Europe preps huge defense package in boost to Ukraine: "Never been seen"
-
No. Are u an EU bot?
-
I think the reason is: because the EU has seen nothing good coming recently from Trump's or Putin's mouth.
-
Putin's previous record is that he poisons opposition figures, attacks countries and attempts to conquer them. He has not resigned from the goal of controlling Ukraine yet, so there is no reason to come out of war mode - and indeed, perhaps going deeper into war mode will make him willing to let go.
-
Trump's previous record is that he makes a mess where he goes, has previously obstructed military assistance to Ukraine multiple times. On his best days, he behaves like a protection racket.
Those two are currently negotiating "behind the shed" somewhere.
What EU is doing, is putting together a contingency plan for a possible outcome: Trump helping reach an agreement which Ukraine cannot accept, and US support to Ukraine ceasing to flow.
In that case, the EU must move enough military resources to replace the US. The package volume (0.7 US defense budgets, in addition to EU countries' individual defense budgets) indicates that it's a "replace the US" package.
-
-
Germany has also been firmly sitting on the brakes from the start. Remember 5000 helmets?
Remember how it took like two days to overturn 70 years of precedence of "no weapons delivery into crisis regions"? Without us actually having a debate about it because there was an overwhelming majority for it from the get-go? Those 5000 helmets were part of the initial "find what we have and what we can legally send" order, which then arrived in Ukraine in the same shipment as the first actual weapons.
The, say, tank situation is ambiguous, I don't have enough insider information to actually make a judgement. Either Germany said "only if the US says it's ok" or Germany said "let's put some political pressure on the US to get into the game, to commit". Ultimately, Germany shipped everything but Taurus. I think we should -- and much of the parliament agrees. Majority, actually, but not the governing majority so as is tradition parties voted against their own actual position. I guess that it's being held back so something is being held back so that certain peacenik SPD parliamentarians can be assuaged.
So there is hope Germany might get it’s fat ass off the track.
FDP is probably out and with that ideological (instead of merely populist) sentiment against spending money, Black-Green looks quite likely and in case anyone is confused yes the Greens are hawkish AF about this one. The discussions around Yugoslavia turned them from singing kumba ya into liberal interventionists and I haven't heard "olive-green" used as an insult in quite a while.
-
Truly a shame, but does not lead to your conclusion. If you cannot get the irony about you publicly complaining that you cannot publicly complain much like in Russia, then I'm afraid I cannot help you further.
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
The west is as much corrupted as russia
You did not check. Go and find some sources to confirm your claim.
- I also suggest counting how many opposition leaders sit in prison or have been recently killed in the west, preferably per capita (for about a billion people). Then I suggest comparing that to Russian figures (for 140 million people).
- After that, I suggest checking out how longer the ruling politicians have been ruling.
I claim that the west is considerably less corrupt than Russia. I offer a source too (below). I also claim that the west is an incredibly safe place to be in opposition, and that power changes hands frequently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
"Both sides bad" is running like a disease among some leftist circles. Mostly Western leftists who have never seen Russia up close. It's a nice false excuse to do nothing.
-
Remember how it took like two days to overturn 70 years of precedence of “no weapons delivery into crisis regions”?
Oh, thanks. Yeah, now I remember making that jump, too, although it took me more than two days. Wild times.
Hofreiter (Greens) put it quite well ... something like ... not our ideals have changed, but the world has changed, brutally so.
I think you did well in dialing back my comment and adding more context, although I still think there was truth in it.
-
Actually, no. Ukraine has quite a couple of brigades ready to go, waiting for materiel to use. Because unlike Russia, Ukraine isn't hurling donkeys and men with nothing but Kalashnikovs at the front.
-
Sure, it would be better with a peaceful solution: Russia should stop attacking and pay for the damage they've already done.
The solution proposed by Putin and Trump is not peaceful.
-
because there hasn’t yet been enough time to build more production capacity hardware
Oh there has, but companies didn't invest because noone was making large enough orders to justify that investment. Push come to shove Austria can build more rotary forges in a week than Russia can produce tank barrels in those two forges they have.
-
I'm not completely sure if the post you replied to was sincere based on its tone but appreciate your well reasoned comprehensive analysis.
-
This phrase didn't age well in the past 2000 years
-
There's no negotiation with Putin, please please stop this stupid pacifist line of thinking
-
It absolutely did.
-
That's not really how global politics and diplomacy works.
If the only "peaceful solution" Russia will accept is the surrender of Ukraine, what do you expect them to do?
Having a well provisioned and trained standing army also encourages your opponents to seek peaceful solutions.
-
Would it be better? Yes! Is it possible? That would depend on Russia and they don't seem very eager.
As for Ukraine coinciding chunks of their country, it was tried before (Crimia) and the result was Russia getting overconfident and trying to grab the whole country. Sadly sometimes use of force is the only way. Hopefully, this increase will lead to forcing Russian to negotiate for peace.
-
Most of that money will likely go into expanding the defense industrial base and infrastructure. That includes not just buildings but training and hiring engineers and technicians.
Lots of essential things in NATO are run by USA. Airlift capability is a big example. Luckily Ukraine has some serious capability there and cooperation has been done for a long time already. Building an independent intelligence infrastructure, satellites, and so on is a major task as well. Command organization is built around the US and will need to be built as well. Training of Air Force pilots also happens in the US for most European militaries. That means building air bases, infrastructure, hiring and training additional staff, etc. Nuclear weapons and delivery systems are another big concern.
Europe has capabilities in all of this already, but it’s dwarfed by the US.
Europe will likely have to spend double the rumored 700 billion to achieve something credible.
-
The limited military capabilities of Palestinians has restrained Israel’s actions.
How should Palestinians use that nuke?
-
This is also what Europe needs. Europe needs to seriously increase their domestic military manufacturing capabilities now that the US has proven they can't be trusted.
If this money is invested in European military industries then they will need to considerably ramp up their production and overall it will strengthen European military power.
-
One won’t be enough. If they use it, Russia will at least hit the whole frontline with tactical nukes, maybe wipe out a city or two. That means Ukraine can’t use it, making it as valuable as a paperweight. For credible nuclear deterrence a country needs a few dozen nuclear weapons and more than one delivery method.
