this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
362 points (92.1% liked)
World News
271 readers
984 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like the Ukraine has one enemy. It’s just that the enemy has their hands in so many other country’s pots that those countries are either happy to help them, or obliged. But either way, I agree that Ukraine is unfortunately screwed.
Europe needs to stand the fuck up and decide if they are actually allies or not. Stop Russia now or they won't stop till they get to France.
How on earth are they going to get to France if they can't even take Ukraine? And if NATO is all it's cracked up to be and is actually a deterrent, then there's nothing to fear.
right, as soon they take all non-nato nations russia will finally be happpy and peace will reiiiiign
I mean, I don't know where you get your news, but things ain't going so hot right now.
I think since Russia brought in troops from NK, Ukraines "allies" need to step up.
I'm aware that Russia has been making gains slowly in Ukraine as of late. I'm just disagreeing with what you say about Russia not stopping until they get to France. I don't think that's a realistic scenario.
Russia will never attack a NATO country, or at least, that's the logical conclusion if you're someone who believes in NATO's effectiveness. To me, anyone who is worried about Russia fighting its way across Europe must have doubts about NATO.
Personally, I think the moment a Russian soldier sets foot in a NATO country, the whole illusion of safety in the organisation will collapse like a house of cards. But until that happens I suppose we can only assume that NATO is working.
Personally I question NATO effectiveness under a Trump presidency. Hope I am wrong about that but Trump's personal loyalties seem to be closer to Russia.
While the other countries are strong combined a lot of their plans and coordination depends on US being first responders. There has also been decades of military neglect by many of the countries, and many buy US weapons instead of home production.
There is also the concern that while Russia alone would be unlikely to attack NATO, they might if China, Iran, and NK join in as they have been slowly increasing support.
I mean, it might take a couple of decades, but if NATO and/or Europe is unwilling to actually stop Russia from invading and holding other countries' territory, it's just going to keep stealing more.
I've been having this conversation with my European friends recently, but what do you expect the NATO treaty is worth once Trump is in power? Like, an honest question. How much faith to you put in it? Because as far as I can tell, Trump is very anti-NATO and its not clear to me that he or Republicans would respect that treaty.
To be clear, I agree with the general quoted in the article. Ukraines allies are not taking this seriously. "But NATO..." is passing the buck. I think the EU is stronger than it gets credit for and should flex its muscle to tell Russia to take a hike.
NATO without the USA loses a lot of logistical and conventional power but is still backed by French and British nukes. That should still make Putin wary of actually triggering Article 5.
Besides, Germany has already demonstrated how effectively it can use a war economy so a conventional war against NATO-without-the-States would probably either be quick or an attrition slog. And I don't think that Russia has the means to pull off either without directly bringing China into the war.
I do agree that Europe should do more, although Russian psyops have been effective over here as well – fringe parties are on the rise and conveniently all of them happen to like Russia. What a coincidence. That plus the economic downturn expected after Trump takes a sledgehammer to global trade again puts a damper on our effectiveness.
The EU(because we can’t assume the US is going to be particularly helpful)’s gdp is a magnitude higher than russia’s, the same way russia’s is vs ukraine.
You're right. People seem to have forgotten what mutually assured destruction is all about. Ukraine is outside of this protection but all NATO countries are covered by it.
Ukraine's enemy is Vladimir Putin's ego.
It's not even like Hitler and WWII. Hitler had plausible strategic reasons to expand Germany's territory and the industrial capacity to do it. So did Japan. Horrendous, but like reasonable in a horrific Machiavellian way.
Russia is... impaling itself over a comparatively tiny strip of territory, and dragging allies in, only because admitting defeat would bruise Putin's public image, and he basically sacrificed his entire economy and brainwashed his people to do it. Russia's actual territory isn't even at risk.
Most of Russia's land is useless...
It's not amount the amount of land it's the food they produce, the wealth of it's citizens, it's ports, and its land borders with Europ that Putin wants.
Dude is trying to claw back as much of the USSR as he can, and he'll stop with Ukraine as much as Hitler stopped with Poland.
It doesn't matter how they're obliged, North Korea is actively engaging in war and are thus a belligerent
Edit: to that one person who downvoted me: you're a fucking moron that should google 'belligerent'
You're describing World War 1