The Kremlin warned that American support for Ukraine could turn into a decade-long folly, urging the U.S. to not oppose its invasion of the country as Congress appears set to pass a $60 billion aid…
I thought your proposed swift response would be less conventional than continuing the land war but with unlocked NATO DLC. I think it would face even more scrutiny than the fast leader-snatching operation and can cause currently undecided countries step in on russian side.
I thought your proposed swift response would be less conventional than continuing the land war but with unlocked NATO DLC
Well with “unlocked NATO DLC” this operation would be swift one. Russia is barely making progress against Ukraine and loosing a lot of soldiers and equipment, what do you think will happen when a real threat enters the battlefield?
and can cause currently undecided countries step in on russian side.
Why join a loosing party or risk a global crisis if the war is only located in Ukraine and has the only goal of driving the russian forces out of the country. Why would someone join the fray to support the russians when it’s all about ending their degenerate “special operation”? I would agree to you when it’s against Russia itself, but in this case it would only be against the forces of Russia in a land that is not Russia. I don’t see the benefits for China or anybody relevant. Maybe Iran will join, but those dipshits wold join everything that is against the west…
There’s many of aging dictators around who’d see the fall of russia as being in danger themselves, or seeing NATO being temporally occupied there, thus acting irrationally. No one touches Iran for it’s stable and don’t put much trouble, even Syria is somehow not worthy attention now. And if there’d be a probability of waves of coups or perceived danger of being displaced, NATO risks the need to be deployed here too for it’d hurt way more than whatever these authoritarian regimes do now. It won’t be a symmetric warfare, but random acts of terror and civil wars, imagine Kosovo 2.0. Africa already have some of them, relatively bloodless, some like Houthis or Myanmar never really stopped and can be reignited anew. That’s one of the reasons NATO doesn’t act in full, they perceive this region as a keg of black powder. And they don’t want take responsibility for so much problems at once, as after WW2 when they semi-successfully deprogrammed Germany and Japan via occupation, they had a hard time in Balkans, and recently left Afghanistan for talibs.
Well with “unlocked NATO DLC” this operation would be swift one. Russia is barely making progress against Ukraine and loosing a lot of soldiers and equipment, what do you think will happen when a real threat enters the battlefield?
Total mobilization, zerg rushes until there’s no one to send, heavy losses on the superior army’s part too, and it counts it’s losses more strictly since Nam, a lot of budget spendings relocated towards replenishing stocks that would probably kill some candidates in democratic countries, weird position in terms of what to do with these two countries after the guns stop shooting that’s still far away from today, thus these politicians can sleep at night. You seem to downplay these things. Besides, current Ukrainian and Russian AF practice warfare now, and even without shiny toys, they manage to use cheap tech efficiently, while using the full might of the US MIC, even just one Abrams, is a logistical puzzle and a costy endeavour. Air and water superiority are examples of what none of them can manage, and there NATO can put it’s weight, but in the field those troops who are currently deployed and survived for years are more experienced than whoever NATO can send. They can teach how to use advanced weaponry right, but there weren’t a conflict like than in Europe for a long time.
I’ve seen some lingo in your answers that paints russian threat as a joke, so if you’d want to answer, first, tell me how ukrainians call opposing side’s soldiers, and how russians usually call them back. This two year massacre is a tragedy and I don’t want to talk to someone who sounds like they read to much /k/ another evening. With all due respect.
In Maydan times there were brigades of russian martial arts goons in Kiyv, there was Berkut working for a kremlin’s tool who then left, there was a FSB support of coups in regions, but there was nothing like this meatgrinder even in the most heated phase. According to statistics, it died off almost completely until the 2022 invasion and that became a routine to civilians who didn’t lurked in a subway underground for days like they did in 2022.
Seriously, it’s just like crying about 8 years of Donbas. You are either ill informed or have an agenda. Ten years narrative is irrelevant to you unless you actually took your part in fighting back then. You try to take the higher moral ground, but you can’t put your facts straight. And you replied without an answer to my questions. It seems like you are from Germany or Austria. So you don’t have any stakes here either way.
I thought your proposed swift response would be less conventional than continuing the land war but with unlocked NATO DLC. I think it would face even more scrutiny than the fast leader-snatching operation and can cause currently undecided countries step in on russian side.
Well with “unlocked NATO DLC” this operation would be swift one. Russia is barely making progress against Ukraine and loosing a lot of soldiers and equipment, what do you think will happen when a real threat enters the battlefield?
Why join a loosing party or risk a global crisis if the war is only located in Ukraine and has the only goal of driving the russian forces out of the country. Why would someone join the fray to support the russians when it’s all about ending their degenerate “special operation”? I would agree to you when it’s against Russia itself, but in this case it would only be against the forces of Russia in a land that is not Russia. I don’t see the benefits for China or anybody relevant. Maybe Iran will join, but those dipshits wold join everything that is against the west…
There’s many of aging dictators around who’d see the fall of russia as being in danger themselves, or seeing NATO being temporally occupied there, thus acting irrationally. No one touches Iran for it’s stable and don’t put much trouble, even Syria is somehow not worthy attention now. And if there’d be a probability of waves of coups or perceived danger of being displaced, NATO risks the need to be deployed here too for it’d hurt way more than whatever these authoritarian regimes do now. It won’t be a symmetric warfare, but random acts of terror and civil wars, imagine Kosovo 2.0. Africa already have some of them, relatively bloodless, some like Houthis or Myanmar never really stopped and can be reignited anew. That’s one of the reasons NATO doesn’t act in full, they perceive this region as a keg of black powder. And they don’t want take responsibility for so much problems at once, as after WW2 when they semi-successfully deprogrammed Germany and Japan via occupation, they had a hard time in Balkans, and recently left Afghanistan for talibs.
Total mobilization, zerg rushes until there’s no one to send, heavy losses on the superior army’s part too, and it counts it’s losses more strictly since Nam, a lot of budget spendings relocated towards replenishing stocks that would probably kill some candidates in democratic countries, weird position in terms of what to do with these two countries after the guns stop shooting that’s still far away from today, thus these politicians can sleep at night. You seem to downplay these things. Besides, current Ukrainian and Russian AF practice warfare now, and even without shiny toys, they manage to use cheap tech efficiently, while using the full might of the US MIC, even just one Abrams, is a logistical puzzle and a costy endeavour. Air and water superiority are examples of what none of them can manage, and there NATO can put it’s weight, but in the field those troops who are currently deployed and survived for years are more experienced than whoever NATO can send. They can teach how to use advanced weaponry right, but there weren’t a conflict like than in Europe for a long time.
I’ve seen some lingo in your answers that paints russian threat as a joke, so if you’d want to answer, first, tell me how ukrainians call opposing side’s soldiers, and how russians usually call them back. This two year massacre is a tragedy and I don’t want to talk to someone who sounds like they read to much /k/ another evening. With all due respect.
you mean 10 years and ongoing…
Yeah I also don’t want to talk to you either anymore, glad that we settle that.
Talking like it’s even comparable.
In Maydan times there were brigades of russian martial arts goons in Kiyv, there was Berkut working for a kremlin’s tool who then left, there was a FSB support of coups in regions, but there was nothing like this meatgrinder even in the most heated phase. According to statistics, it died off almost completely until the 2022 invasion and that became a routine to civilians who didn’t lurked in a subway underground for days like they did in 2022.
Seriously, it’s just like crying about 8 years of Donbas. You are either ill informed or have an agenda. Ten years narrative is irrelevant to you unless you actually took your part in fighting back then. You try to take the higher moral ground, but you can’t put your facts straight. And you replied without an answer to my questions. It seems like you are from Germany or Austria. So you don’t have any stakes here either way.
Ah there is our comrad. NOW I really don’t want to talk to you, so kindly fuck off.
Lmao, okay.