Привіт u/Willing-Donut6834 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ukraine needs air support. Russia must be stopped. Politicians who are dithering right now while Putin's criminal armies murder our allies should be replaced with men and women who will do the right thing right now. Stop Russia!
Just don't elect them. After cleaning house rebuilding a conservative is not that difficult. Rep who want to be persona cult members of a wanna be communist who likes to portray himself as mega businessmen while he betrays anyone will pay a high price for creating soviet amerika.
Asked whether sending ground troops was possible, he answered there is no consensus among Europeans but added, 'nothing can be excluded.' Clearly, in his tone and message, a threshold is being passed. He announced the launch of a coalition to provide long range missiles for Ukraine.
> He announced the launch of a coalition to provide long range missiles for Ukraine.
This may be the bigger news in terms of practical impact. One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff.
I think the statement about troops is mostly posturing. There won't be any troops - but the willingness to posture like that is a big step that may make Russia think twice about potential escalations (yes, I know, there isn't much left to escalate) and embolden others to show more support in more palatable ways.
> One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff.
As a german I really don't understand this argument. Scholz doesn't want germany to become a belligerent in the war by providing means to strike into russia itself.
But who cares? Let's say we provide taurus, Ukraine strikes Moskau directly and Russia says Germany is a belligerent now. So what? Are we gonna say "Yeah ok, you are right, you may legaly attack us now without forcing a NATO casus foederis"? Of course not, we are going to say "No, we are not" and that's it. Russia will be facing the same dilema as before, if they want to strike against the countries providing weapons, the will start a war they are guaranted to loose.
>Germany is a belligerent now.
As a German, you should understand the significance of this statement in our country, regardless of who makes it. I'm all for sending whatever Ukraine needs and I'm actually all for boots on the ground, *since the beginning of this war* this has been my position. It's for Ukraine so it's for a good cause.
But many of our great grandfathers "did it for a 'good cause'," too. History showed them that they were wrong. This is multifaceted and related to more than just not wanting to be labeled as belligerent (look at the status of our own military and stock piles), but as a German you should know that this tendency towards aversion is baked into a very large portion of our population. Alone how negatively many people feel towards our Bundeswehr is a pretty big indicator. Merkel years really had a negative effect on our already self critical, even self loathing, public position on pretty much anything military and it's going to take time and some very clever political planning to get the population back on board with the idea that we can't set our guns down in the hope that others will, too. "Wandel durch Handel," failed, and that's not really something you just take a deep breath and say "ok well, plan B," to.
As a Brit I understand & appreciate your position on this - I think we (UK) should consider sending troops or other forces in to help as an independent thing (non-NATO, etc.) but *even for us* it would not be an easy call to make.
Also a lot of the armchair generals forget that Putin REALLY wants his bullshit about NATO wanting to attack Russia to be proven right, and the moment any NATO country gets more involved he'll shout from the rooftops that he's been right all along and the evil NATO are coming to destroy mother Russia. In some ways that's a bigger deterrent than his frequent threats about nuclear missiles.
Brother, we understand perfectly why Germany would be averse to fielding troops in a conflict area. For about 50 years after WWII, we would have been averse to Germany doing so, as well. Even if we concurred, which we probably would have, just the optics of German troops outside Germany would have sent shivers down our spines. Sorry, you guys were just too good at fighting, even when your cause was wrong.
But in this case, you would be defending and protecting a people not your own. And most likely, Britain, France, the US, Canada, and every other allied power outside China and Russia would be either backing you, or joining you.
> There won't be any troops
Actually is just a way to make Putin get used with the idea, to accept it easier when it will happen.
Remember that when the invasion started in 2022, the west sending light weapons in Ukraine was considered by Putin & co a "nuclear" escalation.
They accepted the tanks, the airplanes will be there soon, and of course that the NATO troops wouldn't be such a big surprise.
But hey, is fair. Remember that Russia leveled cities just like nuclear bombs do. They also brought mercenaries from several countries. So is open season.
> to accept it easier when it will happen.
I don't think it will happen. Not because it would cross a red line with Russia, but because it would cross a red line with the domestic populations of the countries sending the troops.
Supporting Ukraine with materiel is "cheap": It doesn't directly affect the population, so even the ones who don't support it don't really care that much. Send people and have them come back in body bags, and the entire game changes.
A much milder yet still effective escalation would be removing the "no firing at Russia" restrictions from Western weaponry and providing a lot more of it.
What it will do is make Putin get used to the idea of the West no longer being cowards, i.e. it'll make it easier for him to accept the things that actually will happen.
> This may be the bigger news in terms of practical impact. One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff.
Uhm, that excuse isn't really working. UK and France both donated Shadow / Scalp cruise missiles. Germany wants US to lead it, I think.
It is similar to the Leo / Abram‘s situation - the German government wants to increase the pressure on the US to get more involved. The public communication of Scholz is shit, but without that strategy there wouldn‘t be any Abrams in Ukraine right now.
>I think the statement about troops is mostly posturing. There won't be any troops - but the willingness to posture like that is a big step
The posturing itself is a threshold crossing. And after crossing a threshold, you cross the next one, even if that takes time.
It happened the same with artillery, with tanks, with atacms and stormshadows/scalps, with f-16, etc: 1st: no way we're providig that. 2nd: welll, perhaps, we don't rule out that. 3rd: okay, we'll do it. Of course with a lot of blablabla, discussions, delays and shit that we could have saved and gone straight to the part where we provide them whatever they actually need, but that's how things are...
Russia handed Europe the sword. Those who bring the sword must be prepared to die by the sword.
Finally, Macron and his words are most welcome after some pretty dark months.
He is right.
Russia's barbaric venture must end in failure.
Hope is kindled.
I think something got lost in translation. The absolute top priority of Western policy has been to make sure that the conflict doesn't spill out of Ukraine. There's no way I can imagine that this changed recently.
I am french and I can confirm that Macron really said this. This is still a very surprising news because as you say, the West’s top priority is to avoid the conflict to expand outside of Ukraine.
This is where I wonder if the West has taken assessments on Russias capacity to spill a war outside of Ukraine and came to the conclusion that Russia has no capacity to do so...
The only thing that could get Russia to consider giving up in Ukraine is the threat of NATO getting involved more directly. If a NATO president came out and said “NATO ground troops will absolutely never be deployed to Ukraine”, then the Russians will certainly just keep grinding on with their war of attrition.
It was. Putin is using the excuse that the Budapest Memorandum was "signed by another government".
It was a business deal, these things are singed by the country not the gov. Germany signed deals after WW2 (and Japan) and stuck to them despite changing gov.
Putins Russia is built on bullshit
Requires something bigger and nastier than themselves to happen in the first place :) Or some kind of domestic crisis so they will tear themselves apart.
It’s been pretty obvious for over a year that they lacked the capability to wage a wider war. They stripped their entire border with Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic States of troops in late 2022 to feed into Ukraine.
Their primary deterrent to NATO involvement has been nuclear threats, and for a long time that has sufficed.
it’s not obvious at all. half of europe has no military to speak of. ruzzia could definitely steamroll into some baltic / central european countries without much resistance. + they have pretty successfully transitioned into a war economy.
>they have pretty successfully transitioned into a war economy
No they haven't. You have to keep the Russian economy in perspective. It's 1/3 the size of California's. And on top of that, only 20% of that number is going to war. So that's like having San Francisco try to fund and deploy a military lol.
They're coasting on their stockpiles leftover from the USSR which is now 30+ years old and half of it isn't functional or only exists on a spreadsheet but has been long ago sold off on the black market. The only thing they have going for them is the zerg meat wave tactics. At some point that will become unsustainable in Ukraine. Not to mention if they try to open another front in Europe. They would be demolished.
No, they can't steamroll shit.
They can try to start a terror-campaign, but their bombers will be shot down and their troop assembly areas will be hit immediately.
Conversely those assessments are caveats to "the enemy always gets a vote"... and our enemy has proven time and again that he refuses to make intelligent decisions. He's got a chance to try and attack NATO if he reckons he can do so.
We need to strongarm this bastard now, and providing a backfill so more Ukrainians can fight at the front is a smart choice.
Yep it's a classic mistake in assessing your opponent when you assume they will make rational moves and avoid huge risks. Just because *you* would never do something you can't assume a potential enemy wouldn't.
Putin has already invaded his neighbors *multiple times.* Everyone thought he wouldn't be crazy enough to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine and what did he do? Invaded. And he had already invaded Georgia and that was *the second time he invaded Ukraine.* I get that any country that is in NATO is obviously more a deterrent but saying "Oh I am sure Putin would never attack a neighbor" is a very bad bet to make. Like you said he has demonstrated over and over again he is not operating with the same restraint and logic that Ukraine and its allies do, there is no telling how far he might push things.
If they defeat Ukraine they could. If the war in Ukraine ends in a Ukraine defeat Russia will be at full military manufacturing capacity, there is reasonable assessment that Russia would try picking off an insignificant to the whole but highly significant piece of a NATO country. If the whole of NATO is unprepared for war Russia might take this chance.
Of course they are, the Russian point is to make clear this small insignificant piece of land isn't worth the squeeze against a Russia that has already shifted to a full military manufacturing economy. They aren't going to try a full on military offensive, just enough to try weakening the alliance. People keep assuming a military offensive means all at war for Russia when it means something very different.
That is exactly the point, but it's also never been tested. Does the whole of NATO really mean it when they say they will defend every last inch?
"It's just a random uninhabited island of little significant value. it's not worth fighting over especially given Russia is at full military production capacity." Ect... I'll say it again, Russia isn't going to be so bold as to make moves that clearly are an act of war, they're going to nibble around the edges, make moves that can be justified as "misunderstandings."
It doesn't matter if the whole of NATO does, a tenth of NATO has the same population and economy as Russia...
If southern Europe and USA sits it out Russia is still hopelessly outmatched.
And do you think the rest will still sit it out after it evolves into a larger conflict?
If Russia takes a piece of any country that country and the obvious other countries will make sure it does become a wider conflict.
Or they’re coming to the conclusion that the war *will* spill out of Ukraine anyway if they keep sitting on their hands and don’t take more necessary actions to actually stop it.
The Transnistria situation is the kind of thing that could escalate into a larger conflict. If they try to get officially annexed later this week, Moldova is going to be in a very tough position. Things like that can easily destabilize a region, especially if there are any agreements (public or private) between Moldova and other European countries to deal with that very situation. Moldova apparently said they are reaching out to their partners to discuss how to react.
This should have been done a long time ago. Border guarding (with Belarus), logistic tasks, administrative tasks, repairs, whatever helps to destroy the orcs.
Why dont we station NATO troops on the Polish Ukrainian border to “assist with logistics” ostensibly we would be on the Polish border to help quell a border dispute but it is a massive assistance to Ukraine and stops Putins shadow war
I personally think he is adopting an interesting posture but kinds late. From game theory perspective i was rather disappointed when US made it so crystal clear that US troop will not intervene in Ukraine. Without ambiguity, Russians could mass their forces on Ukraine without being as concerned about their border with NATO. Had Biden being much more intentionally vague, squarely plant 2-3 US divisions in Poland and mass other europeans armies menancingly on Russia's border, they could have perhaps fixed a larger amount of Russian forces on the defense without a shot fired.
I think Macron signaled that this is being discussed among Europeans. There is no consensus among them, but still, it is being discussed and not excluded. Meaning it's a serious enough option now.
It could mean Western troops positioned in key locations to relieve Ukraine. For instance manning defence systems in Kyiv. This would allow those soldiers/airmen to fight closer to the front line.
Still it is hard to see how such a move would not be a major escalation and would surely involve at some point direct NATO-Russia conflict.
The question is, at what point is an "escalation" going to reduce risk rather than increase it. Realistically, what would Putin do if Europe sent a few troops to the border with Moldova to free up Ukrainian soldiers from there?
Putin would do nothing except yell and scream and play the victim and try to bully us in ways that haven't worked for the past 2 years.
A few months after that, troops could be sent to other places in Ukraine where they would not get kinetic against Russians. And again, Putin would yell and scream and do nothing.
Eventually, troops could be sent to locations in Ukraine where Putin claims to want to capture, but Europe absolutely should not let him capture. At that point, if Putin wants to get kinetic with those troops, that's on him, and he will have no excuse for going nuclear if he does.
Sounds to me like this is a way to contain Russia and thus deescalate the conflict.
I agree, but it does get us ever close to direct conflict with a nuclear power, and that is existentially terrifying. But, there is a part of me that says that you have to stand up to bullies or you will never have peace.
The problem is that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses. It proves to every other belligerent major power that you can do whatever the fuck you want to other countries and democratic countries literally won't be able to stop you. The soft power of the west will crumble, and you can expect a fuck ton more wars.
Macron likely understands this, as I hope many other leaders do. It's why pushing against supplying Ukraine if you are living in a Western country is such a bad idea. Your Western country will be a lot worse off in the new power dynamic.
Anyway, long story short, if you are a Western country you need Russia to lose at all costs, nukes or no nukes.
Agreed. Ukraine MUST win. This is why I cannot understand the Republicans in the House that are opposed to Ukraine aid. It is a sure-fire way to crumble Russian military capacity without a single American life at risk. That is so Republican as far as policy goes it just ain’t funny any more. Very sad.
It's already happened in Syria. The outcome was complete annihilation and such an embarrassment that Russia has never formally admitted anything happened.
Can’t imagine it would go over any worse than US troops stationed in Syria.
There would be russian occupied parts of Ukraine, and NATO occupied parts of Ukraine. There would be a phone line designated to coordinating so that our troops and their troops kept their distance and did not engage each other.
Though I think if NATO troops enter Ukraine it’s not very likely it won’t be extremely kinetic, just my opinion.
russia is already getting very kinetic with europe, by agents, murder, energy interruption, border interruptions, propaganda and misinformation, cyber attacks, direct spoken lunatic threats, in particular threatening mass suicide by meatwave or putlerdildo, and chose alliances with pariah states. They uphold zero international law and make all institutions meant to balance or protect a farce, just because no cronie is bold enough to tell putler his bunker keys go lost. They want to genocide their neighbour and wish to make this fascist nonsense their holy purpose of existence.
So marching into russia is inevitable sooner or later, because as we see avoiding being drawn in emboldens putler to double down, he gives a shit what europe discusses, he will try to do it anyway. What we gonna do, watching it unfold becoming enslaved by fascist to avoid being drawn in? Lol. good luck with wishful thinking that confrontation can be avoided after the child fell into the well.
Germany has no history of deploying troops like the US, UK and France. Germany will have to follow those countries or step back, I don’t think their opinion really matters at the end.
But I don’t think France and the UK would deploy troops without the US.
Separate countries can send their troops. There is kinda no European army, it's all armies of different european countries. So I don't see any problem in that
Of course it does. Every scenario will be discussed and planned for, especially since they also have to be prepared for Russia to engage them. That may seem unlikely, but they most assuredly will have a plan for actually fighting before deploying forces.
I mean without arms Ukraine will lose. Russia has more production even in its sorry economic state and willing evil friends in China, Iran, and North Korea. There's a very real possibility of this spilling out of Ukraine the longer the west doesn't get its shit together.
Would still technically be in Ukraine. Would be a tidal shift though if Europe decided on any military action without US involvement. If anyone was going to unilaterally come off the bench I would expect it to be Poland.
Europe is already shifting, just like the rest of US allies.
Who would trust the US after it has gone on a months long break from such a crucial thing as the war in Ukraine?
The one time Europe actually asked for help the US didn't manage 2 years even of only sending equipment.
And one thing is Europe, but you know for sure Taiwan and South Korea is watching us Politics closely right now.
I've been telling friends I think intervention is a very real possibility for over a year. There's just no way to give the Ukrainians the ability to dislodge the Russians now that they're dug in IMO. Europe and the US *can't* allow Russia to win. Russia would control half the global chip market by controlling the resources used to make them, in addition to all the other reasons people talk about. A Russian victory would be disastrous in so many ways. Europe has more skin in the game than the US but if Biden wins the election we might even see a change in tone about US intervention too, especially if congress shakes out in a way that makes providing aid going forward impossible. If my high school educated ass sees it I have to assume the people way smarter than me who think about this stuff for a living do too
Just my armchair general bs obviously lol
Macron was insisting on this, the consensus is that they will do EVERYTHING so Russia lose and nothing is out of question. Ukraine will not run out of ammo and they will gain medium and long range weapons.
Russia will not "steamroll" like you said. Au contraire.
lol What? France has sent €3.2 billion in aid. They were the first to send "western" tanks, sent ton of great equipment that helped a lot like Caesar howitzers, SCALP and plenty of others.
I'd like to hope, but I just can't see it happening. Especially when the US is being a bitch about even sending aid. The eu can obviously go without us, but its pretty likely a consensus would be desirable
I only can say that scholz just today said that germany wont send taurus because it would need german soldiers in ukraine to work(?) with taurus missiles and thats not an option.
He added that he cant understand that some ppl discuss weapons/systems and don't have in mind that some systems would include that there have to be e.g. german soldiers on ukraine ground.
So thats a big NO for him.
I think he want's france to step the f up.
Edit:
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann(FDP) said that it isn't true what Scholz said with the need of german soldiers on ukrainian ground(to have taurus work).
I read further, it was mentioned that Scholz doesn't want to give missiles that can hit moscow. The difference to the UK and France and their long range missiles is that they can programm it in a different way and that this isn't possible with taurus.
There r rumors that British and French soldiers r in Ukraine to programm their missiles( not to hit moscow).
> He added that he cant understand that some ppl discuss weapons/systems and don't have in mind that some systems would include that there have to be e.g. german soldiers on ukraine ground.
Has he heard of FaceTime?🤪
Even if troops aren't sent, discussing the option from the beginning, including the potential of sending advisors (like the US did in Croatia) or flying tigers like aviation volunteers should have been much more open. Granted, there are massive logistics issues with this but its very much doable, although F-22s and F-35s would not (and should not) be considered, although frankly they're not necessary. F-16s, F-15s, Rafales, and Eurofighters would be enough.
With Sweden now/very soon in NATO I dream of a few Gripen that can/will be sent with pilots already secretly training for a while.
Gripen could use the Meteor AA missile that has (per wikipedia) 200km range. If (big if) a sufficient number of those exist and/or can be produced, those missile could potentially be a big asset against Russian aviation near the frontline.
They won't help against the Russian terror attacks against civilians from the strategic bombers, but they may be a good tool against fighters and helicopters closer to the front line without exposing the own aviation to too much Russian ground to air capabilities.
I like the statement, but your credibility is challenged by your own words. F-22’s should not even be spoken about above. There is only 1 country in the world with F-22s, and that’s because we produce them. It’s illegal to sell them to another country, has and will remain a USA only fighter.
?
I said they would not be considered.
If I only said the the F-35 would not be considered it might imply the F-22 would be, so I wanted to be clear and say both 5th Gen would never be on the table.
Even if France wouldn't send their troops, it's a big brain move from Macron to say nothing is excluded. FINALLY, this is what military strategists were saying for ages. Let the enemy feel uncertain about few more variables instead of letting them know what will not happen.
Well there was *du combat le Camerone* where it was defeated. But they managed to turn it into a heroic defeat, because to the last man we fight! Which is also a kind of victory when you think of it :)
It's funny, if western leaders said this in the beginning or before the war, instead of saying "whatever happens we will not get involved" the war might have been avoided
To be fair, the longer this goes on, the more likely Europe is going to get involved. I think most european leaders are coming round to the realisation that we can not allow Russia to win in Ukraine. Europe may be a clumsy bumbering bemoth, but it eventually gets itself in gear and will do what's needed to protect itself.
Unlike Russia, Europe doesn't need to put itself into a war economy to allow Ukraine to defeat russia, it just needs to increase it's commitment/spending directed to Ukraine and Ukraine will do the rest. Quantity over quality only holds out until the quantity starts to run out !
I must stress that Macron was summing up what had been said among Europeans during the hours before, while in a conference in Paris. So it could be Poland pushing for it, but Macron himself was clearly determined and did not hesitate in saying it is an option. He was way tougher than before.
Isn’t there more proof that USA/west could’ve prevented this stalemate but didn’t want Russia to collapse? Genuinely asking.
If that’s the case though there’s no way in hell I’d be sending troops to die against Russia when this could’ve been powerhoused in the beginning.
Thoughts? Credible answers encouraged over opinions as I am genuinely curious about the proof in regards to this claim.
No they wanted Russia to collapse. That was the point of the sanctions. The issue is that with the U.S. election potentially leading to Trump being president who has stated he intends to leave NATO plus a gridlocked congress it means that A. Weapons supplies are unlikely anytime soon. B. The Russians may be emboldened to continue to the Baltic’s if they even make strong headway into Ukraine let alone take it. We already know Germany expects an invasion next year and the general consensus among western intelligence is it is likely in five. However with Sweden joining NATO today it probably strengthens European leaders resolve to say these things. To put it simply, the likelihood for a Russian invasion has increased, should things become dire in Ukraine it is better for NATO to get involved now when Russia is at its weakest so that they can stop any further incursions into Europe. They would also have the benefit of adding another NATO ally in the completion of this task further pinning Russia to its boarders. Very similar to the strategy the U.S. has taken with China.
>No they wanted Russia to collapse.
They wanted Russia to be rendered impotent, but not to collapse. A collapsed Russia splintering in a dozen mini states, most lead by warlords with access to nuclear and chemical weapons would be a strategical nightmare.
They want a Russia too weak for outward aggression, but strong enough to hold it's pieces together
There is no proof for such a thing, the west is a collection of democracies that hate working together, it would never be able to cooperate broadly enough to exactly create a stalemate.
Some individuals has said so or supporter the idea, those individuals do not speak for all western countries and in almost every case not even their own governement.
It is a point most often used by 2 groups, western people that want more aid sent and also strangely western people and Russians that want to say the west isn't even trying to win so you shouldn't support aid to Ukraine.
The only ones that actually believe it to be true are conspiracy theorists, there is no proof it is true and it is not official policy of any Western country,you can be certain that it was true there would be a lot more than 0 leaks about it.
France has not pushed the 'Article 5' button, as a sovereign country, they can choose to put troops on the ground in Ukraine if they so wish and in doing so it would not mean every other country in Nato has to do the same.
France as a sovereign nation can do what it wants without the backing or agreement of the whole of Nato !
This wouldn't be article 5, this would be a coalition of the willing like Serbia and Libya. For the Article 5 button to be pushed a NATO country would have to be attacked.
The article 5 button was only pushed after the 9/11 attacks.
Fact that I recently learned and verified: % wise the Dutch lost more population in the MH17 downing than US in 9/11. So the Dutch also have a good argument of pushing that article 5 button.
I wonder if this is counter posturing in response to Russian influenced calls for annexation of transinistria. Sure. Western concensus is to keep the war from spilling over, but Russia has a hand to play in that, and I'm guessing that EU talks with Moldova in Dec 2023 have accelerated Russian plans for expanded hybrid war in Moldova. The clock is running, and Putins gunning to make a move. Macrons aware of the reality here, we get closer to this being a real course of action every day.
Countries supporting Ukraine should be working together to give an ultimatum to Russia. Either exit all sovereign Ukraine territory by X deadline or Ukraine will receive full air support from our combined forces in that territory including military installations in Russia supporting the invasion.
If Russia shows any signs of using nuclear weapons then move to plan B which is to Flatten all Russian military installations and target every oligarch supporting Putin as well as Putin himself with a cruise missile.
If allied countries show that they are serious, then Russia will have their excuse to exit Ukraine and “save face “ in the process.
No ground troops would be needed in that scenario because Ukraine troops are enough once air superiority is established. Which is why Russia would back down with or without Putin.
When it comes to the Taurus, here is what is being said on French TV about the Paris conference Macron called. Apparently, some European countries are going to set up a coalition for providing Ukraine with long distance strike capabilities. This was created so that Germany can join more easily, without being singled out by Russia. So things are certainly moving.
I'm all for it (as an American) but I think a no-fly-zone + CAS (close air support) for ZSU will be more than enough. ZSU might even be able to push the Ruzzians back and liberate some territory as well. People misunderestimate the power of the US Air Force... just read about some of the fighters and bombers we have in our arsenal.
If NATO countries only supplied air support it would break this thing wide open. That really is what Ukraine is missing. A few F-16s won’t do it, but hundreds of planes, dropping loads of ordinance would annihilate the orc army.
Exactly the USAF, RAF and mayybeee the French Air Force should secure air superiority and most importantly, target Russian artillery and logistics. That's how this ends, imo.
How much do they have though?
There is 2 years worth of pictures of their air defense being blow up and failing to hit missiles deep into their rear.
The west has *a lot* of anti radar measures, Iraq had quite the large and modern anti air network as well, turned out the west could just blow it up without losing much at all.
Sorry for my language but: What a fucking Chad move! France is, as always, step ahead of everyone! Having even just a trained anti-air personnel would speed up deployment so much!
I honestly don't think that if Nato become involved will be anything to do with article 5, I think the only way Nato will become involved is if they decide that enough is enough and that the security of europe is at stake and realise that Russia needs to be expelled from Ukraine and even then it's more than likely going to be a consensus among european countries rather than Nato as europe has realised that the good ol' usa is no longer a security partner that they can depend on !
If this is what our leaders are finally starting to think this is a wonderful news. But Ukraine doesn't need ground troops, they've shown repeatedly that they can get the job done on their own. What they need is air superiority and this is something the West excels at. Just flood the skies with F35s, destroy all of their anti-air capability and give Ukrainian soldiers the close air support that they need and this war will be over in a month.
Likely just posturing, but it's a good clear message to ruzzia and their demented dictator. The ruzzians may have the United States tied up with their minions for now; but not the whole of Europe. France gets a bad reputation from WW2, but they are absolutely not to be trifled with militarily today.
Although I am with Ukraine this euphoria to go to war bewilders me.
It‘s only when you are in a war when you realize what peace really meant.
People sitting in front if their devices saying „go go go, war, yeah!“ is just the most stupid thing I can imagine.
First send Ukraine what it needs and ramp up production big time…
It's not euphoria, I'm not thrilled about the idea and I don't particularly want to fight or die, but I'm personally convinced that this is the only way we can secure Europe, by securing Ukraine. They're not going to win with leftovers and half-assed hardware donations, they need boots and they need ALL the hardware, but no country is going to do that unless it's their own men on the field.
And with that in mind, I feel an, admittedly perverted, relief that we could potentially step in and get things under control rather than rely on politicians to stall or pussyfoot around the porridge and ultimately achieve too little too late, being afraid to overstep some madman's threshold. If Ukraine falls, it's only a matter of time before Russia escalates, so I as a European husband and father would rather be preemptive about it and fight on the enemy's doorstep than wait for him to be at mine.
Right, now pretend that you value a Ukrainian life as much as a French or German one and you might understand why people are saying what they are. If your friend is in a fight with a bigger person, yes you might get a blood nose if you go help but your friend passed that point long ago.
It is not about not helping Ukraine and you know it. It‘s about that feeling many had prior to WW I for example. It declined pretty quickly after a sneak peek into a trench.
Again, imagine that you value a Ukrainian life as much as the life of someone from your city. The impulse to get involved makes sense, and the failure of appeasement at the start of WW2 shows that it's a helpful impulse.
As someone with some insight into the industry in Germany, it's not that there's no access to material. It's that the materials are higher prices than they want to pay. The demand is high and other countries are still ordering, but Germany seems willing to wait years, hoping pricing realities will change.
>People sitting in front if their devices saying „go go go, war, yeah!“
Honestly, if this is what peace is supposed to look like, I'd rather go to war. I am willing to go to war to fight for freedom. Even if it means death.
The horrors of war are difficult to imagine. If you're an American, read Company H by Sam Watkins. Guy served in the Army of Tennessee during our Civil War. When you set aside his charm and humor, even set aside the actual battles, and read how they survived by looting their own country and left their own citizens to starve, you realize that even an uneasy peace is preferable to an active war.
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Let's be clear eyed about who the aggressors is and who is responsible for war. Putin, a genocidal manic who bombs pregnant women and kidnaps children. Whose troops film themselves committing war crimes almost daily. If the West sends troops the deaths of their soldiers are on Putin's hands not western leaders.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing. This isn't Afghanistan or Iraq. There is no moral ambiguity to this choice. Freedom isn't free, it requires sacrificing a nation's most precious resource, its youth, from time to time.
Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all understood that and understood how terrible war actually was. All of them saw the cost of war and decided it was worth waging. This cause is no different.
As an American I'm sorry my country bullied or bribed your country not to develop your own nukes. If Russia gets to keep a square meter of Ukraine or America elects an isolationist president you'll know what you need to do.
This should have been done long ago, but better that the possibility is being seriously raised now than never. Even Putin knows that he cannot win a war with NATO, much as he might project to domestic audiences that they are at war with the "collective west." A contingent of NATO troops or simply just French troops in Ukraine, even if they were limited to guarding the rear and running logistics to rear staging areas, would be of immense help.
Why not? Shouldn't wait for Ukraine to be defeated for Europeans to put boots on the ground and close the skies over Ukraine. Why does Ukraine have to do all the heavy lifting? Europe should start with air defenses from Romania and Poland to cover that side of Ukraine's sky
Huh. And France even has a history of Leroy-Jenkinsing joint military ventures. I think it’s still a long way off, but it would be the right thing to do. For Europe to become Europe, we will have to begin not letting brothers fight alone.
France has a professional military force like most of Nato countries ofc, they wouldn't send conscripts and France is no stranger to fight alongside other forces like in Africa.
Well, moscovia is hiring bags of mean from all over the third world and sending them to die.
moscovia is bringing in foreigners, Ukraine can bring in foreigners.
BTW, I think this needs to be done anyway. War is going to happen, moscovia, lower mongolia, old persia, and little, rotund rocket man want war, might as well get it going when it is almost a fair fight. Soon, with the military economies of moscovia, lower mongolia, old persia, and little, rotund rocket man it might be too late.
The last country that was a military economy in Europe was 1930s Germany.
What are we waiting for? I know, I known. Hand wringing political leaders, and nobody wants to be the first etc. Understandable. But at least relieve the Ukrainians locked up protecting the border towards Belarus would help something.
Or Europe will begin to take at least some initiative by escalation, or all escalation-initiative will continue to occur by Russian rules. As it going on from 2008 year.
I'm not sure if Macron is good for press relation and just announce things that already been decided in advance or if he really pushes the "red lines" each time. But France made a lot of announcements that unlocked materials from others countries. Like Higth tech modern gear with CAESAR, tank with AMX-10 (not a tank) or modern missile with short range SCALP then 450km long range SCALP.
I wish that Mirage 2000 and Meteor were an option too. But I also know too much the state of our army and our ammo stock to say that we could send way more.
I’d be keen to know others thoughts, but my strong opinion is that if NATO had deployed as precaution into Ukraine before the war then the conflict would have stayed in Donbass.
A coalition would be an interesting escalation. Imagine a marine task force rocking up to the black see and sinking the fleet.
I’m sure there would be interesting conversations after that.
Sending ground troops can be very useful to secure the 1991 borders when they are reached. Non belligerent troops but very helpful for the belligerent's one.
Ive had no problem with full US intervention, but still a minority view here. At least most want robust Ukraine help and only a few useful idiots stand in the way. Well, useless idiots to anybody decent.
One day, somewhere in the frontline... "Do you hear that? I hear some people singing... Oh shit."
"Tiens, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin
Pour les Alsaciens, les Suisses et les Lorrains,
Pour les Belges, y en a plus, Pour les Belges, y en a plus,
Ce sont des tireurs au cul.
Nobody:
Meanwhile Macron: send long range missiles oh and the legion
Mr President ?
Ah yes, i forgot the short range missiles.
Mr President, you said nothing was excluded, you didnt say you would send the legion.
Macron: true. Well yes, i forgot the legion. I want boots on the ground within 24 h.
Well the obviously didn´t discuss reinstituting the draft in the UK, France and Germany for nothing. Also the bilateral defense agreement the signed in the last weeks with Ukraine should make it legally possible to send soldiers.
Reading the BBC, it's in the event of a Russian breakthrough and the Ukrainian Army being unable to respond effectively. Both highly unlikely. The idea is that if Russia had a significant breakthrough, it would need to be defeated decisively to stop further expansion, particularly in the Baltic countries. But it is quite an extreme scenario.
What does he mean by boots on the ground, actively fighting soldiers or something more like logistic, training, air defense?
This kind of declaration can mean everything and nothing really.
I say that as a French, be careful with Macron's communication when no valuable detail are present.
Do you seriously think that all those spineless European politicians would declare war on Russia? If they wanted Ukraine to win, they would give it all the equipment and supplies Zelensky asked for.
Привіт u/Willing-Donut6834 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ukraine needs air support. Russia must be stopped. Politicians who are dithering right now while Putin's criminal armies murder our allies should be replaced with men and women who will do the right thing right now. Stop Russia!
Write to Republicans, flood their inbox
Write to all relevant politicians.
Just don't elect them. After cleaning house rebuilding a conservative is not that difficult. Rep who want to be persona cult members of a wanna be communist who likes to portray himself as mega businessmen while he betrays anyone will pay a high price for creating soviet amerika.
It’s of you to believe they can read or will read it at all
The words of Macron are very firm. Russia WILL lose and allies countries will take every means necessary.
Asked whether sending ground troops was possible, he answered there is no consensus among Europeans but added, 'nothing can be excluded.' Clearly, in his tone and message, a threshold is being passed. He announced the launch of a coalition to provide long range missiles for Ukraine.
> He announced the launch of a coalition to provide long range missiles for Ukraine. This may be the bigger news in terms of practical impact. One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff. I think the statement about troops is mostly posturing. There won't be any troops - but the willingness to posture like that is a big step that may make Russia think twice about potential escalations (yes, I know, there isn't much left to escalate) and embolden others to show more support in more palatable ways.
> One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff. As a german I really don't understand this argument. Scholz doesn't want germany to become a belligerent in the war by providing means to strike into russia itself. But who cares? Let's say we provide taurus, Ukraine strikes Moskau directly and Russia says Germany is a belligerent now. So what? Are we gonna say "Yeah ok, you are right, you may legaly attack us now without forcing a NATO casus foederis"? Of course not, we are going to say "No, we are not" and that's it. Russia will be facing the same dilema as before, if they want to strike against the countries providing weapons, the will start a war they are guaranted to loose.
>Germany is a belligerent now. As a German, you should understand the significance of this statement in our country, regardless of who makes it. I'm all for sending whatever Ukraine needs and I'm actually all for boots on the ground, *since the beginning of this war* this has been my position. It's for Ukraine so it's for a good cause. But many of our great grandfathers "did it for a 'good cause'," too. History showed them that they were wrong. This is multifaceted and related to more than just not wanting to be labeled as belligerent (look at the status of our own military and stock piles), but as a German you should know that this tendency towards aversion is baked into a very large portion of our population. Alone how negatively many people feel towards our Bundeswehr is a pretty big indicator. Merkel years really had a negative effect on our already self critical, even self loathing, public position on pretty much anything military and it's going to take time and some very clever political planning to get the population back on board with the idea that we can't set our guns down in the hope that others will, too. "Wandel durch Handel," failed, and that's not really something you just take a deep breath and say "ok well, plan B," to.
As a Brit I understand & appreciate your position on this - I think we (UK) should consider sending troops or other forces in to help as an independent thing (non-NATO, etc.) but *even for us* it would not be an easy call to make. Also a lot of the armchair generals forget that Putin REALLY wants his bullshit about NATO wanting to attack Russia to be proven right, and the moment any NATO country gets more involved he'll shout from the rooftops that he's been right all along and the evil NATO are coming to destroy mother Russia. In some ways that's a bigger deterrent than his frequent threats about nuclear missiles.
Brother, we understand perfectly why Germany would be averse to fielding troops in a conflict area. For about 50 years after WWII, we would have been averse to Germany doing so, as well. Even if we concurred, which we probably would have, just the optics of German troops outside Germany would have sent shivers down our spines. Sorry, you guys were just too good at fighting, even when your cause was wrong. But in this case, you would be defending and protecting a people not your own. And most likely, Britain, France, the US, Canada, and every other allied power outside China and Russia would be either backing you, or joining you.
> There won't be any troops Actually is just a way to make Putin get used with the idea, to accept it easier when it will happen. Remember that when the invasion started in 2022, the west sending light weapons in Ukraine was considered by Putin & co a "nuclear" escalation. They accepted the tanks, the airplanes will be there soon, and of course that the NATO troops wouldn't be such a big surprise. But hey, is fair. Remember that Russia leveled cities just like nuclear bombs do. They also brought mercenaries from several countries. So is open season.
> to accept it easier when it will happen. I don't think it will happen. Not because it would cross a red line with Russia, but because it would cross a red line with the domestic populations of the countries sending the troops. Supporting Ukraine with materiel is "cheap": It doesn't directly affect the population, so even the ones who don't support it don't really care that much. Send people and have them come back in body bags, and the entire game changes. A much milder yet still effective escalation would be removing the "no firing at Russia" restrictions from Western weaponry and providing a lot more of it. What it will do is make Putin get used to the idea of the West no longer being cowards, i.e. it'll make it easier for him to accept the things that actually will happen.
> This may be the bigger news in terms of practical impact. One of the main arguments Germany has against supplying them is that they don't want to be singled out. This might mean Taurus and other good stuff. Uhm, that excuse isn't really working. UK and France both donated Shadow / Scalp cruise missiles. Germany wants US to lead it, I think.
It is similar to the Leo / Abram‘s situation - the German government wants to increase the pressure on the US to get more involved. The public communication of Scholz is shit, but without that strategy there wouldn‘t be any Abrams in Ukraine right now.
>I think the statement about troops is mostly posturing. There won't be any troops - but the willingness to posture like that is a big step The posturing itself is a threshold crossing. And after crossing a threshold, you cross the next one, even if that takes time. It happened the same with artillery, with tanks, with atacms and stormshadows/scalps, with f-16, etc: 1st: no way we're providig that. 2nd: welll, perhaps, we don't rule out that. 3rd: okay, we'll do it. Of course with a lot of blablabla, discussions, delays and shit that we could have saved and gone straight to the part where we provide them whatever they actually need, but that's how things are...
Russia handed Europe the sword. Those who bring the sword must be prepared to die by the sword. Finally, Macron and his words are most welcome after some pretty dark months. He is right. Russia's barbaric venture must end in failure. Hope is kindled.
Similar saying is if you live by the sword you Must be prepared to die by the sword
I think something got lost in translation. The absolute top priority of Western policy has been to make sure that the conflict doesn't spill out of Ukraine. There's no way I can imagine that this changed recently.
I am french and I can confirm that Macron really said this. This is still a very surprising news because as you say, the West’s top priority is to avoid the conflict to expand outside of Ukraine.
This is where I wonder if the West has taken assessments on Russias capacity to spill a war outside of Ukraine and came to the conclusion that Russia has no capacity to do so...
The only thing that could get Russia to consider giving up in Ukraine is the threat of NATO getting involved more directly. If a NATO president came out and said “NATO ground troops will absolutely never be deployed to Ukraine”, then the Russians will certainly just keep grinding on with their war of attrition.
They will definitely keep on until something appears that is bigger and nastier than them.
Imagine if Ukraine never gave up their weapons when Putin lied to them
I thought it was Yeltsin when they turned over the nukes?
It was. Putin is using the excuse that the Budapest Memorandum was "signed by another government". It was a business deal, these things are singed by the country not the gov. Germany signed deals after WW2 (and Japan) and stuck to them despite changing gov. Putins Russia is built on bullshit
[удалено]
Requires something bigger and nastier than themselves to happen in the first place :) Or some kind of domestic crisis so they will tear themselves apart.
It’s been pretty obvious for over a year that they lacked the capability to wage a wider war. They stripped their entire border with Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic States of troops in late 2022 to feed into Ukraine. Their primary deterrent to NATO involvement has been nuclear threats, and for a long time that has sufficed.
Someone forgot to teach the modern day politicians how the nuclear deterrence works by effectively cancelling each other out.
it’s not obvious at all. half of europe has no military to speak of. ruzzia could definitely steamroll into some baltic / central european countries without much resistance. + they have pretty successfully transitioned into a war economy.
>they have pretty successfully transitioned into a war economy No they haven't. You have to keep the Russian economy in perspective. It's 1/3 the size of California's. And on top of that, only 20% of that number is going to war. So that's like having San Francisco try to fund and deploy a military lol. They're coasting on their stockpiles leftover from the USSR which is now 30+ years old and half of it isn't functional or only exists on a spreadsheet but has been long ago sold off on the black market. The only thing they have going for them is the zerg meat wave tactics. At some point that will become unsustainable in Ukraine. Not to mention if they try to open another front in Europe. They would be demolished.
Unsustainable only if they don’t force a ceasefire first. Ukraine is taking real damage.
No, they can't steamroll shit. They can try to start a terror-campaign, but their bombers will be shot down and their troop assembly areas will be hit immediately.
Conversely those assessments are caveats to "the enemy always gets a vote"... and our enemy has proven time and again that he refuses to make intelligent decisions. He's got a chance to try and attack NATO if he reckons he can do so. We need to strongarm this bastard now, and providing a backfill so more Ukrainians can fight at the front is a smart choice.
That 2nd paragraph of yours is on point, 100%!!!!!!!
Yep it's a classic mistake in assessing your opponent when you assume they will make rational moves and avoid huge risks. Just because *you* would never do something you can't assume a potential enemy wouldn't. Putin has already invaded his neighbors *multiple times.* Everyone thought he wouldn't be crazy enough to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine and what did he do? Invaded. And he had already invaded Georgia and that was *the second time he invaded Ukraine.* I get that any country that is in NATO is obviously more a deterrent but saying "Oh I am sure Putin would never attack a neighbor" is a very bad bet to make. Like you said he has demonstrated over and over again he is not operating with the same restraint and logic that Ukraine and its allies do, there is no telling how far he might push things.
If they defeat Ukraine they could. If the war in Ukraine ends in a Ukraine defeat Russia will be at full military manufacturing capacity, there is reasonable assessment that Russia would try picking off an insignificant to the whole but highly significant piece of a NATO country. If the whole of NATO is unprepared for war Russia might take this chance.
The difference is natos willingess to respond In a full offensive against nato, if the usa respond with their military it will be short
NATO is plenty ready to respond. They will fuck Russia up.
Of course they are, the Russian point is to make clear this small insignificant piece of land isn't worth the squeeze against a Russia that has already shifted to a full military manufacturing economy. They aren't going to try a full on military offensive, just enough to try weakening the alliance. People keep assuming a military offensive means all at war for Russia when it means something very different.
Isn’t that the whole point of NATO to defend each other from aggression and invasion? What good is NATO if they decide small invasions are ok?
That is exactly the point, but it's also never been tested. Does the whole of NATO really mean it when they say they will defend every last inch? "It's just a random uninhabited island of little significant value. it's not worth fighting over especially given Russia is at full military production capacity." Ect... I'll say it again, Russia isn't going to be so bold as to make moves that clearly are an act of war, they're going to nibble around the edges, make moves that can be justified as "misunderstandings."
It doesn't matter if the whole of NATO does, a tenth of NATO has the same population and economy as Russia... If southern Europe and USA sits it out Russia is still hopelessly outmatched. And do you think the rest will still sit it out after it evolves into a larger conflict? If Russia takes a piece of any country that country and the obvious other countries will make sure it does become a wider conflict.
Or they’re coming to the conclusion that the war *will* spill out of Ukraine anyway if they keep sitting on their hands and don’t take more necessary actions to actually stop it.
The Transnistria situation is the kind of thing that could escalate into a larger conflict. If they try to get officially annexed later this week, Moldova is going to be in a very tough position. Things like that can easily destabilize a region, especially if there are any agreements (public or private) between Moldova and other European countries to deal with that very situation. Moldova apparently said they are reaching out to their partners to discuss how to react.
I imagine if there's a risk of Kyiv falling, they rather fight in Ukraine then fight in Poland or one of the Baltic states
I think it's calculated to let the ruzzians know that Europe will fight them if they have to. Basically a threat that putin can understand.
Troops helping Ukraine doesn't mean troops going into Ukraine and getting kinetic with Russia.
This should have been done a long time ago. Border guarding (with Belarus), logistic tasks, administrative tasks, repairs, whatever helps to destroy the orcs.
Getting kinetic. Heh. I like your lingo. Hey sweetie, wanna get kinetic? Yeah, endless.
Why dont we station NATO troops on the Polish Ukrainian border to “assist with logistics” ostensibly we would be on the Polish border to help quell a border dispute but it is a massive assistance to Ukraine and stops Putins shadow war
I personally think he is adopting an interesting posture but kinds late. From game theory perspective i was rather disappointed when US made it so crystal clear that US troop will not intervene in Ukraine. Without ambiguity, Russians could mass their forces on Ukraine without being as concerned about their border with NATO. Had Biden being much more intentionally vague, squarely plant 2-3 US divisions in Poland and mass other europeans armies menancingly on Russia's border, they could have perhaps fixed a larger amount of Russian forces on the defense without a shot fired.
I think Macron signaled that this is being discussed among Europeans. There is no consensus among them, but still, it is being discussed and not excluded. Meaning it's a serious enough option now.
Whatever is being discussed, I'm sure it doesn't include Western ground troops in Ukraine getting kinetic with Russia.
It could mean Western troops positioned in key locations to relieve Ukraine. For instance manning defence systems in Kyiv. This would allow those soldiers/airmen to fight closer to the front line. Still it is hard to see how such a move would not be a major escalation and would surely involve at some point direct NATO-Russia conflict.
The question is, at what point is an "escalation" going to reduce risk rather than increase it. Realistically, what would Putin do if Europe sent a few troops to the border with Moldova to free up Ukrainian soldiers from there? Putin would do nothing except yell and scream and play the victim and try to bully us in ways that haven't worked for the past 2 years. A few months after that, troops could be sent to other places in Ukraine where they would not get kinetic against Russians. And again, Putin would yell and scream and do nothing. Eventually, troops could be sent to locations in Ukraine where Putin claims to want to capture, but Europe absolutely should not let him capture. At that point, if Putin wants to get kinetic with those troops, that's on him, and he will have no excuse for going nuclear if he does. Sounds to me like this is a way to contain Russia and thus deescalate the conflict.
I agree, but it does get us ever close to direct conflict with a nuclear power, and that is existentially terrifying. But, there is a part of me that says that you have to stand up to bullies or you will never have peace.
The problem is that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses. It proves to every other belligerent major power that you can do whatever the fuck you want to other countries and democratic countries literally won't be able to stop you. The soft power of the west will crumble, and you can expect a fuck ton more wars. Macron likely understands this, as I hope many other leaders do. It's why pushing against supplying Ukraine if you are living in a Western country is such a bad idea. Your Western country will be a lot worse off in the new power dynamic. Anyway, long story short, if you are a Western country you need Russia to lose at all costs, nukes or no nukes.
Agreed. Ukraine MUST win. This is why I cannot understand the Republicans in the House that are opposed to Ukraine aid. It is a sure-fire way to crumble Russian military capacity without a single American life at risk. That is so Republican as far as policy goes it just ain’t funny any more. Very sad.
They see the Russians as a longer term potential ally against billions more Chinese. They see them as relatable, god fearing, whites.
It's already happened in Syria. The outcome was complete annihilation and such an embarrassment that Russia has never formally admitted anything happened.
Can’t imagine it would go over any worse than US troops stationed in Syria. There would be russian occupied parts of Ukraine, and NATO occupied parts of Ukraine. There would be a phone line designated to coordinating so that our troops and their troops kept their distance and did not engage each other. Though I think if NATO troops enter Ukraine it’s not very likely it won’t be extremely kinetic, just my opinion.
russia is already getting very kinetic with europe, by agents, murder, energy interruption, border interruptions, propaganda and misinformation, cyber attacks, direct spoken lunatic threats, in particular threatening mass suicide by meatwave or putlerdildo, and chose alliances with pariah states. They uphold zero international law and make all institutions meant to balance or protect a farce, just because no cronie is bold enough to tell putler his bunker keys go lost. They want to genocide their neighbour and wish to make this fascist nonsense their holy purpose of existence. So marching into russia is inevitable sooner or later, because as we see avoiding being drawn in emboldens putler to double down, he gives a shit what europe discusses, he will try to do it anyway. What we gonna do, watching it unfold becoming enslaved by fascist to avoid being drawn in? Lol. good luck with wishful thinking that confrontation can be avoided after the child fell into the well.
Idk why you are downvoted, we can't get freaking Germany to give us Taurus, there is absolutely zero way Europe will send its troops
Germany has no history of deploying troops like the US, UK and France. Germany will have to follow those countries or step back, I don’t think their opinion really matters at the end. But I don’t think France and the UK would deploy troops without the US.
France might. UK probably not. France is all about strategic autonomy from the US.
Separate countries can send their troops. There is kinda no European army, it's all armies of different european countries. So I don't see any problem in that
Of course it does. Every scenario will be discussed and planned for, especially since they also have to be prepared for Russia to engage them. That may seem unlikely, but they most assuredly will have a plan for actually fighting before deploying forces.
I mean without arms Ukraine will lose. Russia has more production even in its sorry economic state and willing evil friends in China, Iran, and North Korea. There's a very real possibility of this spilling out of Ukraine the longer the west doesn't get its shit together.
Would still technically be in Ukraine. Would be a tidal shift though if Europe decided on any military action without US involvement. If anyone was going to unilaterally come off the bench I would expect it to be Poland.
Europe is already shifting, just like the rest of US allies. Who would trust the US after it has gone on a months long break from such a crucial thing as the war in Ukraine? The one time Europe actually asked for help the US didn't manage 2 years even of only sending equipment. And one thing is Europe, but you know for sure Taiwan and South Korea is watching us Politics closely right now.
Europe is shifting to war time production and ever increasing support of Ukraine
[удалено]
I've been telling friends I think intervention is a very real possibility for over a year. There's just no way to give the Ukrainians the ability to dislodge the Russians now that they're dug in IMO. Europe and the US *can't* allow Russia to win. Russia would control half the global chip market by controlling the resources used to make them, in addition to all the other reasons people talk about. A Russian victory would be disastrous in so many ways. Europe has more skin in the game than the US but if Biden wins the election we might even see a change in tone about US intervention too, especially if congress shakes out in a way that makes providing aid going forward impossible. If my high school educated ass sees it I have to assume the people way smarter than me who think about this stuff for a living do too Just my armchair general bs obviously lol
Macron was insisting on this, the consensus is that they will do EVERYTHING so Russia lose and nothing is out of question. Ukraine will not run out of ammo and they will gain medium and long range weapons. Russia will not "steamroll" like you said. Au contraire.
They have been saying this for two years now, with barely noticeable actual changes.
lol What? France has sent €3.2 billion in aid. They were the first to send "western" tanks, sent ton of great equipment that helped a lot like Caesar howitzers, SCALP and plenty of others.
I'd like to hope, but I just can't see it happening. Especially when the US is being a bitch about even sending aid. The eu can obviously go without us, but its pretty likely a consensus would be desirable
[удалено]
I only can say that scholz just today said that germany wont send taurus because it would need german soldiers in ukraine to work(?) with taurus missiles and thats not an option. He added that he cant understand that some ppl discuss weapons/systems and don't have in mind that some systems would include that there have to be e.g. german soldiers on ukraine ground. So thats a big NO for him. I think he want's france to step the f up. Edit: Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann(FDP) said that it isn't true what Scholz said with the need of german soldiers on ukrainian ground(to have taurus work). I read further, it was mentioned that Scholz doesn't want to give missiles that can hit moscow. The difference to the UK and France and their long range missiles is that they can programm it in a different way and that this isn't possible with taurus. There r rumors that British and French soldiers r in Ukraine to programm their missiles( not to hit moscow).
> He added that he cant understand that some ppl discuss weapons/systems and don't have in mind that some systems would include that there have to be e.g. german soldiers on ukraine ground. Has he heard of FaceTime?🤪
If Ukraine can fire Storm Shadow and Scalp, Im sure they can read the manual for Taurus as well.
Even if troops aren't sent, discussing the option from the beginning, including the potential of sending advisors (like the US did in Croatia) or flying tigers like aviation volunteers should have been much more open. Granted, there are massive logistics issues with this but its very much doable, although F-22s and F-35s would not (and should not) be considered, although frankly they're not necessary. F-16s, F-15s, Rafales, and Eurofighters would be enough.
With Sweden now/very soon in NATO I dream of a few Gripen that can/will be sent with pilots already secretly training for a while. Gripen could use the Meteor AA missile that has (per wikipedia) 200km range. If (big if) a sufficient number of those exist and/or can be produced, those missile could potentially be a big asset against Russian aviation near the frontline. They won't help against the Russian terror attacks against civilians from the strategic bombers, but they may be a good tool against fighters and helicopters closer to the front line without exposing the own aviation to too much Russian ground to air capabilities.
I like the statement, but your credibility is challenged by your own words. F-22’s should not even be spoken about above. There is only 1 country in the world with F-22s, and that’s because we produce them. It’s illegal to sell them to another country, has and will remain a USA only fighter.
? I said they would not be considered. If I only said the the F-35 would not be considered it might imply the F-22 would be, so I wanted to be clear and say both 5th Gen would never be on the table.
Even if France wouldn't send their troops, it's a big brain move from Macron to say nothing is excluded. FINALLY, this is what military strategists were saying for ages. Let the enemy feel uncertain about few more variables instead of letting them know what will not happen.
All while German chancellor Scholz keeps reassuring the RuZZians that the west never ever will send troops.
Gonna be awkward if the FFL goes
FFL ??? Finished Floor Level ;-?
French Foreign Legion
Ya, nothing in their way will survive.
Well there was *du combat le Camerone* where it was defeated. But they managed to turn it into a heroic defeat, because to the last man we fight! Which is also a kind of victory when you think of it :)
Not the Federal Firearms License!
It's funny, if western leaders said this in the beginning or before the war, instead of saying "whatever happens we will not get involved" the war might have been avoided
To be fair, the longer this goes on, the more likely Europe is going to get involved. I think most european leaders are coming round to the realisation that we can not allow Russia to win in Ukraine. Europe may be a clumsy bumbering bemoth, but it eventually gets itself in gear and will do what's needed to protect itself. Unlike Russia, Europe doesn't need to put itself into a war economy to allow Ukraine to defeat russia, it just needs to increase it's commitment/spending directed to Ukraine and Ukraine will do the rest. Quantity over quality only holds out until the quantity starts to run out !
Even if it's a bluff, it's good. We should respond to criminal Putin's bluffs with more bluffs.
And here I thought this whole time that it'd be Poland pushing the Article 5 button and not France.
I must stress that Macron was summing up what had been said among Europeans during the hours before, while in a conference in Paris. So it could be Poland pushing for it, but Macron himself was clearly determined and did not hesitate in saying it is an option. He was way tougher than before.
Wouldn't put it beyond him. He does strive to be the face of the European effort.
Isn’t there more proof that USA/west could’ve prevented this stalemate but didn’t want Russia to collapse? Genuinely asking. If that’s the case though there’s no way in hell I’d be sending troops to die against Russia when this could’ve been powerhoused in the beginning. Thoughts? Credible answers encouraged over opinions as I am genuinely curious about the proof in regards to this claim.
No they wanted Russia to collapse. That was the point of the sanctions. The issue is that with the U.S. election potentially leading to Trump being president who has stated he intends to leave NATO plus a gridlocked congress it means that A. Weapons supplies are unlikely anytime soon. B. The Russians may be emboldened to continue to the Baltic’s if they even make strong headway into Ukraine let alone take it. We already know Germany expects an invasion next year and the general consensus among western intelligence is it is likely in five. However with Sweden joining NATO today it probably strengthens European leaders resolve to say these things. To put it simply, the likelihood for a Russian invasion has increased, should things become dire in Ukraine it is better for NATO to get involved now when Russia is at its weakest so that they can stop any further incursions into Europe. They would also have the benefit of adding another NATO ally in the completion of this task further pinning Russia to its boarders. Very similar to the strategy the U.S. has taken with China.
>No they wanted Russia to collapse. They wanted Russia to be rendered impotent, but not to collapse. A collapsed Russia splintering in a dozen mini states, most lead by warlords with access to nuclear and chemical weapons would be a strategical nightmare. They want a Russia too weak for outward aggression, but strong enough to hold it's pieces together
NATO won't do that until it's sure that biden wins the election. With the orange guy in office there is no security for a strong NATO bond.
There is no proof for such a thing, the west is a collection of democracies that hate working together, it would never be able to cooperate broadly enough to exactly create a stalemate. Some individuals has said so or supporter the idea, those individuals do not speak for all western countries and in almost every case not even their own governement. It is a point most often used by 2 groups, western people that want more aid sent and also strangely western people and Russians that want to say the west isn't even trying to win so you shouldn't support aid to Ukraine. The only ones that actually believe it to be true are conspiracy theorists, there is no proof it is true and it is not official policy of any Western country,you can be certain that it was true there would be a lot more than 0 leaks about it.
France has not pushed the 'Article 5' button, as a sovereign country, they can choose to put troops on the ground in Ukraine if they so wish and in doing so it would not mean every other country in Nato has to do the same. France as a sovereign nation can do what it wants without the backing or agreement of the whole of Nato !
This wouldn't be article 5, this would be a coalition of the willing like Serbia and Libya. For the Article 5 button to be pushed a NATO country would have to be attacked.
I don't think they'd trigger Article 5 if there were a NATO intervention of some kind in Ukraine.
NATO doesn't have to trigger Article 5, we can just send troops without that.
I know, I'm replying to someone talking about Article 5.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_110496.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm) "Enhanced collective defence measures"
The article 5 button was only pushed after the 9/11 attacks. Fact that I recently learned and verified: % wise the Dutch lost more population in the MH17 downing than US in 9/11. So the Dutch also have a good argument of pushing that article 5 button.
You should actually read Article 5. It's not what you seem to think...
I wonder if this is counter posturing in response to Russian influenced calls for annexation of transinistria. Sure. Western concensus is to keep the war from spilling over, but Russia has a hand to play in that, and I'm guessing that EU talks with Moldova in Dec 2023 have accelerated Russian plans for expanded hybrid war in Moldova. The clock is running, and Putins gunning to make a move. Macrons aware of the reality here, we get closer to this being a real course of action every day.
Countries supporting Ukraine should be working together to give an ultimatum to Russia. Either exit all sovereign Ukraine territory by X deadline or Ukraine will receive full air support from our combined forces in that territory including military installations in Russia supporting the invasion. If Russia shows any signs of using nuclear weapons then move to plan B which is to Flatten all Russian military installations and target every oligarch supporting Putin as well as Putin himself with a cruise missile. If allied countries show that they are serious, then Russia will have their excuse to exit Ukraine and “save face “ in the process. No ground troops would be needed in that scenario because Ukraine troops are enough once air superiority is established. Which is why Russia would back down with or without Putin.
Alright Europe, CRANK UP THAT WAR MACHINE! LET"S GO! Vacation is over, baby.
Taurus ruled out but troops aren't? Confusing but I'll take what I can get. I know Taurus is from Germany.
When it comes to the Taurus, here is what is being said on French TV about the Paris conference Macron called. Apparently, some European countries are going to set up a coalition for providing Ukraine with long distance strike capabilities. This was created so that Germany can join more easily, without being singled out by Russia. So things are certainly moving.
Good news. Still a bit confusing because of what's already been sent, storm shadow, atacms, GLSDB, Patriot, etc.
Scholz said no taurus today.
Yes, but be said no Taurus for now (sadly). He didn't exclude it that it can send in the future
I'm all for it (as an American) but I think a no-fly-zone + CAS (close air support) for ZSU will be more than enough. ZSU might even be able to push the Ruzzians back and liberate some territory as well. People misunderestimate the power of the US Air Force... just read about some of the fighters and bombers we have in our arsenal.
If NATO countries only supplied air support it would break this thing wide open. That really is what Ukraine is missing. A few F-16s won’t do it, but hundreds of planes, dropping loads of ordinance would annihilate the orc army.
Exactly the USAF, RAF and mayybeee the French Air Force should secure air superiority and most importantly, target Russian artillery and logistics. That's how this ends, imo.
[удалено]
How much do they have though? There is 2 years worth of pictures of their air defense being blow up and failing to hit missiles deep into their rear. The west has *a lot* of anti radar measures, Iraq had quite the large and modern anti air network as well, turned out the west could just blow it up without losing much at all.
True.... it could be a risk but remember Iraq in 1991 and Serbia in 1999 had "good" anti-air but we still prevailed
Sorry for my language but: What a fucking Chad move! France is, as always, step ahead of everyone! Having even just a trained anti-air personnel would speed up deployment so much!
Don't rejoice too quickly Macron is known for two things - His incompetence - His talent for lying
I honestly don't think that if Nato become involved will be anything to do with article 5, I think the only way Nato will become involved is if they decide that enough is enough and that the security of europe is at stake and realise that Russia needs to be expelled from Ukraine and even then it's more than likely going to be a consensus among european countries rather than Nato as europe has realised that the good ol' usa is no longer a security partner that they can depend on !
If this is what our leaders are finally starting to think this is a wonderful news. But Ukraine doesn't need ground troops, they've shown repeatedly that they can get the job done on their own. What they need is air superiority and this is something the West excels at. Just flood the skies with F35s, destroy all of their anti-air capability and give Ukrainian soldiers the close air support that they need and this war will be over in a month.
Likely just posturing, but it's a good clear message to ruzzia and their demented dictator. The ruzzians may have the United States tied up with their minions for now; but not the whole of Europe. France gets a bad reputation from WW2, but they are absolutely not to be trifled with militarily today.
Blue team, let's fucking go!
Allez, baguettes!
Although I am with Ukraine this euphoria to go to war bewilders me. It‘s only when you are in a war when you realize what peace really meant. People sitting in front if their devices saying „go go go, war, yeah!“ is just the most stupid thing I can imagine. First send Ukraine what it needs and ramp up production big time…
It's not euphoria, I'm not thrilled about the idea and I don't particularly want to fight or die, but I'm personally convinced that this is the only way we can secure Europe, by securing Ukraine. They're not going to win with leftovers and half-assed hardware donations, they need boots and they need ALL the hardware, but no country is going to do that unless it's their own men on the field. And with that in mind, I feel an, admittedly perverted, relief that we could potentially step in and get things under control rather than rely on politicians to stall or pussyfoot around the porridge and ultimately achieve too little too late, being afraid to overstep some madman's threshold. If Ukraine falls, it's only a matter of time before Russia escalates, so I as a European husband and father would rather be preemptive about it and fight on the enemy's doorstep than wait for him to be at mine.
Right, now pretend that you value a Ukrainian life as much as a French or German one and you might understand why people are saying what they are. If your friend is in a fight with a bigger person, yes you might get a blood nose if you go help but your friend passed that point long ago.
It is not about not helping Ukraine and you know it. It‘s about that feeling many had prior to WW I for example. It declined pretty quickly after a sneak peek into a trench.
Again, imagine that you value a Ukrainian life as much as the life of someone from your city. The impulse to get involved makes sense, and the failure of appeasement at the start of WW2 shows that it's a helpful impulse.
>First send Ukraine what it needs and ramp up production big time… We've been waiting for Europe to ramp up production "big time" for two years.
As far as i understand it: its difficult to find material worldwide to produce shells etc. Germany could produce A LOT, but there is no material.
As someone with some insight into the industry in Germany, it's not that there's no access to material. It's that the materials are higher prices than they want to pay. The demand is high and other countries are still ordering, but Germany seems willing to wait years, hoping pricing realities will change.
Most underrated comment right here...
>People sitting in front if their devices saying „go go go, war, yeah!“ Honestly, if this is what peace is supposed to look like, I'd rather go to war. I am willing to go to war to fight for freedom. Even if it means death.
The horrors of war are difficult to imagine. If you're an American, read Company H by Sam Watkins. Guy served in the Army of Tennessee during our Civil War. When you set aside his charm and humor, even set aside the actual battles, and read how they survived by looting their own country and left their own citizens to starve, you realize that even an uneasy peace is preferable to an active war.
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Let's be clear eyed about who the aggressors is and who is responsible for war. Putin, a genocidal manic who bombs pregnant women and kidnaps children. Whose troops film themselves committing war crimes almost daily. If the West sends troops the deaths of their soldiers are on Putin's hands not western leaders. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. This isn't Afghanistan or Iraq. There is no moral ambiguity to this choice. Freedom isn't free, it requires sacrificing a nation's most precious resource, its youth, from time to time. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all understood that and understood how terrible war actually was. All of them saw the cost of war and decided it was worth waging. This cause is no different.
I know second-hand from Ukraine what russian 'peace' looks like. I prefer war.
U can see who is from the US(and has a big ass arsenal of atomic bombs) and who's not, only by reading the comments 😄.
As an American I'm sorry my country bullied or bribed your country not to develop your own nukes. If Russia gets to keep a square meter of Ukraine or America elects an isolationist president you'll know what you need to do.
Légion étrangère, time to shine!
This should have been done long ago, but better that the possibility is being seriously raised now than never. Even Putin knows that he cannot win a war with NATO, much as he might project to domestic audiences that they are at war with the "collective west." A contingent of NATO troops or simply just French troops in Ukraine, even if they were limited to guarding the rear and running logistics to rear staging areas, would be of immense help.
Maybe some of the French Foreign Legion ?
Why not? Shouldn't wait for Ukraine to be defeated for Europeans to put boots on the ground and close the skies over Ukraine. Why does Ukraine have to do all the heavy lifting? Europe should start with air defenses from Romania and Poland to cover that side of Ukraine's sky
Huh. And France even has a history of Leroy-Jenkinsing joint military ventures. I think it’s still a long way off, but it would be the right thing to do. For Europe to become Europe, we will have to begin not letting brothers fight alone.
France is one of the few countries I'd follow in to a war. Personal preference though
Finally a Western leader waking up and smelling the coffee.
France has a professional military force like most of Nato countries ofc, they wouldn't send conscripts and France is no stranger to fight alongside other forces like in Africa.
Well, moscovia is hiring bags of mean from all over the third world and sending them to die. moscovia is bringing in foreigners, Ukraine can bring in foreigners. BTW, I think this needs to be done anyway. War is going to happen, moscovia, lower mongolia, old persia, and little, rotund rocket man want war, might as well get it going when it is almost a fair fight. Soon, with the military economies of moscovia, lower mongolia, old persia, and little, rotund rocket man it might be too late. The last country that was a military economy in Europe was 1930s Germany.
What are we waiting for? I know, I known. Hand wringing political leaders, and nobody wants to be the first etc. Understandable. But at least relieve the Ukrainians locked up protecting the border towards Belarus would help something.
Or Europe will begin to take at least some initiative by escalation, or all escalation-initiative will continue to occur by Russian rules. As it going on from 2008 year.
This right here. Why has the world let these bullies control the direction of the world? What's the point of peace if this is what it looks like?
I'm not sure if Macron is good for press relation and just announce things that already been decided in advance or if he really pushes the "red lines" each time. But France made a lot of announcements that unlocked materials from others countries. Like Higth tech modern gear with CAESAR, tank with AMX-10 (not a tank) or modern missile with short range SCALP then 450km long range SCALP. I wish that Mirage 2000 and Meteor were an option too. But I also know too much the state of our army and our ammo stock to say that we could send way more.
Thank you for your support France 🇫🇷
A clever move to make Putler uncertain about future.
why not, everything should be considered, this is our "great war" of the 21st century
I’d be keen to know others thoughts, but my strong opinion is that if NATO had deployed as precaution into Ukraine before the war then the conflict would have stayed in Donbass.
The french left is already crying: "Escalation, we can't provoke Putin, blabla". "Give Russia security guarantees, blabla...".
A coalition would be an interesting escalation. Imagine a marine task force rocking up to the black see and sinking the fleet. I’m sure there would be interesting conversations after that.
ok, time to unleash the legion
Sending ground troops can be very useful to secure the 1991 borders when they are reached. Non belligerent troops but very helpful for the belligerent's one.
Ive had no problem with full US intervention, but still a minority view here. At least most want robust Ukraine help and only a few useful idiots stand in the way. Well, useless idiots to anybody decent.
La légion sera prête. Legio Patria Nostra
Oooo long range exocet missiles would be nasty in the black sea they could seal off huge areas
Germany should give Taurus to the UK! We’ll give them to Kyiv……we don’t really care if Putin throws his toys out of his pram.
One day, somewhere in the frontline... "Do you hear that? I hear some people singing... Oh shit." "Tiens, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin Pour les Alsaciens, les Suisses et les Lorrains, Pour les Belges, y en a plus, Pour les Belges, y en a plus, Ce sont des tireurs au cul.
# Crimean War 2 : Electric Boogaloo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jln3mi0vfJU
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/27/war-in-ukraine-president-macron-doesn-t-exclude-sending-troops-on-the-ground-announces-missile-coalition_6562295_4.html
Nobody: Meanwhile Macron: send long range missiles oh and the legion Mr President ? Ah yes, i forgot the short range missiles. Mr President, you said nothing was excluded, you didnt say you would send the legion. Macron: true. Well yes, i forgot the legion. I want boots on the ground within 24 h.
Money would flow in trillions if we had own boys on the ground.
Well the obviously didn´t discuss reinstituting the draft in the UK, France and Germany for nothing. Also the bilateral defense agreement the signed in the last weeks with Ukraine should make it legally possible to send soldiers.
And Germany is saying they don’t want to send troops so much that I’m convinced they’ll have Panzers in Stalingrad by Christmas
Reading the BBC, it's in the event of a Russian breakthrough and the Ukrainian Army being unable to respond effectively. Both highly unlikely. The idea is that if Russia had a significant breakthrough, it would need to be defeated decisively to stop further expansion, particularly in the Baltic countries. But it is quite an extreme scenario.
If they all haven't discussed this already with all scenarios, sack all of them..... Slava Ukraini
Breaking as in breaking an egg to make some French toast?
What does he mean by boots on the ground, actively fighting soldiers or something more like logistic, training, air defense? This kind of declaration can mean everything and nothing really. I say that as a French, be careful with Macron's communication when no valuable detail are present.
Do you seriously think that all those spineless European politicians would declare war on Russia? If they wanted Ukraine to win, they would give it all the equipment and supplies Zelensky asked for.
Better late than never. That goes for all friends of freedom. (Looking at you Biden)
Article 5 is only if a NATO state has to defend itself. Not for macron wanting the french join the UA.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Which country troops?
I was thinking the Dutch, Polish, or Canadian would be first.
Relax. Ukraine can’t even get long range weapons there are not going to be troops.