Why shouldn’t France being doing as much as we are?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Can you stipulate proportionality is a fair consideration whether size of economy, military might, or breath of international commitments?
I have some 3rd grader questions for the collective group wrt Ukraine/Putin. I ended up as a TACRON CO and Brett hates me, so please keep that in mind:
1. It certainly seems that the "crisis" the U.S. & the Biden administration is trying to convince of us, is not necessarily shared by NATO/Western Europe. I mean, if Russia and their incursion into Ukraine was such an existential threat, why do we not see EVERY Western European leader screaming at the top of their lungs that EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH must come together and stop the scourge of this threat?
2. If you are of the opinion that we MUST supply Ukraine with EVERYTHING they need to stop Putins advances, why don't we rally the troops (and NATO) and show the WORLD that EVERYTHING we have will be brought to bear against the Evil Bear?
3. There are a LOT of incredibly smart folks advocating things like diplomacy, and unity, and "we can't poke the Bear too much because of Nukes." But history is replete with examples of nations doing too little, too late, especially in this part of the world.
4. So, which is it? Support Ukraine, and Zelensky, completely, with everything they need to absolutely CRUSH Putin and his advances? Or piece meal this campaign for sound bites in front of congress in order to justify more foreign aid?
The United States of America, and their NATO Allies, have the means, and justification, and political will to stop this "war" right now. The question is, why aren't we?
1. It certainly seems that the "crisis" the U.S. & the Biden administration is trying to convince of us, is not necessarily shared by NATO/Western Europe. I mean, if Russia and their incursion into Ukraine was such an existential threat, why do we not see EVERY Western European leader screaming at the top of their lungs that EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH must come together and stop the scourge of this threat?
2. If you are of the opinion that we MUST supply Ukraine with EVERYTHING they need to stop Putins advances, why don't we rally the troops (and NATO) and show the WORLD that EVERYTHING we have will be brought to bear against the Evil Bear?
3. There are a LOT of incredibly smart folks advocating things like diplomacy, and unity, and "we can't poke the Bear too much because of Nukes." But history is replete with examples of nations doing too little, too late, especially in this part of the world.
4. So, which is it? Support Ukraine, and Zelensky, completely, with everything they need to absolutely CRUSH Putin and his advances? Or piece meal this campaign for sound bites in front of congress in order to justify more foreign aid?
The United States of America, and their NATO Allies, have the means, and justification, and political will to stop this "war" right now. The question is, why aren't we?
That would be nice, but I am unwilling to let France dictate our foreign policy, directly or indirectly by slow-rolling its own support.
Those aren't the two choices.
Pot, kettle, black, etc. I’m having trouble discerning whether this is irony, projection, or mere hypocrisy. ?
I'll take this one. What happens when Russia collapses and has that many nukes? Realize that we went thru this before, but I suspect that helping them control their arsenal would be harder this time.
Last edited:
IMO, because many of the European leadership is weak. It is important to hold the line with Putin because if not, then it will tell the world that if you try invading a country and things backfire for your military, just hold out long enough and the West will lose interest and let you keep the territory you have taken. This of course will inspire more aggression. It also will say to Westernizing nations that if they get attacked by such aggressors, they have a short window to drive the aggressors out until the West loses interest or patience.
Also it is very cheap to counter the Russians like this and sends a message to China about Taiwan.
We have rallied the troops, but everything is not needed to counter the Bear. What we thus far are showing is that our support is firm and we will bleed the Bear to death.
They are wrong IMO. For one, diplomacy how? By showing weakness? The Russians could end this tomorrow if they just withdraw. Unity? What is even meant by that? Poking of the bear I agree some caution needs to be exercised but I think even some of that is overblown. Why isn't it seen by the Russians that they are poking the Elephant?
Well it isnt that simple. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has said that they are now beginning to train the Ukrainians how to conduct more advanced, larger-scale operations, actual campaigns, and how to do so against a dug-in, defending opponent. So the issue isn't just equipment but training in how to fight on a large scale with it now. Also remember, the Western nations need to maintain our own militaries as well.
What some people think is "piecemeal" support is not, it's just that this war is kinda like a mini-me WWII on the Eastern Front and so will take time. The more Western goodies we supply the Ukrainians with, the more training they will need.
That would bring us directly into conflict with Russian forces which might well be a step too far and garner a nuclear response. Also it is far cheaper to just let the Ukrainians fight it.
That assumes they've done maintenance in the first place. The 'Sovietologist' who sits next to me always likes to say that Russia is one giant shithole, I haven't seen much to counter his claim yet.
Hey now, during Soviet times they had the world's most advanced 19th century economy.
Why was Russia they “so scared of a NATO attack” that they invaded Ukraine? Why hasn’t NATO invaded while Russia is now far weaker? Was Russia lying?
What does Finland know that you don’t, that led them to toss out their old policy and seek to join NATO? Why are our NATO partners that we have pledged to defend, donating so much to Ukraine? What do they know of their 24/7 next door neighbors that we don’t?
Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're asking.
None of this answers my question, it just implies that Europeans have the answers, and you're using points that I think the graphs posted previously show to be false, like that the large European powers are donating so much to Ukraine. Except for the Baltics and Poland, they aren't.
Again.. what am I missing? Russia is struggling heavily to take Ukraine, they have lost a ton of their irreplaceable military equipment and most of their most highly trained forces, their economy has for a long time been weaker than Germany alone, let alone the rest of Europe combined, their military is clearly nowhere near as powerful as we thought prior to the war... So why are folks here convinced that they are going to attack NATO next? Why does Europe still require us to bear the bulk of the responsibility for deterring Russia? What am I missing? I honestly want to know. There's a lot of smart people here, and this just doesn't add up to me.
Why are the NATO members adjacent to Russia so worried about it? Because they sure as heck are.
That is part of what I'm asking, yes. The least interesting part, but still a part. Do you have an answer for why folks on here really believe Russia will attack a NATO country next, or are you just repeating it back for clarity?
Becasue we would then be obligated to get in a shooting war. Cheaper to fight the proxy war in Ukraine and help NATO allies deter. Anything less sends a signal that NATO is weak and will not defend smaller members, like Eastonia. If you doubt Putin would like to move on other countries then you haven't heard what he has said and written for a few years now.