8 ms·

I am not sure what European "leaders" expected. Many of them support Ukraine militarily in the war, so yes, EU is in fact in war with Russia, through Ukraine as

by js8 1y ago

I am not sure what European "leaders" expected. Many of them support Ukraine militarily in the war, so yes, EU is in fact in war with Russia, through Ukraine as a proxy. I oppose the military support to Ukraine. I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. I also disapprove that the military support for Ukraine was decided undemocratically, without any consideration whether this might escalate into a war. And here we are...

RandomLensman 1y ago
What was undemocratic about the decisions to support Ukraine?
- js8 1y ago
  To my knowledge, these things are never put forward as an election topic or referendum. There is no discussion with citizens, it's always a fait accompli, we have to do it for national security sort of thing. The blowback is not discussed. I am from Czechia, and Russians attacked Vrbětice munition factory, because it supplied Ukraine. That's the reason. But in media it's always portrayed without this context. FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.
  - RandomLensman 1y ago
    Parties in elections certainly have positions on it and representative democracies tend to work that way. Btw., there is quite a bit on the 2014 attack in various places.
  - piva00 1y ago
    It shouldn't be a referendum. Representative democracies are supposed to work this way, a government is elected, and they represent their electorate. If the electorate disagrees with the actions the government took they will be voted out the next election cycle, in between it's in the hands of the elected government to make decisions in these matters. > FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means. It means Ukraine falling in the hands of Russia, is that a better alternative for the rest of us? Have you considered the Pandora Box this opens up to? Without supporting Ukraine militarily they will be defeated, Russia will get a large border with Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      And more people to use against other countries, because for sure they would enlist every able bodied Ukrainian by keeping their family hostage. They've done this since day #1 in the occupied parts of Ukraine.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    I don't thing this decision was done without population support. We also don't supply the Ukraine to win. We just don't want the Ukraine to fall, because we think we are next.
    - js8 1y ago
      Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Russia, based on our own decision (not as a defensive measure). This vigilantism (even if it can be argued is employed to protect international law) goes against the idea that we're a peaceful country. There is no consensus about Russia attacking Czechia (or any EU country) next. In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. It's also unclear why, if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it. And to the extent he has reasonable goals, we can put something tangible on the negotiation table to see what he really wants, instead of guessing. We (I mean NATO) didn't - this indicates it's us who doesn't want to negotiate; because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference (Ukraine is already being described as a great next investment).
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. > In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. > if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it Internal politics (NS Germany started the expansion when they got bankrupt), being busy in other parts of the world (Middle east), there is not a lack of incentive. > because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.
saubeidl 1y ago
I think if Europe was actually at war with Russia, Moscow would have been reduced to rubble. They talk a big game, but their economy is smaller than Italy's!
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  With a huge nuclear arsenal. So I doubt Moscow would be reduced to rubble, unless everything else was too.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    It is very likely that there is no working nuclear arsenal.
    - JV00 1y ago
      This is a ridiculous statement
      - adastra22 1y ago
        It is an informed statement. The Russian military had ALWAYS operated on grift and cronyism, all the way back to the napoleonic wars. When shit hits the fan, as in Crimea, WW1, WW2, and Ukraine, it turns out all those paper capabilities don’t exist. Even in the height of the Cold War, ICBM silos in Russia were often flooded and inoperable. Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch. Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets. The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.
        1y ago
miksik 1y ago
Not sure how you came to the idea that supporting Ukraine militarily has been decided undemocratically... Every European nation can and has made their own decision on this matter. Spain, Portugal, Italy, some Balkan countries have contributed a lot less. Hungary, who are in NATO, have almost contributed zilch. Thinking that de-escalating the war as-is giving Russia the strategic victory is a very dangerous thought. This will destabilize the Northern and Eastern parts of Europe, which we definitely can not let happen.
af78 1y ago
Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls squarely on Russia. Russia has no intention to stop; on the contrary it is ramping up the production of military equipment. As only military means can stop a military aggression, it makes every sense for European leaders to support Ukraine militarily. If anything, European leaders deserve criticism for not supporting Ukraine enough.
- js8 1y ago
  Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger. Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia. EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.) Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.
  - AndrewDucker 1y ago
    NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.
    - js8 1y ago
      > NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis. > People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity? > They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours. U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.
bootsmann 1y ago
> I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.
- js8 1y ago
  > NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine I think this view is delusional. NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons, it's pretty conventional to consider this as being a party to the war. The only reason we don't say it openly is that elites want to maintain pretense that we are not in a war (that's unpopular in Europe and US) and that NATO is defense-only organization.
  - general1465 1y ago
    So USA was fighting USSR by supplying weapons to Afghanistan? USSR was fighting USA by supplying weapons to Korea and Vietnam?
    - GeoAtreides 1y ago
      I mean, I completely and utterly disagree with js8, but yeah, the wars you mentioned were called proxy wars between USSR and US, in the larger context of the Cold War
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Wasn't Russia paying a bounty for American soldiers in Afghanistan? That seems more like 'at war with' than providing arms.
  - ponector 1y ago
    According to your logic it's Canada fighting North Korea in Ukraine. Just a Russia Today style of whataboutism. Why you take any russian word as true? They can only lie. Whatever they say about Ukraine is a lie. If you want to believe russians, why not believe that this Ukrainian 3-days special operation is going according 5 years plan of grinding Ukrainian soil treeline a day and pushing neutral neighboring countries to actually join NATO?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Yizahi 1y ago
I sincerely hope one day military support will be denied to you, wherever you live. What a brainwashed cabbage... "escalate into a war"(c) - this is a blatant 100% lie, with no ifs or buts, just a plain lie. There was zero military aid to Ukraine before the invasion.
- ponector 1y ago
  They also are saying West should deescalate by stopping support of Ukraine. Basically to force then to surrender. Likely they missed modern history class, especially "peace for our lifetime" lesson. I'm not sure they are brainwashed, they could be a salaried russian who has task to spread RT narratives.
ponector 1y ago
Then USA shouldn't send arms and troops to Europe to fight Hitler. It also wasn't democratic decision. Not providing military support will actually bring a war to Europe much faster. If Ukraine surrenders Baltic states are next to be annexed by russians.
jacquesm 1y ago
> I oppose the military support to Ukraine. That makes you a russia supporter in my book.
- Yizahi 1y ago
  He admits he is in Czechia, which is coincidentally one of the three biggest spots for Russian emigration inside EU. Maybe even the biggest, if counted as a percentage of total population. No wonder there are a lot of imperialists there, he may be a Russian citizen himself, pining for the "spheres of influence" and "bipolar world".

by js8 1y ago

RandomLensman 1y ago

What was undemocratic about the decisions to support Ukraine?

js8 1y ago
To my knowledge, these things are never put forward as an election topic or referendum. There is no discussion with citizens, it's always a fait accompli, we have to do it for national security sort of thing. The blowback is not discussed. I am from Czechia, and Russians attacked Vrbětice munition factory, because it supplied Ukraine. That's the reason. But in media it's always portrayed without this context. FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.
- RandomLensman 1y ago
  Parties in elections certainly have positions on it and representative democracies tend to work that way. Btw., there is quite a bit on the 2014 attack in various places.
- piva00 1y ago
  It shouldn't be a referendum. Representative democracies are supposed to work this way, a government is elected, and they represent their electorate. If the electorate disagrees with the actions the government took they will be voted out the next election cycle, in between it's in the hands of the elected government to make decisions in these matters. > FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means. It means Ukraine falling in the hands of Russia, is that a better alternative for the rest of us? Have you considered the Pandora Box this opens up to? Without supporting Ukraine militarily they will be defeated, Russia will get a large border with Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    And more people to use against other countries, because for sure they would enlist every able bodied Ukrainian by keeping their family hostage. They've done this since day #1 in the occupied parts of Ukraine.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  I don't thing this decision was done without population support. We also don't supply the Ukraine to win. We just don't want the Ukraine to fall, because we think we are next.
  - js8 1y ago
    Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Russia, based on our own decision (not as a defensive measure). This vigilantism (even if it can be argued is employed to protect international law) goes against the idea that we're a peaceful country. There is no consensus about Russia attacking Czechia (or any EU country) next. In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. It's also unclear why, if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it. And to the extent he has reasonable goals, we can put something tangible on the negotiation table to see what he really wants, instead of guessing. We (I mean NATO) didn't - this indicates it's us who doesn't want to negotiate; because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference (Ukraine is already being described as a great next investment).
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. > In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. > if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it Internal politics (NS Germany started the expansion when they got bankrupt), being busy in other parts of the world (Middle east), there is not a lack of incentive. > because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.

saubeidl 1y ago

I think if Europe was actually at war with Russia, Moscow would have been reduced to rubble. They talk a big game, but their economy is smaller than Italy's!

MattPalmer1086 1y ago
With a huge nuclear arsenal. So I doubt Moscow would be reduced to rubble, unless everything else was too.
- adastra22 1y ago
  It is very likely that there is no working nuclear arsenal.
  - JV00 1y ago
    This is a ridiculous statement
    - adastra22 1y ago
      It is an informed statement. The Russian military had ALWAYS operated on grift and cronyism, all the way back to the napoleonic wars. When shit hits the fan, as in Crimea, WW1, WW2, and Ukraine, it turns out all those paper capabilities don’t exist. Even in the height of the Cold War, ICBM silos in Russia were often flooded and inoperable. Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch. Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets. The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.
      - 1y ago

miksik 1y ago

Not sure how you came to the idea that supporting Ukraine militarily has been decided undemocratically... Every European nation can and has made their own decision on this matter. Spain, Portugal, Italy, some Balkan countries have contributed a lot less. Hungary, who are in NATO, have almost contributed zilch. Thinking that de-escalating the war as-is giving Russia the strategic victory is a very dangerous thought. This will destabilize the Northern and Eastern parts of Europe, which we definitely can not let happen.

af78 1y ago

Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls squarely on Russia. Russia has no intention to stop; on the contrary it is ramping up the production of military equipment. As only military means can stop a military aggression, it makes every sense for European leaders to support Ukraine militarily. If anything, European leaders deserve criticism for not supporting Ukraine enough.

js8 1y ago
Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger. Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia. EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.) Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.
- AndrewDucker 1y ago
  NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.
  - js8 1y ago
    > NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis. > People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity? > They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours. U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.

bootsmann 1y ago

> I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.

js8 1y ago
> NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine I think this view is delusional. NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons, it's pretty conventional to consider this as being a party to the war. The only reason we don't say it openly is that elites want to maintain pretense that we are not in a war (that's unpopular in Europe and US) and that NATO is defense-only organization.
- general1465 1y ago
  So USA was fighting USSR by supplying weapons to Afghanistan? USSR was fighting USA by supplying weapons to Korea and Vietnam?
  - GeoAtreides 1y ago
    I mean, I completely and utterly disagree with js8, but yeah, the wars you mentioned were called proxy wars between USSR and US, in the larger context of the Cold War
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Wasn't Russia paying a bounty for American soldiers in Afghanistan? That seems more like 'at war with' than providing arms.
- ponector 1y ago
  According to your logic it's Canada fighting North Korea in Ukraine. Just a Russia Today style of whataboutism. Why you take any russian word as true? They can only lie. Whatever they say about Ukraine is a lie. If you want to believe russians, why not believe that this Ukrainian 3-days special operation is going according 5 years plan of grinding Ukrainian soil treeline a day and pushing neutral neighboring countries to actually join NATO?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Yizahi 1y ago

I sincerely hope one day military support will be denied to you, wherever you live. What a brainwashed cabbage... "escalate into a war"(c) - this is a blatant 100% lie, with no ifs or buts, just a plain lie. There was zero military aid to Ukraine before the invasion.

ponector 1y ago
They also are saying West should deescalate by stopping support of Ukraine. Basically to force then to surrender. Likely they missed modern history class, especially "peace for our lifetime" lesson. I'm not sure they are brainwashed, they could be a salaried russian who has task to spread RT narratives.

ponector 1y ago

Then USA shouldn't send arms and troops to Europe to fight Hitler. It also wasn't democratic decision. Not providing military support will actually bring a war to Europe much faster. If Ukraine surrenders Baltic states are next to be annexed by russians.

jacquesm 1y ago

> I oppose the military support to Ukraine. That makes you a russia supporter in my book.

Yizahi 1y ago
He admits he is in Czechia, which is coincidentally one of the three biggest spots for Russian emigration inside EU. Maybe even the biggest, if counted as a percentage of total population. No wonder there are a lot of imperialists there, he may be a Russian citizen himself, pining for the "spheres of influence" and "bipolar world".