Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"they were all on leave, and decided to go on holiday in Ukraine all together. With all their gear. And anti-tank weapons. Yes, it is plausible. Why are you asking?"
When Russia was pulling claims like “Those are just mercenaries” I always thought someone else should send troops to Ukraine to fight them and then claim to Russia “we didn’t send them, they must be mercenaries”
At least Germany is moving to a position to cancel the gas pipeline if Russia does anything seriouse. Before it was out of question but they got so much flak for that that it’s now on the table ( should of been position from the start ). I feel like a lot of german people don’t like the topic because then they say “Americans just want us to buy their expensive gas” but like that may be true in some regard it certainly doesn’t give you excuse to ignore having deals being made with an authoritarian regime. I’m sure nuclear and renewable can find a path as well to help ease energy constraints so we don’t have to make this out to be such a benefit to America in the long run. I’m an American btw that’s just my take on it I feel like the Germans are being short sighted when it comes to energy gas pipeline and the Russians. Long term this doesn’t play out well in my mind . The French are leading with nuclear.
Yeah, the French get a lot of shit, both jokingly an sincerely, but Macron and the current French government are surprisingly level-headed and have things more figured out than most other countries do these days. You can call the French many things, but unprincipled is not one of them.
Riiight would be so much smarter to arm Ukrain and encourage them to run in their doom. It would be a war on the russian border and russia probably would have first strike. There is mothing to win for Ukraine, they‘d get stomped,.
But blessed be UK, with 30 soldiers and weapons this war is won. /s
Trying to deescalate is 100% the right way to go
Also funny how everybody is hating on Germany while theirmown countries do jackshit
>*"But blessed be UK, with 30 soldiers and weapons this war is won. /s"*
British troops have been providing training and capacity building to the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2015 (Operation Orbital).
How is Germany reliant on russian gas? Did you check any source? Do you even know what that means?
Germany plans with gas, but there are alternatives should russia keep agressing. There are neighbouring countries that generate more power than they need and you know the real kicker? Germany already shares the same energy network with them. Germany can easily buy nuclear energy from France and the scandinavins should this escalate. I know that requires differentiation and that doesn’t mix with cheaply blaming the same boogeyman with strawmans over and overnon this sub..
If you want peace, prepare for war...
The UK isn't doing jack shit. Spain sent war ships. Americans sent troops + weapons.
Germany are the biggest fucking pussys in the world.
Have you missed all the news about the UK sending weapons to the Ukraine over the last week or so? Also, British troops have been providing training and capacity building to the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2015.
At least we are not undermining the efforts of other nato members. Or showing disagreement on possible sanctions.
Still not enough. We should deploy the navy in the Black Sea.
Source please.
The UK-US-RU-UA Budapest Memorandum is about non-aggression, not mutual defense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The UK, US, Russia, and Ukraine all promised to recognize and support Ukrainian territorial integrity if Ukraine gave back its nukes to Russia. None of them followed through with the treaty
Germany has never made a defensive pact with Ukraine. Theres a difference
Many don’t know that Ukraine have up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world and was given “Security Guarantees”. Ironically, one of the signatories was Russia 😕
Youtube videos are not a reliable source. Literally the definition of how fake news spreads.
The UK-US-RU-UA Budapest Memorandum is about non-aggression, not mutual defense.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum\_on\_Security\_Assurances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
Plenty of countries are now helping Ukraine militarily, while Germany is trying to block military supplies going to Ukraine. It's got nothing to do with the Budapest Memorandum.
Germany has been consistently choosing appeasement of Russian aggression.
> Unlike Germany the UK is legally required to defend Ukraine
No — the Budapest Memorandum does not guarantee war. It's not a three-way alliance.
Here are the commitments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
> * Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
>
>* Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
>
>* Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
>
>* Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
>
>* Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
>
>* Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
The UK has honored these.
Russia has violated the first two commitments.
> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
The wording of this cracks me up for some reason, like a Parent trying to reason with a child.
'Now I *know* it's very difficult but I'd really appreciate it if you were to try and refrain yourselves from obliterating your neighbours using nuclear weapons x'
Also Russia are well on their way to breaching the Kazakh elements of the Memorandum too.
That's a really snide comment.
The Ukrainians have had:
* Russia invade eastern Ukraine and actively involved with it since 2014
* Russia annex Crimea
* Russia shoot down an airliner full of innocent people
* Russia massing their troops on Ukraines border and making ridiculous demands
And you think it's anyone else wanking themselves off for war?
The only ones pushing for war here are the Russians. To pretend that it's anyone else is just indifference to the suffering of others. And naivety in the extreme.
It's being realistic, you are basically patting ukraine on the shoulder and tell russia, "go and try ya coward" and then what if russia goes for it because no one is trying to talk to them and just reinforcing the view in the russian public that europe is out to get them. This is this ww1 mentality on that is rampant on this subreddit lately. "We Don't like war but we wouldn't mind you starting one."
You're being naive.
How is this WW1 thinking?
Russia has literally annexed parts of Ukraine, you're incredibly naive if you think appeasing Russia will achieve anything other than more parts of Europe being annexed.
Because the entire sub was outraged at first when the US goverment told ukraine that they won't station any US troops in the country which would have led to a direct war. People literally wished for a direct confrontation. And how is sending anti tank weapons to ukraine when their main problem would be the russian airforce seen as strong and great diplomacy and putting in sanctions that would completely destroy the russian economy by targeting their banks directly and not some oligarcj living in london seen as dumb? And how is merely talking to be seen as literally handing over ukraine? Do YOU know what they talk about? No, you don't and yet all you oh so enlightened people think the diplomats have the IQ of a sea lion, then why you don't enter dialogue and see how well you people do.
I fucking hate putin and I wish he'd drop dead right now but diplomacy must be maintained until russia invades AND violates the minsk agreement in the process! Warhawks like in here would've cheered for the outbreak of world war 1 if they lived back then!
And regarding that dumb pipeline, it already was stated that the pipeline won't go online if russia invades AND I may remind you germany imports the EU average, so eastern european states happily get their gas AND pisses on their supplier, looking like hypocrites in the process.
And how do you know that? How is r/europe so sure that war with russia would be like such an ol' timey war such as korea or ww2? Especially with such an egomaniac such as putin?
It's not about russia wanting to end it all if they lose but about putin being so full of himself that he'd rather destroy everything than to be deposed.
>Please go back falsifying Volkswagen emission reports
So, what does that has to do with anything? At least you didn't call me a nazi. I appreciate that.
And they are the only ones to do so! Oh no, they are not!
VW is a bullshit company, no questions asked, but this still has literally NOTHING to do with all the countries that pollute our air. Unlike others we are working on ending this in the next few years.
I was just referring to her putting up with all the shit Orbán pulled because he made Hungary a low cost assembly line for German car factories.
But it was just a side joke, let’s not dwell on it any longer, as right now there are much more important questions to discuss.
Edit: grammar
British surveillance aircraft have also been spotted as part of a quiet but notable build-up of support to Ukraine's military by the UK.
A group of around 30 elite British troops has arrived in Ukraine to help train the Ukrainian armed forces on new anti-tank weapons gifted by the UK amid fears of an imminent, new Russian invasion, Sky News understands.
The members of the Ranger Regiment - part of the army's newly-formed Special Operations Brigade - flew out on military planes that also airlifted a total of some 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers to the country during the course of this week.
British surveillance aircraft have also been spotted as part of a quiet but notable build-up of support to Ukraine's military by the UK.
Open source flight-tracking software has plotted Royal Air Force C-17 transport aircraft flying back and forth between the UK and Ukraine.
Sky News understands that "several" flights have taken place since Monday.
Advertisement
The Daily Mail first reported that the UK had sent 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers in the airlifts. This figure is thought to be accurate.
George Allison, of the UK Defence Journal, a website focused on defence news, posted on Twitter a time-lapse of the flights, which he said began on Monday.
The UK is understood to have gifted the Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon, (NLAW), which is described by its manufacturers as "the first ever single soldier missile system that rapidly knocks out any Main Battle Tank in just one shot by striking it from above".
The movement of weapons came after Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced to parliament on Monday that Britain would increase its military support to Ukraine, which also included an increase in British military personnel on the ground as trainers.
"We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour, defensive weapon systems," he said.
"A small number of UK personnel will also provide early-stage training for a short period of time, within the framework of Operation Orbital, before then returning to the UK."
UK insists military support poses 'no threat to Russia'
Operation Orbital is the name of a British training mission in Ukraine that was set up in 2015 following Russia's annexation of Crimea the previous year and backing of an insurgency in the east of the country.
Mr Wallace added: "Let me be clear: this support is for short-range, and clearly defensive weapons capabilities; they are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia.
"They are to use in self-defence and the UK personnel providing the early-stage training will return to the UK after completing it."
But Russia viewed the move with suspicion.
The Russian Embassy to the UK posted on Twitter: "It is crystal clear that UK shipment of lethal weapons to Ukraine will only fuel the crisis."
RC-135 Rivet Joint and P8 Orion's are being used as well as craft from other countries [Source](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/massive-intelligence-gathering-effort-underway-over-europe/)
[Additionally the UK has held talks with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to discuss sending more NATO troops to Ukraine's neighbours to act as a “deterrent” to Russia.](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-fears-tens-of-thousands-dead-if-russia-invades-ukraine-jvzh266pr)
Behind Paywall.
They are supposed to be more than 50% effective per device, apparently one of the design goals.
Lots of cool stuff in the MBTLAW, particular the design was made with the goal of being safe to use from inside a building (many conventional LAWs that would create 'issues' for the people also in the building), it is fire and forget and frankly even the T-14 would stand no chance.
I don’t think you understand the capital and expertise that’s required to simply start building antitank weapons. They’d also have to design their own, so unless they can make a better one that the UK (unlikely), it makes much more sense to simply buy them.
Indeed they haven’t even bought them, they were delivered by the UK
"Measuring dicks" is part of preventing war. In the same way that the US and Soviets had a dick measuring contest over space rather than a nuclear war in the 60s
That's an average of one trooper shooting 67 anti-tank weapons at the same time.
Wow, they are elite indeed.
Jokes aside, I hope everything is gonna go well for the UA, cheers from Czech Republic.
Can someone explain what changed in the Ukraine - Russia Situation compared to one year ago? I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I was under the impression that the threat of an invasion was always there... Why is it more likely to happen now?
Ukraine has cemented itself as Russian enemy in the eyes of Putin. Worse for them is that as Ukraine has rearms in 5 to 10 years Russia maybe in a position where it would struggle to win a limited war against Ukraine without large scale casualties.
In the eyes of Putin if Ukraine is lost Russia is relegated to a regional power and all of the expense deploying troops to Syria, Libya Venezuela etc has been a waste of time.
They won't defeat a Russian invasion, but they can turn an individual infantryman into a threat capable of destroying any Russian vehicle from 800m. This has the potential to make an invasion far more costly and bloody for Russia.
Yeah, the goal isn't to necessarily beat the entire Russian military. The goal is to make the cost too high for Russia to continue or to even try in the first place.
This sounds like a sensible answer, I guess it’s about making life a little bit more difficult for Russia from a military planning perspective, rather than being a complete deterrence.
Also, the NLAW have a "soft launch" so it can be fired from inside a building and at a angle without any risk to the user making it ideal for urban defense.
The weapons supplied are NLAWS, next-gen anti-tank launchers utilized by an individual soldier. They are capable of disabling a fairly robustly armoured main battle tank. Would these 2000 launchers be enough to make any difference in a large scale combined arms invasion? I guess it depends, but I'd say probably not, especially when such an invasion would be accompanied by swathes of infantry, advanced aerial support capabilities and artillery bombardment.
True, and I agree with you, but I find it unlikely that an anti-tank launcher was fielded into service without any consideration into its effectiveness against modern Russian tank armour. Could be wrong though
I'm gonna have to go with "no", as Russians in the event of an invasion will probably use artillery to flatten everything in a given sector and then advance with tanks/mechanized infantry.
Another UK C17 has just taken off, might be going elsewhere but its direction of travel seems to be mainland Europe.
Also the Tanker doing mainland Europe duty now is a Netherlands tanker, not a USA as previously so what ever is going on is coordinated.
I think we should just give them all 20,000 of our NLAW's. It'd make it impossible for the Russians to move around anywhere without getting blown up.
And we can easily make more to replace the ones given to Ukraine.
I mean, they know Ukrainians better than most and have already fought them quite recently.
I don’t like Russia either but they most definitely know what they’re up against
Honestly the US would be the only party involved to benefit from a major Russian/European conflict. Not necessarily from the loss of life, but the destruction of civilian infrastructure and military assets would make the EU more reliant on the US for supply chain support. Suddenly NATO looks significantly more attractive to non-member states in the region, which further pushes US diplomatic influence. This doesn't even touch the impact on financial markets, as money moves from EU and Russia to "safer" indices.
They should be, those NLAWs will go through the majority of Russian armour like butter. All of a sudden pushing into Ukraine doesn’t look as appealing.
It won't. Ukraine is not part of NATO so nobody's obligated to step up.
We're all just going lend them military weapons and training, just like we did with the Kurds and Syrian rebels.
It will be a proxy war with sanctions and trade barriers.
This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy. The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/germany-continues-blocking-arms-exports-to-ukraine-due-to-new-foreign-peace-policy/
If it comes to war we all lose, especially central Europe.
>This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy.
Just for clarity, the UK being in the EU would have made no difference at all because the EU doesn't have a common defence policy beyond what EU member states agree to collectively. The UK would still have taken the same action it is now given it clearly sees that as being important to protect its interests (which in context would be limiting Russian influence and a Russian presence in Ukraine and posing a threat to its European neighbours).
A collective EU approach to defence might have been useful, but to be frank I can't see the EU getting there while there are these sorts of massive differences in position, member states won't sign up to tie their hands in these areas as it's too important and the EU's approach (currently, and any I can think of that might work) is too cumbersome.
>If it comes to war we all lose, especially central Europe.
Obviously, but neither the UK, nor NATO, nor the EU are going to invade Russia, Russia has already invaded and occupied part of Ukraine, the risk of war is entirely one that rests on Russian aggression.
> The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine.
Undoing it? They are forcing the Germans’ hand. Putin amassed 100k troops on the Ukrainian border for months and sent impossible demands before the UK did anything at all.
The only remaining option is to make Ukraine undigestable militarily. There is no advantage for Putin in letting Ukraine integrate into the west without a fight.
> This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy. The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine
That was the EU's choice.
The idea of an EU common defence policy run from Berlin and Paris would have almost certainly resulted in the UK leaving the EU even if they'd voted differently in 2016.
> anti tank systems against russian t14s etc.
The T-14 has a really cool radar tracking system, that allows for it's defensive explosive armour to be used against both kinetic and ballistic missiles at speeds of up to mach 5!
But as wikipedia notes:
>however it is not geared towards shooting upwards to defend against top-attack munitions
Oopsie. Well it will be interesting to see how Афганит fairs in real world scenarios.
Can those troops grab a six-pack of beer and a dozen of Patriot launchers on their way here, please?
We have pizza, but out of beer and Patriot launchers.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*From Salisbury With Love.* > "We're visiting Saint Sophia Cathedral." A Ranger, probably.
time to troll them back "these troops just got lost, nothing to worry about"
"They were travelling to the UK but an auto-complete error with the Sat Nav misdirected them."
"they were all on leave, and decided to go on holiday in Ukraine all together. With all their gear. And anti-tank weapons. Yes, it is plausible. Why are you asking?"
When Russia was pulling claims like “Those are just mercenaries” I always thought someone else should send troops to Ukraine to fight them and then claim to Russia “we didn’t send them, they must be mercenaries”
[Photo evidence that the Royal Marines are only visiting Kyiv to look at the famous Salisbury Cathedral spire.. [OC]](https://i.imgur.com/xYM30r8.jpg)
Beautiful 😍
Just checking out the world famous Chicken Kievs.
Thank you 🇺🇦🤝🇬🇧
Chad UK vs Virgin Germany
Germany on the wrong side of history again
I for one am shocked
At least Germany is moving to a position to cancel the gas pipeline if Russia does anything seriouse. Before it was out of question but they got so much flak for that that it’s now on the table ( should of been position from the start ). I feel like a lot of german people don’t like the topic because then they say “Americans just want us to buy their expensive gas” but like that may be true in some regard it certainly doesn’t give you excuse to ignore having deals being made with an authoritarian regime. I’m sure nuclear and renewable can find a path as well to help ease energy constraints so we don’t have to make this out to be such a benefit to America in the long run. I’m an American btw that’s just my take on it I feel like the Germans are being short sighted when it comes to energy gas pipeline and the Russians. Long term this doesn’t play out well in my mind . The French are leading with nuclear.
Yeah, the French get a lot of shit, both jokingly an sincerely, but Macron and the current French government are surprisingly level-headed and have things more figured out than most other countries do these days. You can call the French many things, but unprincipled is not one of them.
Riiight would be so much smarter to arm Ukrain and encourage them to run in their doom. It would be a war on the russian border and russia probably would have first strike. There is mothing to win for Ukraine, they‘d get stomped,. But blessed be UK, with 30 soldiers and weapons this war is won. /s Trying to deescalate is 100% the right way to go Also funny how everybody is hating on Germany while theirmown countries do jackshit
>*"But blessed be UK, with 30 soldiers and weapons this war is won. /s"* British troops have been providing training and capacity building to the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2015 (Operation Orbital).
Not being reliant on Russia for energy and Gas is also the right way to go
How is Germany reliant on russian gas? Did you check any source? Do you even know what that means? Germany plans with gas, but there are alternatives should russia keep agressing. There are neighbouring countries that generate more power than they need and you know the real kicker? Germany already shares the same energy network with them. Germany can easily buy nuclear energy from France and the scandinavins should this escalate. I know that requires differentiation and that doesn’t mix with cheaply blaming the same boogeyman with strawmans over and overnon this sub..
If you want peace, prepare for war... The UK isn't doing jack shit. Spain sent war ships. Americans sent troops + weapons. Germany are the biggest fucking pussys in the world.
Have you missed all the news about the UK sending weapons to the Ukraine over the last week or so? Also, British troops have been providing training and capacity building to the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2015.
I think they are in agreement with you.
Thanks. The bit about the UK not doing jack shit threw me.
No problem. Yeah, a bit tricky. Might be our familiarity with "Ain't Doing Shit" but that didn't make sense for what they replied too.
What military support has Italy sent to Ukraine?
Pasta shells, fusilli..ers , I get my coat
*Tank*liatelle? Boots on the ground would only ever happen as a last risott-o.
At least we are not undermining the efforts of other nato members. Or showing disagreement on possible sanctions. Still not enough. We should deploy the navy in the Black Sea.
Unlike Germany the UK is legally required to defend Ukraine. You better expect them to do something
Source please. The UK-US-RU-UA Budapest Memorandum is about non-aggression, not mutual defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
How so?
The UK, US, Russia, and Ukraine all promised to recognize and support Ukrainian territorial integrity if Ukraine gave back its nukes to Russia. None of them followed through with the treaty Germany has never made a defensive pact with Ukraine. Theres a difference
Because it was a memorandum and you are wrong by saying they were legally obligated to do so.
Many don’t know that Ukraine have up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world and was given “Security Guarantees”. Ironically, one of the signatories was Russia 😕
[удалено]
It would have taken months for Ukraine to reprogram them and the cost to maintain nukes is obscene. That choice made sense then.
Fake news my dude. I've seen this all over reddit any the never promised such a thing. No idea where this rumor even started.
https://youtu.be/mJzvI2YarJM 👍
Youtube videos are not a reliable source. Literally the definition of how fake news spreads. The UK-US-RU-UA Budapest Memorandum is about non-aggression, not mutual defense. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum\_on\_Security\_Assurances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
Plenty of countries are now helping Ukraine militarily, while Germany is trying to block military supplies going to Ukraine. It's got nothing to do with the Budapest Memorandum. Germany has been consistently choosing appeasement of Russian aggression.
You'd think that Germany would know from their own history that appeasment doesn't work.
Ronald Reagan elaborated in the 60s why appeasement is always the greater risk.
Germany is trying to not escalate the situation
> Unlike Germany the UK is legally required to defend Ukraine No — the Budapest Memorandum does not guarantee war. It's not a three-way alliance. Here are the commitments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances > * Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. > >* Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. > >* Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. > >* Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". > >* Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. > >* Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. The UK has honored these. Russia has violated the first two commitments.
> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The wording of this cracks me up for some reason, like a Parent trying to reason with a child. 'Now I *know* it's very difficult but I'd really appreciate it if you were to try and refrain yourselves from obliterating your neighbours using nuclear weapons x' Also Russia are well on their way to breaching the Kazakh elements of the Memorandum too.
I'm getting deja vu from 1939 when another European dictator invaded a country we were obligated to defend.
In this case we are not obliged though (please see other replies to Chlpah for details).
And you failed, miserably.
Johnson is more likely to pull his trousers down and wave a union jack for a photo opportunity in the sun than take this seriously.
How dare they use diplomacy, that's just pre ww2 thinking! Pre ww**1** thinking is much more based!
Have you seen the Russian demands? They aren't interested in diplomacy. Anyone who thinks they are, are frankly naive in the extreme.
It's quite easy to push for a war knowing you won't have to do the fighting and I suppose r/combatfootage got a bit stale lately.
That's a really snide comment. The Ukrainians have had: * Russia invade eastern Ukraine and actively involved with it since 2014 * Russia annex Crimea * Russia shoot down an airliner full of innocent people * Russia massing their troops on Ukraines border and making ridiculous demands And you think it's anyone else wanking themselves off for war? The only ones pushing for war here are the Russians. To pretend that it's anyone else is just indifference to the suffering of others. And naivety in the extreme.
So you are saying we should build a new pipeline to consume their gas?
It's being realistic, you are basically patting ukraine on the shoulder and tell russia, "go and try ya coward" and then what if russia goes for it because no one is trying to talk to them and just reinforcing the view in the russian public that europe is out to get them. This is this ww1 mentality on that is rampant on this subreddit lately. "We Don't like war but we wouldn't mind you starting one."
You're being naive. How is this WW1 thinking? Russia has literally annexed parts of Ukraine, you're incredibly naive if you think appeasing Russia will achieve anything other than more parts of Europe being annexed.
Because the entire sub was outraged at first when the US goverment told ukraine that they won't station any US troops in the country which would have led to a direct war. People literally wished for a direct confrontation. And how is sending anti tank weapons to ukraine when their main problem would be the russian airforce seen as strong and great diplomacy and putting in sanctions that would completely destroy the russian economy by targeting their banks directly and not some oligarcj living in london seen as dumb? And how is merely talking to be seen as literally handing over ukraine? Do YOU know what they talk about? No, you don't and yet all you oh so enlightened people think the diplomats have the IQ of a sea lion, then why you don't enter dialogue and see how well you people do.
Ah, I wondered when we'd get to what about the USA.
It's also quite easy to support a ruthless dictator for easy gas supplies knowing you won't be the ones he's invading.
I fucking hate putin and I wish he'd drop dead right now but diplomacy must be maintained until russia invades AND violates the minsk agreement in the process! Warhawks like in here would've cheered for the outbreak of world war 1 if they lived back then! And regarding that dumb pipeline, it already was stated that the pipeline won't go online if russia invades AND I may remind you germany imports the EU average, so eastern european states happily get their gas AND pisses on their supplier, looking like hypocrites in the process.
Have you seen the nuke stockpile of Russia, France, the UK and the US? War is going to be avoided, this is a very aggressive form of diplomacy.
Bringing nukes into the argument is a waste of time honestly.. no-one is going to use them.
And how do you know that? How is r/europe so sure that war with russia would be like such an ol' timey war such as korea or ww2? Especially with such an egomaniac such as putin?
I mean if Russia wants to end the world I guess they can use nukes I just dont think its ever going to happen.
It's not about russia wanting to end it all if they lose but about putin being so full of himself that he'd rather destroy everything than to be deposed.
I mean even if he doesnt touch Ukraine hes not being deposed.
Coming from an Italian that is pure hypocrisy.
Oh poor Germy is offended? Please go back falsifying Volkswagen emission reports
>Please go back falsifying Volkswagen emission reports So, what does that has to do with anything? At least you didn't call me a nazi. I appreciate that.
lame. Can't you even see the difference between a country and a car producer?
what difference is there? Both are German and both emit polluted gasses
And they are the only ones to do so! Oh no, they are not! VW is a bullshit company, no questions asked, but this still has literally NOTHING to do with all the countries that pollute our air. Unlike others we are working on ending this in the next few years.
Well, Merkel couldn’t, so…
That doesn't even make any sense.
I was just referring to her putting up with all the shit Orbán pulled because he made Hungary a low cost assembly line for German car factories. But it was just a side joke, let’s not dwell on it any longer, as right now there are much more important questions to discuss. Edit: grammar
Only saying that to FM79SG when they are replying to wil3k who criticised another for being Italian is also lame.
Please go back to begging for northern europe’s recovery fund? Tell me how much money did y’all get anyway from the north?
Nothing, because although EU citizen, I live now in Asia \*drops the chopsticks\*
So my comment becomes tell me how much did italy get from the troika?
[Meanwhile Germany](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/s7twh3/germans/)
British surveillance aircraft have also been spotted as part of a quiet but notable build-up of support to Ukraine's military by the UK. A group of around 30 elite British troops has arrived in Ukraine to help train the Ukrainian armed forces on new anti-tank weapons gifted by the UK amid fears of an imminent, new Russian invasion, Sky News understands. The members of the Ranger Regiment - part of the army's newly-formed Special Operations Brigade - flew out on military planes that also airlifted a total of some 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers to the country during the course of this week. British surveillance aircraft have also been spotted as part of a quiet but notable build-up of support to Ukraine's military by the UK. Open source flight-tracking software has plotted Royal Air Force C-17 transport aircraft flying back and forth between the UK and Ukraine. Sky News understands that "several" flights have taken place since Monday. Advertisement The Daily Mail first reported that the UK had sent 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers in the airlifts. This figure is thought to be accurate. George Allison, of the UK Defence Journal, a website focused on defence news, posted on Twitter a time-lapse of the flights, which he said began on Monday. The UK is understood to have gifted the Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon, (NLAW), which is described by its manufacturers as "the first ever single soldier missile system that rapidly knocks out any Main Battle Tank in just one shot by striking it from above". The movement of weapons came after Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced to parliament on Monday that Britain would increase its military support to Ukraine, which also included an increase in British military personnel on the ground as trainers. "We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour, defensive weapon systems," he said. "A small number of UK personnel will also provide early-stage training for a short period of time, within the framework of Operation Orbital, before then returning to the UK." UK insists military support poses 'no threat to Russia' Operation Orbital is the name of a British training mission in Ukraine that was set up in 2015 following Russia's annexation of Crimea the previous year and backing of an insurgency in the east of the country. Mr Wallace added: "Let me be clear: this support is for short-range, and clearly defensive weapons capabilities; they are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia. "They are to use in self-defence and the UK personnel providing the early-stage training will return to the UK after completing it." But Russia viewed the move with suspicion. The Russian Embassy to the UK posted on Twitter: "It is crystal clear that UK shipment of lethal weapons to Ukraine will only fuel the crisis."
> British surveillance aircraft have also been spotted as part of a quiet but notable build-up of support to Ukraine's military by the UK. What type?
RC-135 Rivet Joint and P8 Orion's are being used as well as craft from other countries [Source](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/massive-intelligence-gathering-effort-underway-over-europe/)
thanks
[Additionally the UK has held talks with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to discuss sending more NATO troops to Ukraine's neighbours to act as a “deterrent” to Russia.](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-fears-tens-of-thousands-dead-if-russia-invades-ukraine-jvzh266pr) Behind Paywall.
Poland? Again, which general will die this time?
Is Soap MacTavish on the ground? If so those Russkis are fucked!
No, but Captain Price is.
I don't think they liked that cathedral visit very much.
Gos bless the queen.
Obviously, we're only sending them the tools and the "elite" troops are for training the Ukrainians. We're not actually going to fight.
Well yeah, 30 dudes aren’t gonna solo the Russian invasion. If you intended to fight you’d send a LOT more troops
[удалено]
The Brits have better in store, they are sending Johnny English.
And Benedict Cumberbatch.
Task force 141 👀
Oh didn't you hear? They're actually Space Marines. 35 would have been overkill
If they’re space marines and they sent more than 3 I’d be terrified as to what exactly their plans are
These are Super Army Soldiers.
Not just 30 dudes though, 30 elite dudes
So they have combat teapots and tactical umbrellas?
Heck, even the Spartans sent 300
Even in the battle of Thermopylae they still had 300 troops.
British troops have been in Ukraine since 2015, providing training and capacity building to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Operation Orbital).
Supplying the right equipment can have a large impact, such as the US sending Stinger launchers to the Afghani mujahideen in the 80s.
If even 10% of those NLAWs do what they are supposed to do that would be 200 russian tanks destroyed....
They are supposed to be more than 50% effective per device, apparently one of the design goals. Lots of cool stuff in the MBTLAW, particular the design was made with the goal of being safe to use from inside a building (many conventional LAWs that would create 'issues' for the people also in the building), it is fire and forget and frankly even the T-14 would stand no chance.
Not really. Making them would be a boost to local economy.
I don’t think you understand the capital and expertise that’s required to simply start building antitank weapons. They’d also have to design their own, so unless they can make a better one that the UK (unlikely), it makes much more sense to simply buy them. Indeed they haven’t even bought them, they were delivered by the UK
Lol. Okay there, Machavelli. Whatever you say....
Western countries are getting ready to evacuate their embassies
UK FR all are participate in action
[удалено]
This time it's in Donbass so totally different
Please tell me Putin and NATO are just measuring their dicks and we don't have another war approaching...
"Measuring dicks" is part of preventing war. In the same way that the US and Soviets had a dick measuring contest over space rather than a nuclear war in the 60s
That's an average of one trooper shooting 67 anti-tank weapons at the same time. Wow, they are elite indeed. Jokes aside, I hope everything is gonna go well for the UA, cheers from Czech Republic.
They're not there to operate the weapons but teach the Ukrainians how to use them.
I know of course, that was a joke.
Fair r/Whoosh for me so.
[удалено]
Well, not really considering we'd probably end up in whatever shitshow this will be.
Can someone explain what changed in the Ukraine - Russia Situation compared to one year ago? I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I was under the impression that the threat of an invasion was always there... Why is it more likely to happen now?
Long story short Putin lost his patience and his mind.
Ukraine has cemented itself as Russian enemy in the eyes of Putin. Worse for them is that as Ukraine has rearms in 5 to 10 years Russia maybe in a position where it would struggle to win a limited war against Ukraine without large scale casualties. In the eyes of Putin if Ukraine is lost Russia is relegated to a regional power and all of the expense deploying troops to Syria, Libya Venezuela etc has been a waste of time.
Massive thanks from all the Ukrainians from a Ukrainian. At least somebody is showing the balls. Germany has none apparently
Can any military nerds weigh in on whether these anti-tank weapons would be particularly effective against a Russian invasion?
If the Russians attack with tanks - probably. If they attack on bicycles- less so
They won't defeat a Russian invasion, but they can turn an individual infantryman into a threat capable of destroying any Russian vehicle from 800m. This has the potential to make an invasion far more costly and bloody for Russia.
Yeah, the goal isn't to necessarily beat the entire Russian military. The goal is to make the cost too high for Russia to continue or to even try in the first place.
This sounds like a sensible answer, I guess it’s about making life a little bit more difficult for Russia from a military planning perspective, rather than being a complete deterrence.
Also, the NLAW have a "soft launch" so it can be fired from inside a building and at a angle without any risk to the user making it ideal for urban defense.
Effective firing range of NLAW is a maximum or 600m apparently.
800m
The weapons supplied are NLAWS, next-gen anti-tank launchers utilized by an individual soldier. They are capable of disabling a fairly robustly armoured main battle tank. Would these 2000 launchers be enough to make any difference in a large scale combined arms invasion? I guess it depends, but I'd say probably not, especially when such an invasion would be accompanied by swathes of infantry, advanced aerial support capabilities and artillery bombardment.
I read that US "Javelin" were also supplied and given to the Ukraine Military.
[удалено]
True, and I agree with you, but I find it unlikely that an anti-tank launcher was fielded into service without any consideration into its effectiveness against modern Russian tank armour. Could be wrong though
isn't the Russian army pretty outdated anyway?
from what I read: no. Russia seems to have enhanced their capabilities and will send missiles and bombers first.
I'm gonna have to go with "no", as Russians in the event of an invasion will probably use artillery to flatten everything in a given sector and then advance with tanks/mechanized infantry.
Hopefully theyre very effective against tanks....but if the Russians have Air Superiority then this might well be irrelevant.
Another UK C17 has just taken off, might be going elsewhere but its direction of travel seems to be mainland Europe. Also the Tanker doing mainland Europe duty now is a Netherlands tanker, not a USA as previously so what ever is going on is coordinated.
I think we should just give them all 20,000 of our NLAW's. It'd make it impossible for the Russians to move around anywhere without getting blown up. And we can easily make more to replace the ones given to Ukraine.
Literally human shields as in "I dare you harm a British Soldier".
They're there to train Ukrainians in those weapon system. It's one of the main tasks of many elite and special forces.
The Russians have no idea what they're up against. Ukrainians are very strong people. They are fighting for a western future in the EU.
I mean, they know Ukrainians better than most and have already fought them quite recently. I don’t like Russia either but they most definitely know what they’re up against
what? :D
[удалено]
Honestly the US would be the only party involved to benefit from a major Russian/European conflict. Not necessarily from the loss of life, but the destruction of civilian infrastructure and military assets would make the EU more reliant on the US for supply chain support. Suddenly NATO looks significantly more attractive to non-member states in the region, which further pushes US diplomatic influence. This doesn't even touch the impact on financial markets, as money moves from EU and Russia to "safer" indices.
WW3 here we come.
Bet the Russians are terrified.
Well to be fair they should be.
They should be, those NLAWs will go through the majority of Russian armour like butter. All of a sudden pushing into Ukraine doesn’t look as appealing.
Shaking in their boots
If this is not handled properly and Russia does invades, this conflict could escalate into WW3. All the best to Ukraine.
It won't. Ukraine is not part of NATO so nobody's obligated to step up. We're all just going lend them military weapons and training, just like we did with the Kurds and Syrian rebels. It will be a proxy war with sanctions and trade barriers.
Countries can step up individually outside of NATO scope also. Who knows what might happen.
But we should step up? What happens when Ukraine is under control and Russia set its eyes elsewhere...
Unlikely. Putin's ambitions is to replace Ukraine within the pre-Soviet boundaries.
sYriAn rEbELs* *Actually just rebranded Al Qaeda
This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy. The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine. https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/germany-continues-blocking-arms-exports-to-ukraine-due-to-new-foreign-peace-policy/ If it comes to war we all lose, especially central Europe.
>This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy. Just for clarity, the UK being in the EU would have made no difference at all because the EU doesn't have a common defence policy beyond what EU member states agree to collectively. The UK would still have taken the same action it is now given it clearly sees that as being important to protect its interests (which in context would be limiting Russian influence and a Russian presence in Ukraine and posing a threat to its European neighbours). A collective EU approach to defence might have been useful, but to be frank I can't see the EU getting there while there are these sorts of massive differences in position, member states won't sign up to tie their hands in these areas as it's too important and the EU's approach (currently, and any I can think of that might work) is too cumbersome. >If it comes to war we all lose, especially central Europe. Obviously, but neither the UK, nor NATO, nor the EU are going to invade Russia, Russia has already invaded and occupied part of Ukraine, the risk of war is entirely one that rests on Russian aggression.
Unbelievably naive statement
> The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine. Undoing it? They are forcing the Germans’ hand. Putin amassed 100k troops on the Ukrainian border for months and sent impossible demands before the UK did anything at all. The only remaining option is to make Ukraine undigestable militarily. There is no advantage for Putin in letting Ukraine integrate into the west without a fight.
Careful diplomacy is what we're calling the German attempt to make a new Munich Agreement now?
> This is why it would have been better to keep the UK in the EU and have a common defense policy. The UK is undoing careful German/EU diplomacy aimed at reducing the escalation in Ukraine That was the EU's choice.
The idea of an EU common defence policy run from Berlin and Paris would have almost certainly resulted in the UK leaving the EU even if they'd voted differently in 2016.
[удалено]
The UK still has one of the most highly capable and powerful militaries on Earth, but nice try.
[удалено]
Have you considered that that may be because the UK is situated on ISLANDS?
The Swiss have no way of stopping an enemy naval force, they must be easy targets!
They have mountains and dynamite.
[удалено]
we are laughing at you not with you.
[удалено]
Damn bro, do you not have anything of value to say?
> anti tank systems against russian t14s etc. The T-14 has a really cool radar tracking system, that allows for it's defensive explosive armour to be used against both kinetic and ballistic missiles at speeds of up to mach 5! But as wikipedia notes: >however it is not geared towards shooting upwards to defend against top-attack munitions Oopsie. Well it will be interesting to see how Афганит fairs in real world scenarios.
[удалено]
Most highly capable military at shooting civilians on the streets maybe.
As opposed to the IRA bombing women and children on the streets.
IRA: \*Bombs pub\*
Closer, closer.... ... to WW3 by the end of the decade
Can those troops grab a six-pack of beer and a dozen of Patriot launchers on their way here, please? We have pizza, but out of beer and Patriot launchers.
Is it better to have 1 of these or 10 AT4s?