It is not our war (I’m not Ukranian, nor Russian). I understand that it is bad and unacceptable that Putin does this and I also want to stop it, but not at all costs. To me enough lives were already lost and I don’t see how can we win.
Maybe this is unacceptable to many people, but I prefer the interest of my own country, my family and friends. I’m open to help, but again, not at all costs. I don’t see how is it in our interest to be at war with Russia (I’m from Europe).
How Ukraine can win? With enough weapons and ammo from one side and with real sanctions from the other side.
Last few years they receive some ammo, but just enough to not loose the battle. And sanctions are a joke. Russians are easily selling goods to EU, money easily flowing to Russia. There are backdoors for each sanctions.
Don't see how it is in EU interest? If Russia will occupy Ukraine then they could invade EU states next. Estonia for example. There are already threats coming from Russian state TV. They are ready for war. And they don't care who to invade and kill: Nazi in Ukraine, Nazi in Estonia, Nazi in Poland etc. Call any nation a Nazi and there will be legions of Russian soldiers who are ready to kill everyone (including children and elderly people, they will rape, torture and kill everyone) for promise to get paid few thousand euros per months.
Do you really think so? Ukraine received all the ammo in the world already, but they not really making progress anymore. How and what exactly will change in the upcoming future? I’m curious about concrete things, instead of just talking about that “they can not loose” etc. So far, the details are unclear to me.
If Russia attacks the EU or NATO, then we’ll need our weapons to fight them. I think there is ZERO chance that they do that. As NATO is just simply more powerful and Russia is not stupid. It would be called the 3rd WW.
Few dozens of modern tanks, few dozens of short range missiles. A dozen of aircrafts made in USSR.
Doesn't sound "all the ammo in the world" for me.
Yes, they received a lot of close range defensive weapons, but almost nothing offensive.
Regarding invasion to one country in NATO - why not? Other armies are extremely weak, with ammo depots for few weeks of active operation. And everybody are terrified to do any offensive because "crazy Russians have nukes and we need their oil and natural gas"
Ukraine is eating through ammo (mainly 155mm howitzer shells from what I understand) because the war is in a WWI-style stalemate due to the lack of air superiority at the front from either side. All they can do is pound each other over and over again along the front line. There's no way to advance.
Likely if the west provided jets, this would change drastically.
I actually agree Russia is not stupid enough to engage in a direct attack on a NATO nation. They would likely move next against in Transnistria, Georgia, etc. And I don't see what would stop them, if they have success in Ukraine.
But they will engage in hybrid warfare against the west (already were), and they will be twice as emboldened if they are given Ukraine.
This is a country that felt free to unleash radioactive poisons against persons on UK soil, shoot down a civilian airliner, etc. Why do you want to appease them?
If west provided modern jets last year, if west provided long range missiles last year, and mainly: if Ukraine was allowed to use them against invader's military target on their soil - there would not be a stalemate now.
There are airports, ammo depots and other facilities less than 100 km from Ukrainian cities, and Russians are safe(mostly) there.
While at the same time Russians every day continuing their terrorist attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Russia is a terrorist state, but world doesn't care if they can have profits from Russia.
At first I felt like maybe this was a reasonable strategy from the west, because it allowed NATO to escalate capabilities slowly without at any point performing actions that would have looked like a direct attack on Russian home soil, justifying military action against the west, etc.
But after this summer of letting the Ukrainians flounder along the front in a stalemated counteroffensive, I am frustrated. The F16s should have been there this summer.
And now Avdiivka will become this winter's Bakhmut and the US could very well end up with a Putin-allied Trumpler in the Whitehouse next year.
I have a feeling that west doesn't want Ukraine to win. They want to bleed Russia, to make it weak, but to stay in one piece and with current government.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, there is no powerful politician like Reagan nowadays.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
We had decades of peace and prosperity and now hard times are coming.
Do you really think Russia will give up the already occupied territories? Crimea?
I think this could happen when Putin would be removed and NATO would deploy to Ukraine.
Just sending more and more weapons will not change anything.
They already have given up lots of occupied territories. Guess why? Because of the advances of Ukrainian army. If west will send more weapons, without restrictions to use them against Russian army - all territory of Ukraine could be liberated from occupation.
If you think that west should give up and let Russians win and keep occupied territories - you should learn European history better.
Remember "peace for out time" agreement with Hitler in Munich 1938?
So aggression gets rewarded by handing them something they wanted. Do you really think that this is the end, this is all they wanted and from now on they are peaceful world citizens?
Every time you hand something to aggressors you need to hand them more the next time.
How many km between russia and the border of the country where you live?
For me it's 0.
You either help Ukraine now or be ready to fight yourself sometime in the future.
It's like in the winter you are cold and you pee in your pants. It will be warm for a moment end then what?
I don’t disagree, but what exactly means stopping Russia? How would you define what is “winning”? So, “that Russia doesn’t do that anymore”? Russia is a nuclear superpower, who can stop them? The NATO? But that’s 3WW.
As I stated in my other comment, I don't think Russia would use nukes, only when their core existence is threatened.
I'm not advocating to NOT to help Ukraine, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly is our plan. Which is still unclear. You and all others here have absolutely zero idea.
I'm a very cautious person and before committing to sending more weapons, at least I'd like to know what is our strategy. How we're going to win?
But of course, it's also an option to send as many weapons as we can without any further strategy and let as many Ukrainians die as can, without even understanding what winning means. This is somehow the only accepted solution currently. And if you don't like that, then you are pro Russian fallen for Russian propaganda.
I don't get your question "who can stop them?" The Ukrainians have already done so, to a large degree. Nobody imagined Ukraine lasting more than a week of invasion, but they did so, and then retook large swathes of territory and forced the Russians into a defensive posture.
The mistake the west made was not having confidence in the Ukrainians early on, and not supplying them with the tools early on and into last winter. We let Russia pull back and build intensive defensive lines that would be impossible to breach without air support.
As for nuclear weapons... they are not tools to win wars.
The first country to use a nuclear weapon as an offensive weapon will be turned to glass. It's just not a tool that even Putin is stupid enough to use.
They don't make you a powerful offensive power, just a powerful defensive one. And nobody has ever suggested invading Russia, despite their paranoid claims to the contrary.
