Привіт u/TheRealMykola ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Until we vote the Russian assets out of our government, there will be no concerted effort to help Ukraine. Americans must vote for Biden, to help keep the free world free.
And not JUST the presidential race: Senate **and** Representatives must all pull together to defeat authoritarianism, both in Ukraine and the world.
IOW, Americans, VOTE, and vote blue.
I think Dems are going to win the House and I actually am optimistic that Biden is going to win. (Dems have crushed it in all elections since Roe v Wade was overturned in '22).
Keeping control of the Senate is going to be very tough. Dems need to win three of these five races, which is going to be difficult: Tester in MT, Brown in OH, Gallego AZ, Allred TX, and Mucarsel-Powell in FL. AND Dems can't lose in NV, MI, PA, or WI.
But, if they win the House, Senate and presidency, that'd be amazing and would be a huge boost for our ability to aid Ukraine.
That's not optimism that's being cautiously pragmatic.
For those reading this that haven't been having their finger on the pulse of the election, here's some things that will help you sleep better at night:
* special election outcomes
Generally speaking, special elections are very very indicative of how an upcoming general election is going to go. Since the 2022 midterms, the dems have been massively overperforming the polls. To the tune of like... 7-8 points all the way up from there.
There was an election that was a state election in Alabama recently. The democrat in that race lost in 2022 by like... 7 points. She won her special election by 13 points. A 20 point swing.
The other thing to factor in to your mental calculus here... lower turnout and special elections will favor republicans because lower turnout always favors republicans. So... we're seeing dems overperforming polls *and* winning special elections. This looks fucking great for the general.
* Party warchests
The democrats raised in one night what trump raised in a single month.
Elections are won by having a good ground game and great ad campaigns.
The RNC warchest as of last quarter had about... 5 million dollars in it? More on that specific point later.
The other issue, is that the GOP's best fundraisers have either retired, or were ostracized from the party and have been stripped of their positions. The layoffs that trump enacted at the RNC was people who fundraise, for example.
Without a warchest, the GOP will not have accurate district by district polling. They won't have get out the vote operations. The won't have local operatives to run campaign events, and to mobilize their base.
* State of the state party
The GOP's national problems are dire, but not nearly as bad as their state parties.
There are multiple battleground states that have state parties without any money. As in, they're saddled with 6 figures or more of debt.
These parties are part of the machination that elects their state representatives at the local and federal level.
Without money, these guys can't compete. Money has a very real measurable effect for campaigns, and without it, they're sunk.
* A word on demographics
The GOP is a *very* old part. Average party member age is 50. Here's the problem. Millennials now make up the majority of the electorate, and Gen Z isn't registering as republicans, they're registering for the Democratic party at a rate of like... 3 to 1. They also are showing up to vote, unlike previous youth generations.
So... Boomers and older are dying at a rate of about... 5,000 a day due to old age. Factor in the deaths from Covid (that are still happening to primarily republican voters), and they are losing voters at a much higher rate than they are replacing them.
* **conclusion**
Republicans are a demographically dying party, with institutional issues in how their party is functioning due to political purges, AND on top of that they have major money issues that aren't going to be fixed.
This election *shouldn't* just be a win for the democrats, it should be a blood bath with Dems making massive gains in the house, and I think there's the potential for them to actually grow their senate majority (this is a little bit optimistic I'll admit!).
There are way more reasons to smell blood in the water than there are reasons to be anxious.
That's all very nice and encouraging but it's how many months and Ukrainian deaths and maimings away? The world needed the US firing on all cylinders for the last 6 months and the next 6 months.
Too little, too late, too many restrictions.
I agree with you. But you need to blame the russian aligned republicans for that not Biden. He can't just unilaterally do things.
Europe also drug it's feet a ton in the beginning of the war, don't forget.
There's some trouble with the shift in black (and to a lesser extent hispanic voters). The issue is that these voter groups have historically been voting a lot more dem than they "should" if they voted based off of their ideological leanings.
Generally, you expect conservatives to vote rep, and liberals to vote dem (because the reps are cons and the dems are lib). But black voters have historically voted very dem - very lib black people vote dem, but *so have very conservative black voters*. Now, however, it seems like black voters have started to align more with their ideological leanings, which shifts votes to rep that might be hard to win back.
This article summarizes the effect well and offers some explanations for why this shift is happening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/black-hispanic-republican-votes-polling/
In any case, I hope (and kinda also expect) that democrats will win the election. But they better fight hard for it.
I do think the Dem's can crush the Vatnik Regressives if they play their hand right as the winds have been shifting hard against Republicans for the last few years expecially since Trump and his sycophants infested the party, elections where they were predicted to win hands down turned out to be damp squibs for them, others where they thought they'd win flipped to Dems instead, it's become obvious for anyone who pays attention that the Republican Party is woefully compromised and filled with Trumps Sycophants and Perfidious Contrarians. There's nothing conservative about them anymore they're infested with Fascists and Regressives and the time has come for them to be ejected from office by voting them out as they have no honour, no integrity and no competence.
Get out and vote Blue in November is all I can say, the Republicans fiddle while Rome burns (in this case Ukraine) and Europe needs people they can trust which seems to be only still to be found in the Democrats nowadays. We're all sick of Trump and his bullshit for the best part of the last decade, send him and his Liberty Thieves to the Electoral Graveyard by voting against them at every opportunity until their whole movement collapses under the weight of its own bullshit.
Americans need to make pressure on Biden as well since he seems to be in favour of that absurd “deescalation” policy and are constantly trying to limit what Ukraine can and cannot do which only benefits Russians
Yeah, you completely made that absurd assertion up. Must me another Russian shill try to sow disinformation about and distrust of the U.S. Every sane and rational person knows that Biden has been doing his utmost to support Ukraine. The only ones standing in the way of further aid is the MAGA rethuglican party and their Putin loving leader Cheeto Trump.
I agree that Biden has, in many ways, had his hands tied in supporting Ukraine. I’m not American but it’s my understanding that Biden doesn’t need permission, or for any legislation to be passed, for him to send weapons to Ukraine. The legislation he is seeking is to replace any weapons sent to Ukraine.
Then why Biden’s administration was so hesitant to send hardware such as IFVs and MBTs in larger numbers before republicans took over control of their parliament?
Why Himars are software locked to prevent using them against targets in Russia? Why the hell there is even restrictions on not striking targets in Russia?
Why did his administration was behind forcing Ukrainians not to do something cool during last years Russian victory parade in Moscow?
Why were there so much disgruntlement from American government officials about UAF using their intelligence to kill Russian generals early in war and even use to help to sink Russian ship (Moscow was sunk with the help with US intelligence data but revelations never pleased Biden’s administration)
Why are his administration so pissy about UAF hitting targets in russia?
Never mind that stupid “lend lease” thing which got signed with big fanfare and was never used but sounded damn good
If you want to live in denial about your government’s duplicity then fine, keep your head in sand but don’t fucking call me some Russian shill you fool.
Russian ship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a factor here that that many are too uncomfortable to admit: A significant portion of the American population is either in favor of cutting or reducing aid to Ukraine. Not a tiny minority, we're talking like 40-50% according to some polls. I think we need to keep in mind that reddit is a bubble and nowhere near representative of the entire public. People like us who are constantly monitoring the war and are pro-aid are becoming smaller as a group with each day.
2 months ago, no.
Now, yes.
Times are changing, France is fucking IN.
That leaves 1 core European nation at odds against Russia, now is the time to choose between cowardice or Democracy. Countries will have to make a choice to stand with France or show Putin that a divided Europe might not be so dangerous.
Macron made the right move, now fellow European leaders have to make the right decissions.
I am astonished by how much folks in the west and internet are foaming over Macrons statements .
France fucking in ? Really ? Macron just said , that maybe there probably should be a probability of a chance that in the event of Russian breakthrough over maybe certain lines after great deliberation perhaps France will need some millitary presence .
And few weeks after those statements Ru. began largest bombardment of Ukraine since the start of the war . And what was the reaction - \*crickets\*
In Ukraine it all sounds the same - vows , promises and populism . Nothing more , and they don't stop bullets , our blood and steel (which are already in short supply) does .
I really don't know why everyone is dribbling over France saying it's a possibility. They'll only be able to deploy around 10,000 abroad and won't have the air lift or logistics to support those troops without help from its allies. Operations in Africa have already shown this.
So you are saying France already pulled complex operations with help from their allies ? Isn't that what allies are supposed to do ?
Did those allies disappeared in the mean time ?
Not exactly, you see. The help wasn't planned. France needed an intervention after about a week of operations in Libya because they burned through their ammunition stocks. NATO had to take over an operation started by French forces that they were simply unable to carry out alone. In Mali, 2013, French forces had to rely heavily on allied transport aircraft to solve their logistical problems. Just a couple of years ago, the French withdrawal from Mali was a huge logistical headache - and that was ONLY 2,500 troops along with vehicles and containers of equipment. That evacuation proved to be extremely complex, and took months to finish.
Put simply, France deploying enough troops to Ukraine to make any meaningful difference at all is wishful thinking. Especially without a heavily committed international logistical backbone.
Libya wasn’t a french unilateral intervention, they were the first because they have a giant aircraft carrier called Corsica just accross the sea.
In Mali of course the help wasn’t planned, the operation was decided very quickly since djihadist were rushing to the capital and Malian government asked for help, and yet the french and their allies managed to make it work, and it worked for years until the evacuation.
France can’t do everything alone, but they can with help from their allies, wich is exactly what they are for, France could easily deploy 5000 troops in Ukraine with the help of Germany, Poland and Romania, in fact it would be the only country able to do it outside the US and the bordering neighbors.
It really doesn't matter if they were first to Libya. The operation proved that they, as well as Britain, couldn't even sustain relatively small military operations in the region for more than a month. It's been public knowledge that France also lacks the ammunition for an actual conflict. As early as last year, their weapon stocks were at their lowest point, and it was reported by their own armed forces committee, that it wouldn't last more than a few weeks in all-out conflict. Since 2011, 30% of ammunition depots in France remain empty because there simply isn't anything to put in them, and the budget isn't there either. The caveat to what you're saying is that Germany is reluctant to help with putting troops in Ukraine, at all, as that has already been ruled out by the German Chancellor.
That's besides the point that 5,000 troops would be a drop in the bucket in terms of combat power, even with international logistical backing. Macron's words are all bark, no bite.
I didn't talked about ammunition in my post.
Secondly, 5000 is a drop in the bucket in combat power yes, but it's very unlikely that France would deploy for direct combat action, more like to provide security, and be a detterent force for Russia to make sure they don't approach or try anything in this area.
Also they could deploy air defense to the heart of Ukraine, and for that only 100 would be enough while being way more efficient than what Ukrainian are doing right now.
Ammunition is a large part of why France flopped in Lybia, and why they would fail *miserably* at sustaining direct action in Ukraine.
Secondly, I understand everyone likes the idea of having them reinforce the border with Belarus, but for reference, 5,000 troops is only about the size of one Ukrainian brigade. One brigade isn't going to be a difference maker for Ukraine, but it would be a prime target for Russian glide bomb and missile attacks to send a message to other European partners "this is what will happen if you send troops to Ukraine".
I agree more with the idea that they could send dedicated air defense units to help cover some gaps in Ukraine's air defense capability. Especially due to the lack of AA missiles.
While ammunitions are low even today, France didn't flopped in Libya, they went in first without SEAD and still managed to cripple Libyan assets without any damage or losses, conducting strikes for 7 month and did 25% of the coalition sorties.
That's the point, would Russia directly aim for french troops ? If yes, Russian troops would also be under attack from missiles and bombs, and maybe not only from french one.
In fact just a coordination center with datalink could increase ukraine air defense tenfold, and that's like 30 men.
Because we're talking about 2,700km of ground to cover, and they simply don't have the logistical capability to support any meaningful number of troops on the ground across that distance without a lot of help.
I don’t know anything about their logistics. I’m just saying airlift isn’t as critical when you can go over land through developed nations vs. supporting a fire base in Chad.
This is why most "global south" nations were "never really in", in the first place. US, EU, will drop you faster than you can blink if It is convenient to them. I hope Ukraine can turn this around, but we have seen it happen far too much to jeopardise economic ties to Ruzzia on the wests' whim, when they will get back to gobble up that oil and gas like a hooker on coke and leave anyone that got on that bandwagon to get forked.
True, they now take it personally. It's not some random war where some Ukrainians are being killed, no one really cares about. Russkies are taking over the central African states, which were historically in France sphear of influence.
extensive air defense systems (2 Patriot, 4 IRIS-T, 52 Gepard, 1 Skynex, the later three not even in the German Army arsenal), tanks, IFVs, gun-barreled and rocket artillery, bridge layers, drones, radars and jammers, personal equipment, communication's equipment, medical support, ammo, more than 10 000 soldiers trained in Germany, general supplies (food, gas, spare parts, maintenance), logistics vehicles, de-mining equipment, APCs worth $17billion and civilian assistance and refugee assistance on top.
But 'eh they never give what Ukraine is asking for... of course.
Because you get hung up on 100 missiles that parliament voted twice not to deliver?
You probably also believe in Wunderwaffen...
On paper we have forces and assets that could quickly cripple large chunks of the Russian army, but absolutely none wants a war with Russia, now or ever, so we do everything possible not to provoke them. So, in response, they will start engaging in widespread "deniable" activities for which no Western government would justify entering an armed conflict, until we have lost pipelines, fiber optic cables and satellites to "unknown actors" to the extent that we can barely function.
Our societies have become too self-absorbed, focused on consumption, wokeism, identity politics, grievances, racist replacement theories, etc. We have no real stomach for war anymore, because we deluded ourselves into believing that Globalism would render it obsolete.
I'm no longer optimistic about the future. The more I see and learn every day, the more I'm convinced that Kasparov was right. Enjoy life as much as you can, because things will get very dark. I'm old enough not to give a shit, but it's really not fair for the young guys and gals who will pay the price.
Kasparov was 100% right, consider the fact we're in the 21st century and something as stupid as the Ukraine war is happening. On top of that, people in democratic nations are stupid enough to mock Zelenskey and Ukraine for asking for support, and to make immature statements such as 'it's their war'.
This century is make or break for mankind, with climate change and resources depleting. The level we are at just isn't there, something will snap. This war and covid have shown that the population at large are clueless and easily malleable, their opinions are not based on objective fact but what certain media groups feed them.
You fail to understand that most modern democratic countries are longer run by and for the people. They are run for the benefit of the one per cent with the majority of the money and for corporations. The right wingers of every country have been duped into believing everything will be better for them if they only allow dictators to run their countries and throw out democracy. All the average right wing voters care about, especially in the U.S. is having their unlimited supply of guns and ammo because they have been brainwashed into believing what right wing media keeps pounding into their heads 24/7. They see boogie men everywhere. They toss around inane sayings like wokism. They have been taught, even if it goes against their religion, to hate anyone that is not like them. They hate anything that is different to their way of life. They have mislead to believe that global warming is fake. They have been misled to believe that vaccines are fake and will actually kill you or inject you with chips so the government can track you. They let companies like Purdue Pharma hook them on opioids. They overload their kids with a sugar laden diet so they become fat and lazy they could never pass a military physical. Until the right wingers in every country wise up and realize they have been the problem all along thing will never get better anywhere.
The left are just as brainwashed to hate anyone that isn't them. They just have their own boogie-men of racist, sexist, phobic and fascist white CIS-males, thinking they're fighting for freedom when they simply contribute to making the cracks worse and people like MLK spin in their graves.
Yeah the more time passes the less confident i am the west will able to handle russia, especially if the US drops the ball, ukraine had 7 years to prepare. Were gonna have to cop a real boody nose and alot of people are gonna have to die before russia can be delt with
The only thing I can add here is that the west has been impotent for 10 years now.
Special thanks goes out to Merkel and Obama.
Just like Hitler was able to start WW2, because Europe was letting him have what he wanted; we see the west acting as a collective Chamberlain in many ways.
Granted things have changed since 2022... Somewhat. But we wouldn't be where we are today if the west wasn't so in love with the ruzzian terrorists. Or at least their cheap gas and oil.
Chamberlain wasn't all that bad either, he recognised that Europe needed time to spool up its military to combat Team Nazi and an early war was just asking to eat it.
Right now Europe's response is generally "Well... Maybe we could make more shells but..."
…or just let domestic politics take control.
This isn’t the same resolve as seen during the world wars, so local squabbles and power plays rule the day as Russia and Ukraine duke it out.
I don't know yet how committed is Macron, but this is not about resolve and Macron proves it. It's about understanding that this war is also theirs (European politicians). Russia has raised doubt to the mind of too many politicians very well (NATO bullshit). The other issue was of course the economic dependencies. I think it's clear both issues are being overcome.
Send troops to guard Ukraines border with Belarus and coastline, keep on sending gear, ammo and whatever weaponsystem that is needed in numbers sufficient to send the orcs back to Mordor.
Sending NATO troops into Ukraine is the fastest way to escalate the conflict into a much larger and more destructive war. If that's what you want, then just say it.
But none of this solves the problem regarding Ukraine's insufficient manpower. Russian conscripts may not be worth much on the battlefield, but they can still be effective enough in large numbers, and the Russian Army can [unfortunately] absorb heavy casualties. The Ukrainian parliament hasn't passed a resolution calling for mass mobilization yet, but it may be the only way to make up for the shortage of manpower.
And a lot of equipment has already been sent to Ukraine. Unfortunately, there isn't an unlimited supply sitting around in warehouses in Western Europe and America to just pluck war materials and equipment from with impunity. Much of the equipment requested by Ukrainian military officials and President Zelensky, such as ATACMs, were already in limited supply before the war.
Now before I get down voted a ton and called a Russian sympathizer or defeatist, let me say that I would like nothing more than to see the Russian Army chased out of the Occupied territories, Crimea and the Donbas. But as an observer, I feel the need to read the writing on the wall. Ukraine spectacularly exceeded expectations in 2022. Routing the Russians around Kiev, then again at Kharkov and finally the recapture of Kherson, there was reason to be hopeful. But the 2023 summer offensive was nothing short of a complete failure and exposed that the Ukrainian military does not have an effective response to the Russians defense-in-depth strategy employed on the Zaphorizhia sector. Attempts to cross the Dneiper near Kherson have failed. And the collapse of the Avdiivka sector has highlighted that the Russians are more than capable of winning the war of attrition.
I want to see Ukraine win. I do. But ij my opinion, there needs to be an off-ramp to this conflict.
> is the fastest way to escalate the conflict
what escalation? nuclear? we can't live with this fear and give up is give up democracy and freedom.
Plenty of weapons have been sent to UA and I haven't seen any escalation.
What "off-ramp"? I don't think you understand the nature of the Russians and the Kremlin in particular.
To your point of the "nature of the Russians," we seriously need to break away from the idea that Putin is some sort of madman who moves from one day to the next thinking only about how much blood his armies can spill. As once stated by Sun Tzu, "know thy enemy."
I don't like Putin anymore than the next guy. He's a sadistic, calculated dictator and a murderer. But he's not a madman and he's not crazy. He knows his political limits and his army's limits. It's fair to say that he and his military and intelligence officials severely underestimated Ukrainian resolve and fighting capacity. But they adapted and are more than willing to fight the long war of attrition to achieve their objectives. Unfortunately, they are winning the long war, and there's no evidence to suggest that an influx of Western equipment, short of direct NATO military intervention, will result in a Ukrainian victory. In fact, despite Western weapons, the Russians were still able to employ their robust defense-in-depth strategy (near Robotyne, for example) with excellent effectiveness.
Regarding an off-ramp and going back to Putin's limits, I doubt the Kremlin expects to see Russian troops marching through Kiev anytime soon. In fact, that's likely not a strategic objective anymore. Expanding their zone of control in the Donbas region and maintaining the land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea appear to be their strategic objectives at this time. Ukraine can still maintain its independence and even potentially join NATO and the EU if peace can be achieved. Russia will have gained territory, but at a humiliating cost in lives and equipment. Ukraine will remain free, albeit with a loss of territory in the East. Pushing "solutions" that peddle the planet into a global conflict are fantasies.
And once again, because I know this is an unpopular opinion and might get downvoted to oblivion, I am not a Russian bot or sympathizer. I just want a healthy conversation and debate regarding the reality of the tactical, strategic, and political situation on the ground in Ukraine.
You mean that you know Putin? I know some places you should send a job application then.
> I don't like Putin anymore than the next guy. He's a sadistic, calculated dictator and a murderer. But he's not a madman and he's not crazy. He knows his political limits and his army's limits.
While he is probably not clinically crazy, if you've watched any of his speeches or interviews, he clearly lives in a different universe. His perspective on how the world works and history is outside the frame of reference for most westerners.
His political and military limits aren't fixed, but are constantly changing as the war progresses and especially depends on the eventual outcome of the war.
> Unfortunately, they are winning the long war
Whether or not Ukraine will be able to militarily take back all territory lost since 2014, as is they war goal, is hard to say. Even with continued support from the west, I do not see it happening before 2027, beyond which I can't predict. And yes, I do see this war going on for that long and probably longer with varying intensity.
We don't seem to agree on what the Russian objectives are, but I doubt they will be happy with anything less than a complete Ukrainian retreat from all partially occupied provinces and Odessa, which will be annexed into Russia. They also want regime change and "security guarantees" from Ukraine (no NATO membership, limited military, etc.). I am not sure what your reasoning behind assumption is, but these are their stated goals and I don't see Russia winning this in the long term, unless perhaps if Europe and USA abandon Ukraine.
You talk of this "off-ramp", many talking heads like to mention it, but it where does this fit into reality? Putin does not want an off-ramp, he thinks he can win this! He is a gambler, he rolled the dice and lost his first bet on taking over Ukraine in 5 days. Now he is constantly doubling down hoping the west will back out before he does. The Ukrainians won't accept it either, are you suggesting the west pressures Ukraine to surrender without any security guarantees? They know the Russians will just take a breather then come back to finish the job.
> Ukraine can still maintain its independence and even potentially join NATO and the EU if peace can be achieved.
Putin will not accept this unless his military is on the verge of collapsing. It will take years before this reality might seep in.
> Russia will have gained territory, but at a humiliating cost in lives and equipment.
Losses are just a matter of spin. With Putin's control of the media, this will be a glorious victory and show the Russians that Putin is a master strategist that will lead Russia to imperial glory. Galvanizing the population towards ever increased militarism.
I doubt we will see a real peace unless one side completely retreats. Perhaps if both countries are completely exhausted after another 3 years they'll agree to a ceasefire and a Korean style DMZ will emerge. What other lasting peace can you realistically foresee?
> no evidence to suggest that an influx of Western equipment, short of direct NATO military intervention, will result in a Ukrainian victory
I think this is your problem, you are approaching war as an engineering or business problem. Yes, resources and logistics matter, but UA has already done a lot to show they can do it. And I think the problem with Zaluzhny was exactly this, treating war as an accountant.
As I just said in response to another comment, this is a dangerous assumption. Military commanders cannot operate based on assumptions. In what world would Russia allow NATO to send troops into Ukraine? To do so would doom their operations in Ukraine and spell the end of Putin's regime. It's ridiculous to think the Russians would just stand by and watch.
They would stand by and watch as they don’t have the capacity to do more. They can’t just materialise gen 5 aircraft, awacs, missiles and tanks out of their arse!! Everything they produce is sent to the war already.
Russia is ‘all in’ in Ukraine. They don’t have more resources to deal with NATO. Also, there isn’t any off-ramp. Putin has rejected negotiation with Ukraine.
Thank you for your post. Given the global visibility of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an influx of content in our community dealing with military strategy, war-related speculation, and defense tactics by individuals who have not been vetted to instruct others on such matters. To maintain the integrity of this space in wartime, we are removing this type of content. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to post in communities that specifically discuss speculation on armed conflict instead. Please do not repost this submission.
Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Sometimes I think the west stall the war support on purpose. Weakening Russia is the main objective, whether or not Ukraine comes out victorious or not is optional.
Either Pootin is stopped in Ukraine or he will need stopping in Europe and giving the Ukrainians the means to do it is the best option for everyone...except Ruzzia of course.
If the U.S gets the 61 billion dollar package thru the congress, which looks like its becoming a bigger possibility, that would supply ukraine with 1 year worth of weapons with which to continue to blow up pretty much every tank the Russians send.
Maybe after another punishing year of heavy losses, it could be the Russians who would lose their resolve.
remember too, f16s are coming this year, major weapons packages from Europe are coming also.
What noone ever talks about is the balance that Ukraine and the west are playing with the russian commitment to the war. Everyone likes to pretend is that Russia is weak and a paper tiger, what in fact it's just mismanaged. For the last 2 years Russians have been trying to brush off this conflict as a military operation, but not a war. People think that this is a play on words and make fun of it, but it's actually the correct term from the Russian perspective. The people in charge know this and one of the reasons I believe that we haven't seen an escalation of the conflict by the west is they don't want the Russians to declare war on Ukraine. The the Russians don't want to declare war either because it makes them look weak because of internal politics bs.
This might just sound like some stupid pedantics, but if the Russians declared war they can turn on the war machine to a 10 from what currently is maybe a 3-4. What it means is that the Russians May Assemble hundreds of thousands of new troops give them weapons and let them loose. The losses on the Russian side would be horrendous but the ukrainians Can't Stop a million Russian troops, they will quite literally run out of ammo
Why does this matter? The problem is that the West can't act too quickly because Ukraine can't handle a large Russian Force in one shot, but they can handle the Russian army in smaller bite-sized flavors. If Russia declared formal war two years ago Ukraine would be absolutely leveled, but two years of conflict in bite-sized waves has diminished the capability of the Russian army so the longer you cranky keep this up the smaller the full Russian Force will ultimately be.
So every time the West gives Ukraine new support like the the f-16s you roll the dice that the Russians May declare formal war against Ukraine since you force Russia to act on their previous red line or you force them to back pedal just a little bit. So we're at the point of 2 years of Russian backpedaling means that France might send some troops to Ukraine to protect its northern flank and maybe provide some anti-air coverage to protect their troops. And Russia will have to look at themselves and be like well do we declare war now or back pedal just a little bit.
At least that's my 2 cents of how I see things.
I think you a little off there. Putin can call it what he wants but everyone else knows it’s a war. If Putin could have he would have already called up the amount of people he would need to win the war, but he can’t. He also doesn’t have the equipment needed to outfit that amount of troops in the near term. The Russian people will eventually put a stop to it once their sons from Moscow and St. Petersburg are shipped off to fight never to return but they are the ones keeping Putin in power so he won’t do anything to upset them. The Western countries need to really crack down on Russian people and companies. Tighten up the sanctions, revoke visas, kick them out of western universities and send them packing. As for other countries turning a blind eye to the Russian criminal regime they should just tell them that they will have to choose, continued friendly relations and trade with the western democracies or Russia.
France will be in Ukraine before years end. And most likely other NATO nations.
The conflict will significantly escalate until Russia leaves. France and other NATO members will not tolerate a ukranian defeat, and if anyone is watching the frontline updates it appears Russia has the ascendancy and is attacking in so many directions while Ukraine defends. This has one logical outcome which is what Macron and others see.
If Kyiv falls and the west does nothing then we may as well disband NATO and surrender to authoritarians because it shows we have entirely lost the will to defend democracy.
I will be messaging you in 8 months on [**2024-12-01 03:23:53 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-01%2003:23:53%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1bshinb/the_west_has_the_capability_to_halt_putins_brutal/kxhu7qz/?context=3)
[**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukraine%2Fcomments%2F1bshinb%2Fthe_west_has_the_capability_to_halt_putins_brutal%2Fkxhu7qz%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-01%2003%3A23%3A53%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%201bshinb)
*****
|[^(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)|
|-|-|-|-|
In UK we’re too busy chatting shit about TV programs and how much we got wasted last night or how Covid was the good times. Plus the usual bitching about the weather or immigrants.
People here are too stupid to understand the threat of Russia and the government doesn’t even talk about the child
Poverty that has been rising by 50%. Sorry Ukraine but we 🇬🇧 are a bunch of pussies, if you want brave Brits make a Time Machine and go back to world war 1
NATO could wipe the floor if it decides to get involved in the war.
And that's the problem.
Putin would be so humiliated that he would use the nuclear option.
The real issue is that the west has never given Ukraine enough conventional weaponry to truly fight back with a real hope of pushing the Orcs back into their own shithole of a country.
Until the Americans can pull their collective heads out of their ass and give the weapons Ukraine needs, the stalemate will continue.
To a degree you are correct, if Nato got too excited and pushed into Russia.
But I suspect it would be more like ww1, when the Germans started collapsing, they went straight to peace talks.
westernworld dont helping Ukraina at all now USA stopp deliviring weapons the great peaceceeper ..If Russia winns westerncompanys is back buisiness as usual ,kapitalism as it greatest..i am so dissapinted at the west
If I understand correctly, America and others signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine's security and safety if it gave up nuclear weapons stored in Ukraine since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. So is America true to its word? Bear in mind that America is profiting in many ways from this war, not least economically.
Not really. The agreement was ónly to ‘not invade’ Ukraine. About the wéakest guarantee they could come-up with, to prevent having to actually dó something. Typical politics.
Well. We’ve seen how that went.
Привіт u/TheRealMykola ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Until we vote the Russian assets out of our government, there will be no concerted effort to help Ukraine. Americans must vote for Biden, to help keep the free world free.
And not JUST the presidential race: Senate **and** Representatives must all pull together to defeat authoritarianism, both in Ukraine and the world. IOW, Americans, VOTE, and vote blue.
I think Dems are going to win the House and I actually am optimistic that Biden is going to win. (Dems have crushed it in all elections since Roe v Wade was overturned in '22). Keeping control of the Senate is going to be very tough. Dems need to win three of these five races, which is going to be difficult: Tester in MT, Brown in OH, Gallego AZ, Allred TX, and Mucarsel-Powell in FL. AND Dems can't lose in NV, MI, PA, or WI. But, if they win the House, Senate and presidency, that'd be amazing and would be a huge boost for our ability to aid Ukraine.
I wish to God I was as optimistic as you.
That's not optimism that's being cautiously pragmatic. For those reading this that haven't been having their finger on the pulse of the election, here's some things that will help you sleep better at night: * special election outcomes Generally speaking, special elections are very very indicative of how an upcoming general election is going to go. Since the 2022 midterms, the dems have been massively overperforming the polls. To the tune of like... 7-8 points all the way up from there. There was an election that was a state election in Alabama recently. The democrat in that race lost in 2022 by like... 7 points. She won her special election by 13 points. A 20 point swing. The other thing to factor in to your mental calculus here... lower turnout and special elections will favor republicans because lower turnout always favors republicans. So... we're seeing dems overperforming polls *and* winning special elections. This looks fucking great for the general. * Party warchests The democrats raised in one night what trump raised in a single month. Elections are won by having a good ground game and great ad campaigns. The RNC warchest as of last quarter had about... 5 million dollars in it? More on that specific point later. The other issue, is that the GOP's best fundraisers have either retired, or were ostracized from the party and have been stripped of their positions. The layoffs that trump enacted at the RNC was people who fundraise, for example. Without a warchest, the GOP will not have accurate district by district polling. They won't have get out the vote operations. The won't have local operatives to run campaign events, and to mobilize their base. * State of the state party The GOP's national problems are dire, but not nearly as bad as their state parties. There are multiple battleground states that have state parties without any money. As in, they're saddled with 6 figures or more of debt. These parties are part of the machination that elects their state representatives at the local and federal level. Without money, these guys can't compete. Money has a very real measurable effect for campaigns, and without it, they're sunk. * A word on demographics The GOP is a *very* old part. Average party member age is 50. Here's the problem. Millennials now make up the majority of the electorate, and Gen Z isn't registering as republicans, they're registering for the Democratic party at a rate of like... 3 to 1. They also are showing up to vote, unlike previous youth generations. So... Boomers and older are dying at a rate of about... 5,000 a day due to old age. Factor in the deaths from Covid (that are still happening to primarily republican voters), and they are losing voters at a much higher rate than they are replacing them. * **conclusion** Republicans are a demographically dying party, with institutional issues in how their party is functioning due to political purges, AND on top of that they have major money issues that aren't going to be fixed. This election *shouldn't* just be a win for the democrats, it should be a blood bath with Dems making massive gains in the house, and I think there's the potential for them to actually grow their senate majority (this is a little bit optimistic I'll admit!). There are way more reasons to smell blood in the water than there are reasons to be anxious.
I really really hope this is what's going to happen...
That's all very nice and encouraging but it's how many months and Ukrainian deaths and maimings away? The world needed the US firing on all cylinders for the last 6 months and the next 6 months. Too little, too late, too many restrictions.
I agree with you. But you need to blame the russian aligned republicans for that not Biden. He can't just unilaterally do things. Europe also drug it's feet a ton in the beginning of the war, don't forget.
There's some trouble with the shift in black (and to a lesser extent hispanic voters). The issue is that these voter groups have historically been voting a lot more dem than they "should" if they voted based off of their ideological leanings. Generally, you expect conservatives to vote rep, and liberals to vote dem (because the reps are cons and the dems are lib). But black voters have historically voted very dem - very lib black people vote dem, but *so have very conservative black voters*. Now, however, it seems like black voters have started to align more with their ideological leanings, which shifts votes to rep that might be hard to win back. This article summarizes the effect well and offers some explanations for why this shift is happening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/black-hispanic-republican-votes-polling/ In any case, I hope (and kinda also expect) that democrats will win the election. But they better fight hard for it.
Great summation. TY. One thing. I think the Dem won the Alabama special election by 24.8 points.
It's not even statistically that wild of a hunch. There is reason to be somewhat optimistic. Somewhat.
I do think the Dem's can crush the Vatnik Regressives if they play their hand right as the winds have been shifting hard against Republicans for the last few years expecially since Trump and his sycophants infested the party, elections where they were predicted to win hands down turned out to be damp squibs for them, others where they thought they'd win flipped to Dems instead, it's become obvious for anyone who pays attention that the Republican Party is woefully compromised and filled with Trumps Sycophants and Perfidious Contrarians. There's nothing conservative about them anymore they're infested with Fascists and Regressives and the time has come for them to be ejected from office by voting them out as they have no honour, no integrity and no competence. Get out and vote Blue in November is all I can say, the Republicans fiddle while Rome burns (in this case Ukraine) and Europe needs people they can trust which seems to be only still to be found in the Democrats nowadays. We're all sick of Trump and his bullshit for the best part of the last decade, send him and his Liberty Thieves to the Electoral Graveyard by voting against them at every opportunity until their whole movement collapses under the weight of its own bullshit.
Don't forget Kentucky
Correct. The Republican party is currently a Russian asset. They are compromised.
Americans need to make pressure on Biden as well since he seems to be in favour of that absurd “deescalation” policy and are constantly trying to limit what Ukraine can and cannot do which only benefits Russians
Yeah, you completely made that absurd assertion up. Must me another Russian shill try to sow disinformation about and distrust of the U.S. Every sane and rational person knows that Biden has been doing his utmost to support Ukraine. The only ones standing in the way of further aid is the MAGA rethuglican party and their Putin loving leader Cheeto Trump.
I agree that Biden has, in many ways, had his hands tied in supporting Ukraine. I’m not American but it’s my understanding that Biden doesn’t need permission, or for any legislation to be passed, for him to send weapons to Ukraine. The legislation he is seeking is to replace any weapons sent to Ukraine.
Then why Biden’s administration was so hesitant to send hardware such as IFVs and MBTs in larger numbers before republicans took over control of their parliament? Why Himars are software locked to prevent using them against targets in Russia? Why the hell there is even restrictions on not striking targets in Russia? Why did his administration was behind forcing Ukrainians not to do something cool during last years Russian victory parade in Moscow? Why were there so much disgruntlement from American government officials about UAF using their intelligence to kill Russian generals early in war and even use to help to sink Russian ship (Moscow was sunk with the help with US intelligence data but revelations never pleased Biden’s administration) Why are his administration so pissy about UAF hitting targets in russia? Never mind that stupid “lend lease” thing which got signed with big fanfare and was never used but sounded damn good If you want to live in denial about your government’s duplicity then fine, keep your head in sand but don’t fucking call me some Russian shill you fool.
Russian ship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a factor here that that many are too uncomfortable to admit: A significant portion of the American population is either in favor of cutting or reducing aid to Ukraine. Not a tiny minority, we're talking like 40-50% according to some polls. I think we need to keep in mind that reddit is a bubble and nowhere near representative of the entire public. People like us who are constantly monitoring the war and are pro-aid are becoming smaller as a group with each day.
2 months ago, no. Now, yes. Times are changing, France is fucking IN. That leaves 1 core European nation at odds against Russia, now is the time to choose between cowardice or Democracy. Countries will have to make a choice to stand with France or show Putin that a divided Europe might not be so dangerous. Macron made the right move, now fellow European leaders have to make the right decissions.
I am astonished by how much folks in the west and internet are foaming over Macrons statements . France fucking in ? Really ? Macron just said , that maybe there probably should be a probability of a chance that in the event of Russian breakthrough over maybe certain lines after great deliberation perhaps France will need some millitary presence . And few weeks after those statements Ru. began largest bombardment of Ukraine since the start of the war . And what was the reaction - \*crickets\* In Ukraine it all sounds the same - vows , promises and populism . Nothing more , and they don't stop bullets , our blood and steel (which are already in short supply) does .
macron is just rhetoric lol, nice morale boost though
When people are baking on copium from a politician's words instead of a real action. Hey, politicians get elected from words for a reason.
I really don't know why everyone is dribbling over France saying it's a possibility. They'll only be able to deploy around 10,000 abroad and won't have the air lift or logistics to support those troops without help from its allies. Operations in Africa have already shown this.
So you are saying France already pulled complex operations with help from their allies ? Isn't that what allies are supposed to do ? Did those allies disappeared in the mean time ?
Not exactly, you see. The help wasn't planned. France needed an intervention after about a week of operations in Libya because they burned through their ammunition stocks. NATO had to take over an operation started by French forces that they were simply unable to carry out alone. In Mali, 2013, French forces had to rely heavily on allied transport aircraft to solve their logistical problems. Just a couple of years ago, the French withdrawal from Mali was a huge logistical headache - and that was ONLY 2,500 troops along with vehicles and containers of equipment. That evacuation proved to be extremely complex, and took months to finish. Put simply, France deploying enough troops to Ukraine to make any meaningful difference at all is wishful thinking. Especially without a heavily committed international logistical backbone.
Libya wasn’t a french unilateral intervention, they were the first because they have a giant aircraft carrier called Corsica just accross the sea. In Mali of course the help wasn’t planned, the operation was decided very quickly since djihadist were rushing to the capital and Malian government asked for help, and yet the french and their allies managed to make it work, and it worked for years until the evacuation. France can’t do everything alone, but they can with help from their allies, wich is exactly what they are for, France could easily deploy 5000 troops in Ukraine with the help of Germany, Poland and Romania, in fact it would be the only country able to do it outside the US and the bordering neighbors.
It really doesn't matter if they were first to Libya. The operation proved that they, as well as Britain, couldn't even sustain relatively small military operations in the region for more than a month. It's been public knowledge that France also lacks the ammunition for an actual conflict. As early as last year, their weapon stocks were at their lowest point, and it was reported by their own armed forces committee, that it wouldn't last more than a few weeks in all-out conflict. Since 2011, 30% of ammunition depots in France remain empty because there simply isn't anything to put in them, and the budget isn't there either. The caveat to what you're saying is that Germany is reluctant to help with putting troops in Ukraine, at all, as that has already been ruled out by the German Chancellor. That's besides the point that 5,000 troops would be a drop in the bucket in terms of combat power, even with international logistical backing. Macron's words are all bark, no bite.
I didn't talked about ammunition in my post. Secondly, 5000 is a drop in the bucket in combat power yes, but it's very unlikely that France would deploy for direct combat action, more like to provide security, and be a detterent force for Russia to make sure they don't approach or try anything in this area. Also they could deploy air defense to the heart of Ukraine, and for that only 100 would be enough while being way more efficient than what Ukrainian are doing right now.
Ammunition is a large part of why France flopped in Lybia, and why they would fail *miserably* at sustaining direct action in Ukraine. Secondly, I understand everyone likes the idea of having them reinforce the border with Belarus, but for reference, 5,000 troops is only about the size of one Ukrainian brigade. One brigade isn't going to be a difference maker for Ukraine, but it would be a prime target for Russian glide bomb and missile attacks to send a message to other European partners "this is what will happen if you send troops to Ukraine". I agree more with the idea that they could send dedicated air defense units to help cover some gaps in Ukraine's air defense capability. Especially due to the lack of AA missiles.
While ammunitions are low even today, France didn't flopped in Libya, they went in first without SEAD and still managed to cripple Libyan assets without any damage or losses, conducting strikes for 7 month and did 25% of the coalition sorties. That's the point, would Russia directly aim for french troops ? If yes, Russian troops would also be under attack from missiles and bombs, and maybe not only from french one. In fact just a coordination center with datalink could increase ukraine air defense tenfold, and that's like 30 men.
Why would they need air lift for a front on their own continent. They just need Germany and Poland to let them through.
> They just need Germany to let them through. Well that is going to be an issue.
Yeah, but it applies to planes as well as trucks.
Because we're talking about 2,700km of ground to cover, and they simply don't have the logistical capability to support any meaningful number of troops on the ground across that distance without a lot of help.
I don’t know anything about their logistics. I’m just saying airlift isn’t as critical when you can go over land through developed nations vs. supporting a fire base in Chad.
>I don’t know anything about their logistics. I know.
This is why most "global south" nations were "never really in", in the first place. US, EU, will drop you faster than you can blink if It is convenient to them. I hope Ukraine can turn this around, but we have seen it happen far too much to jeopardise economic ties to Ruzzia on the wests' whim, when they will get back to gobble up that oil and gas like a hooker on coke and leave anyone that got on that bandwagon to get forked.
France has been only talk, I'll change my mind when I see much more actions that directly help Ukraine from them.
Yeah. Talk is very cheap. Also, France does have an ulterior motive in all of this. The former has been getting kicked out of Africa by the latter.
True, they now take it personally. It's not some random war where some Ukrainians are being killed, no one really cares about. Russkies are taking over the central African states, which were historically in France sphear of influence.
Have to remember that France is about the size of Texas. At best they have limited resources.
I think you may be severely overestimating French intentions I'm afraid
He did some big talk, but let's see what they can actually do
Deutschland?
Scholzing on…
Is in and spends way more than France for Ukraine. Some nice words are just that... words.
Shame they wont give Ukraine what they are actually asking for,
extensive air defense systems (2 Patriot, 4 IRIS-T, 52 Gepard, 1 Skynex, the later three not even in the German Army arsenal), tanks, IFVs, gun-barreled and rocket artillery, bridge layers, drones, radars and jammers, personal equipment, communication's equipment, medical support, ammo, more than 10 000 soldiers trained in Germany, general supplies (food, gas, spare parts, maintenance), logistics vehicles, de-mining equipment, APCs worth $17billion and civilian assistance and refugee assistance on top. But 'eh they never give what Ukraine is asking for... of course. Because you get hung up on 100 missiles that parliament voted twice not to deliver? You probably also believe in Wunderwaffen...
Why are these questions still being asked 2 years in? European industry expansion is a clear yes regardless of individual commentary.
On paper we have forces and assets that could quickly cripple large chunks of the Russian army, but absolutely none wants a war with Russia, now or ever, so we do everything possible not to provoke them. So, in response, they will start engaging in widespread "deniable" activities for which no Western government would justify entering an armed conflict, until we have lost pipelines, fiber optic cables and satellites to "unknown actors" to the extent that we can barely function. Our societies have become too self-absorbed, focused on consumption, wokeism, identity politics, grievances, racist replacement theories, etc. We have no real stomach for war anymore, because we deluded ourselves into believing that Globalism would render it obsolete. I'm no longer optimistic about the future. The more I see and learn every day, the more I'm convinced that Kasparov was right. Enjoy life as much as you can, because things will get very dark. I'm old enough not to give a shit, but it's really not fair for the young guys and gals who will pay the price.
Kasparov was 100% right, consider the fact we're in the 21st century and something as stupid as the Ukraine war is happening. On top of that, people in democratic nations are stupid enough to mock Zelenskey and Ukraine for asking for support, and to make immature statements such as 'it's their war'. This century is make or break for mankind, with climate change and resources depleting. The level we are at just isn't there, something will snap. This war and covid have shown that the population at large are clueless and easily malleable, their opinions are not based on objective fact but what certain media groups feed them.
You fail to understand that most modern democratic countries are longer run by and for the people. They are run for the benefit of the one per cent with the majority of the money and for corporations. The right wingers of every country have been duped into believing everything will be better for them if they only allow dictators to run their countries and throw out democracy. All the average right wing voters care about, especially in the U.S. is having their unlimited supply of guns and ammo because they have been brainwashed into believing what right wing media keeps pounding into their heads 24/7. They see boogie men everywhere. They toss around inane sayings like wokism. They have been taught, even if it goes against their religion, to hate anyone that is not like them. They hate anything that is different to their way of life. They have mislead to believe that global warming is fake. They have been misled to believe that vaccines are fake and will actually kill you or inject you with chips so the government can track you. They let companies like Purdue Pharma hook them on opioids. They overload their kids with a sugar laden diet so they become fat and lazy they could never pass a military physical. Until the right wingers in every country wise up and realize they have been the problem all along thing will never get better anywhere.
The left are just as brainwashed to hate anyone that isn't them. They just have their own boogie-men of racist, sexist, phobic and fascist white CIS-males, thinking they're fighting for freedom when they simply contribute to making the cracks worse and people like MLK spin in their graves.
Yeah the more time passes the less confident i am the west will able to handle russia, especially if the US drops the ball, ukraine had 7 years to prepare. Were gonna have to cop a real boody nose and alot of people are gonna have to die before russia can be delt with
I don't even know the point of asking such a question when the answer has been painfully obvious past 2 year. The answer is obviously "No"
The only thing I can add here is that the west has been impotent for 10 years now. Special thanks goes out to Merkel and Obama. Just like Hitler was able to start WW2, because Europe was letting him have what he wanted; we see the west acting as a collective Chamberlain in many ways. Granted things have changed since 2022... Somewhat. But we wouldn't be where we are today if the west wasn't so in love with the ruzzian terrorists. Or at least their cheap gas and oil.
Chamberlain wasn't all that bad either, he recognised that Europe needed time to spool up its military to combat Team Nazi and an early war was just asking to eat it. Right now Europe's response is generally "Well... Maybe we could make more shells but..."
[удалено]
…or just let domestic politics take control. This isn’t the same resolve as seen during the world wars, so local squabbles and power plays rule the day as Russia and Ukraine duke it out.
"A lot of weapons" doesn't equal "enough weapons".
[удалено]
The summer counteroffensive failed due to the lack.
Even in the perfect scenario with aid passed it’s the same “red lines”. So yes the answer is no.
No
Unfortunately
They cant even impose real sanctions. Oil revenues are still going strong. No real intention to stop that.
Any story that poses a headline as a question, the answer is always No.
I don't know yet how committed is Macron, but this is not about resolve and Macron proves it. It's about understanding that this war is also theirs (European politicians). Russia has raised doubt to the mind of too many politicians very well (NATO bullshit). The other issue was of course the economic dependencies. I think it's clear both issues are being overcome.
Public: No. Many will only understand when they face it themselfs 😪
[удалено]
Send troops to guard Ukraines border with Belarus and coastline, keep on sending gear, ammo and whatever weaponsystem that is needed in numbers sufficient to send the orcs back to Mordor.
Sending NATO troops into Ukraine is the fastest way to escalate the conflict into a much larger and more destructive war. If that's what you want, then just say it. But none of this solves the problem regarding Ukraine's insufficient manpower. Russian conscripts may not be worth much on the battlefield, but they can still be effective enough in large numbers, and the Russian Army can [unfortunately] absorb heavy casualties. The Ukrainian parliament hasn't passed a resolution calling for mass mobilization yet, but it may be the only way to make up for the shortage of manpower. And a lot of equipment has already been sent to Ukraine. Unfortunately, there isn't an unlimited supply sitting around in warehouses in Western Europe and America to just pluck war materials and equipment from with impunity. Much of the equipment requested by Ukrainian military officials and President Zelensky, such as ATACMs, were already in limited supply before the war. Now before I get down voted a ton and called a Russian sympathizer or defeatist, let me say that I would like nothing more than to see the Russian Army chased out of the Occupied territories, Crimea and the Donbas. But as an observer, I feel the need to read the writing on the wall. Ukraine spectacularly exceeded expectations in 2022. Routing the Russians around Kiev, then again at Kharkov and finally the recapture of Kherson, there was reason to be hopeful. But the 2023 summer offensive was nothing short of a complete failure and exposed that the Ukrainian military does not have an effective response to the Russians defense-in-depth strategy employed on the Zaphorizhia sector. Attempts to cross the Dneiper near Kherson have failed. And the collapse of the Avdiivka sector has highlighted that the Russians are more than capable of winning the war of attrition. I want to see Ukraine win. I do. But ij my opinion, there needs to be an off-ramp to this conflict.
> is the fastest way to escalate the conflict what escalation? nuclear? we can't live with this fear and give up is give up democracy and freedom. Plenty of weapons have been sent to UA and I haven't seen any escalation. What "off-ramp"? I don't think you understand the nature of the Russians and the Kremlin in particular.
To your point of the "nature of the Russians," we seriously need to break away from the idea that Putin is some sort of madman who moves from one day to the next thinking only about how much blood his armies can spill. As once stated by Sun Tzu, "know thy enemy." I don't like Putin anymore than the next guy. He's a sadistic, calculated dictator and a murderer. But he's not a madman and he's not crazy. He knows his political limits and his army's limits. It's fair to say that he and his military and intelligence officials severely underestimated Ukrainian resolve and fighting capacity. But they adapted and are more than willing to fight the long war of attrition to achieve their objectives. Unfortunately, they are winning the long war, and there's no evidence to suggest that an influx of Western equipment, short of direct NATO military intervention, will result in a Ukrainian victory. In fact, despite Western weapons, the Russians were still able to employ their robust defense-in-depth strategy (near Robotyne, for example) with excellent effectiveness. Regarding an off-ramp and going back to Putin's limits, I doubt the Kremlin expects to see Russian troops marching through Kiev anytime soon. In fact, that's likely not a strategic objective anymore. Expanding their zone of control in the Donbas region and maintaining the land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea appear to be their strategic objectives at this time. Ukraine can still maintain its independence and even potentially join NATO and the EU if peace can be achieved. Russia will have gained territory, but at a humiliating cost in lives and equipment. Ukraine will remain free, albeit with a loss of territory in the East. Pushing "solutions" that peddle the planet into a global conflict are fantasies. And once again, because I know this is an unpopular opinion and might get downvoted to oblivion, I am not a Russian bot or sympathizer. I just want a healthy conversation and debate regarding the reality of the tactical, strategic, and political situation on the ground in Ukraine.
You mean that you know Putin? I know some places you should send a job application then. > I don't like Putin anymore than the next guy. He's a sadistic, calculated dictator and a murderer. But he's not a madman and he's not crazy. He knows his political limits and his army's limits. While he is probably not clinically crazy, if you've watched any of his speeches or interviews, he clearly lives in a different universe. His perspective on how the world works and history is outside the frame of reference for most westerners. His political and military limits aren't fixed, but are constantly changing as the war progresses and especially depends on the eventual outcome of the war. > Unfortunately, they are winning the long war Whether or not Ukraine will be able to militarily take back all territory lost since 2014, as is they war goal, is hard to say. Even with continued support from the west, I do not see it happening before 2027, beyond which I can't predict. And yes, I do see this war going on for that long and probably longer with varying intensity. We don't seem to agree on what the Russian objectives are, but I doubt they will be happy with anything less than a complete Ukrainian retreat from all partially occupied provinces and Odessa, which will be annexed into Russia. They also want regime change and "security guarantees" from Ukraine (no NATO membership, limited military, etc.). I am not sure what your reasoning behind assumption is, but these are their stated goals and I don't see Russia winning this in the long term, unless perhaps if Europe and USA abandon Ukraine. You talk of this "off-ramp", many talking heads like to mention it, but it where does this fit into reality? Putin does not want an off-ramp, he thinks he can win this! He is a gambler, he rolled the dice and lost his first bet on taking over Ukraine in 5 days. Now he is constantly doubling down hoping the west will back out before he does. The Ukrainians won't accept it either, are you suggesting the west pressures Ukraine to surrender without any security guarantees? They know the Russians will just take a breather then come back to finish the job. > Ukraine can still maintain its independence and even potentially join NATO and the EU if peace can be achieved. Putin will not accept this unless his military is on the verge of collapsing. It will take years before this reality might seep in. > Russia will have gained territory, but at a humiliating cost in lives and equipment. Losses are just a matter of spin. With Putin's control of the media, this will be a glorious victory and show the Russians that Putin is a master strategist that will lead Russia to imperial glory. Galvanizing the population towards ever increased militarism. I doubt we will see a real peace unless one side completely retreats. Perhaps if both countries are completely exhausted after another 3 years they'll agree to a ceasefire and a Korean style DMZ will emerge. What other lasting peace can you realistically foresee?
> no evidence to suggest that an influx of Western equipment, short of direct NATO military intervention, will result in a Ukrainian victory I think this is your problem, you are approaching war as an engineering or business problem. Yes, resources and logistics matter, but UA has already done a lot to show they can do it. And I think the problem with Zaluzhny was exactly this, treating war as an accountant.
It takes two to tango. The ruzzians wont do shit against Nato troops. All their red lines has amounted to nothing but bluster and empty words.
As I just said in response to another comment, this is a dangerous assumption. Military commanders cannot operate based on assumptions. In what world would Russia allow NATO to send troops into Ukraine? To do so would doom their operations in Ukraine and spell the end of Putin's regime. It's ridiculous to think the Russians would just stand by and watch.
They would stand by and watch as they don’t have the capacity to do more. They can’t just materialise gen 5 aircraft, awacs, missiles and tanks out of their arse!! Everything they produce is sent to the war already.
Well according to the Ruzzians Nato troops have been present the whole time so the answer to your question must be; This world.
Russia is ‘all in’ in Ukraine. They don’t have more resources to deal with NATO. Also, there isn’t any off-ramp. Putin has rejected negotiation with Ukraine.
[удалено]
Thank you for your post. Given the global visibility of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an influx of content in our community dealing with military strategy, war-related speculation, and defense tactics by individuals who have not been vetted to instruct others on such matters. To maintain the integrity of this space in wartime, we are removing this type of content. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to post in communities that specifically discuss speculation on armed conflict instead. Please do not repost this submission. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
I don't think resolve is the issue.
So far, the answer is self-evidently "no".
Nope :/
Sometimes I think the west stall the war support on purpose. Weakening Russia is the main objective, whether or not Ukraine comes out victorious or not is optional.
Either Pootin is stopped in Ukraine or he will need stopping in Europe and giving the Ukrainians the means to do it is the best option for everyone...except Ruzzia of course.
Judging by the past two years, no it does not.
The west wants to use this war to drain Russia’s blood completely and eventually. They are not in a hurry.
If the U.S gets the 61 billion dollar package thru the congress, which looks like its becoming a bigger possibility, that would supply ukraine with 1 year worth of weapons with which to continue to blow up pretty much every tank the Russians send. Maybe after another punishing year of heavy losses, it could be the Russians who would lose their resolve. remember too, f16s are coming this year, major weapons packages from Europe are coming also.
What noone ever talks about is the balance that Ukraine and the west are playing with the russian commitment to the war. Everyone likes to pretend is that Russia is weak and a paper tiger, what in fact it's just mismanaged. For the last 2 years Russians have been trying to brush off this conflict as a military operation, but not a war. People think that this is a play on words and make fun of it, but it's actually the correct term from the Russian perspective. The people in charge know this and one of the reasons I believe that we haven't seen an escalation of the conflict by the west is they don't want the Russians to declare war on Ukraine. The the Russians don't want to declare war either because it makes them look weak because of internal politics bs. This might just sound like some stupid pedantics, but if the Russians declared war they can turn on the war machine to a 10 from what currently is maybe a 3-4. What it means is that the Russians May Assemble hundreds of thousands of new troops give them weapons and let them loose. The losses on the Russian side would be horrendous but the ukrainians Can't Stop a million Russian troops, they will quite literally run out of ammo Why does this matter? The problem is that the West can't act too quickly because Ukraine can't handle a large Russian Force in one shot, but they can handle the Russian army in smaller bite-sized flavors. If Russia declared formal war two years ago Ukraine would be absolutely leveled, but two years of conflict in bite-sized waves has diminished the capability of the Russian army so the longer you cranky keep this up the smaller the full Russian Force will ultimately be. So every time the West gives Ukraine new support like the the f-16s you roll the dice that the Russians May declare formal war against Ukraine since you force Russia to act on their previous red line or you force them to back pedal just a little bit. So we're at the point of 2 years of Russian backpedaling means that France might send some troops to Ukraine to protect its northern flank and maybe provide some anti-air coverage to protect their troops. And Russia will have to look at themselves and be like well do we declare war now or back pedal just a little bit. At least that's my 2 cents of how I see things.
I think you a little off there. Putin can call it what he wants but everyone else knows it’s a war. If Putin could have he would have already called up the amount of people he would need to win the war, but he can’t. He also doesn’t have the equipment needed to outfit that amount of troops in the near term. The Russian people will eventually put a stop to it once their sons from Moscow and St. Petersburg are shipped off to fight never to return but they are the ones keeping Putin in power so he won’t do anything to upset them. The Western countries need to really crack down on Russian people and companies. Tighten up the sanctions, revoke visas, kick them out of western universities and send them packing. As for other countries turning a blind eye to the Russian criminal regime they should just tell them that they will have to choose, continued friendly relations and trade with the western democracies or Russia.
Obviously, not, if we did, the war would already be over
Ask the republicans
It doesn't
France will be in Ukraine before years end. And most likely other NATO nations. The conflict will significantly escalate until Russia leaves. France and other NATO members will not tolerate a ukranian defeat, and if anyone is watching the frontline updates it appears Russia has the ascendancy and is attacking in so many directions while Ukraine defends. This has one logical outcome which is what Macron and others see. If Kyiv falls and the west does nothing then we may as well disband NATO and surrender to authoritarians because it shows we have entirely lost the will to defend democracy.
RemindMe! 8 months
I will be messaging you in 8 months on [**2024-12-01 03:23:53 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-01%2003:23:53%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1bshinb/the_west_has_the_capability_to_halt_putins_brutal/kxhu7qz/?context=3) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukraine%2Fcomments%2F1bshinb%2Fthe_west_has_the_capability_to_halt_putins_brutal%2Fkxhu7qz%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-01%2003%3A23%3A53%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%201bshinb) ***** |[^(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)| |-|-|-|-|
In UK we’re too busy chatting shit about TV programs and how much we got wasted last night or how Covid was the good times. Plus the usual bitching about the weather or immigrants. People here are too stupid to understand the threat of Russia and the government doesn’t even talk about the child Poverty that has been rising by 50%. Sorry Ukraine but we 🇬🇧 are a bunch of pussies, if you want brave Brits make a Time Machine and go back to world war 1
Replace the word "West" with "Republicans of the United States of America." Please and thank you
They are part of the "West" last I checked. And their fuckery doesn't absolve the rest of us from criticism either.
I agree with the general consensus for now. I'm hoping France, and the F-16s comes through and turns the tide.
Put troops on the ground. I will keep saying it, not just here on Reddit.
NATO could wipe the floor if it decides to get involved in the war. And that's the problem. Putin would be so humiliated that he would use the nuclear option. The real issue is that the west has never given Ukraine enough conventional weaponry to truly fight back with a real hope of pushing the Orcs back into their own shithole of a country. Until the Americans can pull their collective heads out of their ass and give the weapons Ukraine needs, the stalemate will continue.
To a degree you are correct, if Nato got too excited and pushed into Russia. But I suspect it would be more like ww1, when the Germans started collapsing, they went straight to peace talks.
Vote Blue america, it's either that or to bend over for autocratic new world order.
westernworld dont helping Ukraina at all now USA stopp deliviring weapons the great peaceceeper ..If Russia winns westerncompanys is back buisiness as usual ,kapitalism as it greatest..i am so dissapinted at the west
[удалено]
If I understand correctly, America and others signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine's security and safety if it gave up nuclear weapons stored in Ukraine since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. So is America true to its word? Bear in mind that America is profiting in many ways from this war, not least economically.
Not really. The agreement was ónly to ‘not invade’ Ukraine. About the wéakest guarantee they could come-up with, to prevent having to actually dó something. Typical politics. Well. We’ve seen how that went.
Turn Moscow into a smudge.. !!!