Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Crazy_Ivan80]

From what we know that's pretty devastating incompetence. Makes you wonder if Germany is a partner you share sensible information with.

Indeed.

But there's one solace: at least they're not Belgium.

[Syt]

Meanwhile, Elon Muskovy:

[The Minsky Moment]

I can think of any reason for NATO either.  What conceivable security risk could possibly exist in entirely peaceful Europe?

Also, I can't figure out how WW2 could have happened as the Warsaw Pact did not exist in 1939.

[Duque de Bragança]

He probably mixed it up with some long ago played game of NATO, Nukes & Nazis 

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5958/nato-nukes-nazis

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/nato-nukes-and-nazis-inside-most-insane-world-war-iii-game-ever-made-167345

[Josquius]

It's a dumb argument.
A "smart" Russian apologist one would be about how nato didn't let Russia in.

[Sheilbh]

From what we know that's pretty devastating incompetence. Makes you wonder if Germany is a partner you share sensible information with.

Read some details and it's extraordinary. Dialling into a call from a hotel in Singapore I mean you're just asking to be spied on.

Slightly wonder if that's why Scholz made his comments - almost to get out ahead of it.

Also really struck by the line that there was talk of, if Germany sent Taurus, splitting them up to make sure they "won't change the course of the hostilities". Because I thought that was sort of the point of arming Ukraine.

[Tamas]

From what we know that's pretty devastating incompetence. Makes you wonder if Germany is a partner you share sensible information with.

Read some details and it's extraordinary. Dialling into a call from a hotel in Singapore I mean you're just asking to be spied on.

Slightly wonder if that's why Scholz made his comments - almost to get out ahead of it.

Also really struck by the line that there was talk of, if Germany sent Taurus, splitting them up to make sure they "won't change the course of the hostilities". Because I thought that was sort of the point of arming Ukraine.

With this diddling about I am always reminded reading how some French general in 1939 forbidden his troops to shell/fire at the German positions across the border following their declaration of war because the Germans would shoot back, and, I guess, that's certainly a risk you cannot take when at war.

I am quite convinced that the German leadership has only committed to this (as I understand, significant) extent of support for Ukraine to follow the spirit of Merkelian years when whatever was the mood of immediate polling they went went all in on it, be it "all refugees welcome" or shutting down all nuclear plants because of a tsunami on the Pacific Ocean.

Their immediate reaction, after all, was to invite Zelensky to flee and become a government in exile. I think they had zero appetite to destroy their cheap energy contracts and face the challenges that may bring, not to mention the idea of having to be supporting war efforts as, you know, Germany. But the public outcry luckily forced their hands.

[Zanza]

I am quite convinced that the German leadership has only committed to this (as I understand, significant) extent of support for Ukraine to follow the spirit of Merkelian years when whatever was the mood of immediate polling they went went all in on it, be it "all refugees welcome" or shutting down all nuclear plants because of a tsunami on the Pacific Ocean.

Your reading of German politics differs from mine. All three of these policy decisions were (and still are) very controversial in Germany and especially on refugees and the initial reaction on Ukraine Merkel and Scholz were way beyond on public opinion in their approach. Scholz later dithered when public opinion was more favourable though.

I think they had zero appetite to destroy their cheap energy contracts and face the challenges that may bring, not to mention the idea of having to be supporting war efforts as, you know, Germany.

Isn't that self-evident? Germany (and I guess Ukraine) preferred the situation pre-February-2022. Who wouldn't?

[Zoupa]

I also think there's been a concerted effort for 80 years on making Germany feel guilty towards the Soviet Union/russia to the exclusion of other Eastern Europeans. This has led to revulsion at the thought of German weapons killing russians.

8 million Ukrainians died in WW2. I wish German felt some accountability to them too. But I guess they don't have cheap gas.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Ukraine could have cheaper gas though. They have gasfields and, iirc, the greatest reserves of shale in europe

[Admiral Yi]

Zanza's read on Merkel and refugees is the same as mine.

[Tamas]

Simon Jenkins chips in with an article that shall have no trouble being published in Russian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/nato-ukraine-russia-germany-military-leak

One of his chief arguments was that the West stopped Ukraine from agreeing to a peace deal in April(!) 2022 where Russia would have retreated to the February front lines and in exchange Ukraine would have vowed never to enter NATO. And thus, using a website I never heard of with the "military industry complex" as one of its sections for his source, he concludes that this is proof that Ukraine is a mere plaything in the West's dangerous toying with Russia.

Seriously I know opinion pieces are opinion pieces but it's not like Nazis are given an opinion platform in the Guardian so why does this Quisling shithead?

[garbon]

Does the Guardian have any opinion columnists worth reading beyond John Crace, Marina Hyde and maybe Zoe Williams?

[Tamas]

Does the Guardian have any opinion columnists worth reading beyond John Crace, Marina Hyde and maybe Zoe Williams?

I don't think so but there is being uninteresting and there is giving a wide platform for a Russian collaborator.

Isn't the Guardian regularly on about the ill effects of social media? Well, when they publish crap like this based on fake "news" they get a far further reach than "deepstate69" being allowed by Facebook to post some utter BS.

[Josquius]

Simon Jenkins chips in with an article that shall have no trouble being published in Russian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/nato-ukraine-russia-germany-military-leak

One of his chief arguments was that the West stopped Ukraine from agreeing to a peace deal in April(!) 2022 where Russia would have retreated to the February front lines and in exchange Ukraine would have vowed never to enter NATO. And thus, using a website I never heard of with the "military industry complex" as one of its sections for his source, he concludes that this is proof that Ukraine is a mere plaything in the West's dangerous toying with Russia.

Seriously I know opinion pieces are opinion pieces but it's not like Nazis are given an opinion platform in the Guardian so why does this Quisling shithead?

He's certainly right that NATOs strategy has seemingly lost all coherence... Thanks GOP.

If this pulling back to pre war borders in exchange for Ukraine never entering NATO  thing was remotely true that would have been great. IIRC wasn't a Finlandised Ukraine what was on the table from the western and Ukrainian side before the invadion to try to secure peace? - let Ukraine do whatever it wants and be western aligned generally but it doesn't get involved with military alliances that scare Russia. Perfect for everyone... Except of course Russia whose fear of a NATO invasion is obvious bollocks.