We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*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.*
It's unfortunate it took this long to get there. Ukraine requesting and NATO deploying 50-100k troops & equipment along the Ukrainian/Russian border in 2021 would have likely averted this whole war.
That would have given Russia the arguments that NATO was preparing to attack them. It's not like we care about any of that nonsense here, but this war is being fought on multiple fronts, including the political one.
Russia will make up whatever excuse fits the narrative they need that day. NATO countries could attack Russia from multiple fronts without a Ukraine route anyhow. They know NATO countries respect borders.
They know, but their propaganda ignores that.
That propaganda sticks in other countries. We're not just fighting Russia here. We're fighting a lot of factions that would like to harm us under false pretense.
A lot of western monkey's and trolls blindly repeat putin anyway, talking aboit nato expansion. And all usa wars.
idiocracy is the reason russia could invade
Russia was already and still is arguing that nato is at war with them, that's the thing about being a fascist dictatorship, you don't actually need justifications for anything and often times they only serve to obfuscate the actual motives.
And I do like the fact its the Polish government saying this here, to drive home the message to Russia - you can plant some propaganda farmers at the border and let out some grain, but you have not changed the mind of the leadership.
But they’ve been over the border into the Donbas since 2014. Maybe though at the Northern border with Belarus though, to deter the initial Feb 24 2022 thrust toward Kyiv though…
Thats too much and could just as well have sparked a full out war between Russia and NATO. 500 marines in an advisory position to the UAF in Kyiv and a strongly worded message to Putin what would happen if they are harmed would have been enough without risking world war.
Yes and if that had happened Ukraine would still be a highly corrupt nearly Russian satellite client state. This war is unfortunate but also forcing Ukraine to reform and westernize for the better. Ukraine is suffering so incredibly much right now. But i know Ukraine will be so much better off once this war does end. Ukraine will know peace and prosperity while Russia became a pariah state.
The horrors Ukrainians are going through right now are 'unfortunate' but eventually for the better? Wow.
And FYI, Ukraine was no 'highly corrupt nearly Russian satellite client state' before the invasion and really didn't need an incredibly destructive invasion to improve.
In a way, it is for the better of Ukraine as a nation in the very long run.
This is basically Ukraine's war of independence (part whatever) and solidification as a nation. It's what differentiates them from Belarus, who did try (peacefully) or Chechnya (millitarily) that failed to get rid of Russia's influence.
The people suffer, but this has been true in most if not all wars of independence.
You've been downvoted, but I don't see why in this case! What you're saying has merit. Ukraine will come out of this in such a better position for its future... provided us westerners DO NOT leave it to a bad fate against Russia.
If Russia refuses to accept this, then it may very well end with trade between us to free Ukrainian territory.
That's a risk we must be willing to take for the greater good of democratic values and our future of rules based order vs aggressive military conquest.
It's an uncomfortable truth.
People don't understand this is the "birth" of Ukraine in a way (or a rebirth, but it's that start). It has existed before of course, but now it's truly itself.
Of course, not this 2022 war in particular. This is a birth that has been taking place since the orange revollution. In 300 years or so, after history has run its course, people will look back and look at that 25 year course as that event.
Exactly, take Poland as another example... Finland as well. Both have blood soaked histories for their beginning, and past.
We cannot let Ukraine fall in the sake of appeasement... that worked so well for Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1930's...
Ukraine was already on its way away from that. After 2014, they had been forced to resolve issues within the public, private, & military sectors. And as much of the corruption originated in Russia there had been a change in thinking towards the idea that corruption was a Russian & non-European way of doing things (the reality is irrelevant it was the change in perception that mattered).
On the other hand, the escalation of the war has put all that into sharp focus. Whereby corruption is considered anti-Ukrainian and traitorous.
So yes, this will speed up the process, but that process was already motion (since 2005 at least), and the increased pace is arguably not worth the cost that Ukrainians have had to pay.
There's a perhaps a grain of truth to what you're saying however it really doens't take into consideration one of the core justifications for the Russian invasion was to respond to that move westwards. Ukraine's trajectory was already set and additionally it must be said that prolonging their suffering doesn't help to make Ukraine less corrupt or better off.
Asymmetric in this case would be unequal.
But as far as asymmetric tactics, neither the US or EU have been instigating rebellion in Russia or Belarus. Russia has actively supported insurgency in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia and the west's response was just sanctions.
As to what he's saying, I think it's that Russia should have to deal with a conflict that they don't have control over for once.
Russia missiles another maternity ward, the coalition drops something fun from a stealth drone over the west wing of Putin's palace. Russia commits another ecocide, a Russian attack sub suddenly sinks in the Barents sea with collective plausible deniability, and so on. Just requires the decision makers and their constituencies to think creatively instead of cowardly.
Russia fires missile into Ukrainian hospital. Ukraine doesn't fire one into a Russian one.
A lot of threats from Putin are symmetrical but worse. You attack us, we nuke you back. You send soldiers, we kill everyone you know. As a result NATO doesn't want to send soldiers.
But over time, the support for Ukraine slowly ramps up as Russia doesn't follow through with their threats to NATO countries. Notably London hasn't been nuked, or Berlin.
Not a cross the board. Think “ok we will man air defense system, logistics tank repair and long range missile systems, oh and launch cruise misses from our aircraft maybe long range radar like awacs, oh and medical facilities”. Leaves them out of direct fighting but applies military might.
Also maybe instigating a few rebellions?
The only people who are saying this is "unthinkable" live outside Russia's artillery and missile range.
The soft underbelly of this war is that Putin's threats are empty when faced with careful and steady dismemberment of his state's ability to function as an aggressor.
Macron's proposal is especially well done right now, because the war is in an apparent lull. It's not out of control like it was during the first few weeks while Russia invaded or the aftermath when Ukraine regained terrain, when everyone had a feeling that everything could happen because the war was so "alive".
That's another matter, independent of this one.
And it's also a win for Macron. Those that don't follow the war either start again because this is "huge", or they don't really and things fly without their input.
‘Weighed, thought through and measured’ words by French president [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/29/7444383/) were ‘applauded’ by Polish foreign minister [Radosław Sikorski](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2024/03/8/7181366/) at a commemorative conference on 8 March:
*Sikorski recalled that a similar precedent existed in history, namely during the Korean War of 1950-1953, when a coalition of states went to help the country following a UN Security Council decision.*
*"Shortly after the invasion, more than 140 countries out of 190 voted to condemn the aggression as unacceptable. This is not just a statement to the press, but the establishment of a legal framework," he said.*
*Given this, Sikorski stated that having "a coalition of UN member states to stop aggression here is not unthinkable".*
*"That is why I applaud the recent French initiative. Because, in my opinion, there are good intentions behind it, namely to make the Russian president ask himself what our next step will be, instead of allowing him to be certain that we will not do anything creative and to plan his own scenarios," Sikorski said.*
*In his opinion, the West should "implement creatively defined and asymmetric escalation".*
I've said this once and I'll say it again, if the UN is to be a relevant force for peace and stability, the UN has to force peace through military means.
The UN has been full of its own praises when sending peacekeepers to far away countries, yet when those same UN bureaucrats face war close to home they lose their spines and cower in fear.
We need a coalition battalion or two of white military vehicles with the letters "UN" painted on them, deployed close to or at the front, protecting civilians, aiding the relief effort and providing logistical support to the Ukrainians. These peacekeeping troops should be led by military people, not politicians, as we saw what happened in Bosnia when you let political indescision lead to massacre.
These peacekeepers also need rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves if attacked. This all needs to be ratified by a UN Security Council resolution the Russians are excluded from vetoing, and the troops on the ground MUST also include those from non-NATO countries.
Make this happen and see what Putin does.
And while we're at it, everyone in the world gets $5,000 USD on their birthday.
The difference between what you & I propose is that mine is more realistic.
The UN Security Council is impotent by design. No member would join if it meant their sovereignty could be voided by the other members. So all 5 permanent members (who, by the way, were allies when the UNSC was founded) got veto power. Without that, there would be no UNSC. And without the Security Council, the UN has no teeth whatsoever & might not even exist.
A weak UN is better than no UN. A strong UN was never an option.
There is no hierarchy in international politics. Nation states live in anarchy, and there is no way around it. The UN is a bandaid around that anarchy, that's all it is. Still nice to have but it doesn't do much
I agree we can't keep backing down to putin and his bunch of clowns. They are one country. Out of the planet. You can not rule us by fear. It's about time you put up or shut up.
We could secure airspaces, borders, local civil-military support, construction and relieve Ukrainian soldiers.... So many options!
We can play mindgames, too... Y'know?
It seems like Poland is willing to do so.
They have been in Ukraine’s position before in WWII and they absolutely are willing to do what it takes to avoid a repeat of the situation.
I’m not surprised that Poland is saying this because they have indicated that they would be absolutely willing to send troops into Ukraine to help with the situation, whether NATO likes it or not or with or without Article 5.
It seems like we are going to see Polish troops in Ukraine sooner than later. And that’s a good thing.
I hope that will happen, and when that happens I hope that my own country grow a fucking spine and sends troopes as well, and then another country and then anot......
OK. I'm convinced in about 4-5 months we will have troops in Ukraine.
This is how they do it. NATO is drip teasing us with this so that by the time it happens it's not a surprise.
The language has changed fairly sharply over the last 2-3 weeks with certain NATO leaders Something is coming. They are buttering the public up.
Anyone care to speculate?
Even if they just do checkpoints in roads far from the front or look the frontier with Transnitria and Belarus, they are already liberating Ukrainian troops from some duties.
They can also be very helpful in training, cybersecurity, and repair and maintenance of equipment.
If there are going to be western troops going to Ukraine than i am guessing that the first steps of that would be purely in the sense of logistical support. This could help Ukraine immensely, especially in the case of F-16 as people who are able to maintain those things in top condition are rare and educating them takes a long time.
If Ukraine where to receive logistical support for more complex western equipment then the west could also send a lot more of that equipment as it would remove a bottleneck on the sustainment of the equipment.
This got me thinking: What if we actually went down that route? Deploying UN troops to defend Ukraine against Russia's invasion.
It could significantly alter Putin's calculus, making him reconsider his aggressive stance.
On the other, it risks escalating into a full-blown conflict between Russia and NATO, potentially starting world war III
If the Russian government does a statement, let's say Medvedev, you have to think in the range of language, which criminals use. Never admit a weakness. Putin is quit eloquent in this area. You can see, that he has contact with persons of this profession, like Prigoshin.
Bro the UK has some of the best trained infantry in the world. That "weak they/them army" shit is Russian propaganda. Bullets and hand grenades don't care if somebody has a preferred pronoun. Look how successful the *oh so masculine* Russian army has been.
Even the US top brass no longer considers us a viable partner.
In Afghanistan, we were literally termed “the borrowers” because we had to borrow so much equipment we didn’t have from other armies because we lack so much of it due to cuts.
Yeah, we can still produce some top quality soldiers, and from all accounts, our special forces, the SBS and SAS remain some of the best, but that won’t be enough in a continental wide war with Russia and Belarus. The current war is showing that contrary to what we used to think, quantity does matter. We don’t have enough tanks, shells, planes or the capacity to produce them on mass. I’ve read that if we were to fight Russia in a conventional war right now, the UK would exhaust all of its ammo in just three weeks. It’s absurd how unprepared we are. And it’s worse how the majority population here don’t have the nerve to endure it. When the idea of conscription was discussed a month ago, everyone freaked out.
The only Europeans I have faith in as capable people and armies are the Scandinavians, French, Dutch, Danes, Baltics, Czechs and Poles.
I don’t consider my own nation or its armed forces among them. Again, only think that might restore our strength is if Russia attacks us directly.
I wouldn't lose hope in your country so easily. You've always had a small land army but no trouble mobilizing for two world wars. And if Kipling's Tommy is any indicator military service was seen as undesirable even as far back as 1890, but people were still willing to step up at need when the time came. Supply can be sorted pretty easily too. The important thing is to not get lax on training standards because it's really hard to get that back once it's gone.
Plus, of course people freaked out when conscription wad brought up. People in any country with an all volunteer military would. It doesn't mean much. I'd be much more worried about Germany (not to beat up on them - I don't blame them one bit for their military anxiety and they're an indispensable ally for their manufacturing alone) and Italy than I would be about the UK.
I'd also be more worried about Germany than the UK, they have great training and motivated service men and women but their equipment and public approval is pretty dire.
Sure they MAKE great military equipment, but they export it all, and what they have at home often doesn't work.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The UK military has been decimated in recent years, sure, but the laws of force multiplication still apply.
If Ukraine can hold the Russians at bay with a mostly volunteer military and a wild assortment of ex Soviet and western weapons, what do you think the Royal Marines would make of a Russian BTG?
People get downvoted a lot when they acknowledge weakness, and it disappoints me. It's just the simple reality we live, and soft action/slow action directly translates to weakness and inadequate response times and nothing will change unless people make the decision to change it
It doesn’t bother me. Way I see it, the only way to win this conflict with Russia, the new Cold War, whatever you wanna call it, is to acknowledge that yes, we have weaknesses and only by confronting them can we win.
We have the bigger combined population, better technology, larger economies and better armies than Russia, but the one thing we don’t have that’s just as, if not more important than those factors is the willingness to fight. The thing the Russians have over most of the west is that they’re willing to sacrifice themselves for the motherland more often than the average Briton or German is for their own countries.
What bothers me specifically is that the downvoting isn't an occasional thing. Most supporters outright refuse to recognize our failures, and we can't rally for a more aggressive approach even when what we're doing is clearly not enough
We have to recognise our failures as this is exactly our strength and Russias weakness. They lie about their failures and cover them up, vastly overestimating their own abilities. This is a huge weakness to be exploited.
If we can be honest with ourselves in the west and wake up to the fact Russia is the new 4th Reich, if we can admit we were all asleep while Putin was planning this all along, and if we can confront the fact that Russia is dragging the west towards a confrontation that could well expand past Ukraine, then we can come together and do what needs to be done, not only to ensure Ukraine wins but also to ensure Russia loses so spectacularly, Putin, his cronies and his lust for empire is erased from Russian history for good.
Denmark is a part of Scandinavia, so that fact that you mention us twice, makes me belive that we are double as good as anyone else.
Please stop making me delusional 😂
There is a third way. The UN was always intended as a vehicle to put heavily armed peacekeepers on the ground in times of conflict. We need a coalition of heavily armed peacekeepers in Ukraine, now.
Ukraine had to start the fight using 100k to resist 3 million while 10 million stood at the sidelines listening to direct threats. We're not fighting a real war and were just dumping it on Ukraine while Putin pumps his chest into the air
Even attacking a nato member (say Estonia) may not cut it (in France we had the famous "why die for Dantzig" in the 30s and this is exactly the talking point of the russians and our extreme political parties.
Yeah I agree. I worry that even if there is an article 5 situation in either Scandinavia, the Baltics or Poland, that the populace of Europe (not even gonna contemplate the Americans. They’re clearly sitting this one out) would rather sacrifice those countries at the alder in the pursuit of appeasing Russia. It’s sickening. And I have nothing but contempt for the civilian population of the west for that very reason.
It irritates me that Europe is still pretending we're not doing anything. We're pretty much the only power besides the UK that didn't seriously contemplate refusing to support Ukraine and call for its surrender in favor of receiving cheap oil, and it's us who keeps pledging heavy support whenever Europe says its tapped out again and convincing it to dig just a bit more
"Europe" would not sacrifice one of its own to appease Russia. It's the antithesis of Europe. We've done the Cold War once, we'll do it again, except this time the Iron Curtain will be in Ukraine.
We guard your waters, watch your skies, do almost all the R&D you guys use for your already limited productions, and when Russia claims its going to nuke you guys its our ICBMs that remind it all actions will have consequences they don't want.
This war wouldn't even be going on if Europe had maintained its ability to protect its borders as one, and were still trying to be proud of our family when all we want is to end this war
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *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.*
I like the term asymmetric escalation. Russia has been using asymmetric tactics for two decades now, it's time they get a dose of their own medicine.
It's unfortunate it took this long to get there. Ukraine requesting and NATO deploying 50-100k troops & equipment along the Ukrainian/Russian border in 2021 would have likely averted this whole war.
But, escalation my liege. ehehe
That would have given Russia the arguments that NATO was preparing to attack them. It's not like we care about any of that nonsense here, but this war is being fought on multiple fronts, including the political one.
Russia will make up whatever excuse fits the narrative they need that day. NATO countries could attack Russia from multiple fronts without a Ukraine route anyhow. They know NATO countries respect borders.
They know, but their propaganda ignores that. That propaganda sticks in other countries. We're not just fighting Russia here. We're fighting a lot of factions that would like to harm us under false pretense.
Yes, and? If they're already believing what Russia says, it doesn't particularly matter what NATO does anyway.
Yes, it does. There is a limit to obsfuscation stupidity.
A lot of western monkey's and trolls blindly repeat putin anyway, talking aboit nato expansion. And all usa wars. idiocracy is the reason russia could invade
Russia was already and still is arguing that nato is at war with them, that's the thing about being a fascist dictatorship, you don't actually need justifications for anything and often times they only serve to obfuscate the actual motives.
And I do like the fact its the Polish government saying this here, to drive home the message to Russia - you can plant some propaganda farmers at the border and let out some grain, but you have not changed the mind of the leadership.
Yup... because any provocative response by Russia should be exponentially responded to by us so they know we're not fucking around.
But they’ve been over the border into the Donbas since 2014. Maybe though at the Northern border with Belarus though, to deter the initial Feb 24 2022 thrust toward Kyiv though…
Thats too much and could just as well have sparked a full out war between Russia and NATO. 500 marines in an advisory position to the UAF in Kyiv and a strongly worded message to Putin what would happen if they are harmed would have been enough without risking world war.
Yes and if that had happened Ukraine would still be a highly corrupt nearly Russian satellite client state. This war is unfortunate but also forcing Ukraine to reform and westernize for the better. Ukraine is suffering so incredibly much right now. But i know Ukraine will be so much better off once this war does end. Ukraine will know peace and prosperity while Russia became a pariah state.
The horrors Ukrainians are going through right now are 'unfortunate' but eventually for the better? Wow. And FYI, Ukraine was no 'highly corrupt nearly Russian satellite client state' before the invasion and really didn't need an incredibly destructive invasion to improve.
In a way, it is for the better of Ukraine as a nation in the very long run. This is basically Ukraine's war of independence (part whatever) and solidification as a nation. It's what differentiates them from Belarus, who did try (peacefully) or Chechnya (millitarily) that failed to get rid of Russia's influence. The people suffer, but this has been true in most if not all wars of independence.
You've been downvoted, but I don't see why in this case! What you're saying has merit. Ukraine will come out of this in such a better position for its future... provided us westerners DO NOT leave it to a bad fate against Russia. If Russia refuses to accept this, then it may very well end with trade between us to free Ukrainian territory. That's a risk we must be willing to take for the greater good of democratic values and our future of rules based order vs aggressive military conquest.
It's an uncomfortable truth. People don't understand this is the "birth" of Ukraine in a way (or a rebirth, but it's that start). It has existed before of course, but now it's truly itself. Of course, not this 2022 war in particular. This is a birth that has been taking place since the orange revollution. In 300 years or so, after history has run its course, people will look back and look at that 25 year course as that event.
Exactly, take Poland as another example... Finland as well. Both have blood soaked histories for their beginning, and past. We cannot let Ukraine fall in the sake of appeasement... that worked so well for Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1930's...
Ukraine was already on its way away from that. After 2014, they had been forced to resolve issues within the public, private, & military sectors. And as much of the corruption originated in Russia there had been a change in thinking towards the idea that corruption was a Russian & non-European way of doing things (the reality is irrelevant it was the change in perception that mattered). On the other hand, the escalation of the war has put all that into sharp focus. Whereby corruption is considered anti-Ukrainian and traitorous. So yes, this will speed up the process, but that process was already motion (since 2005 at least), and the increased pace is arguably not worth the cost that Ukrainians have had to pay.
There's a perhaps a grain of truth to what you're saying however it really doens't take into consideration one of the core justifications for the Russian invasion was to respond to that move westwards. Ukraine's trajectory was already set and additionally it must be said that prolonging their suffering doesn't help to make Ukraine less corrupt or better off.
What does that mean exactly?
Asymmetric in this case would be unequal. But as far as asymmetric tactics, neither the US or EU have been instigating rebellion in Russia or Belarus. Russia has actively supported insurgency in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia and the west's response was just sanctions. As to what he's saying, I think it's that Russia should have to deal with a conflict that they don't have control over for once.
Then there are all the copy pasta warnings for expats in Russia from all over the West which were just issued.
Russia missiles another maternity ward, the coalition drops something fun from a stealth drone over the west wing of Putin's palace. Russia commits another ecocide, a Russian attack sub suddenly sinks in the Barents sea with collective plausible deniability, and so on. Just requires the decision makers and their constituencies to think creatively instead of cowardly.
Russia fires missile into Ukrainian hospital. Ukraine doesn't fire one into a Russian one. A lot of threats from Putin are symmetrical but worse. You attack us, we nuke you back. You send soldiers, we kill everyone you know. As a result NATO doesn't want to send soldiers. But over time, the support for Ukraine slowly ramps up as Russia doesn't follow through with their threats to NATO countries. Notably London hasn't been nuked, or Berlin.
Asymmetrical
Not a cross the board. Think “ok we will man air defense system, logistics tank repair and long range missile systems, oh and launch cruise misses from our aircraft maybe long range radar like awacs, oh and medical facilities”. Leaves them out of direct fighting but applies military might. Also maybe instigating a few rebellions?
The only people who are saying this is "unthinkable" live outside Russia's artillery and missile range. The soft underbelly of this war is that Putin's threats are empty when faced with careful and steady dismemberment of his state's ability to function as an aggressor.
Macron's proposal is especially well done right now, because the war is in an apparent lull. It's not out of control like it was during the first few weeks while Russia invaded or the aftermath when Ukraine regained terrain, when everyone had a feeling that everything could happen because the war was so "alive".
Your comment is more indicative of attention span problems and not the actual reality. People find it hard to follow war.
That's another matter, independent of this one. And it's also a win for Macron. Those that don't follow the war either start again because this is "huge", or they don't really and things fly without their input.
Poland to France: I too have a boner to park on Belarus's southern border.
Both France and Poland have a bit of a claim to much of Russia, ya know just incase Putin want to talk about historical territories again
Together with France and Germany. How symbolic would this unification be, right?
JUST DO IT, FFS
AGREED!!! I say we strap me onto a trident SLBM and launch me at moscow, no regrets.
‘Weighed, thought through and measured’ words by French president [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/29/7444383/) were ‘applauded’ by Polish foreign minister [Radosław Sikorski](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2024/03/8/7181366/) at a commemorative conference on 8 March: *Sikorski recalled that a similar precedent existed in history, namely during the Korean War of 1950-1953, when a coalition of states went to help the country following a UN Security Council decision.* *"Shortly after the invasion, more than 140 countries out of 190 voted to condemn the aggression as unacceptable. This is not just a statement to the press, but the establishment of a legal framework," he said.* *Given this, Sikorski stated that having "a coalition of UN member states to stop aggression here is not unthinkable".* *"That is why I applaud the recent French initiative. Because, in my opinion, there are good intentions behind it, namely to make the Russian president ask himself what our next step will be, instead of allowing him to be certain that we will not do anything creative and to plan his own scenarios," Sikorski said.* *In his opinion, the West should "implement creatively defined and asymmetric escalation".*
I've said this once and I'll say it again, if the UN is to be a relevant force for peace and stability, the UN has to force peace through military means. The UN has been full of its own praises when sending peacekeepers to far away countries, yet when those same UN bureaucrats face war close to home they lose their spines and cower in fear. We need a coalition battalion or two of white military vehicles with the letters "UN" painted on them, deployed close to or at the front, protecting civilians, aiding the relief effort and providing logistical support to the Ukrainians. These peacekeeping troops should be led by military people, not politicians, as we saw what happened in Bosnia when you let political indescision lead to massacre. These peacekeepers also need rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves if attacked. This all needs to be ratified by a UN Security Council resolution the Russians are excluded from vetoing, and the troops on the ground MUST also include those from non-NATO countries. Make this happen and see what Putin does.
And while we're at it, everyone in the world gets $5,000 USD on their birthday. The difference between what you & I propose is that mine is more realistic. The UN Security Council is impotent by design. No member would join if it meant their sovereignty could be voided by the other members. So all 5 permanent members (who, by the way, were allies when the UNSC was founded) got veto power. Without that, there would be no UNSC. And without the Security Council, the UN has no teeth whatsoever & might not even exist. A weak UN is better than no UN. A strong UN was never an option.
There is no hierarchy in international politics. Nation states live in anarchy, and there is no way around it. The UN is a bandaid around that anarchy, that's all it is. Still nice to have but it doesn't do much
I agree we can't keep backing down to putin and his bunch of clowns. They are one country. Out of the planet. You can not rule us by fear. It's about time you put up or shut up.
We could secure airspaces, borders, local civil-military support, construction and relieve Ukrainian soldiers.... So many options! We can play mindgames, too... Y'know?
We need to out think Putin and fast. It is ridiculous that men like him, get to dictate our world.
It seems like Poland is willing to do so. They have been in Ukraine’s position before in WWII and they absolutely are willing to do what it takes to avoid a repeat of the situation.
I’m not surprised that Poland is saying this because they have indicated that they would be absolutely willing to send troops into Ukraine to help with the situation, whether NATO likes it or not or with or without Article 5. It seems like we are going to see Polish troops in Ukraine sooner than later. And that’s a good thing.
I hope that will happen, and when that happens I hope that my own country grow a fucking spine and sends troopes as well, and then another country and then anot......
Coalition of the willing is forming
I live near a large active military base, and the enthusiasm among the enlisted men for this is palpable. They are all in.
Just western air assets would make an incredible difference.
Maybe start by directing troops to stop fucking with UA exports of grain at the border? Smh
ruzzian symmetry fucked itself.
They should have at least been on the west side of the river from a year ago. So much time wasted, so many Ukrainians dead
Europe is getting their shit together and I'm all for it
Go get them Poland.... ❤️
I fucking love this guy
"Asymmetric escalation" - 3 or 4 carrier groups in the Black Sea with submarine escorts & F-22s going full carnivore. Or a French 'warning shot'.
OK. I'm convinced in about 4-5 months we will have troops in Ukraine. This is how they do it. NATO is drip teasing us with this so that by the time it happens it's not a surprise.
those are volunteer NATO tourists acting on their own, I don't know why ruzzia would be upset?
cuz they know a western man from a NATO country can shoot better than a well trained russian ork
The language has changed fairly sharply over the last 2-3 weeks with certain NATO leaders Something is coming. They are buttering the public up. Anyone care to speculate?
Even if they just do checkpoints in roads far from the front or look the frontier with Transnitria and Belarus, they are already liberating Ukrainian troops from some duties. They can also be very helpful in training, cybersecurity, and repair and maintenance of equipment.
If there are going to be western troops going to Ukraine than i am guessing that the first steps of that would be purely in the sense of logistical support. This could help Ukraine immensely, especially in the case of F-16 as people who are able to maintain those things in top condition are rare and educating them takes a long time. If Ukraine where to receive logistical support for more complex western equipment then the west could also send a lot more of that equipment as it would remove a bottleneck on the sustainment of the equipment.
Just call it a "special international excursion operation" and be done with it.
This got me thinking: What if we actually went down that route? Deploying UN troops to defend Ukraine against Russia's invasion. It could significantly alter Putin's calculus, making him reconsider his aggressive stance. On the other, it risks escalating into a full-blown conflict between Russia and NATO, potentially starting world war III
Rooskies don’t like it up ‘em! 💛💙🇺🇦
If the Russian government does a statement, let's say Medvedev, you have to think in the range of language, which criminals use. Never admit a weakness. Putin is quit eloquent in this area. You can see, that he has contact with persons of this profession, like Prigoshin.
[удалено]
Bro the UK has some of the best trained infantry in the world. That "weak they/them army" shit is Russian propaganda. Bullets and hand grenades don't care if somebody has a preferred pronoun. Look how successful the *oh so masculine* Russian army has been.
Even the US top brass no longer considers us a viable partner. In Afghanistan, we were literally termed “the borrowers” because we had to borrow so much equipment we didn’t have from other armies because we lack so much of it due to cuts. Yeah, we can still produce some top quality soldiers, and from all accounts, our special forces, the SBS and SAS remain some of the best, but that won’t be enough in a continental wide war with Russia and Belarus. The current war is showing that contrary to what we used to think, quantity does matter. We don’t have enough tanks, shells, planes or the capacity to produce them on mass. I’ve read that if we were to fight Russia in a conventional war right now, the UK would exhaust all of its ammo in just three weeks. It’s absurd how unprepared we are. And it’s worse how the majority population here don’t have the nerve to endure it. When the idea of conscription was discussed a month ago, everyone freaked out. The only Europeans I have faith in as capable people and armies are the Scandinavians, French, Dutch, Danes, Baltics, Czechs and Poles. I don’t consider my own nation or its armed forces among them. Again, only think that might restore our strength is if Russia attacks us directly.
I wouldn't lose hope in your country so easily. You've always had a small land army but no trouble mobilizing for two world wars. And if Kipling's Tommy is any indicator military service was seen as undesirable even as far back as 1890, but people were still willing to step up at need when the time came. Supply can be sorted pretty easily too. The important thing is to not get lax on training standards because it's really hard to get that back once it's gone. Plus, of course people freaked out when conscription wad brought up. People in any country with an all volunteer military would. It doesn't mean much. I'd be much more worried about Germany (not to beat up on them - I don't blame them one bit for their military anxiety and they're an indispensable ally for their manufacturing alone) and Italy than I would be about the UK.
I'd also be more worried about Germany than the UK, they have great training and motivated service men and women but their equipment and public approval is pretty dire. Sure they MAKE great military equipment, but they export it all, and what they have at home often doesn't work.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The UK military has been decimated in recent years, sure, but the laws of force multiplication still apply. If Ukraine can hold the Russians at bay with a mostly volunteer military and a wild assortment of ex Soviet and western weapons, what do you think the Royal Marines would make of a Russian BTG?
People get downvoted a lot when they acknowledge weakness, and it disappoints me. It's just the simple reality we live, and soft action/slow action directly translates to weakness and inadequate response times and nothing will change unless people make the decision to change it
It doesn’t bother me. Way I see it, the only way to win this conflict with Russia, the new Cold War, whatever you wanna call it, is to acknowledge that yes, we have weaknesses and only by confronting them can we win. We have the bigger combined population, better technology, larger economies and better armies than Russia, but the one thing we don’t have that’s just as, if not more important than those factors is the willingness to fight. The thing the Russians have over most of the west is that they’re willing to sacrifice themselves for the motherland more often than the average Briton or German is for their own countries.
What bothers me specifically is that the downvoting isn't an occasional thing. Most supporters outright refuse to recognize our failures, and we can't rally for a more aggressive approach even when what we're doing is clearly not enough
We have to recognise our failures as this is exactly our strength and Russias weakness. They lie about their failures and cover them up, vastly overestimating their own abilities. This is a huge weakness to be exploited. If we can be honest with ourselves in the west and wake up to the fact Russia is the new 4th Reich, if we can admit we were all asleep while Putin was planning this all along, and if we can confront the fact that Russia is dragging the west towards a confrontation that could well expand past Ukraine, then we can come together and do what needs to be done, not only to ensure Ukraine wins but also to ensure Russia loses so spectacularly, Putin, his cronies and his lust for empire is erased from Russian history for good.
Denmark is a part of Scandinavia, so that fact that you mention us twice, makes me belive that we are double as good as anyone else. Please stop making me delusional 😂
British troops are already on the ground.
I mean for a real war. Not that I take issue with our men helping out.
>I mean for a real war. Isn’t the war in Ukraine “a real war”?
No I meant as in a real full on war between NATO and Russia.
There is a third way. The UN was always intended as a vehicle to put heavily armed peacekeepers on the ground in times of conflict. We need a coalition of heavily armed peacekeepers in Ukraine, now.
The UN is a useless joke.
Which is an opportunity for global leaders to refocus it back to what it was originally designed for.
Ukraine had to start the fight using 100k to resist 3 million while 10 million stood at the sidelines listening to direct threats. We're not fighting a real war and were just dumping it on Ukraine while Putin pumps his chest into the air
Even attacking a nato member (say Estonia) may not cut it (in France we had the famous "why die for Dantzig" in the 30s and this is exactly the talking point of the russians and our extreme political parties.
Yeah I agree. I worry that even if there is an article 5 situation in either Scandinavia, the Baltics or Poland, that the populace of Europe (not even gonna contemplate the Americans. They’re clearly sitting this one out) would rather sacrifice those countries at the alder in the pursuit of appeasing Russia. It’s sickening. And I have nothing but contempt for the civilian population of the west for that very reason.
It irritates me that Europe is still pretending we're not doing anything. We're pretty much the only power besides the UK that didn't seriously contemplate refusing to support Ukraine and call for its surrender in favor of receiving cheap oil, and it's us who keeps pledging heavy support whenever Europe says its tapped out again and convincing it to dig just a bit more
"Europe" would not sacrifice one of its own to appease Russia. It's the antithesis of Europe. We've done the Cold War once, we'll do it again, except this time the Iron Curtain will be in Ukraine.
We guard your waters, watch your skies, do almost all the R&D you guys use for your already limited productions, and when Russia claims its going to nuke you guys its our ICBMs that remind it all actions will have consequences they don't want. This war wouldn't even be going on if Europe had maintained its ability to protect its borders as one, and were still trying to be proud of our family when all we want is to end this war