Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

B. Munich said:
Well he won't win any voters neck from the far right with those statements.
Strangely (or not) most far right parties are openly supporting or in favor of Russia and Putin.

In Germany they demand to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine, reach a deal with Putin asap and start importing cheap Russian gas and natural resources again.

As our economy is in tatters more and more Germans support this (wrong) strategy.
Click to expand...
I know that much and it's also growing faster because Ukraine's military situation considerably worsened. That's the european domestic reality that can't be denied and saying people are dumb or wrong won't change it.

The far-right is feasting on this image of "weak" liberal democracies supporting a war dragging on without any clear end in sight for the benefit of the establishment (whatever that means for them), while the energy and food bills have exploded, especially in Germany where I happen to live too. What's driving people away from supporting Ukraine isn't so much the living costs than this "play it by ear" strategy adopted by the West. It's too muddled for a lot of them to get behind it, especially when their wallet is hit.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
Yeah, sorry. I've deleted the post.
Click to expand...

In fairness I think part of the difference in rhetoric probably arises from where people are.

To someone living in the UK, France or Germany, the idea of our way of life changing because of Russia is generally incomprehensible. Russia are not going to attack those countries. Multiply this by 1000 for Americans.

To those in the Baltics or Finland etc, I can see how that outlook may be very different. Those countries have within living memory been under the rule of Russians or been attacked by them. Finland excepted, they're tiny countries.

Sure, they're in NATO but if someone like Trump is in charge....or if America takes a more isolationist stance in general again, are they going to do anything?

I don't think their fear or some of their rhetoric is misplaced to be honest, even if I don't personally agree with all of it.
 
Rajma said:
If Ukraine has such a far-right problem as some brainwashed by Russian propaganda kept telling us at the beginning of the war,
Click to expand...

I don't think the Nazi accusations play any role in Germany.

Many people realize that the country is in decline, prosperity is endangered and it's only the beginning. They see the Ukraine as a very corrupt country, which is neither part of the EU nor NATO. So why should Germany risk is prosperity? Many also don't want the Ukraine to become a member of the EU because in the end it will cost Germany again billions of Euro in money transfers, especially after the country is war ridden.

The failed counter offensive last year and Russian troops progressing lately also play a significant role. More and more Germans are just saying it's not our war, Ukraine won't win anyway and are afraid with a Trump presidency looming all efforts are in vain anyway.
Thus they believe it will better to negotiate a deal and get cheap energy from Russia again to revive or industry which otherwise might be lost for good.

I don't agree with them but there numbers are growing every day with Germany's economy declining steadily since the war started.
It
 
B. Munich said:
I don't think the Nazi accusations play any role in Germany.

Many people realize that the country is in decline, prosperity is endangered and it's only the beginning. They see the Ukraine as a very corrupt country, which is neither part of the EU nor NATO. So why should Germany risk is prosperity? Many also don't want the Ukraine to become a member of the EU because in the end it will cost Germany again billions of Euro in money transfers, especially after the country is war ridden.

The failed counter offensive last year and Russian troops progressing lately also play a significant role. More and more Germans are just saying it's not our war, Ukraine won't win anyway and are afraid with a Trump presidency looming all efforts are in vain anyway.
Thus they believe it will better to negotiate a deal and get cheap energy from Russia again to revive or industry which otherwise might be lost for good.

I don't agree with them but there numbers are growing every day with Germany's economy declining steadily since the war started.
It
Click to expand...
Even when we ignore the current economical trouble, we have a very simple reason why lots of Germans simply don't want to pay anymore: We have the highest per capita spending for the EU. We are 15th in the EU for per capita median wealth. This is a massive issue and more and more people are asking how can this be? Why does a country that isn't rich (anymore) has to pay for everything while richer countries don't?

Whenever we hear demands that Germany has to step up support from countries who are ahead of us in such rankings, it does push people away from supporting the cause. It's a very simple financial logic, and the economic issues caused by the war really play into this and sharpen the focus on this topic. Personally I think that we have a big issue that we have a mostly left-leaning leadership that lives in a wealthy bubble and doesn't really get that this is what a lot of people worry about today. Right wing parties are having a field day because our left wing parties don't acknowledge this reality, and as this is going on for years, the issues are ever increasing.
 
Last edited:
africanspur said:
In fairness I think part of the difference in rhetoric probably arises from where people are.

To someone living in the UK, France or Germany, the idea of our way of life changing because of Russia is generally incomprehensible. Russia are not going to attack those countries. Multiply this by 1000 for Americans.

To those in the Baltics or Finland etc, I can see how that outlook may be very different. Those countries have within living memory been under the rule of Russians or been attacked by them. Finland excepted, they're tiny countries.

Sure, they're in NATO but if someone like Trump is in charge....or if America takes a more isolationist stance in general again, are they going to do anything?

I don't think their fear or some of their rhetoric is misplaced to be honest, even if I don't personally agree with all of it.
Click to expand...
And yet it's already changing due to Russia's influence. Brexit? Rise of far-right parties that are supported by Russia? After all the meddling that Russia is doing in election processes and thus trying to weaken western democracies, it's obvious they are in cold war with us. I don't think that Russia will attack any time soon NATO countries (although they might test the alliance by attacking Baltics), however if they succeed with land grab in Ukraine it will be a huge victory for them. It will send a message to everyone in the world that conquest through war is possible again. That international borders mean nothing.

What's to stop from other countries attacking neighbors? I firmly believe that if Russia wins it will lead to further destabilization of western democracies and unity. It will lead to rise more of autocratic leaders like Orban in Hungary. Democracies want peace because it helps their citizens, but autocrats love war as it entrenches their leadership. We are already seeing the rise of nationalism in many countries and where nationalists govern there is more chance of war.

I want to be wrong, but if Russia wins I wouldn't be surprised if there is another hot war in Europe (not necessary with Russia as a direct participant).
 
africanspur said:
In fairness I think part of the difference in rhetoric probably arises from where people are.

To someone living in the UK, France or Germany, the idea of our way of life changing because of Russia is generally incomprehensible. Russia are not going to attack those countries. Multiply this by 1000 for Americans.

To those in the Baltics or Finland etc, I can see how that outlook may be very different. Those countries have within living memory been under the rule of Russians or been attacked by them. Finland excepted, they're tiny countries.

Sure, they're in NATO but if someone like Trump is in charge....or if America takes a more isolationist stance in general again, are they going to do anything?

I don't think their fear or some of their rhetoric is misplaced to be honest, even if I don't personally agree with all of it.
Click to expand...

Germany in particular should not even think that way because half of the country tasted Soviet control for 44 years while the other half (and West Berlin) had to worry for a possible attack from the East during that same period of time. I seriously expected Germany to be in the same camp as the Baltic states, Finland, Poland or even the Czechs as nations with bad memories of Soviet/Russian control.

As for the likes of France and the UK, we have seen what Russian influence can do with open support for the Le Pens and with Brexit. They are already fecking things up in both countries and it will take a lot of efforts (and political will) to solve the problems.

Putin's own vision of Russia bears strong similarities with Hitler's vision of Germany, both fueled by personal grudges against those who defeated them in previous conflicts.This is what the whole of Europe needs to understand altogether.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Germany in particular should not even think that way because half of the country tasted Soviet control for 44 years while the other half (and West Berlin) had to worry for a possible attack from the East during that same period of time. I seriously expected Germany to be in the same camp as the Baltic states, Finland, Poland or even the Czechs as nations with bad memories of Soviet/Russian control.
Click to expand...
When you expected that, you missed two key points: Over decades, there has been a slow improvement of the relations between West Germany and the Soviet Union/Russia. First economical deals were made in the 70s (about gas pipelines for example, a continuous topic until today), later on the improved relations allowed a peaceful reunification and end to the occupation of Germany in 1990 (remember: the biggest obstacle for this among the occupation powers wasn't the Gorbachev, it was Thatcher). Which was a lot different to how the end of the SU developed in the Baltic states.

And when we look at the East German perspective: Yes, lots of people suffered under the socialist dictatorship there. But also lots of people suffered due to the struggles of the reunification process, they lost their jobs, their social security, their purpose and you can see and feel this still in a lot of areas there. For those people things were (or at least felt) better while living under Soviet leadership. Ultimately it was a minority of a minority that really suffered (a lot) under them.
 
B. Munich said:
This is proper Russian propaganda. Do you really believe what you are writing here?

NATO is a pure defensive alliance. Only if one partner country is attacked article 5 will come into play.

Putin sees hates NATO not because it's a threat to Russia but because he can't attack and conquer (and win) any country being part of NATO. Their is zero threat from NATO to Russian sovereignty.

Thus, the biggest mistake, particularly from Merkel and Sarkozy was to veto Ukraine joining NATO. If the Ukraine had joined back then, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Therefore, the opposite of what your are claiming is actually true.
Click to expand...
He's always beating the same drum.
 
stefan92 said:
We have the highest per capita spending for the EU. We are 15th in the EU for per capita median wealth.
Click to expand...

This can't be true. Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands all have a higher per capita spending. (At least they had until the pandemic).

However, I heard lately from several sources that Germany spent nearly 20 billions for Ukraine while France and UK not even spent 1 billion. If true, then I can completely understand the anger of many Germans.
 
stefan92 said:
When you expected that, you missed two key points: Over decades, there has been a slow improvement of the relations between West Germany and the Soviet Union/Russia. First economical deals were made in the 70s (about gas pipelines for example, a continuous topic until today), later on the improved relations allowed a peaceful reunification and end to the occupation of Germany in 1990 (remember: the biggest obstacle for this among the occupation powers wasn't the Gorbachev, it was Thatcher). Which was a lot different to how the end of the SU developed in the Baltic states.
Click to expand...

This is true. Thatcher was against the unification. She and Mitterrand demanded from Kohl to give up the D-Mark and agree to the Euro, because they were afraid Germany might become to powerful again. Unfortunately, Kohl agreed, which he should never have.
Gorbachev is very popular in Germany and enjoys the status of rockstar in East Germany.

stefan92 said:
And when we look at the East German perspective: Yes, lots of people suffered under the socialist dictatorship there. But also lots of people suffered due to the struggles of the reunification process, they lost their jobs, their social security, their purpose and you can see and feel this still in a lot of areas there. For those people things were (or at least felt) better while living under Soviet leadership. Ultimately it was a minority of a minority that really suffered (a lot) under them.
Click to expand...
You are correct but still I absolutely don't understand the East Germans. The unification was poorly managed, plenty of mistakes were done but still their life improved tremendously in the last 20 to 30 years. Not even talking about the freedom to travel they got. I get extremely angry when I hear them talking in the old GDR everything was better, because it utter nonsense.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Germany in particular should not even think that way because half of the country tasted Soviet control for 44 years while the other half (and West Berlin) had to worry for a possible attack from the East during that same period of time. I seriously expected Germany to be in the same camp as the Baltic states, Finland, Poland or even the Czechs as nations with bad memories of Soviet/Russian control.
Click to expand...

Thinking rationally you are absolutely correct. I never understood the love Russia und especially Putin got from many of my countrymen.
The most strange thing is that's is especially the East Germans who trend to be pro Russia. They actually should know better from their history but it seems their memory is clouded.
Totally different from Poland and the Baltic states which didn't forget the hardship and lag of freedom they suffered under Russian rule.
 
That_Bloke said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

I mean, he has a point. If you take it in a literal sense then yes, Putin attacking the UK militarily is implausibile.

But the attack on our elections, our infrastructure, our public discouse, hell even our citizens.. yes, Russia and Putin could be said to be threatening our way of life. He's definitely contributed to the current climate.
 
B. Munich said:
Thinking rationally you are absolutely correct. I never understood the love Russia und especially Putin got from many of my countrymen.
The most strange thing is that's is especially the East Germans who trend to be pro Russia. They actually should know better from their history but it seems their memory is clouded.
Totally different from Poland and the Baltic states which didn't forget the hardship and lag of freedom they suffered under Russian rule.
Click to expand...

When i was in Germany (admittedly most political discussion being in academic settings, not on "the street") the impression i had was if there was "love", it was for the way the reunification and breakup of ussr had been handled. There wasn't a lot of pro-putin sentiment there, but for political circles it shouldn't be difficult to understand why typical 90s/00s centrist to right leaning neoliberals in Europe/US would initially like Putin (especially '00s pre Georgia invasion one)...he's a corrupt, unscrupulous right wing capitalist with seemingly no underpinning ideology that would be an external threat, someone that is not too hard to make money and do business with. Sure, he's more corrupt, militaristic, nationalistic than anything most western euro politicians would openly support domestically at the time, but, hell, so are Dubya Bush and his ilk... as long as he keeps that shit in his own country against the muslims, or outside Europe, then let the big business deals commence and the money flow. Same thing with the Chinese when they became more open.
 
Demyanenko_square_jaw said:
When i was in Germany (admittedly most political discussion being in academic settings, not on "the street") the impression i had was if there was "love", it was for the way the reunification and breakup of ussr had been handled. There wasn't a lot of pro-putin sentiment there, but for political circles it shouldn't be difficult to understand why typical 90s/00s centrist to right leaning neoliberals in Europe/US would initially like Putin (especially '00s pre Georgia invasion one)..
Click to expand...
At the time he held a relatively impressive speech (in German!) in the German parliament which sounded quite open minded and reaching out in friendship. I am not sure if it was already cynically calculated to give this impression at the time, or if it was close to the truth and Putin spiralled further to the dark side due to disappointed hopes, but at the time it felt like a closer integration of Russia into the rest of Europe would be possible. It took (and still takes some people) a lot of time to realize that this impression that was created in the early 2000s isn't the truth (not anymore at least).
 
B. Munich said:
This can't be true. Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands all have a higher per capita spending. (At least they had until the pandemic).

However, I heard lately from several sources that Germany spent nearly 20 billions for Ukraine while France and UK not even spent 1 billion. If true, then I can completely understand the anger of many Germans.
Click to expand...

That is not true.

UK assistance
The UK is one of the leading donors to Ukraine, alongside the US and Germany. The UK has pledged almost £12 billion in overall support to Ukraine since February 2022, of which £7.1 billion is for military assistance. £2.3 billion was provided in the financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24 and on 12 January 2024, the Government announced a further £2.5 billion of funding for 2024/25.

The UK is providing both lethal and non-lethal weaponry, including tanks, air defence systems and long-range precision strike missiles. While the UK has committed to training Ukrainian fast jet pilots, combat fighter aircraft will not be provided.

The UK is also hosting a training programme (Operation Interflex), which is supported by several allies. Over 30,000 Ukrainian personnel have been trained so far, with the aim of training a further 10,000 by mid-2024.
 
B. Munich said:
If Trump becomes the next president, NATO membership will mean nothing. Worrying times ahead.
Click to expand...

Y'know, part of me thinks that might work out just fine. Disband NATO then Poland or whoever can independently march into Ukraine and feck them up without worry of dragging in the wider alliance.
 
Simbo said:
Y'know, part of me thinks that might work out just fine. Disband NATO then Poland or whoever can independently march into Ukraine and feck them up without worry of dragging in the wider alliance.
Click to expand...
This is fantasy. Poland is not going to intervene.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
That is not true.

UK assistance
The UK is one of the leading donors to Ukraine, alongside the US and Germany. The UK has pledged almost £12 billion in overall support to Ukraine since February 2022, of which £7.1 billion is for military assistance. £2.3 billion was provided in the financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24 and on 12 January 2024, the Government announced a further £2.5 billion of funding for 2024/25.

The UK is providing both lethal and non-lethal weaponry, including tanks, air defence systems and long-range precision strike missiles. While the UK has committed to training Ukrainian fast jet pilots, combat fighter aircraft will not be provided.

The UK is also hosting a training programme (Operation Interflex), which is supported by several allies. Over 30,000 Ukrainian personnel have been trained so far, with the aim of training a further 10,000 by mid-2024.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are right. However I'm correct about the assistance of France, Italy and Spain. They just a fraction of the money Germany is providing.
 
B. Munich said:
Yeah you are right. However I'm correct about the assistance of France, Italy and Spain. They just a fraction of the money Germany is providing.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite so clear cut. Here's the appropriate tracker (I'm only assuming it's accurate though). Basically the UK fares well in some comparisons because all of its aid is bilateral. Germany provides a lot of bilateral aid but also feeds substantial amounts through the EU. France, Italy and Spain provide most of their aid through EU institutions. Overall Germany looks to be by far the biggest European donor in dollar terms, but France and UK spend a similar amount as do Italy and Spain . As a percentage of GDP it's slightly different, but Germany still comes first of any of the five biggest European countries.

I think the composition of aid differs too. UK provides more equipment, France etc more finance. Could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
Real Name said:
So whats the situation on the front like?
Click to expand...

Status Quo really. The retreat from Ardiivka moved Ukraine back to lines fortified since 2014, no expectation of Russia progressing further there.

VorZakone said:
This is fantasy. Poland is not going to intervene.
Click to expand...

No, but hypothetically... What if NATO wasn't a consideration and Russia was at the gates of Lviv?
 
B. Munich said:
Are you sure?

First why haven't the 600+ billions USD in frozen Russian assets not yet used to support the Ukraine?
Click to expand...

Because its considered the final option in the absence of money from NATO countries drying up. That isn't of course the case since the US are still negotiating a massive package for Ukraine right now, which would be separate from the frozen assets.

B. Munich said:
Second the Russian economy transitioned to a war economy and is doing actually much better than most European country parts.
Thus, I rather believe Russia can keep this war going for a longtime. Putin's cronies will even become richer and his power is cemented.

The problems will actually star when the war is over and the war economy has to transition again. Then the sanctions will hit and the loss in human resources will show.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they can keep going for a few more years, just as the Ukrainians can with this year's financial package and the 300b of Russian assets, which is why I don't think this will end anytime soon.
 
Simbo said:
Status Quo really. The retreat from Ardiivka moved Ukraine back to lines fortified since 2014, no expectation of Russia progressing further there.



No, but hypothetically... What if NATO wasn't a consideration and Russia was at the gates of Lviv?
Click to expand...
Poland would obviously reinforce the border and perhaps support a Ukrainian insurgency. But they wouldn't join the war as long as Russia doesn't attack Poland.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

We should just give Ukraine these goddamn Taurus missiles and then wait for Macron to finally stop talking and start doing something. As annoyingly insufficient I find our support, France is even worse.
 
Raoul said:
Because its considered the final option in the absence of money from NATO countries drying up. That isn't of course the case since the US are still negotiating a massive package for Ukraine right now, which would be separate from the frozen assets.



I'm sure they can keep going for a few more years, just as the Ukrainians can with this year's financial package and the 300b of Russian assets, which is why I don't think this will end anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I don't think Ukraine are getting the Russian assets sadly. The principles behind protection of the private capital of the mega rich comes ahead of protecting lives, democracy or human rights for most western governments at the moment it feels.
 
I was just looking at the list of hardware made available for the Ukrainian Air Force, including missiles and so on. Can someone explain to me why helicopters other than the ageing Mi-8s and Mi-17s have not been on the table yet? The truth is that the Ukrainians will eventually need a lot more helicopters (transport, gunships, etc.) if they hope to perform proper air assaults at some point insted of relying this heavily on ground assaults.
 
TwoSheds said:
I don't think Ukraine are getting the Russian assets sadly. The principles behind protection of the private capital of the mega rich comes ahead of protecting lives, democracy or human rights for most western governments at the moment it feels.
Click to expand...

Under ordinary circumstances I would agree with you, but in extraordinary circumstances that might result in a war in Europe, where Europe controls Russian assets, every option is realistically on the table.

Macron has just only today discussed the option of sending French troops into Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...roops-ukraine-cannot-be-ruled-out-2024-02-26/
 
africanspur said:
In fairness I think part of the difference in rhetoric probably arises from where people are.

To someone living in the UK, France or Germany, the idea of our way of life changing because of Russia is generally incomprehensible. Russia are not going to attack those countries. Multiply this by 1000 for Americans.

To those in the Baltics or Finland etc, I can see how that outlook may be very different. Those countries have within living memory been under the rule of Russians or been attacked by them. Finland excepted, they're tiny countries.

Sure, they're in NATO but if someone like Trump is in charge....or if America takes a more isolationist stance in general again, are they going to do anything?

I don't think their fear or some of their rhetoric is misplaced to be honest, even if I don't personally agree with all of it.
Click to expand...
You're going by the underlying assumption that Ukraine is only the first step and Putin intends to swallow the Baltic States next which I don't buy in the first place.

I find the "Putin=Hitler", "OMG, remember the thirties" takes absolutely hilarious. He's a thug and an authocrat, but he's not an idiot.

And if the day ever comes where NATO abandons one of its members, then the world will have truly gone to shit.
 
I think the citizens of ally countries at least deserves to know to what extent we are planning support for Ukraine, we are either in it seriously or it stops, no Ukrainian deserves to die for unachievable goals. Most of all i think Ukrainians deserve to know, specially the soldiers out there risking their lives.
 
That_Bloke said:
You're going by the underlying assumption that Ukraine is only the first step and Putin intends to swallow the Baltic States next which I don't buy in the first place.

I find the "Putin=Hitler", "OMG, remember the thirties" takes absolutely hilarious. He's a thug and an authocrat, but he's not an idiot.

And if the day ever comes where NATO abandons one of its members, then the world will have truly gone to shit.
Click to expand...
Why not?
He's made multiple statements in the past about the aim of restoring the old USSR, and as for NATO, that day maybe less than a year away
 
Redplane said:
You're both wrong in a way. He wants to restore the Russian Empire. Which is arguably far worse. In defense of @Red in STL tho- the USSR comparison has been thrown out because it more recent memory for most and partway gets you there when it comes to land acquisition.
Click to expand...
The point was about statements and Putin never uttered what RedinSTL stated.

Restoring the Russian Empire is even an more ridiculous take.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I was just looking at the list of hardware made available for the Ukrainian Air Force, including missiles and so on. Can someone explain to me why helicopters other than the ageing Mi-8s and Mi-17s have not been on the table yet? The truth is that the Ukrainians will eventually need a lot more helicopters (transport, gunships, etc.) if they hope to perform proper air assaults at some point insted of relying this heavily on ground assaults.
Click to expand...

Because what they are delivering in Ukraine is strongly oriented on FIFO. Get read of the old stuff that is outdated so the military industry can sell the new toys. Donate the old Leopards so europeans buy the new ones. F16s as well, helicopters etc..

Sure they are giving them top of the line in other items but is basically this stock renewable

Bleeding out Ukraine works perfect for the US. For Europe...I am not that sure. Time will tell, but if europe plays cheap might end paying the price dearly
 
4bars said:
Because what they are delivering in Ukraine is strongly oriented on FIFO. Get read of the old stuff that is outdated so the military industry can sell the new toys. Donate the old Leopards so europeans buy the new ones. F16s as well, helicopters etc..

Sure they are giving them top of the line in other items but is basically this stock renewable

Bleeding out Ukraine works perfect for the US. For Europe...I am not that sure. Time will tell, but if europe plays cheap might end paying the price dearly
Click to expand...

Even so, I'm sure there are plenty of good helicopters that can be made available by the US and/or their allies. Sending a good number of Hueys and early-type Black Hawks is something that can be done quite easily.

In any case, it's not normal that Ukraine only has 40 helicopters - 15 MI-8s and 25 Mi-17s (some donated by Croatia and the US) after all of that military aid. We don't even know how many of them are still operational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.