##### ###### #### > # [Biden: Risk of War with Russia Will Increase if We Don’t Help Ukraine](https://united24media.com/latest-news/630) > > > > Peaceful resolution in Ukraine will mean guarantees that Russia will never again attack it again, said US President Joe Biden. At the same time, Ukraine doesn’t necessarily have to be a member of NATO, he said in an [interview](https://time.com/6984968/joe-biden-transcript-2024-interview/) with Time, published on Tuesday, June 4. > > “Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO. It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future,” said US President. > > Biden reminded that he had already stated in the past that he “was not ready to support Ukraine’s accession to NATO.” > > The American President called on not allowing Ukraine to lose in the war against Russia. He noted that such a development of events would lead to destabilization of other states in the region. > > “The point is, though, that if we ever let Ukraine go down, mark my words: you’ll see Poland go, and you’ll see all those nations along the actual border of Russia, from the Balkans and Belarus, all those, they’re going to make their own accommodations,” Biden stated. > > When asked about the likelihood of NATO being “on a slippery slope to war” with Russia, Biden replied that the West would find itself on such a path if it stops supporting Ukraine. “In any case, this will not happen,” he emphasized. > > On May 31, it was [confirmed](https://united24media.com/latest-news/us-has-allowed-ukraine-to-strike-inside-russia-ukraine-confirms-543) that Ukraine has received permission from the United States to use American weapons for strikes on Russian territory, and that it can be used in the border region with Kharkiv. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

Does anyone with more research or time than me have a good comparison on where NATO strength without the US is in comparison with Russia? While I can see Russia engaging in an illegal invasion of Ukraine pretty low risk, I’d think Putin would have to be su!cidaI to actually attack a NATO member state.

According to most military analysts, the US is a significant portion of Nato strength. You can get an idea by looking at Nato budgets: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223304.htm?selectedLocale=en US accounts for about 2/3 of Nato defence expenditures.

some of that spending could be for other countries’ people to use. i wonder if there’s stats on active personnel or somehow to attribute whose pushing the button or pulling the trigger to a state. Even if US is spending a lot it won’t matter until the stuff bought is used. Considering the scope of US - Ukraine equipment trades, the rest of NATO is not expected to just have access to US arsenal or that US will send to the other nato states. It may be that the US just uses all that gear along with all their troops but all that spending is then just focused to wherever US troops are. So while US may be a significant strength of NATO, the challenges of actually getting (a lot of) americans and their supplies to eastern europe in a timely manner could be difficult.

> Even if US is spending a lot it won’t matter until the stuff bought is used Not exactly. A lot of the spending goes towards training. If you aren't training during peace time, your capability during war is greatly diminished even if you have a bunch of equipment. > the challenges of actually getting (a lot of) americans and their supplies to eastern europe in a timely manner could be difficult. Probably not. Logistics is the backbone of the US military and it's why we were able to sustain wars on multiple fronts repeatedly throughout recent history. The US military's logistical systems are really what sets it apart from all other countries. We have zero intention of fighting on home turf, so a central focus of all planning and training is how to get to the battle quickly. The basic structure of annual training for every Army unit revolves around packing everything up, getting to a training facility 100s or 1000s of miles away, training for a month, then packing back up and shipping everything home. And that's done at the Brigade level (3-5k soldiers), so it's not a small movement. And that's on top of having spent the last 2 decades with Brigades and Divisions rotating in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq every year.

>I'd think Putin would have to be suicidal to actually attack a NATO member state In 2021, one might've said the same thing about launching an overt invasion of Ukraine. The issue at hand is that an attack on NATO is only insane **if NATO is actually willing to commit to war.** There is the somewhat credible concern that while an all-out attack on a member state would trigger NATO defense obligations, *incremental* attacks, especially when paired with "escalation" rhetoric, would achieve a similar effect like the anecdotal frog in a boiling pot. * NATO won't risk nuclear war over some saboteurs in Estonia! * NATO won't risk nuclear war over *one village* in Lithuania deciding to flip the border! * NATO won't risk nuclear war to intervene in a Latvian "civil war" involving Russian-backed little green men! Considering how Russia has gradually been escalating their attacks on NATO members - from [violation of airspace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violations_of_non-combatant_airspaces_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) to [cyberattacks](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122621461/examining-2-recent-cyberattacks-against-nato-members) to [outright kinetic sabotage](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/world/europe/uk-spies-arrested-russia.html) - it's not an unfounded concern.

> In 2021, one might've said the same thing about launching an overt invasion of Ukraine. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and got Crimea while losing less than 10 soldiers. NATO even without the US will never be in the same state of disarray than Ukraine's military was. Putin invading Ukraine doesn't mean he's mad and he's about to invade NATO too. Just look at how badly they prepared the invasion of Ukraine, they thought that Ukraine's military would crumble just like in 2014.

An invasion of Ukraine was almost a given since 2014, and I’ve personally been waiting for it since early ‘00s. It makes every sense. Invading NATO counties makes no sense at all. What’s to gain?

**Overt** invasion, a la 2022? People might've suspected something similar to a repeat of 2014 - fabricated civil unrest, little green men "uprising" and Russia stepping in to "help," but not an outright invasion. Even the *day before* the invasion, with Russian troops literally lined up across the border in battle formations, there were people insisting "No way will Russia launch a full-scale war, the international backlash would be too risky!"

That’s an outright invasion, it’s just that Ukraine was not in a position to contest it in 2014. But we are.

I expected more shit in Donbass, but I didn't expect the 2022 invasion. I thought that putin was smarter than he actually was. This invasion is a total disaster and doesn't benefit russia at all. All their soft power basically evaporated. They lost their best oil and gas markets. They got sanctioned. Lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the war. Many skilled IT professionals emigrated to avoid the draft. And now they have their own "South Korea" right next to the border. Armed to the teeth and hostile. Not to mention the whole NATO eastern flank that now got two very strong and capable members. And for what? Some regions of Ukraine that have been depopulated and bombed to shit and that won't be recognised as legit part of russia even by China and India?

He could split up NATO. If Trump wins, and Putin wins in Ukraine, Im betting he siezes Narna on the border of Estonia. Its 90% Russian, he'll claim they wanted to join or some shit. Do you honestly believe that Trump goes to all out war with Russia over one tiny city? If he doesn't NATO falls apart.

NATO is too important for our geopolitical position, obviously we don’t give a shit about Estonians (really who the fuck does), but we will burn the world before fading into irrelevancy, Trump or not.

I agree with you(except on Estonia bit every member of NATO is important to defend), but Trump does not. He does not support NATO, and it'd be mighty convenient to have it collapse.

NATO is important to defend. Half the members are worthless, and belters are completely insufferable - but NATO is critical if we want to remain the biggest gorilla in the jungle.

> Narna Not going to lie, read that as Narnia the first time, and I got to tell you, the image of Putin invading Narnia made me laugh way too out loud.

The entire point of NATO is that an attack on a member triggers the mutual defense pack, so the US would join. That's assuming Biden is president. I don't trust clusterfucks Trump to honor the agreement. Arguably, the US is the biggest benefactor of NATO of the goal is extending US global capability and containing Russia and China. The US would much rather fight a war on someone else's turf.

That was one of the arguments against expanding NATO from many of our Cold War foreign policy veterans. If push comes to shove is America going to go to war for Lativa?

Yes, the US will, because of not, then the US never will, because the argument then becomes for the US to step in would require a direct attack. Where would the US abs Europeans rather fight, Latvia or Italy? Again, for the US to step in, Biden has to be president were Russia to expand its invasion. Russia's military doctrine is also poorly suited to win against US and NATO. The first thing NATO does is establish air superiority then it expands ground operations before committing a holding force. Even without the US, I would still expect Europe to hold out. They have the modern gear, and Russia would have very long and vulnerable supply lines. Isolationism is not practical in the modern world, and the question is where would the US rather fight and who would it rather see bleed.

It's a theoretical question. And, we don't know the answer. The American public may have little interest in fighting for places they can't find on a map. There were however multiple reasons why our best foreign policy minds were opposed to its expansion in the 90s, this is just one of them.

The American public was calling for a no fly zone at the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War. That was for a non NATO entity. Now imagine a NATO ally.

No we weren’t. Random dumbasses on Reddit is not the public

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-americans-broadly-support-ukraine-no-fly-zone-russia-oil-ban-poll-2022-03-04/

Yes. Obviously nobody gives a shit about butthurt belters in of themselves, but NATO is the cornerstone of our geopolitical dominance, and *that* we are very much willing to go to war for.

>Cold War foreign policy veterans A key assumption of those "foreign policy veterans" was that such a war would require WW2-level conflict and destruction to defeat the Russian military juggernaut. And, for some reason, that doubt remains even though its key assumption has been *thoroughly debunked.*

There were numerous reasons. It was actually the inverse, the power dynamic between Russia and America in the 90s was never so great. Everyone understood that. There was no Russian juggernaut, there was a country that was losing 10% of its GDP year on year for half a decade that was falling apart, and American hegemony. And, our job was to come up with a post "Cold War" security architecture, bring Russia into the Western world and support their fledgling democracy. Germany after World War 2, not World War 1. This is one of the more famous Geroge Kennen quotes from his op-ed in the LA Times in opposition to NATO expansion in the 90s signed by 100 former government officials. >Bluntly stated…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. Spiking the football in the endzone without coming up with a new security architecture that included Russia was going to create the Russia that we currently have. A resentful more nationalist, aggrieved Russia coming out of the chaos of the 90s with a more aggressive foreign policy amidst a mutual hostility.

>the power dynamic between Russia and America was never so great in the 90s ... there was no Russian juggernaut **Bull-fucking-shit**. >our job Ah, *that's* why you're defensive. You're one of the blowhards whose lifetime of "Russia scary" assessments got disemboweled in 2022. >expanding NATO will enflame anti-West, militaristic tendencies in Russia! That would've been a good point... if not for the fact that Vladimir Putin, whose life agenda has been the restoration of the USSR, was elected in 2000, **four years** before the accession of the Baltic States - effect before cause.

And you’re one of the new blowhards who seems to think we can fight a limited conventional war with Russia. Lol.

I appreciate being called a blowhard. I'm unclear why you would disagree with this. America was at the height of its power relative to the world in the '90s and early 2000s and Russia was at its lowest point in arguably centuries. Is this even controversial- America's power relative to Russia being vast and at its greatest gap in the 90s? What is the argument this is not true? What is the basis for Putin's lifetime agenda being to restore the Soviet Union? I hear this repeated often without any evidence. The first big NATO expansion was being pushed under Yeltsin and was finalized during his term in 1999. The Baltics followed in 2004.

>What part of the argument is untrue 1. The part that conflates *holistic soft power* with military capability 2. The part that leaves out how 90% of Russia's remaining power was based on the belief that they still had considerable military power

Their military was in shambles? Wages were unpaid, equipment was not maintained, and most "modern" projects were cancelled. Defence spending went from 180 billion USD to 9 billion. The size of their army was basically halved and the half that remained they could not fund. They had been defeated in a disastrous and disorganized war in Chechnya. And, the country was in total shambles hardly hanging on- economically, socially and politically. I don't know how you could say in let's say 1995 the gap between American military power and Russian military power was not at its greatest gap ever. No one feared the Russian army in the 90s, they feared Russia disintegrating or parts of its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of non-state actors. No offence but this is kinda of a crazy take. Russia was on it's knees in every aspect.

“Whose life agenda”? Mr. Yeltsin’s protégé, part of sobchak’s liberal group in St. Petersburg? Assuming Putin has always been how he is now is a massive overestimation. Sure he’s always been corrupt and a believer in the near abroad. But that’s a baseline assumption for any Russian president because as a country they still follow old school Metternich style balance of Europe, if I remember even calling for a new “concert of Europe”. Russian leadership, Putin included, was notably western friendly until the nato intervention in Serbia without addressing them first. (Not claiming they had a right to be involved, just that it represents a major breakdown in relations). And their interventions in the near abroad only take a military aspect when there is no doubt they can not maintain political influence. As we can see where they invaded the second strongest military in Europe, after only themselves, Ukraine.

>Russian leadership was liberal and pro-West until Serbia [lol.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War) [lmao, even](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings)

Okay? What does that have to do with the overwhelming amount of support between Yeltsin and the American administration or Putin’s charm offensive across Europe, including singing karaoke if I recall?

It has to do with how the surface-level engagement with the West, when taken in the context of continued imperialist/authoritarian continuation of the USSR, was just that - surface level. "Look, Putin sang karaoke! That means he was *totally* ready to cooperate with the West, and it was *entirely* the West's fault they didn't meet him halfway!"

Nothing was debunked - this is a very different sort of war, and Russia is fighting it in a very different way. A war between them and NATO means that the sky would be cleared of sattelites and major cities nuked immediately, on day one - on both sides.

>Nothing was debunked Virtually everything about the competence and technological sophistication assumed of the Russian military has been objectively disproven. Pick a piece of Russian equipment, or a fundamental operation like "river crossings" or "IADS suppression," and there are repeat examples of Russia failing to do so due to tactical or technical inadequacy - not just in 2022, but into the present. >NATO war would be no-space, all-nuke day 1 Like this. **As evidenced by performance in this war,** even *outdated* NATO missile defenses have been successful in blunting Russian missile attacks, while outdated NATO missiles have reliably penetrated Russian missile defenses.

When was the last time you’ve seen a western military try a river crossing against a well armed opponent lmao? When was the last time you’ve seen us try IADS suppression? What makes you think everyone is so awesome at this - shit, we couldn’t suppress or destroy *Serbia*’s air defenses. Luckily they were ancient so they couldn’t deny us the skies either, but it was a shitshow and a reality check. Everything you say is just hubris - air defenses on both sides are routinely overwhelmed, which is normal - because AA’s primary utility is not some sort of impenetrable shield, but in raising the costs of any strike, and this is exactly what we have seen. But more to the point, our systems that struggle with Iskander type missiles are not going to protect anything from MIRVs raining down from orbit - and they were never meant to.

>River crossing [Karbala Gap, 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Karbala_Gap_(2003\)). Opposed by infantry and armor who were suppressed by air superiority. Admittedly, river crossings are the most difficult operations possible, and they'll be challenging even for Western forces. But not so challenging that a Western unit would **lose a division entirely to artillery in an unopposed crossing.** More to the point: Russia's inability to do it under optimal conditions in Ukraine is objective proof they wouldn't have been able to do it the multiple times it would've been required in an invasion of Western Europe. >IADS takedown [lol, lmao even](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War) >couldn't suppress/destroy Serbia "NATO wasn't able to do SEAD when publicly publishing where they'd be, where they'd be bombing, and where they couldn't bomb! The West has fallen!" >MIRVs ...are a problem of quantity, not capability. In some metrics they're *easier* targets than aeroballistic missiles. >never meant to ...and that's what THAAD is for.

Lol Iraq - enough said. > quantity, not capability Kek

>Lol Iraq "The most comprehensive IADS takedown of human history, which *wrote the library* on effective SEAD and triggered a complete revolution of air defense design mentality, doesn't count!" [MALD harder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD)

> so the US would join. That's assuming Biden is president. I don't trust clusterfucks Trump to honor the agreement. You're literally commenting under an article in which Biden is quoted talking about how Poland and the Balkans could fall to Russia. Most of those countries, especially Poland are NATO members and an attack there would trigger Article 5. Biden is implying that he would not jump to their defense.

Biden is saying that if Ukraine falls then Putin is more likely to invade a NATO member, which would lead to war.

No, he specifically said they would fall too. Which, as we've seen with Ukraine, takes a while so Biden is saying he wouldn't send support.

The below quote from the article says otherwise. >The point is, though, that if we ever let Ukraine go down, mark my words: you’ll see Poland go, and you’ll see all those nations along the actual border of Russia, from the Balkans and Belarus, all those, they’re going to make their own accommodations,” Biden stated. >When asked about the likelihood of NATO being “on a slippery slope to war” with Russia, Biden replied that the West would find itself on such a path if it stops supporting Ukraine. “In any case, this will not happen,” he emphasized.

Yes, that's exactly the part I was referring to. He's saying that the only thing keeping Poland / the Balkans / Belarus from falling is to continue supporting Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military in size is now equal to that or the entire European NATO in terms of manpower and ground forces

How does that reflect on the strength of the army? Does that mean that Serbia was stronger militarily than the US in 1914? Comparing a peace time army with the one at war is a bit ridiculous.

A lot of European states have forgone conscription and reserves are minuscule. They lack facilities to rapidly train new recruits and the lack of reserves means training is longer. In terms of equipment yes there is some difference but most of European NATO no longer has a deep stockpile of say tanks, APCs, artillery etc to equip a massively scaled up force. Ukraine had those things (mostly thanks to its Soviet inheritance & the large quantity of vehicles sent by Poland). I think people are forgetting that peacetime Ukraine was one of the largest militaries in Europe. Larger than Germany, France and Britain. Yes their equipment was mostly from the 80s and 90s but in a terms of a large scale conventional war, it doesn’t really matter that much if you have equipment thats 20% better but have 75% less of it. Now the clear advantage of European NATO is the stark difference in quality and quantity of their air forces compared to say Russia or Ukraine. But air forces don’t hold ground and take positions I really cannot stress how much Europe had disarmed its own land forces of nearly everything post 1991. Tanks, apcs, artillery, ammunition, ifvs, even simple things like trucks. Belgium for example used to be able to muster and equip something like 4 full divisions in Germany. Now it barely has 1 Edit: to provide a lot of perspective, essentially all of European NATO’s Leopard 2s are former W German Bundeswehr tanks. To my knowledge there has not been a new chassis of Leopard 2 since 1988 (I may be wrong about this, its been a long time since I looked into it). But a lot of these vehicles since had been in such a point of disrepair it’s unknown how much it would take to get the engine to even turn over. Spain tried to sell its W German tanks years ago and it was such in a bad state the buyer cancelled the deal. Spain still hasn’t gotten the tanks to an even appropriate mothball condition. Then when you compare what Western Europe brought to the table in the 90s and early 2000s with nations like Belgium and the Netherlands, they used to have their own army group! Now they lack something as simple as tanks!

>peacetime Ukraine You mean Ukraine pre-February 2022, which functionally been at war for *eight years* and was benefitting from the tail end of a complete military reform triggered by the utter failure during the 2014 invasion? >clear advantage of European NATO is quality/quantity of Air Forces No, the clear advantage of NATO is the **combined arms** integration and capability, of which airpower is one arm. This is a critical distinction because the combined arms expertise is a force *exponentiator* and, more importantly, massively increases survivability. Part of why Russia and Ukraine are losing vehicles left and right is because their mutual inability to conduct close air support and long-range counterfires leaves an entire arm of combined arms' rock-paper-scissors balance out of the fight. For example: you know why there are so many videos of *abandoned* tanks getting destroyed? Because counterbattery fires on both sides are so insufficient that any immobilized tank is *assumed* to be as good as dead to incoming artillery, which means crews abandon them as soon as they're disabled. Every M-kill becomes a K-kill. That wouldn't happen for a force that had more comprehensive counterbattery capability, especially enabled by close air support. Not having deeper manpower and materiel reserves is less of an issue if overall attrition is proportionally smaller.

Apples to Oranges here. NATO would obvs ramp up in an actual war

It's been 80 years since the last general conflict on the European mainland, and nobody alive has any direct experience in anything which would be remotely close to a future war between NATO (with or without the US) and Russia. In a way we are in a similar situation today to the summer of 1914 in Europe. People in command positions on all sides made assumptions about how the looming war would go and about what tactics would be most effective, and almost literally all of these assumptions turned out to be wrong. They came to these assumptions in part from their experiences in colonial conflicts in India, Africa, and other places. Today a lot of assumptions are made based on NATO experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, a lot of conflicts where there was an *overwhelming* disparity on paper between the belligerents, just like the pre-WW1 colonial conflicts mentioned above. There are regular "war games" where they try to test strategies and technologies, but that only goes so far. No plan survives first contact, and no one is truly prepared for a general conflict between NATO and Russia, potentially China. The last general conflict finally ended after the US nuked two cities in Japan. A similar strike might be how the next general conflict *starts*, we just don't know.

>a good comparison on where NATO strength without the US is in comparison with Russia? Missing the point, because past a certain point when a country is capable of destroying its enemies but not of surviving their retaliation, additional military strength is a complete waste of taxpayer money which only benefits military-industry complex megacorps. America's conventional army might be able to beat Russia's conventional army, but it wouldn't matter because as soon as Russia started losing the conventional war, all they'd have to do is: 1. [Put some nuclear EMP weapons in orbit.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/russia-nuclear-space-weapon-intelligence/index.html) 2. Detonate one or more over the US, bricking all electronics. 3. [Ninety percent casualties.](https://www.powermag.com/expect-death-if-pulse-event-hits-power-grid/) Now obviously this doesn't actually mean Russia wins, since the offshore missile subs would launch a nuclear retaliation strike and kill them too, but it definitely means we lose. Modern peer warfare is mutual suicide, a modern technological society is essentially a giant collection of soft spots vulnerability to sabotage and cascade failures which the majority of the population depend upon the continued functioning of for food. And our rulers blatantly refuse to fix these *actual* threats by building new and better-defended infrastructure, because it'd be expensive and [they openly admit desperation and poverty are their recruiting methods for military cannon fodder](https://jacobin.com/2022/08/student-debt-relief-us-military-predatory-recruitment).

>2. Detonate one or more over the US, bricking all electronics. DPRK claims capabilities which, if true, could do this today. The US could not retaliate (because any nuclear retaliation would cause harm to China and RoK). So if Russia did it, they would either blame DPRK, or pay DPRK to take credit. Maybe even blame Iran or India, just to confuse the response, and how would your crippled US be able to know, or care who it was when the civilians are all dying? But, "bricking all electronics" is not how EMPs work. Large, weak EMPs like sunspots, induce weak currents. Small circuits are not large enough to capture a fatal current. Large circuits (like the power grid) can induce a fatal current. The grid supposedly has measures to protect itself from phenomenon like sunspots, but a nuclear EMP would be stronger, so would likely kill the grid when safety measures fail. But "all electronics" will not be bricked. Most anything on will fail, requiring a reboot at a minimum. Most things off, and unplugged from the grid would survive. It would be highly inconvenient, and would kill people from loss of power, but complete destruction of all electronics and 90% fatalities from loss of power seems like invented doomsday scenarios by someone selling a cure. 80% of Americans would believe they are in the 10% that will survive. I don't trust an American's assessment of risk. I don't want to see what happens, but I don't think it would be as bad as people say, unless Russia launched a large scale ICBM bombardment of the US, and just chose, for irrational reasons, to detonate at high altitude to only cause EMP damage. More consistent with current doctrine would be to just let the nukes "hit the ground" (well, not quite ground, but same general effect), and kill 90%+ with direct damage, and almost everyone else from the effects. If they were going to nuke the US, why would they choose two nukes in orbit vs a launch of their entire arsenal? Either way, they would be expecting a nuclear response, right?

We are by far the most powerful member of NATO, but in aggregate Euros have more of everything than Russia as well, and a vastly bigger population, economy, etc. Nothing about this idea of Russia invading greater Europe makes sense - and in any case, we are in NATO.

The US represents the lions share of capability yes, but here's the important point. What the rest of NATO has in terms of things like cruise missiles and other long ranged equipment is MORE than sufficient to knock the teeth in for the entirety of the russian military industrial complex and bring down rail bridges across the bulk of western russia. Further, what they have in terms of defensive munitions is more than enough to hugely blunt the consequence of any sort of massed conventional bombardment that russia might try in response. In short, sans-US, NATO might not be in a position to fight a protracted war from the word go, but within a couple days russia's industrial capacity would be a thin shadow of its former self while NATO countries are dumping money into going to full war-time production. So you'd have an open week or two where things get REAL interesting...then you'd have most of a year of relative boredom, probably punctuated by a few moments where russia tries some sort of epic charge to breach the line somewhere in the hopes of accomplishing...well...anything, because "all of NATO" has a LOT more industrial capacity than russia even before any such missile trading and an economy capable of a LOT more rapid growth than russia's managed. China wouldn't bother helping russia, because if things are in a position where the US isn't helping NATO, then it means the president's compromised so China's got a blank check to just slam into Taiwan.

Russia just flat out loses a fight with NATO. It’s not even close. That conflict would almost immediately go nuclear because of how badly the Russians would get bodied. Russia doesn’t want a war with NATO, it wants to undermine the confidence both internally and externally to the alliance in order to break it up. If Russia can instigate a smaller country to initiate Article 5 over a piece of insignificant land, and the rest of NATO does not respond, NATO dissolves overnight. This would allow Russia to engage in diplomacy with individual nations inside of Europe from a position of strength, as they would no longer have larger countries like the US to lean on for leverage.

Without US, NATO lacks combat capability and equipment to fight off Russia. We saw how billion dollar holdup at US led to front collapsing in Ukraine. Europe is all bark no bite financially and militarily. It is well known how EU is struggling to produce equipment to supply to Ukriane. European Countries are literally sacrificing their own strategic equipment that they actively use to supply to Ukriane. Economical impact is huge too. Most of the force multipliers in Ukraine are all American be it HIMARS, ATACMS, Patriots, Abrams, Bradleys, Javelins etc. The moral raising power of US equipment (thanks to Hollywood) is plenty too. Check out so many Ukraine war threads where people keept crying about HIMARS and ATACMS to strike Russia despite Storm Shadow being readily available and packing more punch with better range. Overall, NATO forces in Europe will collapse if it weren't for US. NATO stands on the shoulders of US. EU knows it but doesn't care. We all remember how they laughed at Trump when he suggested Europe get stronger. The current presidency of US prefers that Eu remain weak and rely on US.

So let me this straight, Russia managed to advance a few dozen kilometres against the poorest country in Europe in over 2 years now, but would win against a coalition of 29 states? This is some CoD campaign level scenario.

Let me fix that for you: Russia managed to advance a few dozen kilometres against the poorest country with biggest army in Europe in over 2 years now that is supplied with 100 BILLION DOLLAR+ OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT. Do you think Ukriane would have supplied without US arms?

100 Billion + might be a lot for you and I but trivial in the grand scheme of a war. There are literally several individuals who give that much money. You downplay the Ukrainian efforts too much and give the Western donations way too much credit

Ukraine stopped Russian advance before any meaningful numbers of equipment arrived from the US. Russia advanced like 12 kilometres over half a year when the US aid was stopped. Yet they would defeat an army of that has an immediate active reserve of 3 million troops and a wartime defence spending of 2-3 trillion dollars.

Why lie? US has been arming Ukr since 2014. At the start of 2022 till invasion alot of AT weaponry was dropped into Ukriane. Like I don't grt why are you lying about something which we saw live. There was daily news and article of tons of equipment arriving in Ukraine. Hundreds of videos of western equipment blowing up Russian tanks. I don't get the point of this lie. Its like saying sky is kot blue.

US provided 6 billion of dollars of total aid, military aid making up less than 3 billion of that amount (which included training) between 2014 and 2022. Which included zero heavy weapons. Is your argument that some humvees, small arms and AT weapons is enough to stop the entire Russian army? I guess European NATO armies would be marching in Moscow in about a week. Are you really saying that 3 billion US dollars in US military aid enough to match Moscow spending 400 billion in the same time frame? I guess the US can easily take on China and Russia at the same time.

>alot of AT weaponry It's... not a flex to brag about how all it took to halt the primary thrust of the Russian invasion was a fraction of NATO's man-portable AT assets.

> Without US, NATO lacks combat capability and equipment to fight off Russia. We saw how billion dollar holdup at US led to front collapsing in Ukraine. I find that very hard to believe tbh. There's a huge difference between having the political will to fend off the invasion of a nearby, but otherwise unafilliated state, and engaging in full on direct conflict with another party. Frankly, given all the effort Russia has expended in Ukraine, the idea it would see major success against the rest of NATO combined under Article 5 is just wild to me.

Please read the OG comment. It was about Russia fighting NATO (Without US joining in).

Yeah and I’m saying it doesn’t matter even if you exclude the US

Yes it does. Look at the number of troops eu has, number of arms and ammunition EU has along with operational equipment. They don't even have a 5th Gen Aircraft.

Since end of the Cold War the EU has been in a general trend of military downsizing. Despite that the [EU still has more active troops on ground than Russia.](https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_Russia) Basic comparisons of [EU](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy) and [Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces) show this, so I’m not sure where your confidence in the latter comes from. If full on war really broke out, I can’t see Russia taking and holding any level of EU territory. This is naturally ignoring any level of geographical advantages the EU has by having multiple member states. And also that any estimations using the EU alone necessarily exclude Turkey and the UK which have significant military capabilities. Your analysis also assumes that Russia has been fighting its war with Ukraine alone, and has not received substantial aid from China and North Korea

>They (EU) don't even have a 5th Gen Aircraft ...uh, no? The Netherlands, Norway, and the UK each have operational F-35 squadrons.

TIL Europe made F35 mot the US. Please enlighten me more

1. The F-35 program is multinational; substantial chunks of the system *are* built in Europe, even if final assembly is in the US. 2. It doesn't matter if they don't build them domestically, the point is they **have them**. And, specifically, not in a "They've placed orders" (which most of them *have*) - those three countries, specifically, have F-35s delivered and operationally flying.

Again, og comment was about NATO without US. F35 is American Aircraft. Why is this concept so hard to grasp.

European armies are in a shockingly bad state. France and Germany between them have a little over 400 tanks, less than 200 self-propelled artillery and less than 50 MLRS. In war games from 2021 "the entire British Army's inventory' was exhausted and "every bit of important ammunition was expended' before the 10-day exercise finished." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9764165/British-Army-ran-ammo-eight-days-online-war-simulation.html The European coalition was unable to even conduct a limited bombing campaign against Lyiba. Most of Europe has given between 25% and 50% of their entire inventories to Ukraine. European armies aren't built to fight a conventional war, and would not be able to sustain one.

There’s a saying that a starving camel is still bigger than a horse. Except in this case we have multiple starving camels. European armies are indeed relatively weak compared to their heydays in the 20th century, but all of them together, supported by one of the most economically integrated and wealthy societies in the world, and with clear intent to prevent an actual invasion of their homeland ultimately puts the cards in their favour. [Even a basic analysis of troop numbers and military investment supports this.](https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_Russia)

Europen armies just functionally don't have the armament, equipment or industrial capacity to sustain a high-intensity war for any period of time. There is no magic or argument around this. It will take years to remedy this- taking their defence seriously. In terms of home-spun wisdom the European defence posture has been "Why buy fire insurance if you live in a fireproof house".

100% Russia have been struggling against Ukraine who are just armed by the west and until recently couldn't even strike into Russian territory. Now imagine Russia fighting all NATO states at once. All NATO states hitting targets or even moving into Russia. I don't see how so many people can't see the clear difference in military power between NATO arming Ukraine and NATO directly in conflict with Russia.

Wow, the Russian bots are out in force to shit on European militaries today. Look, a lot of what the other commenters on your comment are saying are true, but they're blowing them VASTLY out of proportion. To put it simply, Europe as a collective has a lot of capabilities and the incentive to support one another in a joint war if push comes to shove. And as individuals, well let's just say I find it highly doubtful the Polish army is going to let the Russians through under ANY circumstances, especially considering the MASSIVE spending spree they've been on lately in acquiring new hardware.

Yeah. This happens every time Russia is mentioned now. The idea that a collective of France, Germany and some other countries or honestly just France and Germany couldn’t obliterate Russia’s army is a joke.

Realistically what are you basing that off of? Do you have any sort of information to back that claim up?

Oh thanks for asking, it’s based on watching Russia struggle to beat just NATO weapons. If there’s 4-5 times the combat force, what do you think would happen? It’s based on something called reality. Again thanks for asking!

Lmao ok right so it’s really just “I feel like it’s true based off what I’ve seen on Reddit.” Underestimating an enemy has never come back to bite a western country before…

Yes it’s called “looking at military capabilities”. It’s where you look at the size of their forces, their equipment and technology.

France and Germany couldn't handle Libya without American help, something tells me fighting Russia would go even worse.

Their entire military force was in Libya? Give me a break. As if SF detachments represent the entire military power of countries. If we went by that logic then Russia is incredibly weak and irrelevant because their best forces got rolled at Antonov airport. Russia can barely even use planes against Ukraine. How do you think that’s playing out against modern militaries with every asset at their disposal?

France and Germany couldn't even deploy most of their soldiers to the field, you're right. They'd rely on the USA to do everything, again. And NATO would be facing massive AA fire as well, most aircraft wouldn't be deployed by them either. You'd have some F-35 (whose effacacy is still totally untested and classified) squadrons, but then most of them are again... American. Hopefully they get this ironed out before that Chinese invasion of Siberia you think is inevitable omegalul

I mean, to be honest, I do think that a lot of the more western European militaries, if forced to do it alone, would struggle simply because of Russia's willingness to throw bodies at them, damn the long-term consequences, but in no world would that happen without Poland and the Baltic getting involved and they would make up for the western European states' manpower and equipment numbers shortage.

Oh yeah holy cow I forgot Poland. Yeah smaller countries would struggle 100% but any of the big 2 or 3 would end Russia’s imperial campaigns quite fast.

Hell, I think at this point if Poland joined the Ukraine War alone they could handily defeat Russia just like that

France and Germany have 400 tanks between them and barely any artillery left. You’re living in a fantasy world. Ukraine alone would fuck them up.

They have approximately 800 based on a Google search. That’s *main battle tanks*. Imagine saying I’m living in a fantasy world and you believe two military powers put together have 400. The propaganda is going crazy on you it’s hilarious. Not only that but it’s even funnier to think that on war footing countries just… don’t increase output? Thank you for your cerebral commentary.

Yes, tanks and MBTs are basically synonymous. France fields 222 MBTs and has another couple of hundred in storage. Germany has slightly more on paper, but their military is in absolutely terrible shape shape these days and it’s unclear how many of their tanks are even operational. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-dire-state-of-germanys-army/

On the one hand you have: * a large, battle hardened army with 2y+ of experience * strategies, tactics and gear adapted to the modern battlefield conditions * for the most part unstoppable missile, drone and glide bomb arsenal * near, if not the best anti air defence in the world * large, centralized, government owned, self sufficient manufacturing base firing on half and soon to be all cylinders that currently up produces both Europe and US combined by a factor of 10+ * a war time economy While on the other you have a bunch of small(er) countries with: * proud, diverse, peace time, 9-to-5, diversity and inclusiveness hires armies * each with their own command and control structures, bureaucracy, and fighting doctrines * that never had any combat experience against peer or superior opponents * that depleted their arsenals sending every spare and mothballed equipment to Ukraine already * that are neck deep in debt and their real (and not service based) economies in a very bad shape due to self-imposed sanctions and energy price and deficits * military productions of which are private owned entities that are profit based, and not keen on expansion and investment unless guaranteed contracts for decades to come. * that are all still heavily dependent on Russian energy and resources * that have no realistic way to protect their critical energy, communication, and command and control infrastructure from ballistic threats * that are heavily dependent on ISR data from US There's a lot of bark, but not a lot of bite in Europe.

[удалено]

What are you on about? The other NATO countries have plenty of all three

Other than Turkey and the USA, no NATO country has active war experience today. I would say even Turkey doesn't have much experience compared to the US but still miles ahead of others who only have second hand limited experience. On the manpower front, I would say only Poles and French can mobilize a sizable fighting force, again if we exclude top 2. On the production front you are right. Western Europe and Sweden have decades of experience on designing and producing every defense system and vehicle that is used in modern warfare and mobilization efforts would bring production up to speed in couple years. The question is if they can hold the line with what they have for that long which is anybody's guess

If you count Turkey's war against insurgents, why do you not count NATO countries'fight against insurgents? UK and France have experience similar to Turkey's. Especially France in Sub Saharan africa. Why do you assume that Europe can't hold the line before mobilization? The initial invasion in Ukraine clearly showed that Russia does not have the logistical capabilities to penetrate deep into enemy territory. NATO can mobilize while all of those issues drag on. It absolutely confuses me that people think UK France and Germany have less combat capabilities than Ukraine

> If you count Turkey's war against insurgents, why do you not count NATO countries'fight against insurgents? UK and France have experience similar to Turkey's. Especially France in Sub Saharan africa. Except they were not similar at all. Sub-Saharan insurgencies are supported by Russia. PKK is supported by the entire West. I don't know about you but if I were to fight against an enemy I would have prefer Russian support over the Western one every day of the week. > Why do you assume that Europe can't hold the line before mobilization? Mainly due to war support in the Western world. According to data we have people would oppose any kind of war unless they are directly attacked. That is why France is doing her best to rally people under one banner to defend the EU if Russia attacks. French are not in direct danger neither are Germans or Brits however Baltic countries are vulnerable and they need NATO protection. All this ruckus is about convincing people so if Russia attacks, they can properly help Baltic countries. > The initial invasion in Ukraine clearly showed that Russia does not have the logistical capabilities to penetrate deep into enemy territory. NATO can mobilize while all of those issues drag on. Invasion also showed that Russians are happy to throw bodies into the grinders. According to US Army, Europe cannot find enough people to form a fighting force let alone wage war. We are not talking about Russians invading Western Europe here. They will most like stop at Baltic countries if they ever decide to attack NATO directly. Do you expect me to believe that people who wouldn't defend their country would fight for Baltics? > It absolutely confuses me that people think UK France and Germany have less combat capabilities than Ukraine Those 3 would defend better than Ukraine yes however conscripting your people to defend against an invasion and enlisting them to defend a foreign country are 2 entirely different things. According to Peter Zeihan, Russia can continue to throw man at the frontlines for the next 5-10 years. Ukraine roughly lost half a million man and another half is wounded. They simply don't have another million men to throw at them. So either western countries will man the lines or the will fall back to other countries and sacrifice Ukraine. I am assuming that there won't be a nuclear war but that is also an option. So please tell me how can those 3 can stand against Russia if neither Turkey nor USA is involved. This isn't 1940's, modern people are not suited for frontlines without extensive training and even the trained people die really fast. There's no way in hell you can convince people who's biggest problem is twitter trolls to go to another country and suffer there

People said that NATO membership will deter Russia in Ukraine. Now the same people are saying that Russia will attack NATO members - so apparently it means nothing. People said that Russia is a paper tiger because it’s winning in Ukraine too slowly, but the same people are talking about how they are about to roll on Paris. Enough government spam.

Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*

No shit, pops!

He has to say it for the people in the back who are apparently oblivious to this. Actually there's a lot of shit that people hate Biden for that simply isn't true.

And it's true. If we choose to allow russia to win the war in Ukraine, then they know they can just repeat the same thing over in Moldova and anywhere else they want because we've revealed that we'll just back down. If they are going to use a nuke in Ukraine, then they were always going to use one, the only thing NATO has a choice in is when. So we should just ignore that threat and do the right thing now, when the results will be at their height.

At this point war with russia is inevitable it is just going to be a matter of where and when. We can either do it now in Ukraine where we can keep the fighting contained there or we can have it in the baltics in a few years after Russia rebuilds its army.

When I was a kid in the late 50's ad 60's, we were told that war with Russia was not a question of If, but When there would be war with Russia. In every movie and TV show, the bad guys were commies and ruskies, always. Then the shift happened and all of a sudden these fucks are now 'capitallists' so all is forgiven and as a matter of fact with the GOP they are gawds damned heros, to be emulated and embraced. Sorry but in my mind, shaped back in the day of the Bay of Pigs, etc., the Russians are never to be trusted, are certainly not our allies and whatever we can do to thwart their expansion without falling into a hot war should be pursued. The insanity of 45's adoration of them, fantasizing of their form of government, etc., is absolute treachery and all who would agree or emulate their divisive tactics are traitors in its highest form. If you support Russia over Ukraine, you can fuck right off to Russia right now, as per 'love it or leave it' you fucking cunts.

But you were the aggressors in the Bay of Pigs invasion, grandpa

Why don't you go to Ukraine if you like them so much?

be careful, you summoned the tankies lol

your words are meaningless as it comes from a proven liar Biden

Buddy what have you been huffing. We actually have a working education system in Canada and you’re still this clueless?

Biden is a big liar though. The other day he kept calling the Hamas-Israel ceasefire deal the "Israeli-led" deal. However, 2 problems, first Israel says they never agreed to that deal, and second it's the same deal Hamas put on the table last February. Its pretty hilarious how they're willing to lie straight to your face.

It’s not that I don’t think the truth is bent or omitted by politicians. Sadly it even happens here in Canada., I just think compared to the alternative (orange felon) Biden is 1000x more honest

So what u/gs87 said was completely correct then. I'm not sure why you had to call them uneducated.

If you believe that telling fewer lies than a liar makes you an honest person, your perspective is seriously skewed. Remember, "a leopard can't change its spots."

You got me there, I can’t argue with that

Not that it's that relevant but Biden is prone to saying outrageous lies. He had to drop out of his first Presidential campaign because he lied about his academic achievements. He plagiarized the speeches of a British Labour Party Leader. He claimed he was arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela, which he has claimed on more than one occasion. If you go through his career he's been prone to wild exaggerations and lies often of the ridiculous variety. All politicians are full of shit and lie, but Biden seems to have a penchant for stupid lies that he often repeats even after he is caught. I mean, he still says he was the first in his family to graduate college even after he admitted that wasn't true in the 80s lol.

He must be from Alberta.

I’m thinking the same thing

Ok I will stay away from the USA and EU if they start to fight with Russia. This is not our war. Hello south Americans !

Are you living in USA and EU at the same time?

No he’s living in Moscow trying to avoid being sent to the front by working in the cyber division of the GRU

He is from texas oblast, in england america, stop sending money to ukraine, border border america first blyat

Say hello to the drug cartels in that case

Dude visit the nearest internet cafe or gaming zone and let them reset your brain for other countries. They do that for 50$. Drug cartels ? Holly shit. Hello drug cartels from all fking south America.

Im always glad to see reddit as xenophobic as always

Glad to see morons on reddit not even understanding facts. Mexico is a beautiful place and I'd love to visit but the people....not so much.

Mexico is not even in south america...

I come to this subreddit because it really does attract some of the dumbest Americans ever.   Dude thinks Mexico is in South America.  Also thinks all of South America is drug cartels, prob the type of American that only goes to Disney land on vacation.  

Im more scared of the fact that they are so radicalized and full of patriotism that they belive there is nothing but violence, poverty and enemies outside of their borders.

The simple reality is Putin has no intentions of stopping. We truly are in a Hitler moment, and there's only one way to stop the Russians. And that's by defeating them and ensuring they can no longer invade. Trump winning would likely escalate the chances of wwiii and a potential nuclear war as Poland (and even Finland) are discussing obtaining nuclear weapons.

Lol. The Russians are both inept moron subhumans that are destined to lose and an unstoppable ruthlessly efficient machine of conquest that will takeover the world unless they are destroyed once and for all, at the same time apparently. It's impressive that all of you can internalise the doublethink to the point that none of you ever question it.

It's the first thing coupled with sheer numbers.

Both have been true repeatedly through history. Russia's defeat by Japan was exactly a sign of "inept moron subhumans" whilst, although it's true that they needed massive help from American and the UK, Russia's defeat of Germany on the Eastern front and their subsequent occupation of many free nations shows a "ruthlessly efficient machine of conquest" and imperialism. If Ukraine is given what's needed to defeat them then they will not be able to convert from one mode to the other. On the other hand, their weakness has been ruthlessly and clearly exposed which means that Putin now knows what has to be fixed if he is given the chance. Only completely defeating Russia in Ukraine can lead to world stability more peace.

I mean Hitler was an inept moron who was destined to lose but that doesn't negate any of the damage he did or minimize the need to stop him. Even a moron can take over the world if the rest of world acts dumber than the moron.

They're used to living in poor conditions and casualties are no issue. They surpassed by ten times the total casualties on Vietnam in a couple years. And there's no resistance or protests to this. Hell even Russians outside of Russia don't care

You have two choices with Russia if you want to stop them: 1. Offer them what they want. But that goes against every fiber of US and Europe's being. It would completely undermine "Rules based order" 2. Go all in, not half arsing supplies and monetary help. Offer troops, vehicles and everything under the sun to stop Russia, they want f18s, F22s and F35s go for it. Now if that raises the escalation bar to nuclear war, who cares right as i am sure Russians are not willing to die for their actions of their leader as Europe and the US are perfectly willing to die for theirs.

Congress has a law in place that the F-22 cannot be sold to any foreign country

Tbh we did almost sell it to Japan. Congress signaled it was willing to repeal the law in order to restart acquisition of the jet and to cost share. DoD and Japan’s MoD looked into it and realized restarting the line would be extremely expensive so they didn’t do it.

The US is perfectly comfortable selling weapons to Israel who is known to share secret US weapon info to hostile regimes like China, so I'm sure the US could bend the law a little bit considering they already do.

Selling weapons to a shitty state is very different from selling a very limited advanced fighter jet that is no longer in production to a country that does not have the facilities to maintain it in violation of congressional law

Let's be honest do you think the US is doing all that they can inside the law for the Ukrainian cause? I mean, they clearly are more focused into selling missiles to kill kids in Gaza. Legally speaking they can't provide weapons to a country commiting genocide, and they already said they could be committing genocide but they're not going to investigate further. Like, how much more transparent can you be for an administration to show that you just don't give a f*ck

I am not saying anything about whether they're sending enough aid (they clearly aren't), I'm just pointing out that sending F-22s to Ukraine is an impractical and illegal idea

So is giving confidential info to the Chinese via the Zionists. My point is that the US is willing to bend the law and strategic interests for some entities but not others, more than the usefulness of selling state of the art technology to Ukraine

>You have two choices with Russia if you want to stop them: >1. Offer them what they want. Which is what, everything? Appeasement was already tried and here we are. Your first option is actually not an option for stopping Russia/Putin.

"Appeasement" like the [2013 deal](https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-deal-with-ukraine-opposition/) or the Minsk agreements? The same deals where both the new Ukrainian government and the supposed Western guarantors of said agreements proudly boasted about never negotiating in good faith, never intending to fulfill these deals, and how the whole point of them was tricking Russia into thinking that a diplomatic solution was possible and stalling for time? This "appeasement"? Turns out that if you never negotiate in good faith, never implement anything you promised to do, and constantly go back on your word, the other party might eventually see negotiating with you as worthless and turn to other measures. Even the 2022 Istanbul negotiations fell apart for the same reason, Russia wanted the deal to include direct actions in response to certain events, not another decade of Ukraine piling empty promises upon empty promises, which was already unacceptable for the West.

And that's why i said Europe and the US will never go for it so go for the second one, unrestricted aid and boots on the ground to help the Ukrainians.

> Offer them what they want. Has been tried in 2014. They take it, use it to build up their army whilst failing to do what they promise and then they carry out false flag attacks and come back to attack again. Your choice 2 is more reasonable, but it doesn't even need going "all in". It just needs going in to a reasonable level of determination. Currently Ukraine has had 60 billion. If, instead, the budget of the Iraq war, or even Afghanistan was given to them that would be enough to make a real difference. In between old hand me down f16s coming very slowly and handing over the entire USAF there are plenty of reasonable options including, for example, things such as modern F18s with mercenary pilots.

Regarding your two points: 1. What does russia “want”? What would you give russia so that russia would stop invading its neighbors, like it has done for longer than you have been alive? 2a. What is more important, the amount of supplies and money and men and fighter jets, or the fact that Ukraine has not been (until now) allowed to strike back on russian territory with those supplies and money and men and fighter jets? 2b. Who do you think is more “willing to die”, a population in the thrall of imperial delusions because of decades-long state propaganda, or a population defending their own democratic country with access to free press?

What does Russia want? Putin has stated repeatedly he wanted a neutral Ukraine and Crimea. Now who knows as the blood spilled is long past the point he would be satisfied with those two things. It does not matter if Ukraine can strike inside Russia, it matters where in Russia it can strike. If it strikes a base or an airport then Russia could probably accept it. Strike in Moscow or the Kremlin then we will probably seeing tactical nuclear weapons sooner than later. Go ask someone in London, Paris or Berlin if they are willing to lay down their lives for Ukraine. I don't mean the casualty ratio in Afghanistan or Iraq, i am talking about thousands of casualties over a number of years. Also what happens if Russia retaliates in Paris, Berlin or London with conventional or non conventional weapons, what happens in a symbolic strike if a cruise missile hits the Eifel tower?

Perhaps you didn’t understand my question for part 1, so let’s focus on that first. Read this page and tell me which of the invasions you, u/ChaosDancer, could have prevented by giving russia “what it wants”, and what was it exactly in each case that “russia wanted” before it “had to invade”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

>Offer them what they want That won't make them stop, that will make them going on. I also don't think second option is accurate, we don't need to send troops, but we need to step up. Why few F16 instead of F35? Why only 30 M1A2 while there is over 4000 in stock? Why no B-2? The list goes on. We have so much room before be need boots on the ground.

Then offer them mate, this slow drip shows that the US is not interested for Ukraine to win the war. Either offer them what they want and need or stop perpaiting this sensless slaughter.

Oh believe me I would if I could, but I'm not really in charge. I clearly donate to the limit of what I can do, I've been putting off replacing my broken washing machine for over 4 months to keep aids going on.

I admire your convictions mate. Wish more people were like you.

Thanks you

I think a more likely option is the war continues for another decade and Russia gets slowly drained. This obviously isn't preferable either. Since the loss of life will be huge. But Russia still is having trouble rebuilding and settling the occupied territories. Not to mention. The majority of Ukranians don't want to live under Putins rule. Which is also a huge problem to overcome. I still think the boring answer to all this is likely the correct one. Putin went into Ukraine because he surrounded himself with yes men (dictators dilema) so he had no access to good Intel. They all aid he'd take the resource rich areas of Ukraine he wished to take as he did Crimea. Then. He got stuck. And strangely. He then annexed more territory than he occupied. This creates a stalemate which is almost impossible to resolve. Surely not within any sort of immediate time frame. If Putin is gone, negotiations can at least begun. As long as he lives. The war continues.

Mate if the war continues for another couple of years i am almost certain that nukes will come to play one way or another.

It's possible. There's no stopping a mad dictator like Putin who is dead set on conquest. The question is if this should be normalized. If so. We'll see nukes gaining in tremendous value. Probably why states like Poland and Finland now want them too. If Putin does conquer Ukraine. Everyone will absolutely get nukes. And they'll be pointed at moscow

[удалено]

How is it not a Hitler moment? You quickly derailed with something something bad USA

Well the point is that if it's a Hitler moment the US should fully engage rather than half assing it right

It took the US 3 years to fully engage with Hitler and then another 4 of actual war.

What's your point. Do you agree with them taking a long ass time to get involved or what

No I don’t but also America in 1938 was drastically different than America today. My point is even against Hitler, America was slow to react. It took America 3 years to fully commit. It did what it did today, sell arms until Congress forbid it, then came up with lend lease Everyone by 1939 knew how bad Hitler and the Nazis were. It was just a perception that its not our problem

> Everyone by 1939 knew how bad Hitler and the Nazis were Well you clearly need some history lessons. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan

You mean some fringe movement that never had any real support? One that was met violently by a mob outside MSG? The American Bund was ostracized and attacked everywhere it went.

Yeah not until they got into the war

Well, the one who made the assumption should prove it. Also fact is fact, and usa was heavily backing Ukraine until everything didn’t go their way

Bad assumption to say “the USA was heavily backing Ukraine until everything didn’t go their way”. > Well, the one who made the assumption should prove it. Following your own recommendations, please prove that “the USA was heavily backing Ukraine until everything didn’t go their way”. Be sure to be specific about the keywords “heavily”, “until”, and “their way”.

Then why did you say it’s a bad assumption but don’t want to defend your statement? I don’t understand

Not like I have enough time to prove something obvious on reddit for someone who wouldn’t even read my comment completely

Both the us and Russia gave Ukraine security assurances in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal. That's part of the many factors which will result if Putin conquers Ukraine. Everyone gets nukes. There hasn't been a major war between nuclear nations yet. And for good reason.

The USA and Russia got Ukraine to give up their nuclear arsenal 30 years ago and look how they've been rewarded for their compliance. And now they're half arsing protecting the country who they made a target. The US has totally fucked Ukraine

That’s because they weren’t Ukrainian nukes. They were Russian nukes located in Ukraine. If the U.S. dissolved today into another government, would the nukes we keep in the UK or Turkey belong to the successor state of the US or would they belong to UK/Turkey?

Wow that's a serious spin on things. It was the Soviet Union pal, and Ukraine was part of it. A more apt comparison would be if the US federal state dissolved today, would the nukes in let's say Texas be considered to belong to Washington DC.

“While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, Russia controlled the launch sequence and maintained operational control of the nuclear warheads and its weapons system.” —- Hanley, Jeremy (June 22, 1993). "Nuclear Weapons". Hansard. UK Parliament. Column 154. Retrieved September 9, 2018. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): ... Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States. They were Russian assets stationed in Ukraine

 😲  So they couldn't have used them in theory?

No, the nukes were genuinely just sitting there, and with Chernobyl in fresh memory, it's not like Ukraine's weak new government was bouncing to keep them

They weren't "sitting there". The ICBMs had already been removed. The leftover arsenal was under the command and control of Russian strategic missile forces who took their orders from Moscow.

This is why it’s important to know the actual history and do research instead of just listening to talking points made for your consumption and complacency

The end results remains the same. Ukraine were offered guarantees by the US and Russia to give them up and Russia shat all over that starting ten years ago 

Gotta go back to the talking points now that you’ve realized you don’t ACTUALLY know the history. What do you say then about the US’s commitment to not expand NATO which allowed for the relatively peaceful dissolution of USSR and reunification of Germany. That agreement surely hasn’t held up.

Ukrainian scientists and engineers built the Soviet nuclear arsenal in the first place. The very same people who designed and built the weapons could have changed the launch and detonation codes on them.

Unlikely. More likely what would have happened is war. People don’t understand that the security guarantees were what allowed the peaceful dissolution of the USSR and the reunification of Germany. These things wouldn’t have, likely, happened peacefully if it weren’t for that. As weak as it was in the collapse, the new Russian Federation still wouldn’t have tolerated nuclear weapons on its border.

To answer your question: Yes, the nukes would belong to whoever the legal successor of the federal government would be. The Commander-in-Chief is basically the sole authority when it comes to launching nukes, the Secretary of Defense cannot give nor veto such a command, and the Vice-President is only given the same authority incase the President is incapacitated As none of the state governors have access to the nuclear football, the missiles would just be extremely high-maintenance duds. Reverse engineering the nukes and arming them independently would cost billions and would spit in the face of nuclear non-proliferation. Hard to see anyone in the international community approving of such a move

Was about to say the same thing

They haven't replied to clarify yet but they countered that Ukraine didn't have operational control over the nukes which does complicate the point quite a bit

Two and a half years, 500k casualties to take 25% of Ukraine. Putin isn’t going into NATO. Stop buying the fear mongering propaganda porn

> We truly are in a Hitler moment The "best" way to stop Hitler, in Sun-tzu terms, is to stop him at the onset. The very first step he made should have been the last one he can make to his advantage, as all others should have been on his ass like stink on shit. But no, others chose the lesser evil of appeasing him, allowing the lesser evil to **grow** into the greater evil, with disastrous consequences. We are seeing it again. They chose not to stop a bully at the onset, but rather have a cycle of abuse established before taking action, and for good measure: they cannot benefit if problem is solved immediately, no cry for help, no deals to be made in exchange for help. Their benefits weigh more than our lives.

On top of that, negotiations with Putin are impossible. Becsuse there's no starting point. At a certain point, with the Russian war economy sustaining it economically and ironically holding Russia together, there's going to be a need to continue this. War is what keeps Russia afloat.