151–160 of 203 posts
Why was this flagged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Russia, based on our own decision (not as a defensive measure). This vigilantism (even if it can be argued is employed to protect international law) goes against the idea that we're a peaceful country. There is no consensus about Russia attacking Czechia (or any…
We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. > In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonge…
I am curious what are you referring to. I have read some reporting based on BIS reports and Vrbětice is by far the worst incident (2 dead).
> Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war.
As long as you can maintain it, perhaps. But did Putin give us an assurance that he will not escalate to an open war? I am not Putin fan, but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war.
> Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying.
According to quick search, Germans during WW2 had >600k troops in Poland maintaining order. Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine.
Even if we accept that today's Russia has similar ambitions to Nazi Germany, and has to be defeated in a similar way, there are two important obstacles to that victory:
- Russia has nuclear weapons, WW2 Germany had not
- Today, there is no USSR helping to fight, which was significant
So it's a non-starter. And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades - not only it is morally abhorrent, but also bad for European security and economy (unlike U.S., we are their neighbor).
> We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.
Yes, but why should Americans care? See my other comments in this thread.
I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. It's a different system, more adhoc, but U.S. maintains significant economic and military power in many parts of the world.
And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except they can't. Europe is struggling with soaring energy costs and a lack of alternatives. Whether it's red tape or unfortunate geography, Europe cannot afford to turn off the Russian gas tap. A benevolent US would see this and find ways to bridge the gap for Europe and lower its energy costs, further choking Russia. A less benevolent US would see this and encourage it to continue, weakening both parties and sowin…
I am not backing Trump here at all, but in his first term he pointed out how over reliant Europe is for Russian energy. A few Euro leaders practically laughed in his face (publicly, on TV) and told him with smirks on their face that he was mistaken. They attempted to frame him as a crazy person for even suggesting it's a problem. A man like Trump does not strike me as somebody that will forget and forgive that. I wou…
I am not sure what European "leaders" expected. Many of them support Ukraine militarily in the war, so yes, EU is in fact in war with Russia, through Ukraine as a proxy. I oppose the military support to Ukraine. I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. I also disapprove that the military support for Ukraine was decided undemocratically, without any consideration whether this…
Not providing military support will actually bring a war to Europe much faster. If Ukraine surrenders Baltic states are next to be annexed by russians.
Europe is buying billions of Russian gas and petrochemicals. https://energyandcleanair.org/financing-putins-war/ The first step when finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Regarding the "why" of Russian drone/air shenanigans: I don't think Russia wants to get their expensive assets shot down or provoke a NATO-wide war. Many people seem to believe this but it presumes far too much. They don't gain from more fronts. They cannot realistically march into the west, they can't even march into west Ukraine. Realistically, Russia is doing these antics to force as many European countries as pos…
How do you (especially Europeans) understand this move from Russia? Can it really sustain a war against us? Does it want to break NATO by proving the US won't move?
I have heard this move characterized as "horizontal escalation". Putin is stuck in Ukraine (hasn't taken anything strategically significant, controls less territory than 3 years ago). So he tries to widen the confrontation geographically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls squarely on Russia. Russia has no intention to stop; on the contrary it is ramping up the production of military equipment. As only military means can stop a military aggression, it makes every sense for European leaders to support Ukraine militarily. If anythin…
Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger. Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia. EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't of…
You do realize NATO doesn't expand by itself? It's always a country that asks to join so that Russia can't attack it, not the other way round. NATO is not going around asking new countries to join. On the contrary: Ukraine already asked before the war and was rejected.
(Not to mention the absurdity of this argument when you consider why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.
> NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine I think this view is delusional. NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons, it's pretty conventional to consider this as being a party to the war. The only reason we don't say it openly is that elites want to maintain pretense that we are not in a war (that's unpopular in Europe and US) and that NATO is defense-only organization.
Just a Russia Today style of whataboutism. Why you take any russian word as true? They can only lie. Whatever they say about Ukraine is a lie.
If you want to believe russians, why not believe that this Ukrainian 3-days special operation is going according 5 years plan of grinding Ukrainian soil treeline a day and pushing neutral neighboring countries to actually join NATO?
Can and will, Ukraine shoulda never gave up those nukes.