There’s a war going on right now in Ukraine, helping them win it will make Russia launching a next war less likely and further off.
This is exactly what I am thinking as well. Russia is clearly threatening the stability of the EU right now. If the EU wants to send a strong signal against aggression and meddling, it needs support Ukraine in a way that makes it clear to any would-be-adversary, that the EU is willing and capable to defend itself and its allies.
Not to mention, it makes them less reliant on the US – which as an American, means we can reduce our defense spending. Which means we can finally have really good welfare programs.
This has been disproven so many times. You don’t lack social programs because of defense spending. Defense spending is only 3.5% of GDP. Your wildly inefficient private health care system, on the other hand, costs 16.6% of GDP and you still get worse outcomes, on average, compared to other OECD countries. If you brought your health care system in line with other OECD countries with a public health care system at around 11% of GDP, you could literally double the size of your military and still have tons of money left over to improve social programs and wipe out all medical debt (only 0.6% of GDP, but devastating to poorer families).
deleted by creator
what are the odds Ukraine actually takes back their territory? The vaunted summer counteroffensive was a complete and abject failure
They stopped and presented most of their combat power when it looked like it was going to be a waste like Russia’s recent offensives. They shifted to an attritional fight. You are right in line with the Russian narrative though.
High on taking back northern regions by Kiev, the northern parts and Odessa, medium on eastern territories, and low on Crimea.
Why do you think it’s more likely that they will take back Crimea?
I said low likelihood they’d take back Crimea.
The message you replied to says odds, though.
Low odds means low likelihood right? I think technically odds are referred to in long and short, but that’s weird.
Pretty sure a low likelihood yields high odds and vice versa.
LOL, Russia has already LOST the war. Now they are just desperately trying to take dirt.
Ukraine doesn’t have to take back its territory.
Russia will be forced by NATO to do that, just like how Germany lost so many territories it conquered after WW1.
You do understand that Russia has nuclear weapons and it’s ruled by psychopaths, which sort of make that sort of stuff very costly for literally the entire planet?
You know Ukraine isn’t going to win, right? Russia is just much more powerful than them even with full NATO support
Folks this is a troll who created the account two hours ago.
There should be a newbie badge for like 6 months.
Depending on your client there is. Accounts younger than a month (I think?) are marked with the baby emoji on voyager.
deleted by creator
Dude, your account is 5 months old
Folks this is a troll who created the account two hours ago.
That’s the real public service announcement. Many thanks.
in three weeks, right? home for christmas.
Hahahaha. Old Nato Stock is destroying Russian equipment with ease. But sure, Russia with non-existing new weapons (except on paper) is much more powerful. What kind of person are you?
Thanks for the laugh, Ivan. Now go back to your bread line and piss off.
🤖🇷🇺
Russia is just much more powerful than them even with full NATO support.
Not so sure about that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
Anyway it’s been a while since a war has been won in the traditional sense. I find the conditions of victory hard to define for Ukraine or Russia.
This isn’t a black or white “win or lose” scenario. You know that, right?
This isn’t a black or white “win or lose”
Well, in very important ways Russia LOST
löl
🛟
is just much more powerful than them
Debatable
even with full NATO support
Absolutely not lmao. We haven’t seen full NATO support, because it would mean the conflict would be over in an instant. NATO wants to stay formally out of the war however and not put boots on the ground. If Russia invades a NATO country in tandem with Ukraine, it’s all over for them.
Yeah NATO support comes with MAD. NATO support is US troops begin fighting. Ukraine is a target partly because they aren’t NATO
If Russia invades a NATO country in tandem with Ukraine, it’s all over for them.
You really think the USA can press a button and destroy a quarter of the whole earth?
Well yes, nukes, but that’s not what I meant. I mean a ground invasion that uses full American military might.
Sure thing, not even one hour old account with two comments.
You totally didn’t use this account to get around being defederated from this instance.
Da, comrade.
Curious how all that power isn’t really reflected on the battlefield.
They are delaying the war as long as possible, as they are earning a lot of money this way. Same as the US selling them weapons
How are they earning money? Seems more like they’re burning through money and young men
Who are “they”?
So who’s winning the current 3 day special operation that totally isn’t a war?
Edit: And by win, I mean who’s sustained more losses? Who’s lost more ground? Who’s conscripting more people?
Probably some vampires
Sweats in Polish
I laughed
My history teacher used to say that over the course of history every generation faces a full scale war that directly impact them. Looking through the last couple of centuries that seems about right. I haven’t been in a war yet and I’m a45 years old so, yeah, I’m kinda scared.
This same teacher also used to say that the only “good” thing about a civil war is that the country that faces it nerves goes through another one ever again. Seeing how things are good in the United States now I’m starting to think that this teacher might be wrong.
Yeah, your teacher seemed to deal in absolutes: “it always happens” or “it will never happen again”. I think that events can always happen (again) but they don’t have to.
Ah, so this history teacher was a Sith Lord!?
The Sith have been dead for a thousand years!
Darth Historious
Plenty of countries have had multiple civil wars.
I was going to say, I’m pretty sure this is just historically inaccurate in addition to the fact that there can always be a first for anything.
But their name changed in between so it doesn’t count /s
We won’t have other one*
*While the generations affected are alive.
Once the living memories are gone it’s much harder to prevent, since anyone can argue a stance from a history book.
This reminds me of how WWI was at one point known as ‘the war to end all wars’.
How fucking naive were the people who really thought that!
they were hopeful…
We were in a weird spot after the Industrial Revolution but before globalism.
Post WWII recovery changed that, when most of the developed world (sans America) was literally in shambles.
I don’t think we’ll ever see another full out war between major powers. Capitalism and the all-mighty dollar will prevent that. But at the same time it will encourage proxy wars.
Scarcity is a concern but again mostly for the smaller powers. More than likely it’ll be some sort of indebtedness between impoverished countries and their pimp nations backing them out of the proxy wars they created.
They also said we get a financial crisis every generation. How many have we had?
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.’
each party will take action as they deem necessary
tbh this reads like the “security guarantees” that Ukraine got for giving up their nuclear weapons: not worth the paper it’s written on
Removed by mod
Who worded those “security guarantees”?
The signatories of the Budapest Memorandum were Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, the UK, and the US.
The stipulations of the agreement are essentially as follows:
-
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
-
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
-
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
-
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
-
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
-
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
1 is obviously trash, and has been since 2014. Russia has tried using legal fig leaves to cover 2, but basically everyone - including Russia - is fully aware that it’s complete bullshit. 3 is also useless - and has been since the document was signed, considering how much influence Russia has exerted on Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan over the last few decades, but particularly since Putin’s ascent to power. 4 is a non-point because the UNSC is and will continue to be categorically useless simply due to the single-veto structure it has. 5 is what Putin threatens every fucking week. 6 is essentially holding hands around the fire and singing kumbaya, which is manifestly idiotic in this context.
The current situation:
- One signatory (Ukraine) is under attack from another (Russia), and those attacks were, to a significant degree, enabled by a third signatory (Belarus), which itself has been effectively subsumed by another signatory (Russia)
- One signatory (Kazakhstan) can’t feasibly do anything, and is additionally already in a semi-sketchy position with another signatory (Russia)
- the remaining signatories (US; UK) have repeatedly sought UNSC interventions, which have and will continue to fail to pass due to - as noted above - Russia applying their veto as a rule. This is the only enforcement mechanism in the entire thing, and it is effectively a statement of guaranteed bureaucratic inaction.
For real: retrospectively, Ukraine (and Kazakhstan and Belarus) should have held out for WAY stronger enforcements clauses, but (and this part is basically and educated guess) the US and UK were in the “woooo Cold War DONE” mindset, and Russia probably had a rough idea of their current situation in mind, and thus had a vested interest in making the defensive arrangements more or less meaningless.
-
Why has every comment here been downvoted?
Russia troll farms I imagine.
We’re big enough that troll farms think we’re relevant! We did it, Lemmy!
The comments don’t feel like people that are interested in a good faith discussion with a dash of troll
Lemmy bugs lol
What do you mean?
When I wrote that comment, there were like 6 comments. All of them were at negative scores, and they were all very different opinions while some were not opinions at all, just info. Just looked strange.
Ah, got it. Seems like things changed since then.
Reddit crew got here first maybe.
Here we go again
The usual money flow. What future generation will be able to stop these should-be-retired chiefs?
And into the apocalypse we go
Berlin will do anything to justify pumping money into their failing industrial sector
Oh hey look, it’s a Russian troll bot!
Literally has ’shill’ in username
cute
German manufacturing PMI is at like 42. By definition, that means Germany’s manufacturing capacity is contracting.
Cool! That number is also ignoring what goods are produced, aswell as the cause of any declines. So to look at one number like that, which isn’t really terribly far below the market of what is considered “in decline” and say “oh they’re failing fucking epically and they’re doing everything they can to improve it!” is kinda, you know… fucking stupid. That’s literally judging a book by its cover, and you’re doing it to connect them to a war with their close neighbors they have every right to be concerned about anyway?
Oh no not again
Why Berlin? Why?
fuck
Knowing germany, this sounds like a threat
deleted by creator
Russian army is a joke if you look at their technology. I’d say it stinks like old mentality
I dont want jokes in Warsaw.
This is useful context. Ich wil du hast links 2, 3, 4 und mutter, ja?
Nah dude. It will be refreshing to once not be part of the source of a world war. #fingerscrossed
I’ve already poisoned you, my friend
I know Germany. Been there many times. And, no.
You and Germany are like 🤞
You don’t know Germany. Even with a lower case G.
is this a threat
I don’t see, after having read the article, how one could consider it a threat. How did you come to question?
thanks Germany!
Is that a threat, Berlin?
to russia? yes
We should make it very clear to enemies like Russia that we do not want a war but are ready for one, if they are stupid enough to start one.
We are already paying for 2 wars, nothing new
Paying to have your neighbors build weapons.
