Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

If we in the west want Ukraine to be successful in this fight we need to go all in and provide with what Ukraine needs.
 
Scholz is an idiot.
Germany still seems like an ever growing waste of space, they were given a way out where they swapped Storm Shadow missiles for Taurus ones and they ran away from that, now this.
How weak do they intend to portray themselves?

www.telegraph.co.uk

British soldiers helping fire Ukrainian missiles, Olaf Scholz reveals

German chancellor criticised for ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence’ that could endanger UK personnel on the ground and help the Russians
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
MontyB said:
Scholz is an idiot.
Germany still seems like an ever growing waste of space, they were given a way out where they swapped Storm Shadow missiles for Taurus ones and they ran away from that, now this.
How weak do they intend to portray themselves?

www.telegraph.co.uk

British soldiers helping fire Ukrainian missiles, Olaf Scholz reveals

German chancellor criticised for ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence’ that could endanger UK personnel on the ground and help the Russians
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Should say "fragrant lack of intelligence"....
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It can be dangerous to be an enemy to the US, but it can be even more dangerous to be an ally to the US.
Click to expand...
I think the best option at this point would be to plan on not having the US anywhere for at least the next 5 years.

However I have been wondering about support from individual NATO countries within Ukraine, everything I read says it wouldn't be possible for a European country to secure the Belarusian border without some major risks would it be "easier" to provide manned air defence for Ukrainian cities west of the Dnieper, for example could air defence batteries in Romania defend Odessa?
This would allow Ukrainian air defence to be more aggressive.
 
George said:
I'm sure this would be considered direct intervention.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, Romania has a right to defend its territory and if Russian missiles are landing a few hundred metres from it or flying through its territory then I think it has the right to take action, all it really needs is Ukraine to allow it.
Hell Poland could use the Russian argument and defend Polish speakers in western Ukraine, they don't need troops to enter Ukraine just provide long range air defence thus reducing Russian avenues of attack.

Basically the west could play the Russian BS game and use plausible deniability.
 
MontyB said:
Not necessarily, Romania has a right to defend its territory and if Russian missiles are landing a few hundred metres from it or flying through its territory then I think it has the right to take action, all it really needs is Ukraine to allow it.
Hell Poland could use the Russian argument and defend Polish speakers in western Ukraine, they don't need troops to enter Ukraine just provide long range air defence thus reducing Russian avenues of attack.

Basically the west could play the Russian BS game and use plausible deniability.
Click to expand...
Odessa would be a bit of a stretch. You see Mongolia sent Russia a map showing all of Russia in the Mongolian Empire...
 
George said:
Odessa would be a bit of a stretch. You see Mongolia sent Russia a map showing all of Russia in the Mongolian Empire...
Click to expand...
It would just be a way of channeling Russian drones and missiles into a narrow corridor that Ukraine could defend with less resources.
I saw the Mongolian thing, it was funny.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Germans are obstructing again (The Taurus missiles)
Click to expand...
I can accept that they don't want to send them to Ukraine but I don't understand why they won't do the swap with the UK and France.
There is a part of me that thinks this reticence is a cover for them just not having them.
 
So what are the views on France looking at sending troops to Ukraine to train troops and provide some border security?

Britain apparently has a few there helping with the deployment of the Storm Shadow, so it seems some nations are beginning to become more active.
Personally I am in favour of an international force providing protection within western Ukraine perhaps right up to the Dnieper freeing up Ukrainian forces and to be fair I have been since the beginning of this thing.
It is my belief that we (the west) have failed to understand the Russians, it doesn't matter whether the west wants war with Russia or not as Russia is at war with the west, much like Poland not wanting war didn't stop Germany invading and we need to prepare.
 
I think the West (NATO and others) have military personnel in Ukraine. If, let say a Leo needs to be repaired, it is much easier to repair it in Ukraine than to drag it to Poland to do it. In addition to that. The different NATO special forces are most likely operating and training the Ukrainians
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I think the West (NATO and others) have military personnel in Ukraine. If, let say a Leo needs to be repaired, it is much easier to repair it in Ukraine than to drag it to Poland to do it. In addition to that. The different NATO special forces are most likely operating and training the Ukrainians
Click to expand...
I agree but I think we need to be there in a more active capacity, for example I still think they could have hired trained F-16 pilots to get the F-16s up and running quicker.
I just hope they are off the ground before the Russians start their summer offensive.
 
It took place because, as Kennan pointed out correctly during the late 1990s, if the U.S. and NATO expand, then it will lead to red lines crossed and provoke Russia. That is what happened because U.S. Presidents did not heed warnings from their own men.

Given that, the solution is to avoid provocation and negotiate. If that can't be done, then NATO will have be embroiled in the conflict, which will make the latter worse because the West is dependent on China, Saudi Arabia, and others (BRICS and the Global South, or most countries in the world) for resources, and they want the conflict to end while becoming more distrustful of the U.S. and its allies.
 
ralfy said:
It took place because, as Kennan pointed out correctly during the late 1990s, if the U.S. and NATO expand, then it will lead to red lines crossed and provoke Russia. That is what happened because U.S. Presidents did not heed warnings from their own men.

Given that, the solution is to avoid provocation and negotiate. If that can't be done, then NATO will have be embroiled in the conflict, which will make the latter worse because the West is dependent on China, Saudi Arabia, and others (BRICS and the Global South, or most countries in the world) for resources, and they want the conflict to end while becoming more distrustful of the U.S. and its allies.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely the US can expand as it is bound by internationally recognised borders and a physical land mass, NATO is an open door alliance and has been since its inception in 1949, it will expand as long as all members agree and the applicant meets the requirements.

The question really becomes why does no one want to sign up with Russia or why is it that nations who were occupied by Russia are doing everything they can to ensure Russia doesn't come back, if it was such a great place then it would have countries lining up to join but instead they are running towards the EU and NATO as soon as they could.

As far as avoiding provocation and negotiating goes, Russia invaded a country, changed its reason for invading every 5 minutes and then annexed territory it doesn't own while stating it is at war with the west and intends to carry on into western Europe, if that isn't provocation then I don't know what is and don't believe you can or should negotiate with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top