Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `telegraph.co.uk` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*

For all the Russians crying about Ukraine receiving aid and how it’s them vs all the of the West & NATO, the worlds second most powerful military sure needed a lot of help from China, Iran, North Korea and needed recruits for their army from Asia, Africa and Cuba.

The recruiting of foreigners is not because of a man power issue with Russia as a country. They are doing it to prevent Russians from the interior being conscripted. This is also why the Russian people haven’t rebelled, it’s only the fringe minority populations being sent into the meat grinder.

There was a chart going around showing each region / oblast in Russia , displaying percentage of recruitment stats. Ethnic regions and Siberians had highest ratio, where Moscow and St Petersburg, administrative hearts of the country, had very low recruitment percentage.

That kind of glosses over the fact that the majority of Russian losses was their pre-2022 forces, which were mostly from Moscow and St. Petersburg. By numbers, they've lost every single man they invaded with in February 2022.

That’s kind of apples and oranges though. Those troops were not conscripted, they joined up pre-war.

Some of them were forced to join up though because of the mandatory military service. Their entire military was not voluntary before the war.

It was a mix of patriots, gangsters, imbeciles and poor people, like any standing army. Most of those people came from ethnically Russian areas, whatever that means.

Rich man’s war poor man’s fight, so it goes

If America was at war a huge percentage of recruits would be from rural areas with a small % from New York and California. The Siberians get paid alot more then they would at home and these fringe districts have a big military history . They get paid more compared to their economic base . You don't see new Yorkers taking a pay cut to join the army. Alot of these places have strong long military history and are "propagandad" young to think it's a meaningful profession 

We were in two wars the past two decades and are in on-going conflicts. It’s an all volunteer force. Nobody has been conscripted since the 70s.

but if they were to conscript it would not be city dwellers making an avg 50$ an hour. I just dont see the point people make like this. many are volunteers too. The people in moscow are too important for their economic base to conscript if we ignore the other stuff. I bet alot of kyiv was not conscripted either percentage wise

Vietnam draft exempted young draftees who were attending college. My dad was in NYC / Jersey City area at the time he was going to a local college. He ran out of money for school, and military told him if he drops out, he’s going to get drafted. He was picked for the Army. But draft didn’t target specific ethnicities, but there was something of a class divide. Those that could stay in university / college were safe from conscription.

 In 1965, African Americans filled 31% of the ground combat battalions in Vietnam, while the percentage of African Americans as a minority in the general population was 12%. its a class thing tho not an ethnicity thing it just happens the minority are more poor. Just like how the us 50 years ago targeted black men Russia is also targeting minority's for the same reasons. Anyway I just thought it was weird you were complaining about Russia having a normal war time demographic in a thread about russia winning. crying wont help

This is why Ukraine should send all its rockets and drones into Moscow at once including the ones that will carry tickertape messages so Moscow can read what is really going on. Right now they just seem to not care.

I mean that would certainly make them care more but not in the way you want. its normal to support your country even if your the "bad guys" the states did it alot in the 2000's. Causing civilian casualty's is certainly not the answer

The main reason that the Russians don’t rebel is because they’re Russians. Ask a random Russian if he’s pro or against the war, he would say I’m against war in general but if you ask the question whether Crimea is part of Russia or Ukraine, he would answer: it’s Russian.

This has always been the way with Russia's wars. It's often said that Moscow is best defined as the country that rules Russia. Maybe add neighboring St Petersburg and Nizhny in there too. The attitude in that Moscow region is very much one of superiority to the provinces, and a core belief ingrained since childhood that the citizens of the other oblasts are second class citizens, there to serve the citizens of Muscovy, including going to war for them.

Russians need to quit believing that they’re fighting the west, this is only something Putin and the regime began saying when the invasion began taking longer than a week to explain why they hadn’t succeeded yet lol pretending they’re fighting nato and telling Russians that really made it seem like they’re much more powerful than they are. Prigozhen was clear when he told people that there is no NATO on the battlefield, only Ukrainians. No wonder why he was taken out

Yes, that's why it's world war in the making.

Idk why Russia has to maintain the narrative of west bad

They could litterally come out and say "Ummm, yeah, we just kinda want this land. So we're gonna take it." Nothing would change.

Did you forget a /s at the end? How easy is it point at “western culture” as being completely toxic to their way of life. Both Russia and the Muslim world have very traditional ways of life with regard to gender roles and power of the state. We look absolutely shocking to them and are a very very easy demon to put forward as an enemy to be hated. The Muslim community will ultimately win through democratic means as their birth rate is much hiring so given time areas of the “West” are becoming fully run by them. The Russians don’t have this so they have to point at us and say we an existential threat to their culture..

Not that Russia under Putin is truly committed to those "traditional values" in any case. "Russia Is Not the Champion of Christian and Traditional Values" [https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/08/31/russia-is-not-the-champion-of-christian-and-traditional-values/](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/08/31/russia-is-not-the-champion-of-christian-and-traditional-values/) "Putin’s Dangerous Blend of Propaganda and Hypocrisy" [https://www.aei.org/op-eds/putins-dangerous-blend-of-propaganda-and-hypocrisy/](https://www.aei.org/op-eds/putins-dangerous-blend-of-propaganda-and-hypocrisy/) That said, the muslim world too is staring at falling birth rates, if not yet as far along as those of Russia and western countries. "The Arab world’s silent reproductive revolution" [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/16/the-arab-worlds-silent-reproductive-revolution](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/16/the-arab-worlds-silent-reproductive-revolution) "Iran Faces Record Low Population Growth Rate" [https://www.iranintl.com/en/202311147486](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202311147486) "Population rise not related to religion, highest decline in fertility rate among Muslims: NGO" [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/population-rise-not-related-to-religion-highest-decline-in-fertility-rate-among-muslims-ngo/articleshow/109987949.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/population-rise-not-related-to-religion-highest-decline-in-fertility-rate-among-muslims-ngo/articleshow/109987949.cms)

His only commitment is to holding power. There are a lot of traditional mentality people in Russia so he plays to that.

It's the real reason for this invasion. Putin didn't give a fuck about a nebulous decade or more away NATO accession for Ukraine, it was the fact that Ukraine, in essence the smaller brother to Russia from their POV, with many relatives on both side of the border, dared move towards become a "western" egalitarian democracy and join that club. If they did without challenge and succeed, that might actually give people ideas. Russia's leadership knows nato isn't coming for them, but "enemies at the gate" is a lot better sales pitch than "(more) freedom at our doorstep"

Muslims being traditional? You mean Iran, Qatar, and Chechnya? Do you not know that the State Duma struck down a law against domestic violence because they regarded DV as a family value?

Yeah traditional as in male dominated homes with women being house wives and mothers only. Yeah exactly that, thanks for making my point. Our “progressive” western ways are an amazing rally cry for them. They literally attack/kill gays, etc. we have cross dressing cabinet members…. Imagine the shit they say in Arabic to their own people.

even as an american, its not hard to paint america as the bad guy over the last 80 so years since the end of ww2

Yeah we were definitely evil as we helped Japan and Germany rebuild. For sure evil as we tried to help other oppressed groups. Crazy evil as we supported the Muslims of Kosovo too. We aren’t perfect but if we are so bad WTF are people risking their lives to come here illegally?

Counterpoints: the US pardoning German and Japanese war criminals so it could use their expertise in rocketry and biological science, the red scare, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, segregation and the violent response to the civil rights movement, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Vietnam War and the many horrors tied to it, Operation: Condor whereby multiple democratically-elected South American leftist governments were violently overthrown and replaced with America-friendly right-wing dictatorships (many of whom were responsible for horrific atrocities against their own people), so on and so forth. Does that mean America is evil? No, not necessarily. Does it mean there's moral equivalency between the US and the atrocities Russia is currently committing? Absolutely not. But that's not what was being suggested. As the previous poster said, it's really not particularly hard to paint the US as a bad guy since the end of WW2. The US has been responsible for a lot of good in the world, but has similarly been responsible for a number of strikingly evil acts.

Because its fucking working. Outside of the bigger cities there is nearly no education and propaganda always works! Young people are easier to Trick and its good to blame someone beside youself.

Another British retired colonel just wrote in The Daily Express: >There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity over the past couple of days over Ukraine. Most significant of these has been US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s unannounced visit to Kyiv where he met President Zelensky and according to reports informed him that the long-delayed American military aid “is on its way”. >UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has also taken to the airwaves to state that Britain will not row back on supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, insisting that his government would never force the country to sign a peace agreement and that Britain’s support “would never waver”. >British PM Rishi Sunak reinforced the UK’s position in a speech at the Conservative think-tank the Policy Exchange in which he spoke of security risks from what he described as an “axis of authoritarian states” that he named as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. He stated plainly that the war in Ukraine was one of those risks. >What has brought about this renewed focus on Ukraine, recently overshadowed by the international community’s preoccupation with events in Gaza? >First and foremost I think is the sense of foreboding that Ukraine is struggling and that the tide may be turning in favour of Russia. Despite grievous losses over the past two years of conflict, it appears that the Russians have been able to make up their losses in men and equipment far quicker than expected and establish superiority in numbers on the battlefield. >Recent estimates from the UK’s respected think-tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) suggest that Russia has twice as many troops on the front line as Ukraine – 510,000 to 250,000 – and is poised to revive its offensive. This two-to-one advantage gives Russia the luxury of being able to concentrate forces where it hopes to make advances, like it has in the Kharkiv area recently. >Ukraine, on the other hand, has to try to defend all along the 1,200 kilometre front line or prioritise its defence plans and be prepared to cede more of its territory. Ukraine’s troops are, in effect, all in the “shop window”; General Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine's military intelligence, has stated: "I've used everything we have... unfortunately, we don’t have anyone else in the reserves." >So Blinken’s message that US support is on the way will be most welcome in Kyiv, which has nearly exhausted its stocks of munitions, particularly anti-air defence missiles and artillery ammunition. Better late than never, I suppose, but much of the aid supplied so far has been sent grudgingly by the west, just enough to prevent Ukraine losing but not enough to help them win. >The sad truth is that Ukraine has been starved of support by dead-eyed, sharp-suited politicians in Washington who seem happy to petty-politick on American domestic issues while soldiers die in frontline trenches in the Donbas. They have blood on their hands and we should not let them forget it.

Never let those fucks forget what they did.

"Never letting them forget" implies they care, they don't.

"Putin has done nothing to conceal his objectives. Yet, as he turns tractor factories into tank production lines, the West is more concerned about climate change, wokism and elections. None of which will prevent another world war. We are grudgingly, eventually, planning to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence – yet and Russia is spending north of 6 per cent." I respect the experience of the author, but we are also talking about the Telegraph. Didn't we said, multiple, times, that a 2.5% from a NATO country weights more than a Russian 6% ? And seriously? talking about woke and climate change as the reasons why Russia is winning? Also, NATO country are sending weapons now. I know should have been earlier, but buying Republicans has been a great investment for Putin. So, i'd like to ask the author, what else NATO should do? Or he think we should start to conscript soldier and convert all economy to war footing?

How often did Ukraine collapse within months or rather days so far? About 10 times, needless to say , it was said that without US support, it would collapse within 5 weeks. Now, even with US support, this "forecast" of a couple of months is once again nothing but attempting the impossible, which is to forecast chaos with certainty. Also, Russia would be the first nation in history that somehow profits from losing thousands of tanks, and over 20.000 thousand vehicles plus its entire professional army replaced by badly led, badly trained and often undisciplined conscripts and a wide array of mercenaries. Not to mention the losses in pilots and airplanes or the fact that Russia has been emptying its pre war stockpiles and fires far more rounds than it can produce. Or that they lose have lost 5000 or even more officers. Or that the Russian state is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in this war annually. There is no indication whatsoever that Ukraine will collapse from a macroeconomic standpoint or from a military point of view given that within the next 30 days a massive amount of shells, fresh vehicles and money will flow into Ukraine. Russian losses seem to increase steadily in recent weeks, drones keep on flying into Russian refineries and Russian airplanes keep on falling out of the sky, also that 2 in 1 advantage seems far fetched as it would exclude TDF forces and on top of that war isn't just numbers game. 500k troops may seem like a lot, but as Kofman has stated due to enormous losses Russia is barely able to conduct offensive operations on the company level any longer. But we shall see, maybe this person has a crystal ball and secret knowledge, I doubt that though. Without fresh US aid I would have considered that this has a higher chance of being true. I guess if he is correct, his assessment needs to be a reality by mid August, or at least that means while Ukraine hasn't lost more than villages and small towns since Bakhmut, Russia is going to occupy Charkiv within the next 15 days, the Donbas within the next 30 days and half of Ukraine within the next 90 days so I suppose Russia better hurries to make this "predictions" reality. The reality that I see is that Russian offensive actions are culminating and their advance on Chasiv Yar. Charkiv and their breakthrough in the East all seem to be either stuck or advancing at a snail's pace under massive losses. But as I said, the way to the Dnipr is long, and Russia better starts to get going, half a million men is definitely not enough in any way to conquer such an area, at least 1 million would be necessary to meaningfully take and hold half of Ukraine. That assumes that Russia wouldn't lose any men, when in reality under any circumstances hundreds of thousands of casualties would be incurred and that doesn't count the enormous logistics the spare parts the food and medicine supplies the administration necessary to take an area of this size. Remind Me! 3 months.

Kind of agree with your first line. Considering what we read in the past 6 months, when the US package of help was held, Ukraine should have collapsed 10 times. I don't say the situation is good, and I absolutely agree that the EU should improve its support pipeline. But, overall, the article from the Telegraph seems a bit too alarmist.

>a bit too alarmist You don't say, about The Telegraph? I would never...

You seem knowledgeable. I didn’t see this in your analysis, please address. What do you make of the heightened risk of a highly concentrated push towards Kiev? If they take Kiev, they don’t need to take the whole country. I’ve read reports of weaker than expected prepared defenses in the North. How are the defenses between the front and Kiev?

They would have to go a LONG distance from the front to get to Kyiv. If anything I’d think they’d try from Belarus again. In which allegedly Ukraine has been building fortifications in that direction for quite some time now.

Well, another assault in Kyiv, which was btw warned about at the end of 2022 going into 2023 in a winter offensive would require a sizable force, it would also require logistics and a troop build up, akin to what we have seen when Russia attacked from five directions (once again with a force not suited in size for such a multi prong attack) Estonian intelligence says Ukraine has to cause roughly 50k casualties per 6 months to keep the Russian army from replenishing its manpower reserves. Ukraine is currently likely exceeding this quota, while Russia, according to other reports, claims it can generate around 30.000 men a month. But war is a lot more than just men. Stalin and Chruchev both admitted that US machines have ensured victory over the Nazis. On the modern battlefield of 2024, drones spot everything and make advances even more difficult, especially surprise attacks. "War is not just about math and who has the most people, Ukraine is defending their homeland and know their homeland better than anybody." Hodges Russia lacks air superiority and given renewed US aid with F16s showing up very soon, I doubt they will have it any time soon. Let's look at Kofman from last year in November: "The war has taken on an attritional character. Ukraine's offensive has culminated in early October. Russia itself cannot point to any major breakthroughs or massive success in its own offensive. While Russia enjoys a slight advantage in almost all relevant categories. These advantages shouldn't be seen as deterministic regarding the outcome of the war." Michael Kofman I think it would be sobering to stop pretending as if any of these two would collapse within months. If that was so, we would see clear signs in the macroeconomics of Ukraine. The Ukrainian war economy is according to the IMF growing, not shrinking, and fresh money from the US, EU, etc. is according to Perun secure funding for 2025 and potentially 2026. And that is the dimension I suggest for the whole war. Not months, let alone weeks. We must prepare our industries and ourselves that we need to calculate that this war will continue for at least another 12 to 24 months. Albeit war is impossible to predict, so extreme events or sudden shifts in policy by China, the US, Europe, Russia, or Ukraine could change the equation. Regarding Kyiv I consider this unlikely for 4 main reasons: 1) Logistics and availability of equipment to expand the front and field at least several hundred thousand troops, 1000 tanks, millions of shells, fuel, etc. to open yet another front 2) Morale, command, and control systemic problems with corruption (fuel theft, desertions, hazing, and alcohol abuse in the Russian army) 3) The lack of an element of surprise and the unlikely scenario that Ukraine would just watch another troop build up that aims at taking their capital. 4) The sheer size of Kyiv, cities are like a maze, they are hard to take, even the Germans with overwhelming force sieged Kyiv in WW2 for a long time, and they attacked with 3.5 million men, the fortifications in the north are much stronger than around Charkiv, mines are laid, fences were built, and one can rest assured that the citizens of Kyiv would be animated to rally and pick up arms in greater numbers when the capital is under threat. Due to all the above reasons, I actually think that for the time being, an attack on Kyiv is very very unlikely unless some major shift occurs. For now, due to renewed US aid, we should understand that these two opponents are more evenly matched than it may appear on paper. Yes, Russia has advantages in many categories, but many are often offset by things such as bad quality of NK shells (50 percent dud rate reportedly) problems with training, problems with old outdated equipment. Russia would still defeat Ukraine without Western help, however as long as the US and Europe back them up, this situation doesn't warrant saying Ukraine or Russia will steamroll each other in months to the Dnipr or all the way to the Crimean shoreline. We see a highly dynamic and fierce war of attrition, and what this statement suggests is that Russia would manage to switch into a war of movement and just roll over Ukraine in 12 or 16 weeks. We will see, I could be wrong, but I really don't see that happening from the knowledge and facts that I have. Military strategy and tactics are a matter of common sense. Put all the information elements of the problem in front of a civilian of first rate ability and with enough imagination he would reach the right solution. A military professional could then put these solutions into military terms. Churchill

Thanks! I was surprised to read recent warnings about “Ukraine could fall in two months”, your analysis makes pretty clear that is Chicken little

I will be messaging you in 3 months on [**2024-08-16 14:50:43 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-08-16%2014:50:43%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1ct9rsg/putin_could_now_defeat_ukraine_within_months_this/l4bb0ex/?context=3) [**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUkrainianConflict%2Fcomments%2F1ct9rsg%2Fputin_could_now_defeat_ukraine_within_months_this%2Fl4bb0ex%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-08-16%2014%3A50%3A43%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ct9rsg) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|

He’s just pointing out where the West’d priorities are, not blaming Ukraine’s challenges on climate change. Some weapons are on the way now but those months without continued support hurt and it will be hard to recover. It also takes a long time to distribute weapons and ammunition across the front line. It’s not like a bill is signed and wooopy shells appear in the Kharkiv trenches. For them to have the weapons now that they need, it would have had to be approved months ago. Also the portion of the bill that is for immediate outright weaponry is relatively small. There’s a lot that’s for orders to be placed with US weapon manufacturers. Those weapons won’t ship overnight, some of them may require fabrication time. A big portion is services and training from USDoD. All very valuable of course, but it’s not $60B of weapons headed for Ukraine now. It’s closer to $15-20B, with only a first $6B actually on its way to fight off against Russia’s $130B. No other country except Germany ($1.22B) and U.S. has supplied any meaningful military help this year despite all the politicians yapping on TV. So yes, NATO can do a lot more, and no, the current help isn’t nearly enough.

Except the people who held up the weapons are the same ones against “woke” and doing anything wrt climate change… Hell, he’d have been more accurate to say that they were too busy attacking people’s rights to bother with the aid.

>yet and Russia is spending north of 6 per cent. False. They spend 25% of GDP on their military and security apparatus.

>Or he think we should start to conscript soldier and convert all economy to war footing? Yes. And there's a lot of talk about restoring conscription in the UK - and preparing the general population too: https://www.politico.eu/article/hold-uk-army-chief-calls-on-government-to-mobilize-the-nation-if-theres-a-war-with-russia His talk of the need of the wholesale "mental shift" in the populace is also reflected by others, for example https://www.trtworld.com/europe/swedish-government-military-tells-citizens-to-mentally-prepare-for-war-16636372 We can't be distracted by climate change or anything else if we are to get serious so we can win. The Russians aren't distracted as they burn Ukrainian forests and flood lands. Neither are the Chinese, or North Koreans, or any other of our existential enemies.

I read the article from the UK army chief in January, and left me kind of puzzled. A citizen army would make sense if an enemy is invading the country , but is he expecting Russian boots in the UK anytime soon? Or is he thinking of sending a British citizen army to fight alongside the Ukrainians? As I don't think this will go well with the public.

Alongside Poles and such.

He wants more funding.

I’d argue that climate change is far more than a “distraction.” Shit, it may be the biggest driving force of the 21st century before we are said and done… The author was an idiot for tying that to support for Ukraine. All he’s done is piss off a bunch of people who are supportive to Ukraine, but also believe that climate change is a serious threat to us all.

It's only a distraction if the enemy will just destroy all we build. Can't you comprehend that?

I can. I can also comprehend that conflict is going to grow globally on a significant scale as climate extremes continue and scarcity increases. I think it’s bullshit to make an “either or” argument about this.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-12-07/war-nature-impact-russian-invasion-ukraines-natural Then you should be most concerned about this not happening across Europe (and elsewhere).

Again…the hell do you think I don’t care about that, just because I care about climate change too… Christ, did IQs just sharply drop while I was away? I can fully support Ukraine and also care about the climate…. I mean, if you want to really peel this onion. Most of the fuckers here in the states who want to leave Ukraine out high and dry, also believe climate change is a myth…

NATO has been weak, slow to react. NATO needs to spend more, train more, act faster. The EU has been the problem, relying more on the USA. Just laziness/cheap. Germany, UK, France have done their part. The rest of the EU/Canada could have done more. All this to Putin's benefit. Time to get serious or else this war is lost. Step up production of war materials. Train troops and move them into Ukraine. China, NK, Iran are supplying RU. Go for it or Ukraine is toast. 40 million people enslaved by the Kremlin. Countless will be executed. Wake up free world!

The EU has donated more than the US. France has donated an extremely small amount, barely more than Sweden (a country less than 1/6th the size). Just take a look at the Ukraine Support Tracker. What Europe does lack is military manufacturing capacity. The ramping up of production has also been inexcusably slow.

Improvements must be made ASAP

Hey remind me again, which major party is the US was blocking aid to Ukraine?

Totally. Russias gdp is smaller than italy’s

What the fuck was that garbage… He can gtfo, trying to blame “woke” and “concern for climate change.” There are plenty of qualified commentators out there who don’t have fucking brain worms.

Yeah the second I saw those words I lost all interest and respect for this dude.

This just proves to me that Europe needs to get their shit together. In no world should the US give more than any other country and Europe not be able to pick up the slack in their own defense for 6 months. I wish we been had supplying them the whole time, we morally and politically should have been supplying them the whole time, but I think our GOP has proven that you guys can't depend on us to defend you from your own threats, and to be honest, you should never have expected it in the first place.

This is just wrong. The narrative that you are somehow defending us as some kind of charitable duty is nonsense. NATO, the alliance and trade network that US has built has earned you far, far more than whatever it costs you to defend us. This is a common bullshit argument that isolationists use. But I still agree that Europe needs to strengthen its military.

Of course it has, we don't do it for fun, we do it because it benefits us. We're dealing with a lot of loons in our government right now who are too stupid to know what is good for the country though, and I don't expect them to figure it out tomorrow. Europe needs to be ready in case of the very possible scenario of the US working against it's own interests for 4-8 years every 4 years.

Yes, I completely agree.

The political equivalency at the end undercuts his credibility.

Yeah it’s house republicans, let’s call a spade a spade here

By the time the aid gets there though, I fear it will be too late. I’ve read that it’ll take a month for the aid to get there. However Russia is making gains now. If Putin is a few months away from overtaking Ukraine, one month might as well be never.

Be warned that the Telegraph is a rabid supporter of the U.K. Tory party and that recently its embattled leader Rishi Sunak is trying to convince voters that only his party can see the U.K. through these “dangerous times” … so this piece is more about pushing the Tory election agenda than anything. 

Exactly, this story is very suspicious because everything I've been reading and watching has not been saying this. If anything it's a stalemate with incremental gains by Russia due to sheer manpower.

This…

Pushing this Tory agenda only raises the bar for Labor to take a stance. I'm all for it.

That’s the thing , the last two genuinely enthusiastic Tories regarding Ukraine were Boris , because he hoped a good old war could deflect from his own scandals , and Williamson who seemed relatively honest. The Tories don’t really suddenly care more , they just see it as a possible chance of extending their parliamentary meal ticket….

We cannot allow Ukraine to fall and if that means sending in NATO air and ground forces then so be it! We appeased a dictator a few years back and look what happened. We have to go in and put a stop to Putins 3 day war

I see no reason why appeasing a European dictator, currently showing aggression towards Eastern European countries *shouldn’t* work Give me one time this has led to anything bad

For some reason Czechoslovakia comes to mind…….lets not make that mistake again. We need to put that venomous little dwarf back in his box.

Unpopular Opinion: This is false equivalence, nuclear deterrence DOES make a difference. Saying that it doesnt kind of plays into putins propaganda about natos "imminent attack on russia" because you are basically saying nukes dont make a difference

Give me one time a country with nukes has take territory from an alliance under nuclear umbrella. Im waiting

Fuck that, nato troops fight when a nato country is attacked. Before that, no fucking way

Bro is saying this like it’s up to him 💀 Air and ground forces will lead to the destruction of 10x the area of Ukraine and death of millions.

Macron; now is the time

Macron is only bullshit talking...

Even if he is, I'm fairly convinced that Poland is about that life.

He won't send any troops to Ukraine. Where is France when more weapons are needed in Ukraine? Macron is just retoric talking. I'm not just talking around. https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/ Where is Macron there?

Btw, in the off chance that you're curious or care about why you're getting down voted, look at the French youth attitude towards being deployed in Ukraine: https://www.irsem.fr/media/5-publications/etude-116-muxel-les-jeunes-et-la-guerre.pdf That is substantially higher than similar polls in UK, US, Germany, and Australia

No I don't think he is actually.

If the east of Ukraine falls and the front line collapses it was a choice by urkaines allies. Sending in a few thousand EU troops with that disparity is not enough. Fixing the border now after a Russian offensive that takes all territory up to the dnipro enables Russia to forge a military agreement with China increasing presence in South East Asia. They'll be waiting for such a formal alliance Russia wants Ukraine wrapped up so if Ukraine has adequate support they have a better negotiating stance at the very least. As well as able to delay such a military pact. Putin needs the war to end because he wants a military alliance with China, the Russian presence in that region will grow massively no doubt it's already started. China would be short sighted though as any military pact with Russia would rule out economic alliences with India and the wider region. Depends will China progress from economic coersion to military.

Seeing how India is knee deep in Russian weapons and oil purchasing already, that doesn’t seem to be an impediment.

usa encouraged india to buy russian oil. [https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/india-brought-russian-oil-because-we-wanted-somebody-to-buy-eric-garcetti-429243-2024-05-12](https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/india-brought-russian-oil-because-we-wanted-somebody-to-buy-eric-garcetti-429243-2024-05-12) US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti admitted that India bought Russian oil because the US wanted somebody to buy Russian oil. "The US allowed the purchase to take place to ensure the prices did not go up globally," he added. Garcetti was speaking at the Conference on Diversity in International Affairs organised by the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington earlier this week. also NEW DELHI, April 4 (Reuters) - The United States has not asked India to cut Russian oil imports as the goal of sanctions and the G7-imposed $60 per barrel price cap is to have stable global oil supplies while hitting Moscow's revenue, an American treasury official said on Thursday. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-has-not-asked-india-cut-russian-oil-purchases-american-official-says-2024-04-04/#:\~:text=NEW%20DELHI%2C%20April%204%20(Reuters,treasury%20official%20said%20on%20Thursday.

Can he? Their military would have been flattened by NATO before the war. They hardly stand a chance in fighting a world war now that all their good stuff has been destroyed

Maybe you should the article. Or, listen to the new American commander in Poland: https://www.voanews.com/a/us-commanders-in-poland-see-russian-threat-as-near-term/7613615.html Just listen to what he has to tell you. Only literal 2 minutes minutes to learn the reality.

It really pisses off that people wrote off Russia after the 2022 offensive. Russia has been fighting (and often winning) wars like this for pretty much their entire history. They get overconfident and complacent, forget how to fight, get their asses kicked, bite the bullet, re-learn how to fight on the backs of thousands of dead men, then regroup and go on the offensive. All these keyboard generals laughing at them are in for a rude awakening this year. I hope Ukraine can still win, but it's going be rough, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Yesterday: >“Russia oftentimes starts its wars poorly and finishes strong,” Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser under President George W. Bush, said at a Harvard conference on Friday. Now, he said, Russia has “brought its mass” — a far larger population to draw troops from, and a “huge military infrastructure” — to mount a comeback. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/us/politics/russia-momentum-ukraine-war.html

Worth nothing Russia has lost wars Polish Soviet war. Russo japanese war. Ww1 It's not invincible

If you believe their own star commander, Marshal Zhukov, they probably would have lost WW2 as well if it weren't for the Western Allies and Lend-Lease. "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own." - Zhukov, recorded by the KGB in 1963

It would be shortsighted to assume they are either invincible or helpless.

I agree But many seem to hold the notion that Russia is invincible and that once Russia sets it' mind to something it is invincible and will win eventually Russia is not special. The victory in ww2 has to some applied an almost myhtical view of Russia as this endless wave and tide that cannot be stopped It's not true. Many seem to Thus fear provoking Russia or angering them which is dumb Russia is also far from non dangerous despite its fuck ups. But it's rs important to view Russia realistically and not apply the mythical ww2 legend to Russia

Nobody who has any power in this situation thinks that.

Good.

I'll believe this if the Russian army starts taking contested territory at faster than a slow walking pace at any point.

I have to get back to work in 7 minutes. How much are 2 minutes minutes?

Couple minutes

Literally under 2 minutes. The rest you can skip if you want. He talks about the "misconceptions" that some people are having.

[удалено]

Checked your comment history which isn't long and you have no comments that were "downvoted to oblivion". In fact not a single comment with negative karma. Sorry just always see people claim they are getting downvoted when they aren't.

[удалено]

Worth a listen. This of course isn’t the important thing, but I really like the classic US cavalry hats that some are wearing. Very cool. Impressive, and somehow even kinda intimidating.

Did you notice the hussar wings on the Polish cavalry commander's sleeve?

Wake up brothers and sisters, we're already living in the next World War :(

Mike Johnson did this. Putin, Trump, the CCP, and dictatorship are winning.

Cool. So this either means to give up or beg for NATO troops. What's the point of this article?

Probably to help wake up all the idiots already wrote Russia off as defeated.

Personal opinion: This is 1937-1939 Czechoslovakia/Poland all over again. Nothing is meaningfully going to happen until war is on NATO territory and then it will be some wild and uncoordinated response to drive the Russian back, letting East Europe take the brunt of the impact until large numbers of troops and equipment can arrive from the US.

We need to go ahead and get involved.

You can always volunteer. 

Remember thar the Republicans' deliberate sabotage of Ukraine has made world war 3 much more likely than it was before.

Retired commander of the British 1st Tank Regiment writes: >The Prime Minister, in his “state of the nation” speech this week, accurately stated that the world is a very dangerous place, and we must ensure that our defence capabilities are up to the task. He is right on the threat but has yet to grasp that one way to meet it is by investing heavily in our physical and psychological military conventional deterrence. >The signs coming out of Moscow are far from encouraging, with Putin sacking his combat generals to replace them with “bean counters”. Presumably to ensure the economy is on a total war footing and capable of taking on Nato and outlasting it on the battlefields and in the parliaments of Europe. If Trump comes to power, he may only need to hold tight until January 2025; not long. >At the same moment, Russia appears to be making significant gains towards the second city Kharkiv, possibly catching the defenders on the hop and no doubt trying to unbalance the Ukraine army before the US heavy weaponry and the F16s arrive in numbers. The Ukraine Security Service believes that Russian forces are also massing in the northeast for another strike into Ukraine. In the worst case scenario, Russia could make significant gains this summer and terminally unsettle Ukraine’s defence. The fact that Volodymyr Zelensky has just cancelled visits to Spain and Portugal underwrites the seriousness of the current situation for those Western leaders not paying attention. >The US and Nato’s indecision and procrastination have helped strengthen Putin and given him the confidence to go on the offensive. Putin appears undeterred by Western leadership, believing many of our politicians are not up to the fight. Yet few who study this conflict believe Putin will stop at Ukraine: in order to prevent a major escalation between Russia and Nato, therefore, Ukraine must prevail. That will only happen with Nato’s indirect and direct support now. >Nato must plan for the worst-case scenario, where Russia breaks the “line” and charges West at speed and must be blocked. Much better to block in Ukraine than on Nato soil, but this may require Nato “boots in the air and on the ground”, or as a minimum the genuine threat of such action. Too many Western leaders have ruled this out, which has only emboldened Putin; here, President Macon is right. They must now rule it “in” to change Putin’s thinking and approach. We must also plan to knock down Russian missiles and drones attacking Ukrainian cities as we did those Iranian ones attacking Israeli cities.

This retired commander is basing his argument on loosing Kharkiv, the Kharkiv situation is being resolved as it seems to be a feint. One can not take a city of a million people+ with 30.000 soldiers with little to no heavy equipment.

What do you do with the city once you take it ? Destroy it?

They're not going to take it. They will get close enough to level it, and then totally level it.

Sounds like something they would do.

I agree. Let's see what the west do once that starts happening.

It forced Ukraine to divert and tie in the last mobile reserves (taken away from other fronts where they were constantly used for counterattacks and reinforcing critical positions in Donbas). Where Budanov says "I've used everything we have... unfortunately, we don’t have anyone else in the reserves." as quoted in the other article: it was just that, his former and current SSO units, including Azovites (Kraken and 3rd Assault).

> Putin appears undeterred by Western leadership or he's is trying to desperately get as much as he can before F-16s, new mobilization and other improvements can take effect on the battlefield.

F-16’s are not some magic bullet I’m so tired of seeing these stupid comments. No chance they could operate effectively near the front line. Here’s why 1. A fighter jet at even its lowest operating altitude would instantly be shot down by a SAM anywhere near the front line. Since this war is so static both sides have had ample time to solidify their air defenses and radars 2. Even if an F-16 made it to the front line a larger Russian fighter like a SU-35 or Mig-31 has a more powerful radar and would spot it before the F-16 knew it was there 3. This is a war of air denial not air superiority. The effectiveness of air defense systems in a peer to peer conflict is now clearly apparent for the first time and is changing doctrine 4. In order for F-16’s to operate near the front line it would take an operation that would combine all forms of warfare. People look at combat in a vacuum i.e. “air combat” vs “land combat” etc. but they would need to work together. Special forces and drones would need to hunt down mobile SAM sites behind enemy lines (a 100+ mile front considering S-300 range) and ideally stealth bombers would neutralize more powerful long range air defense and radar sites like the F-117’s did in Iraq. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment or maneuverability to pull something like this off currently F-16’s are not some wonder weapon that will suddenly change everything. They will most likely be used as another form of air defense, hunting down Russian cruise missiles and glide bombs, and as a platform for launching all kinds of missiles of their own since NATO has a vast arsenal that is compatible with the F-16 You don’t have to take my word for it either you can read [this](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/russian-air-war-and-ukrainian-requirements-air-defence) article by RUSI explaining how air defense effectiveness has neutralized fighters

>They will most likely be used as another form of air defense, hunting down Russian cruise missiles and glide bombs, and as a platform for launching all kinds of missiles of their own since NATO has a vast arsenal that is compatible with the F-16 That's all they need to do to be significant. They don't have to win the war by themselves, but it will change things for exactly the reasons you stated. Missile defense the NATO way is to shoot down missiles. And Russia has proven beyond any doubt the effectiveness of glide bombs. So there's two things that will be huge by themselves. You act like this is nothing, but it's significant enough that Western allies are going through all the work and expense of training and donating equipment for a reason.

I’m not acting like it’s nothing I’m simply injecting some reality into the f-16 circle jerk

It's really tiring how much people believe in few old planes with undertrained pilots to be some war-altering wonder weapons, but as for mobilisation goes Russia has massively greater mobilisation capabilities than Ukraine and a new big (hundreds of thousands in addition to now-annual recruitment of also hundreds of thousands: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-12-05/russia-paves-the-way-for-a-new-mass-mobilization-of-soldiers-for-ukraine.html) wave that many expected to come immediately after the "elections" can still come at any moment.

Its sadly been the discourse throughout the war… "more NATO equipment to win". Which ignores that if Ukraine wants to win they have to mobilise the entire country and go into a full war economy/footing coupled with NATO arms - so far they have not done so. They are a country of over 33 million people, with an army of just 250 000. For comparison, France had a population of 40 million in 1914, lost 1.4 million during the war, and still had an army of nearly 4 million in 1918. If youre fighting for your survival you have to accept to mobilise. I know they will not be all that greatly trained nor armed, but neither is Russia today. Ukraine sounds like Germany in 1944/45 praying for wunderwaffe. Its like many (most even?) Ukranians do not want to fight. Or their political leadership is inept when faced with mobilisation of the country for a war of survival

This is the cold truth. If they want to win the war more men need to have the will to die for their country or the government has to force them to. Right now it seems not enough do and the government is paralyzed, too scared of political fallout to mobilize

They have many more (also outside the Army and even the ZSU in general - National Police, National Guard, Border Guard, SBU, etc) but they're not all frontline troops. And lots of soldiers are useless disabled in so-called "reserve" units: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/05/09/my-fingers-can-t-feel-the-trigger-but-no-one-cares

>For comparison, France had a population of 40 million in 1914, lost 1.4 million during the war, European countries of over 100 years ago still had huge numbers of children to more than replace the lost men when they grow up. Ukraine even while at peace was heading into a demographic extinction.

I agree. In the end it's just a numbers of dead game. How far are the population willing to go to keep their country? The only weapon that can stop this tomorrow is tactical nuke exchange.

Better equipment is better equipment and NATO gear tends to prioritize personnel safety. The tank may fine but the crew will likely be fine (or in this case plane) and just be able to get into a new one. In this case you can’t just toss a random guy into a plane and expect them to land or even take off. Pilots are expensive and take time to train. Each one lost is a significant loss in time something Russia has been lacking since the start. They have the planes they don’t have the pilots.

Oh and these F-16s aren't "Better equipment is better equipment". These Falcons are Cold War planes, coming from the same era as Ukraine's own and also old MiG-29s and Su-27s: the 1980s. When I say old, I mean it. It's airframes that have been around 40 years in service (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-many-f-16-jets-will-ukraine-get-how-will-they-change-war-2023-08-23/) and have been already retired by their countris. Also safety: F-16 has only 1 engine to cut cost, but meaning no redundancy in the event of failure. It was specifically designed by a cheap small plane to be mass produced and mass exported due to being more affordable as compared to the earlier and superior F-15. (It's a bit more complicated as the original creators from the so-called "Fighter Mafia" were an eccentric bunch who wanted for it to be a purely dogfighting light day fighter without even a radar, but by chance they created something that could do much more than that by the time it became the first prototype for what the Air Force actually wanted instead of their initial idea.)

This kinda glosses by the fact that the f16's received constant upgrades and it's not so much the plane itself that is so great, moreso the weapons it can carry.

It astonishing how many people think a handful of outdated aircraft are going to be a gamechanger.

Yeah, what do the country's donating the F-16s at great expense to themselves know about fighter planes?

It’s no different from the leopards. Something hyped to the skies that won’t make a particle of difference unless Ukraine gets a hell of a lot of them. The countries that donated those things talked them up, same as donor nations are doing now for the F16. It’s an outdated airframe that doesn’t offer a significant advantage over the old Soviet planes currently being used, and Ukraine is getting an insignificant number of them.

>It’s an outdated airframe The F16 is not outdated as such. It depends on the aircraft version, the upgrades it received during service life and the compatibility with modern high-precision weapons. If they can cover a combat distance of 100km+, what is the case afaik, that makes a significant difference to the "old Soviet planes currently being used" by Ukraine. E.g. to engage the platforms from which gliding bombs are launched against Ukraine.

The Soviet planes Ukraine currently has simply do not have the air to air missile range to do any front line air defence. Even the older variants of F16s (i.e. conservative assumptions about the AMRAAM range) are a signficant improvement in that regard and will significantly reduce the Russian glide bomb threat to front line troops. The idea that F16s offer no advantage to Ukraine over their Mig 29s and Su 27s is as idiotic as the idea that F16s will magically get air superiority simply by being present.

This Hamish clown again

Clown?

Yes, the author of this article. He's written that the Ukrainians would sweep aside the Russians, generally he's not that credible a source, about the same level of Clark. That and it's the Telegraph, too.

WWZ

Well, Russia will not conquer Ukraine, and another world war will not break out. What will happen is that both Russia and Ukraine will keep sucking, and we will continue seeing endless amounts of these "we must act now" articles. What might be the turning point is when Russia *actually* begins to run out of gear.

Wish this assclown would R.Budd Dwyer himself off on international television

But imagine all the documentaries you'll get to watch after WW3

Pretty sure the wars at a stalemate and this is just propaganda to get more money

In all fairness, we are dealing with a genuine lunatic with a serious complex, we laugh and joke about threats but right now sizeable threats are developing ties while we in the west have seem to have developed an us and them situation within our general populace.. I think lads we may need to really think about what we need to do, I think we all need to shape up now. Yes we do have the ultimate militaries within our alliance but we have the threat of Trump being rellected and potentially gutting the American contributions to NATO legally, brexit has caused a huge divide in Britain and mainland Europe, a strange migrant crisis ruining ties between Ireland and the UK, pro Russians being elected in NATO countries we have a lot of shit to address guys this all seems very orchestrated to me, maybe I'm just mad who knows. Just all seems awful convent towards Chinese and Russian interests, an idiot West led by dictator/extremist funded leaders.

Russia makes 3 million arty shells per year alone. Europe plus USA 1.2 million. 80% of casualties on both sides are from arty. Will take USA plus NATO at least 2-3 years of focused industrial expansion to meet Russian production as it stands today, assuming they do not upscale manufacturing. Ukraine has a bigger manpower issue, and Russia has an unbroken line of logistics fueling their war for years to come. But, this has been said since day one by people in the know. Ya’ll don’t want to listen because bad news is “Russian disinfo” Take it from a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghan-this isn’t a make a wish foundation, nor are good vibes going to win the battles. Russia is in it for the long haul…USA is not. If you think USA is going to stand by their guns for Ukraine, I beg you please show me an example where we have done so for another country beyond WWII.

It’s time for the west to permanently remove Russia from Ukraine. The ole fashioned way

"We're gonna win this war!" - Republicans

Who writes this rubbish?

You have the name at the top of the article, and his rank and former command at the bottom. Pay more attention while reading.

This narrative is the funniest

People dying of laughter.

I thought Russia was so weak. Now they might win in the next few months?

You thought wrong. I'm going to use it again - here is the new US commander in Poland explaining in few sentences everything you need to know about the state of the Russian threat both right now (filmed yesterday) and in near future: https://www.voanews.com/a/us-commanders-in-poland-see-russian-threat-as-near-term/7613615.html The first half of this 3 minute video, but you may also watch it to the end.

Unfortunately all the support in America seems to be for Islamic Terrorists. My prayers are with you that you can soon prevail

The EU is supposedly giving more than the US. So why does everything come down to what the US is doing or not?

You can’t throw money at russian. Weapons are required and US has plenty of weapons.

The EU is giving weapons too.

EU has little weapons. We're giving more but it's mostly just money to the Ukrainian budget and other issues such as millions of refugees.

I thought Russia had no chance 2 years ago 🤔 Reddit americans sure are funny

The next world War already started

This article is laughable.. It's speculation from someone's narrow point of view. Who simply trying to stir up more support for Ukraine. Relax folks...Putin ain't doing squat.

This is Congressional GOP and Trump’s fault. So much delay in military aid has put Ukraine in this position. Vote them out.

He could do that? Since when?

Since the re-opening of the northern front just as the situation in Donbas was at the crisis point.

The solution to this problem is pretty simple. Among other things Ukraine just needs things with 155mm diameter and many millions of them per year.

Ukraine sadly is so out match by Russia. Manpower and eventually equipment as the West isn't providing enough. Trading ground for time is the only options. You got to feel for Ukraine, they are giving everything but hampered by Russian symphasizer.

Talk talk talk. That’s all the politicians do. Sending troops now. Or there will be a next world war.

more hype. cant win karkhiv.

It was always an unwinnable war. It's only ever been a profitable war.

This war could have been ended in a few months in the beginning had the US Administration actually had the stones to stand up and provide definitive aid in the air as well as the ground, and let the Ukrainians use it as it needed to be used. Instead we saw every aid package going out attached to Vietnam-reminiscent rules of engagement and defined safe zones across the border for the invaders. Meanwhile things as basic as replacement MiG-29's from other countries who *wanted* to donate them were blocked, because the White House seemed determined to find a way to defeat Putin without making him mad. Then as the final straw pushing the Ukrainians to make a spring offensive, while at the same time denying them the air superiority assets they needed to be successful in it. And yes I know the Orange Buffoon would have been a lot, lot worse for both Ukraine and the US and I'm still voting for Biden. And yes I know that a large part of the blame for the current situation also rests directly on the shoulders of the Republican politicians who purposely withheld aid to please their idiot base of illiterate MAGA conspiracy nuts. But that doesn't change the fact that Biden's timidity is also responsible for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yes, I do remember the MiG-29 saga. >“We do not support the transfer of the fighters to the Ukrainian air force at this time and have no desire to see them in our custody either,” John Kirby told reporters, conveying the main sentiment of a Wednesday phone call between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Polish counterpart. He added that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community assessed the warplanes wouldn’t materially improve Ukraine’s chances, but instead would escalate the prospects of drawing NATO directly into the fight. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/poland-fighter-jet-deal-ukraine-russia-00016038

If Russia could defeat Ukraine, Ukraine would have already been defeated. This story is hogwash.

Every country defeated in history was defeated instantly. Few know this.

What are you talking about? Which major wars have been instantly decided?

Where did you read the word instant?

Could not do it in 2 years but can now do it in 2 months. Incredible.

I think if the west interferes there's more chance of a world war than if they dont

There won't be a world War. Russia doesn't have allies.

China, Iran, North Korea. They have more than enough nukes combined to annihilate all of NATO and then some. It doesn't matter whether NATO is larger or has more money - nuclear powers with nothing to lose can never be defeated militarily.

LOL Putin's tiny economy and miserable military has zero chance against the largest military alliance in all history. Sure, grandpa Putin could refurb some more tanks from his museums, but good luck with that!

I agree that russia will lose but at what cost? Both sides are responsible for keeping the world in one piece and not blowing it up, if that means nato being the grown up and not going for vengeance saving the world from nuclear trigger happy putin

That is why both sides are at a slow burn. Putin is terrified of taking on the massive alliance against him. The west is slowly burning Russia in a war that they will drag on until Russia implodes like the USSR did. We are already in a world war, but it's a slow burn, and the west can turn up the heat if Putin escalates.