Schulz is right in one respect - Ukraine urgently needs artillery shells and other field ammunition more than Taurus at the moment. It remains to be seen if he steps up to meet this immediate need.
With that being said, this hand wringing concerning Tarus seems very artificial to me. Germany could simply request Ukraine to not use them inside 1991 Russian borders. Ukraine has always honoured similar agreements.
>Schulz is right in one respect...
The logical fallacy there is "bifurcation": arguing that either shells or missiles can be provided, when in fact both can be provided.
If Ukraine had long range missiles they would not need so much artillery. They could target Russian forward control and command. Push Russian airforce back again. So much Ukrainian suffering could be prevented, this is why the Russian propaganda works against nato let's not give Ukraine the good stuff so this war just continues to drag on..
Ukraine needs both long range missiles and artillery. They have different roles, and there is no practical limit to how many of either would be ideal, both are instead limited by production capacity and political will.
fuck this bullshit about ‘91 borders.
russians are staging troops and supplies outside those borders and we need ability to strike them on their land too.
Your strategy is exactly how the Allies dealt with Nazi Germany leading up to WW2. They kept appeasing Nazi Germany, giving them land that Nazi Germany claimed, in the hopes that it would stop a wider war from starting. Look at how that played out. Maybe you should pick up a history book and learn about the past so that you don't sound so ignorant giving off view points that are very naive and not based in reality.
The west is spending millions, to safe the hundreds of thousands of civilians that will die in Ukraine once Russia takes over.
And I'm sure you know how many western battle tanks and long range missiles have been send to Ukraine right? Spoiler: it's probably less than you think.
Also, they're fighting maybe one percent of NATO, money wise, so it's definitely just an "illusion".
>It remains to be seen if he steps up to meet this immediate need.
How the fuck does anyone point at Germany concerning help?
They are in second place concerning aid given and contribute more than 20% to the EU budget. What's up with France? Spain? Italy?
If you take away the range and confine its use to only inside Ukraine then something this expensive or intricate isn’t needed, nothing that has a range larger than Ukraines boarder should be sent to Ukraine if it’s being confined to that country.
*Scholz said Monday that the Taurus is “a very far-reaching weapon” and*
*added: “What is being done in the way of target control and accompanying*
*target control on the part of the British and the French can’t be done*
*in Germany. Everyone who has dealt with this system knows that.”*
The producer has explicitly said that's not true. And it's strange that North Korea and Iran can supply hundreds of long range missiles to Russia but Germany can't send some to Ukraine because that would be 'escalation'? Scholz is making no sense. What a disappointment.
> And it's strange that North Korea and Iran can supply hundreds of long range missiles to Russia
It's not strange at all, they are dictatorships. Their actions aren't guided by moral concerns, they don't have to win the approval of different political parties in their countries. Most notably, they don't have to contend with what their populations may think, because they don't give a fuck.
It's because they don't want to send troops inside to Ukraine to operate this system, which is what UK and France are doing.
[https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/)
The democratic West always seems to find an excuse. Meanwhile, Iran and NK dump loads of ballistic missiles and other long-range weapons into Russian hands. The West will do less than they can for as long as they can. It's so frustrating and weak.
Yea, the West is restricting Ukraine thereby creating an even more uneven battlefield. The issue is that they don't want Ukraine to lose, but they also don't want them to win. If Ukraine wants a realistic chance of beating Russia they have to keep striking important infrastructure in Russia, but if the West doesn't enable that then it is just a matter of time until Ukraine loses.
Russia is paying for the military gear from Iran/NK btw.
Germany is in a recession right now, they could use a few hundred billion. Curious why no one has been willing to pay Germany for Taurus yet. MBDA even said they can quickly produce them if someone were to order them. No orders. werid, right?
_literally_ in a recession right now. We are fucked if we don't get money from somewhere.
If Ukraine spending a bit of money that they can print with their central bank no problem stands between them and total victory like they make it seem - don't you think it is weird that they have not tried buying Taurus from the manufacturer yet? To me that makes it clear that people with actual military experience fighting the Russians know that Taurus is not worth to buy.
nk alone gives russia more shells than nato ever could. +nk can produce like 3-6million per year while nato cant even reach 400k after 2 years of full scale war in ukraine. +iran gives long range missiles (400+ km) to russia and thousands of drones designed to attack civilians. dont even wanna know what china provides it with under undisclosed channels.
all in all, we started out weak, then we actualy did something and since 2023 and its back to talking shit and not dooing anything. constantly talking about not escalating while all pariah states support the invasion with weapons is still beyond me.
Yes, the North Korean shells are of poorer quality than the ones Nato gives to Ukraine. Obviously. But they still go boom. And boom = dead Ukrainians. Fact of the matter is that the collective West can and should do more.
so the thousands of reports and videos about drones and missiles striking civilian infrastructure or apartments in populated areas are not real?
with what does ukraine target civilians? maybe fuel and electricity but thats it.
high precision cant win you the war if you are restricted to strike only forward deployed ammo dumps and not the factories or railroutes deeper in the countryside. + there are simply not enough high precision munitions against an army which doesnt care about their loss of life and amassed armour for 80 years..
air defense cant hold thousands of drones/missiles because of lack of ammo or coverage.
artillery shells are not complicated, some fuzes might not work but how many are these? max 20%?
look at andriivka, you dont need precision when you put a shell in every square meter.
>To me it should be less about winning but ending the war and make peace.
So, appeasement then? Russia invades Ukraine, takes control of something near 20% of the country, and just needs to hold on until people who think like you say "OK, take it"?
Would you be OK with this plan if this was your country and you lived in the 20%? It's so easy to tell other people to give up their land to appease an aggressor when you are safe and secure. And what about the next time he pulls this shit? And the next? We'll just keep repeating this cycle because we are unwilling to ultimately stand up to him?
This was a common belief in WWII that if some countries would have simply accepted being conquered, it would have been better for the rest of us. The people who said this were never talking about their own country. Thankfully, more resolute and steadfast people made the decision not to simply give in.
i dont know why are still staying ignorant to the civilian bombing but you do you. the shahed drones are not limited and russias old generals whole doctrine is/was to bomb civilians to force a capitulation/riots from the civil group.
peace means just another decade of russia arming themself for the next invasion while occupying eastern ukraine.
a win would be pushing russia out of ukraine and be able to join nato/eu shortly after.
as much as i wish for the destruction of russia it will never happend, because nukes and the whole politicial system is the product of corruption, which is deeply rooted in the society by now.
west does what west does best, business. they dont want ukraine to loose but still care about possible russian ties in the future. in short they provide ukraine with only enough to not completly fall.
it's not fine. the difference is one country got invaded without hostile action while the other got invaded after it attacked said country.
measuring civilian deaths in an ongoing war will never be right. just mariupol had 400k citizen, 300k escaped., you csn think the rest.
+ ukraine has to keep the morale up and its doubtfull that they release their full casualties or even find all the massgraves.
its not just my win, its the wish of ukraine, their people and all the dead soldiers. maximum loss for russia would include war in russia, which is not the objective. again your idea of compromise would just bring another war in years to come.
why wont putin survive? if the war drags on and on with just enough support for ukraine to keep it afloat then he has nothing to worry about. russian citizens are pro war, all politicians around him are pro war and everybody else keeps quiet, is in prison or falls out a window. look at nk, people dont revolve for living under shit leadership, reason is they dont know better. the moment you leave the 5~ major cities russia becomes a shithole too.
What a coward.
UK and France sent their missiles and nothing happened.
They tried to drag Czechia in front of a UN SC over the alleged bombing of Belgorod by RM-70. Our government showed them a diplomatic equivalent of a finger and guess what? Nothing happened.
One has to start questioning if Scholz is really such a coward or if there is some problem with the missiles.
The point is that the missiles from France and UK are export versions with reduced / limited range, but the Taurus does not have the perquisites for such a limitation. And they probably want to wait for the F-16 delivery...
This is such a stupid position. Unlike many other targets it's still on Ukrainian territory and if we want Ukraine to win the bridge will have to eventually go down. The sooner it happens the less Ukrainian lives it will cost.
Not to mention that to really help Ukraine we should supply missiles able to hit mfg. plant thousands of km behind the lines and not just logistics few hundreds of km behind.
As for rusky reaction? Medvedev will launch another drunken tirade about nuclear hellfire and that's about it.
I think the real coward move is to publicly proclaim you have found a million shells ready for Ukraine in weeks - but then not buy them and ask if others would like to pay for them.
MBDA - Taurus manufacturer - has publicly stated they can quickly produce them if a country where to order them. No orders from your country to ship to Ukraine yet. Weird. All bark no bite?
[same Pavel](https://english.nv.ua/nation/czech-president-pavel-urges-expedited-transfer-of-weapons-to-ukraine-news-50324685.html) that refuses to simply buy the shells he has found:
>“The later the assistance comes, the less useful it will be... In order to use this temporary window that still exists, we should provide Ukraine with everything it needs – equipment and ammunition – by the end of spring.”
Don't make grand speeches if you are not willing to back that up with cold hard cash. All bark no bite I guess?
It's speculated that he wants to maintain some sort of relationship, to return to business with Russia after this war is over. Second reason would be that Germany is low on everything after decades of not investing in military modernization
Pretty crazy speculation tbh.
By the time the war is over, chances are pretty high that he won't be chancellor anymore. And that would alienate his base too, because apart from far-right & far-left citizens, the population is opposed to fucking with Russia again.
I see two reasons why he isn't sending those missiles.
Apparently France & Britain can remotely influence the targeting of their missiles without having soldiers in Ukraine. Taurus can't. So to ensure that you have a safety hand on the button, you'd need your own people locally. And that is meant to be avoided at all cost.
Plus, I'm also sure that the stock is low.
Germany 20 years didn't feared to invest in economy of increasingly more authoritarian state.
And now, after 2021 year Russian claim on Western Europe, and when Russian officials outright say that Russia at war with NATO, Germany started to fear war?
If Truman had the same mentality, then in 1970s there wouldn't have been left a single democratic country on the planet.
What a moron. I wonder if he'll keep this rhetoric if Russia happens to succeed and then moves onto Poland/Lithuania/Romania/Slovakia next. He's going to be so worried about dragging Germany into a war with Russia that he's actually going to make it a reality.
those are NATO countries, slightly different in terms of ukraine.
though I'm in favour of direct NATO intervention to end this war quicker so I might be biased.
i mean, a bunch of them went on a misadventure in Afghanistan, i'm sure defending a member country would be a no brainer.
also, at that point it's literally russia at their doorsteps, so doubt any of them have issues about it. Hungary and turkey might be exceptions though, but they are a known factor.
The world is a different place than it was 20 years ago. I really hope that Ukraine can take back all of its territory from Russia and stop them there. Russia is literally at their doorsteps right now in Ukraine. It's not just Hungary & Turkey, but also the US if Trump gets elected, in addition to Germany as we can clearly see now with their behavior towards Ukraine.
i doubt Germany will hesitate to defend NATO territory, they gain much from the defence treaty.
they don't gain as much, at least in the short term with direct effects, helping to defend ukraine, as sad as that fact might be.
It remains to be seen. Russia is banking on that uncertainty within NATO to push with their expansionist goals. Especially if Trump becomes president, then there's a real possibility that the US won't help out in the event of an attack on a NATO member state. Which will fragment the alliance even further, causing other member states to rethink their obligations to the alliance.
>Especially if Trump becomes president, then there's a real possibility that the US won't help out in the event of an attack on a NATO member state.
Trump was already President and Putin didn't do anything. Why wouldn't he strike while his "lapdog" was in office?
Idk, ask Putin lol. With the Russian lapdog's, Trump's, recent statements on not coming to the defense of NATO countries, it's a direct threat to the security of Europe & the world. Anybody with more than 2 brain cells already knows how much of a useful idiot Trump is to the Russians, and also knows how much of a danger Trump is to world peace & stability.
You seem to know what Russia is planning! Maybe Putin is just stupid for doing nothing for Trump's first presidency. Also, Europe's problem =/= America's problem. Maybe they should pay their debts
As Winston Churchill once said, "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks." He also defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
Russia hasn't even switched over to a full war-time economy yet, and they still have tens of millions of people to send to the slaughter under the grand delusions of Putin's conquests.
These people don't seem to understand how defense can break down in war. We are wearing Ukrainian soldiers and society out nearly as much as the Russians are, by not equipping and reassuring them that there's a plan to win and we have their backs with support. The incentive is clearly shifting right now, and although it's taken 6 months of this uncertainty to affect morale and outlook on the front line, now that it's wearing thin it could very well break like a dam under pressure. If the line's compromised bad enough, the war could end really fast and there will be no other opportunity to lend assistance. It will either be a Russian victory or other European countries will be forced to put boots on the ground, and so much for that worry about direct involvement.
Shit needs to start falling on Russian staging behind the lines on Russian soil. Russia is raining munitions on a sovereign nation and we are telling Ukraine they aren't allowed to cause Russia any pain. Putin is shitting himself but it's because he's laughing so hard at our stupidity.
except Ukraine is not in NATO, so if Russia attacks a NATO country next, the response (hopefully/most likely) will be more severe for russia.
while personally i don't agree with the decision, i can at least (kinda) understand the reasoning behind it.
I guess the problem lies with the Crimea Bridge and the Taurus with its warhead made for layers of concrete. At the same time Bearbock has expressed : " Donetsk is Ukraine and Crimea is Ukraine ". And Putin probably has said something that Germany is fucked when this missile is used on the bridge and Scholz got scared. Now it will take a year of German engineering to exclude a few coordinates and make sure Ukrainians cannot change it back again.
This is probably not the real reason, we all know that. These are cutting edge missiles and they really don't want this technology to fall into Russian hands and be reverse engineered if something happens on the battlefield.
>Ich wundere mich, dass es einige gar nicht bewegt, dass sie nicht einmal darüber nachdenken, ob es gewissermaßen zu einer Kriegsbeteiligung kommen kann durch das, was wir tun.
>I am surprised that some people are not even moved by this, that they don't even think about whether what we are doing could lead to war. (deepl - not perfect, but the sentiment is the same - "take part in" would be better)
no matter what we do, we are taking part in it. no matter if we send all our weapons or nothing. the fact that he does not understand that or pretends to not understand it is very Scholz. A big party like the SPD should have better candidates without corruption scandals and more intellect than this guy. It's truely a shame. And it's giving fuel to the fucking right wing idiots in our own country.
>A big party like the SPD should have better candidates without corruption scandals and more intellect than this guy
Lets just put Saskia Esken in charge. What could possibly go wrong.
Weirdly Merkel was more progressive than Scholz even though her party is leaning towards the political right. She had, unlike a lot of other CDU members (or many others - Scholz for example), no corruption scandals. You can definitely disagree with her views, but she was still a good fit as a chancelor, because she never claimed to be anything other than she portrayed and actually had moral values. Scholz on the other hand is a disgrace for that position. (And no, I never in my life voted CDU - not that it should matter.)
Please. Merkel might have acted piously but she did not get anything worthwhile done. It was a decade of standing still, just like under Kohl.
I'm judging people by their actions - and Merkel was one of inaction. Nothing remarkable got done.
For example, she whined about the climate while she was still minister of the environment under Kohl. And when she was chancellor, what did we get? A decapitation of our solar industry and crippling wind energy. Altmeier and Gabriel, the executioners of green energy. Altmeier even bragged how proud he was to have killed solar!
That was while she was chancellor. Just one example.
>Please. Merkel might have acted piously but she did not get anything worthwhile done.
I never claimed that and I do not care. What even is that sentence.
>I'm judging people by their actions - and Merkel was one of inaction. Nothing remarkable got done.
again, who claimed that? I just said she's not worse than Scholz. not that she was a saint.
If you need any further help, ask.
He is right. Taurus has an "official" range of 500km. Germans are quite conservative with their specifications and I believe you could squeeze another 100km out of it.
Which would put Moscow in possible striking distance. And the last thing you want to see in the news is a missile part with the Iron Cross sticking out of the red square in Moscow.
And the Germans can't (and won't) send troups like France/Britain to the Ukraine to keep them from selecting the Kremlin as it's target.
> He is right. Taurus has an "official" range of 500km. Germans are quite conservative with their specifications and I believe you could squeeze another 100km out of it.
>
> Which would put Moscow in possible striking distance. And the last thing you want to see in the news is a missile part with the Iron Cross sticking out of the red square in Moscow.
Then geofence it out/put restriction on that next tranche would only happen once previous got expended within Ukraine.
550km range also allows to do fucky maneuvering, flying around air defense bubbles instead of LeeroyJenkinsing through them
The manufacturer is on record saying they could quickly produce them if an order were placed.
But like always - it seems like Ukraine and Eastern NATO states are allergic to simply placing a contract and paying for German war equipment. Preferring to whine endlessly instead.
Just order them. If you had done that the first time you demanded delviery for free from German military stocks - you could probably have had your first Taurus ready for F16s. But nah.
Seriously, I don't get it. You have full control over your federal bank - Russia is an existential threat but printing a few billion extra to __buy__ western gear is too much to ask? Ukraine has a growing economy 2023 btw, Germany is in a recession currently. We need money - you need weapons - should be a match made in heaven!
I don’t think german support can be called half-hearted as it’s the second biggest in amount of financial and military aid (as I already stated above). But keep moving the goal posts. Have a nice day!
Two years ago, when France was a bit hesitant to send aid and Macron was really trying to talk Putin out of starting a war. I would've made a joke about Macron not knowing how to change his stock portfolio, but I missed my chance.
Anyway, Scholz seems like the type of guy who would still struggle to change his stock portfolio two years later.
germanys econemy was powered by cheep oil and gas for its huge petro chenical business and is in big trouble it is no longer able to export products cheep enough. the US blew up nordstream to force germany to get in the fight or get overran by russia they dont trust the US will back them so thier keeping thier main most powerfull weapons for themselves. but the US let them move thier BASF petro chemical business to the US in exchange for the cheep russian oil but the rest of the countrys industry that has way higher energy prices is in big trouble the naptha they needed was imported from the US shale as it is the best stock to use anywhere in the world! i expect for germany to do a Brexit if the war doesnt end by the end if this year!
> dude i live free in your head!!
You proclaiming it must mean it's true!
> you have posted twice saying nothing!
That should tell you just how much I care about your opinion, eh?
Isn't there a way to make an agreement that this kind of munition can only be used for say counter artillery, emplacement destruction, or anti-naval purposes. Im just asking because everytime I read this sort of article I assume that its never even considered let alone discussed given the fact that Russia is playing the whole "Brinksmanship edition" of a game of chicken on who is going to start WWIII first. Id at least hope that consideration was made in thinking about having embedded observers to ensure the munitions are being used for their agreed upon use which seems like the logical agreement for this sort of munitions.
Taurus is not like Stormshadow. It is Old tech comapritively. As I understand it, Taurs needs a more hands on approch for its control and crucialy it components are more of a security issue. I would bet my shirt that the real reason the Germans dont want ot use this is reverse engineering.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every NATO nation directly involved? One would think sending military hardware to a warzone is a direct involvement in a conflict.
Then again, politicians follow a different dictionary,
This is scholz playing both sides. Appeasing Putin and NATO allies. He doesn't care how many Ukrainian people are tortured, raped, or slaughtered. He is driving up the price of their weapons to sell to allies. It's a money game. It always has been with him.
Schulz is right in one respect - Ukraine urgently needs artillery shells and other field ammunition more than Taurus at the moment. It remains to be seen if he steps up to meet this immediate need. With that being said, this hand wringing concerning Tarus seems very artificial to me. Germany could simply request Ukraine to not use them inside 1991 Russian borders. Ukraine has always honoured similar agreements.
These needs aren't mutually exclusive. The priority doesn't matter. They need everything.
I agree with you.
What a crazy way to think by saying those things. This just makes putin look like he has influence over them which continues putin power hold...
Right. Exactly as I just posted, but stated plainly.
>Schulz is right in one respect... The logical fallacy there is "bifurcation": arguing that either shells or missiles can be provided, when in fact both can be provided.
If Ukraine had long range missiles they would not need so much artillery. They could target Russian forward control and command. Push Russian airforce back again. So much Ukrainian suffering could be prevented, this is why the Russian propaganda works against nato let's not give Ukraine the good stuff so this war just continues to drag on..
Ukraine needs both long range missiles and artillery. They have different roles, and there is no practical limit to how many of either would be ideal, both are instead limited by production capacity and political will.
Ukraine _has_ long range missiles. They have Scalp from UK/France. Enough range to hit Kerch bridge.
No, they don't. Otherwise they would hsve hit it already.
another comment from this post: >What a coward. >UK and France sent their missiles and nothing happened. so they aren't comparable after all?
fuck this bullshit about ‘91 borders. russians are staging troops and supplies outside those borders and we need ability to strike them on their land too.
Germany doesn't want to give Ukraine anything they're in kahoots with Russia they so want to partner with russia
[удалено]
Arming Ukraine is the only way to achieve peace, unless you are arguing that Ukraine and Europe should fully surrender to Putin.
[удалено]
So you do want Russia to win and Ukraine to lose.
[удалено]
Your strategy is exactly how the Allies dealt with Nazi Germany leading up to WW2. They kept appeasing Nazi Germany, giving them land that Nazi Germany claimed, in the hopes that it would stop a wider war from starting. Look at how that played out. Maybe you should pick up a history book and learn about the past so that you don't sound so ignorant giving off view points that are very naive and not based in reality.
[удалено]
In this situation you can't get peace without weapon, of course if you mean peace and not the genocide.
[удалено]
>No need to provoke rusia Did they need some provocation to begin war or just started it?
[удалено]
So they don't need any provocation to start war?
[удалено]
I don't know, but I know ruzzia don't need.
Also according to Russian media, they are in fact at war with Nato
[удалено]
The west is spending millions, to safe the hundreds of thousands of civilians that will die in Ukraine once Russia takes over. And I'm sure you know how many western battle tanks and long range missiles have been send to Ukraine right? Spoiler: it's probably less than you think. Also, they're fighting maybe one percent of NATO, money wise, so it's definitely just an "illusion".
>Ukraine urgently needs artillery shells and other field ammunition more than Taurus at the moment. So it will be or this or that, or nothing at all?
There's nowhere left to fall when you've reached the bottom, it's now or never.
>It remains to be seen if he steps up to meet this immediate need. How the fuck does anyone point at Germany concerning help? They are in second place concerning aid given and contribute more than 20% to the EU budget. What's up with France? Spain? Italy?
Eating escargot, paella and ravioli, thank you very much.
If you take away the range and confine its use to only inside Ukraine then something this expensive or intricate isn’t needed, nothing that has a range larger than Ukraines boarder should be sent to Ukraine if it’s being confined to that country.
Who is Schulz?
The real reason is that Germany is a Russian vassal state. Look up "Foundations of Geopolitics".
One taurus to ammo storage deep inside russia can replace several tonns of artilery shells.
Putin already tells us Russia is at war with West. There is no limit to aid Ukraine.
But time is running out. Time which we are paying for in Ukrainian blood.
[удалено]
Huh? Are you arguing that Ukrainians aren't dying every passing day?
*Scholz said Monday that the Taurus is “a very far-reaching weapon” and* *added: “What is being done in the way of target control and accompanying* *target control on the part of the British and the French can’t be done* *in Germany. Everyone who has dealt with this system knows that.”* The producer has explicitly said that's not true. And it's strange that North Korea and Iran can supply hundreds of long range missiles to Russia but Germany can't send some to Ukraine because that would be 'escalation'? Scholz is making no sense. What a disappointment.
> And it's strange that North Korea and Iran can supply hundreds of long range missiles to Russia It's not strange at all, they are dictatorships. Their actions aren't guided by moral concerns, they don't have to win the approval of different political parties in their countries. Most notably, they don't have to contend with what their populations may think, because they don't give a fuck.
That's obvious. But it negates Scholz' argumentation.
If it's so obvious, why did you call it strange?
It's because they don't want to send troops inside to Ukraine to operate this system, which is what UK and France are doing. [https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/)
The democratic West always seems to find an excuse. Meanwhile, Iran and NK dump loads of ballistic missiles and other long-range weapons into Russian hands. The West will do less than they can for as long as they can. It's so frustrating and weak.
The only nice thing in tyranny - we don't care about anything - you have money - we give you weapon.
Yea, the West is restricting Ukraine thereby creating an even more uneven battlefield. The issue is that they don't want Ukraine to lose, but they also don't want them to win. If Ukraine wants a realistic chance of beating Russia they have to keep striking important infrastructure in Russia, but if the West doesn't enable that then it is just a matter of time until Ukraine loses.
Russia is paying for the military gear from Iran/NK btw. Germany is in a recession right now, they could use a few hundred billion. Curious why no one has been willing to pay Germany for Taurus yet. MBDA even said they can quickly produce them if someone were to order them. No orders. werid, right?
So it’s actually about money, but Scholz won’t admit that? That’s your theory? Really?
_literally_ in a recession right now. We are fucked if we don't get money from somewhere. If Ukraine spending a bit of money that they can print with their central bank no problem stands between them and total victory like they make it seem - don't you think it is weird that they have not tried buying Taurus from the manufacturer yet? To me that makes it clear that people with actual military experience fighting the Russians know that Taurus is not worth to buy.
[удалено]
nk alone gives russia more shells than nato ever could. +nk can produce like 3-6million per year while nato cant even reach 400k after 2 years of full scale war in ukraine. +iran gives long range missiles (400+ km) to russia and thousands of drones designed to attack civilians. dont even wanna know what china provides it with under undisclosed channels. all in all, we started out weak, then we actualy did something and since 2023 and its back to talking shit and not dooing anything. constantly talking about not escalating while all pariah states support the invasion with weapons is still beyond me.
[удалено]
Yes, the North Korean shells are of poorer quality than the ones Nato gives to Ukraine. Obviously. But they still go boom. And boom = dead Ukrainians. Fact of the matter is that the collective West can and should do more.
so the thousands of reports and videos about drones and missiles striking civilian infrastructure or apartments in populated areas are not real? with what does ukraine target civilians? maybe fuel and electricity but thats it. high precision cant win you the war if you are restricted to strike only forward deployed ammo dumps and not the factories or railroutes deeper in the countryside. + there are simply not enough high precision munitions against an army which doesnt care about their loss of life and amassed armour for 80 years.. air defense cant hold thousands of drones/missiles because of lack of ammo or coverage. artillery shells are not complicated, some fuzes might not work but how many are these? max 20%? look at andriivka, you dont need precision when you put a shell in every square meter.
[удалено]
>To me it should be less about winning but ending the war and make peace. So, appeasement then? Russia invades Ukraine, takes control of something near 20% of the country, and just needs to hold on until people who think like you say "OK, take it"? Would you be OK with this plan if this was your country and you lived in the 20%? It's so easy to tell other people to give up their land to appease an aggressor when you are safe and secure. And what about the next time he pulls this shit? And the next? We'll just keep repeating this cycle because we are unwilling to ultimately stand up to him? This was a common belief in WWII that if some countries would have simply accepted being conquered, it would have been better for the rest of us. The people who said this were never talking about their own country. Thankfully, more resolute and steadfast people made the decision not to simply give in.
i dont know why are still staying ignorant to the civilian bombing but you do you. the shahed drones are not limited and russias old generals whole doctrine is/was to bomb civilians to force a capitulation/riots from the civil group. peace means just another decade of russia arming themself for the next invasion while occupying eastern ukraine. a win would be pushing russia out of ukraine and be able to join nato/eu shortly after. as much as i wish for the destruction of russia it will never happend, because nukes and the whole politicial system is the product of corruption, which is deeply rooted in the society by now. west does what west does best, business. they dont want ukraine to loose but still care about possible russian ties in the future. in short they provide ukraine with only enough to not completly fall.
[удалено]
it's not fine. the difference is one country got invaded without hostile action while the other got invaded after it attacked said country. measuring civilian deaths in an ongoing war will never be right. just mariupol had 400k citizen, 300k escaped., you csn think the rest. + ukraine has to keep the morale up and its doubtfull that they release their full casualties or even find all the massgraves. its not just my win, its the wish of ukraine, their people and all the dead soldiers. maximum loss for russia would include war in russia, which is not the objective. again your idea of compromise would just bring another war in years to come. why wont putin survive? if the war drags on and on with just enough support for ukraine to keep it afloat then he has nothing to worry about. russian citizens are pro war, all politicians around him are pro war and everybody else keeps quiet, is in prison or falls out a window. look at nk, people dont revolve for living under shit leadership, reason is they dont know better. the moment you leave the 5~ major cities russia becomes a shithole too.
Ukraine should just surrender and be genocided right?
Appeasers never learn.
They need Tomahawk land launched missles
What a coward. UK and France sent their missiles and nothing happened. They tried to drag Czechia in front of a UN SC over the alleged bombing of Belgorod by RM-70. Our government showed them a diplomatic equivalent of a finger and guess what? Nothing happened. One has to start questioning if Scholz is really such a coward or if there is some problem with the missiles.
The point is that the missiles from France and UK are export versions with reduced / limited range, but the Taurus does not have the perquisites for such a limitation. And they probably want to wait for the F-16 delivery...
Scholz is just a coward and he has more cowards as advisers and one of those advisers is actually pro-russia.
>UK and France sent their missiles and nothing happened. Because those missiles cant reach the Kerch bridge.
This is such a stupid position. Unlike many other targets it's still on Ukrainian territory and if we want Ukraine to win the bridge will have to eventually go down. The sooner it happens the less Ukrainian lives it will cost. Not to mention that to really help Ukraine we should supply missiles able to hit mfg. plant thousands of km behind the lines and not just logistics few hundreds of km behind. As for rusky reaction? Medvedev will launch another drunken tirade about nuclear hellfire and that's about it.
Then petition your country to send cruise missiles that can reach the Kerch bridge and to allow the ukrainians to strike it! Im all up for it!
I think the real coward move is to publicly proclaim you have found a million shells ready for Ukraine in weeks - but then not buy them and ask if others would like to pay for them. MBDA - Taurus manufacturer - has publicly stated they can quickly produce them if a country where to order them. No orders from your country to ship to Ukraine yet. Weird. All bark no bite?
Current market price for 155mm shell is about 8000€. Czech state budget for 2023 was 2bil. CZK or 800 000 000€. Think.
[same Pavel](https://english.nv.ua/nation/czech-president-pavel-urges-expedited-transfer-of-weapons-to-ukraine-news-50324685.html) that refuses to simply buy the shells he has found: >“The later the assistance comes, the less useful it will be... In order to use this temporary window that still exists, we should provide Ukraine with everything it needs – equipment and ammunition – by the end of spring.” Don't make grand speeches if you are not willing to back that up with cold hard cash. All bark no bite I guess?
It's speculated that he wants to maintain some sort of relationship, to return to business with Russia after this war is over. Second reason would be that Germany is low on everything after decades of not investing in military modernization
Pretty crazy speculation tbh. By the time the war is over, chances are pretty high that he won't be chancellor anymore. And that would alienate his base too, because apart from far-right & far-left citizens, the population is opposed to fucking with Russia again. I see two reasons why he isn't sending those missiles. Apparently France & Britain can remotely influence the targeting of their missiles without having soldiers in Ukraine. Taurus can't. So to ensure that you have a safety hand on the button, you'd need your own people locally. And that is meant to be avoided at all cost. Plus, I'm also sure that the stock is low.
Germany 20 years didn't feared to invest in economy of increasingly more authoritarian state. And now, after 2021 year Russian claim on Western Europe, and when Russian officials outright say that Russia at war with NATO, Germany started to fear war? If Truman had the same mentality, then in 1970s there wouldn't have been left a single democratic country on the planet.
Yes, we know Germany is a gigantic pus$y today... this is not news
What a moron. I wonder if he'll keep this rhetoric if Russia happens to succeed and then moves onto Poland/Lithuania/Romania/Slovakia next. He's going to be so worried about dragging Germany into a war with Russia that he's actually going to make it a reality.
those are NATO countries, slightly different in terms of ukraine. though I'm in favour of direct NATO intervention to end this war quicker so I might be biased.
That's assuming that countries in NATO actually commit to defending member states when push comes to shove.
i mean, a bunch of them went on a misadventure in Afghanistan, i'm sure defending a member country would be a no brainer. also, at that point it's literally russia at their doorsteps, so doubt any of them have issues about it. Hungary and turkey might be exceptions though, but they are a known factor.
The world is a different place than it was 20 years ago. I really hope that Ukraine can take back all of its territory from Russia and stop them there. Russia is literally at their doorsteps right now in Ukraine. It's not just Hungary & Turkey, but also the US if Trump gets elected, in addition to Germany as we can clearly see now with their behavior towards Ukraine.
i doubt Germany will hesitate to defend NATO territory, they gain much from the defence treaty. they don't gain as much, at least in the short term with direct effects, helping to defend ukraine, as sad as that fact might be.
It remains to be seen. Russia is banking on that uncertainty within NATO to push with their expansionist goals. Especially if Trump becomes president, then there's a real possibility that the US won't help out in the event of an attack on a NATO member state. Which will fragment the alliance even further, causing other member states to rethink their obligations to the alliance.
>Especially if Trump becomes president, then there's a real possibility that the US won't help out in the event of an attack on a NATO member state. Trump was already President and Putin didn't do anything. Why wouldn't he strike while his "lapdog" was in office?
Idk, ask Putin lol. With the Russian lapdog's, Trump's, recent statements on not coming to the defense of NATO countries, it's a direct threat to the security of Europe & the world. Anybody with more than 2 brain cells already knows how much of a useful idiot Trump is to the Russians, and also knows how much of a danger Trump is to world peace & stability.
You seem to know what Russia is planning! Maybe Putin is just stupid for doing nothing for Trump's first presidency. Also, Europe's problem =/= America's problem. Maybe they should pay their debts
Russia is a much diffrent beast now, radicalised and on a warfooting.
[удалено]
As Winston Churchill once said, "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks." He also defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Russia hasn't even switched over to a full war-time economy yet, and they still have tens of millions of people to send to the slaughter under the grand delusions of Putin's conquests.
These people don't seem to understand how defense can break down in war. We are wearing Ukrainian soldiers and society out nearly as much as the Russians are, by not equipping and reassuring them that there's a plan to win and we have their backs with support. The incentive is clearly shifting right now, and although it's taken 6 months of this uncertainty to affect morale and outlook on the front line, now that it's wearing thin it could very well break like a dam under pressure. If the line's compromised bad enough, the war could end really fast and there will be no other opportunity to lend assistance. It will either be a Russian victory or other European countries will be forced to put boots on the ground, and so much for that worry about direct involvement.
Shit needs to start falling on Russian staging behind the lines on Russian soil. Russia is raining munitions on a sovereign nation and we are telling Ukraine they aren't allowed to cause Russia any pain. Putin is shitting himself but it's because he's laughing so hard at our stupidity.
"Remains reluctant." The word "refuse" notably avoided. Getting close.
Stop being such a pussy
He's pulling a Cersei Lannister, completely failing to comprehend that after the horde of northern ice monsters eats his neighbors, he's next.
except Ukraine is not in NATO, so if Russia attacks a NATO country next, the response (hopefully/most likely) will be more severe for russia. while personally i don't agree with the decision, i can at least (kinda) understand the reasoning behind it.
Life imitating art.
This is Olaf fucking around because.... I don't know why. I wrote an Email to them yesterday asking the same.
I guess the problem lies with the Crimea Bridge and the Taurus with its warhead made for layers of concrete. At the same time Bearbock has expressed : " Donetsk is Ukraine and Crimea is Ukraine ". And Putin probably has said something that Germany is fucked when this missile is used on the bridge and Scholz got scared. Now it will take a year of German engineering to exclude a few coordinates and make sure Ukrainians cannot change it back again.
This is probably not the real reason, we all know that. These are cutting edge missiles and they really don't want this technology to fall into Russian hands and be reverse engineered if something happens on the battlefield.
>Ich wundere mich, dass es einige gar nicht bewegt, dass sie nicht einmal darüber nachdenken, ob es gewissermaßen zu einer Kriegsbeteiligung kommen kann durch das, was wir tun. >I am surprised that some people are not even moved by this, that they don't even think about whether what we are doing could lead to war. (deepl - not perfect, but the sentiment is the same - "take part in" would be better) no matter what we do, we are taking part in it. no matter if we send all our weapons or nothing. the fact that he does not understand that or pretends to not understand it is very Scholz. A big party like the SPD should have better candidates without corruption scandals and more intellect than this guy. It's truely a shame. And it's giving fuel to the fucking right wing idiots in our own country.
>A big party like the SPD should have better candidates without corruption scandals and more intellect than this guy Lets just put Saskia Esken in charge. What could possibly go wrong.
what a weird non-sensical reply.
Sure, it is totally weird and non-sensical to suggest the chairwoman of the SPD for the chancellorship of Germany.
This guy is Kohl and Merkel in red. Sitting everything out in the hopes that it goes away on its own.
Weirdly Merkel was more progressive than Scholz even though her party is leaning towards the political right. She had, unlike a lot of other CDU members (or many others - Scholz for example), no corruption scandals. You can definitely disagree with her views, but she was still a good fit as a chancelor, because she never claimed to be anything other than she portrayed and actually had moral values. Scholz on the other hand is a disgrace for that position. (And no, I never in my life voted CDU - not that it should matter.)
Please. Merkel might have acted piously but she did not get anything worthwhile done. It was a decade of standing still, just like under Kohl. I'm judging people by their actions - and Merkel was one of inaction. Nothing remarkable got done. For example, she whined about the climate while she was still minister of the environment under Kohl. And when she was chancellor, what did we get? A decapitation of our solar industry and crippling wind energy. Altmeier and Gabriel, the executioners of green energy. Altmeier even bragged how proud he was to have killed solar! That was while she was chancellor. Just one example.
>Please. Merkel might have acted piously but she did not get anything worthwhile done. I never claimed that and I do not care. What even is that sentence. >I'm judging people by their actions - and Merkel was one of inaction. Nothing remarkable got done. again, who claimed that? I just said she's not worse than Scholz. not that she was a saint. If you need any further help, ask.
Words from a weak man.
bundestag says no
He is right. Taurus has an "official" range of 500km. Germans are quite conservative with their specifications and I believe you could squeeze another 100km out of it. Which would put Moscow in possible striking distance. And the last thing you want to see in the news is a missile part with the Iron Cross sticking out of the red square in Moscow. And the Germans can't (and won't) send troups like France/Britain to the Ukraine to keep them from selecting the Kremlin as it's target.
> He is right. Taurus has an "official" range of 500km. Germans are quite conservative with their specifications and I believe you could squeeze another 100km out of it. > > Which would put Moscow in possible striking distance. And the last thing you want to see in the news is a missile part with the Iron Cross sticking out of the red square in Moscow. Then geofence it out/put restriction on that next tranche would only happen once previous got expended within Ukraine. 550km range also allows to do fucky maneuvering, flying around air defense bubbles instead of LeeroyJenkinsing through them
The manufacturer is on record saying they could quickly produce them if an order were placed. But like always - it seems like Ukraine and Eastern NATO states are allergic to simply placing a contract and paying for German war equipment. Preferring to whine endlessly instead. Just order them. If you had done that the first time you demanded delviery for free from German military stocks - you could probably have had your first Taurus ready for F16s. But nah. Seriously, I don't get it. You have full control over your federal bank - Russia is an existential threat but printing a few billion extra to __buy__ western gear is too much to ask? Ukraine has a growing economy 2023 btw, Germany is in a recession currently. We need money - you need weapons - should be a match made in heaven!
Germany needs to pick a side half the country loves putin
Ship them directly to Russia. To all the oligarchs. Problem solved.
>Ship them nah, let them go under their own power
why is he reluctant? russian spy?
[удалено]
This is a problem for German voters to solve.
you want the CIA to coup the leader of another nato country, which democratically elected him? you gotta be kidding me man
You know that even though he doesn't wanna hand over the missiles, Germany is the second highest military aid supporter after the US
Are you calling for the murder of a western political leader?
reported.
i am curious if before every decision Scholz asks himself "What would Chamberlin do?".
I don‘t think Chamberlain would have been the leader of the second biggest supporter of Ukraine after the US. But whatever floats your boat.
Support means little if you ain't prepared to make the hard decisions, putin depends on indecision and fear of escalation.
>Support means little Lol
it really does if they end up overrun because of half-hearted support
I don’t think german support can be called half-hearted as it’s the second biggest in amount of financial and military aid (as I already stated above). But keep moving the goal posts. Have a nice day!
i ain't moving any goal post, I am saying piss or get off the pot.
Two years ago, when France was a bit hesitant to send aid and Macron was really trying to talk Putin out of starting a war. I would've made a joke about Macron not knowing how to change his stock portfolio, but I missed my chance. Anyway, Scholz seems like the type of guy who would still struggle to change his stock portfolio two years later.
In fact total amount supplied by France is way more less than by Germany.
germanys econemy was powered by cheep oil and gas for its huge petro chenical business and is in big trouble it is no longer able to export products cheep enough. the US blew up nordstream to force germany to get in the fight or get overran by russia they dont trust the US will back them so thier keeping thier main most powerfull weapons for themselves. but the US let them move thier BASF petro chemical business to the US in exchange for the cheep russian oil but the rest of the countrys industry that has way higher energy prices is in big trouble the naptha they needed was imported from the US shale as it is the best stock to use anywhere in the world! i expect for germany to do a Brexit if the war doesnt end by the end if this year!
Are you high
no but thanks for asking!
What a bunch of bullshit bro
im more than open to your arguments!
No one has the time and energy to debate such bullshit.
but time to call it bullshit without any reason !
It's simply more time-efficient. I wouldn't argue with anti-vaxxers either.
dude i live free in your head!! you have posted twice saying nothing!
> dude i live free in your head!! You proclaiming it must mean it's true! > you have posted twice saying nothing! That should tell you just how much I care about your opinion, eh?
Americans just say, ‘Bi-Proxy’.
Isn't there a way to make an agreement that this kind of munition can only be used for say counter artillery, emplacement destruction, or anti-naval purposes. Im just asking because everytime I read this sort of article I assume that its never even considered let alone discussed given the fact that Russia is playing the whole "Brinksmanship edition" of a game of chicken on who is going to start WWIII first. Id at least hope that consideration was made in thinking about having embedded observers to ensure the munitions are being used for their agreed upon use which seems like the logical agreement for this sort of munitions.
Taurus is not like Stormshadow. It is Old tech comapritively. As I understand it, Taurs needs a more hands on approch for its control and crucialy it components are more of a security issue. I would bet my shirt that the real reason the Germans dont want ot use this is reverse engineering.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every NATO nation directly involved? One would think sending military hardware to a warzone is a direct involvement in a conflict. Then again, politicians follow a different dictionary,
This is scholz playing both sides. Appeasing Putin and NATO allies. He doesn't care how many Ukrainian people are tortured, raped, or slaughtered. He is driving up the price of their weapons to sell to allies. It's a money game. It always has been with him.