|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that?
Because everyone‘s avoiding being formally at war with Russia ?
Dude‘s made it clear he‘s not afraid to fuck up the entire planet over those territories.
|
On August 14 2025 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:
I think he meant seizing the assets, selling them and using the money to fund Ukraine. I don't think it's a straightforward matter. First, there's the question of legality. Secondly, the EU considers those assets an important bargaining chip in case of a negotiated settlement. You have to weigh that against the potential boost to Ukraine from additional funding, but Ukraine isn't struggling with funding. It's struggling with manpower, a steady supply of artillery munitions and anti-air interceptors, availability of certain types of equipment, and a fickle wannabe dictator in America. The problems with munitions/interceptors and equipment are being addressed by the EU/UK. Our military production is expanding massively. Europe can't realistically help with the manpower problems. As for Trump, our politicians are trying very hard to sway him to the pro-Ukrainian side.
You'd find that with enough money you can buy not just munitions but also all the manpower that a military needs.
Russia understood that quite early on.
|
On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that? The very easy answer is that the video of those soldiers coming home in body bags topples governments.
|
United States42771 Posts
On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that?
Escalation management. They’re going to take losses and to defend them you’re going to have to fire into Russian territory.
It won’t necessarily scale out of control but it’s putting petrol near the lit match and hoping that everyone is smart enough to avoid an ignition. And if Russia was smart then we wouldn’t be in this position. Russia has repeatedly underestimated the will of the west to respond to provocation and overestimated their own strength in dealing with it. There’s a reluctance to put volatile chemicals in the same room as the idiot.
To compound that we have very little idea where Russia’s red lines are because they continually lie about them which is a very stupid thing to do. They opt for maximalist red lines so that they can claim the greatest possible area for themselves and insist it is all shielded by MAD. But they overclaimed past the red lines of others and in a way that wasn’t plausible and so the west shit all over a bunch of their red lines and made them look like total bitches.
But even though they’re total bitches who lie about their red lines they do presumably have some. We just can’t trust them to tell us where they are. Let’s say bombers attack a position held by Polish troops and Poland wants to strike the airbase they’re operating from. Russia claims it would be a red line, but western missiles launched by Ukraine have struck airbases in Russia before now, even though that was supposedly a red line. Is it a real one this time? How can we tell?
|
United States42771 Posts
On August 14 2025 00:51 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that? Because everyone‘s avoiding being formally at war with Russia ? Dude‘s made it clear he‘s not afraid to fuck up the entire planet over those territories.
I don’t think that’s clear at all. Russia has backed down at every point in which this might escalate beyond Ukraine. They still believe this can be resolved as a local conflict. That can all change of course, and maybe it would all change if Ukraine started to retake Crimea, but for as long as Putin believes he can win regardless he seems content to keep it local.
|
On August 14 2025 01:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2025 00:51 Vivax wrote:On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that? Because everyone‘s avoiding being formally at war with Russia ? Dude‘s made it clear he‘s not afraid to fuck up the entire planet over those territories. I don’t think that’s clear at all. Russia has backed down at every point in which this might escalate beyond Ukraine. They still believe this can be resolved as a local conflict. That can all change of course, and maybe it would all change if Ukraine started to retake Crimea, but for as long as Putin believes he can win regardless he seems content to keep it local.
He can only keep it local because everyone‘s allowing him to.
The message he sends is that having Russians settle down in any other European country is a security risk, he might invade them to defend their interests on foreign soil.
I don‘t know how his own military lets him do this. The costs and risks must outweigh the gains.
|
On August 14 2025 01:24 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2025 01:20 KwarK wrote:On August 14 2025 00:51 Vivax wrote:On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that? Because everyone‘s avoiding being formally at war with Russia ? Dude‘s made it clear he‘s not afraid to fuck up the entire planet over those territories. I don’t think that’s clear at all. Russia has backed down at every point in which this might escalate beyond Ukraine. They still believe this can be resolved as a local conflict. That can all change of course, and maybe it would all change if Ukraine started to retake Crimea, but for as long as Putin believes he can win regardless he seems content to keep it local. He can only keep it local because everyone‘s allowing him to. The message he sends is that having Russians settle down in any other European country is a security risk, he might invade them to defend their interests on foreign soil. I don‘t know how his own military lets him do this. The costs and risks must outweigh the gains.
They let him do this because anyone who disagrees finds themselves falling out of the nearest window.
|
He's been a dictator for almost 30 years now, anyone who ever dared saying something he didn't like got purged a long time ago.
In that sense, Ukraine is kind of lucky, with the material, technological and man power advantages Russia had before the start of the full scale invasion if the army wasn't led by and full of sycophants they would have been in a lot more trouble.
The one general that he had that was, despite this culture decently competent Surovikin fell out of favor because he was the guy who saved Russian troops in Kherson, which Putin saw as a sign of weakness. He was then replaced by another sycophant Gerasimov who was subsequently fucking up consistently, namely by ignoring troop build ups around Kursk.
|
United States42771 Posts
On August 14 2025 01:24 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2025 01:20 KwarK wrote:On August 14 2025 00:51 Vivax wrote:On August 14 2025 00:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not an expert on strategy or logistics, but I was wondering why the EU doesn't send some troops to defend Kyiv and the Belarus border so that the Ukrainian troops currently in those places can be freed up for the front lines. Anyone know the answer to that? Because everyone‘s avoiding being formally at war with Russia ? Dude‘s made it clear he‘s not afraid to fuck up the entire planet over those territories. I don’t think that’s clear at all. Russia has backed down at every point in which this might escalate beyond Ukraine. They still believe this can be resolved as a local conflict. That can all change of course, and maybe it would all change if Ukraine started to retake Crimea, but for as long as Putin believes he can win regardless he seems content to keep it local. He can only keep it local because everyone‘s allowing him to.
Are they allowing him to?
The alcoholic former PM declared that Britain sending storm shadows would be an act of war. That the conflict would inevitably escalate to a global level if Britain did that.
Allowing him to keep it local would be refusing to send them. Britain sent them and the Black Sea fleet was forced to flee storm shadow strikes after taking a series of high profile losses. Russia then backed down on their rhetoric.
Britain didn't keep the conflict local, Putin did. Russia was forced to deescalate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
