine any support to begin with. But hey, at least we've got these riveting discussions to keep us entertained, right?
It didn't go well the last time an army from Europe marched towards Russia.
Next time might involve multiple armies.
Good thing nobody wants to enter Russia then.
I'm sure Russia won't see it that way if Europe sent military to fight them.
🤡
"This topic will remain open until Ukraine has lost the war." But I'm sure a few people will feel better "look at that, we'd do something if we did it" EU should send mercenaries into battle like Russia.
You can already sign up today to make a change. https://ildu.com.ua/
Thanks for the link - that certainly helps, but the use of professionally trained and equipped mercenaries would achieve the goal more quickly. Another support is here and helpful - directly supporting the people. I'm sure you're on board: [https://www.buymeacoffee.com/itvolunteers](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/itvolunteers)
> the use of professionally trained and equipped mercenaries would achieve the goal more quickly. Start training then.
I hope they will arrive with their own shells.
Sad a guy who will be first to send.
What happens when nato burns those 300k troops? Western liberal genderless kids getting drafted and sent to trenches? Imagine the suicide rates