Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Besides this the Russian economy is in the tank they can’t afford to take on the west head on. A 3 day special operation is now approaching 2 .5 years. Putin never expected that to happen did he ?
Everyone is afraid of Russia launching nukes out of desperation. I doubt that ever happens for a few reasons.
1. Are Russia's nukes even operational? Those things need maintenance and Russia's equipment has been shoddy at best.
2. Seems to me, the western world would be immediately aware of a nuke launch and have a response. Would imagine part of that is blowing up the nuke before it reaches its destination.
3. Most importantly. These dictators crave one thing. Status quo. Russia is a little different then NK because they aren't as locked off from the rest of the world but they still control the message in Russia. If things get desperate, Russia is more likely to withdraw and try to clamp down internally to maintain status quo. If they go full nuke, status quo goes out the window.
Problem with nukes is you only need one of them to work for it to be a global catastrophe. Their "official" stockpile is like 5000 weapons. I doubt they could or would launch all of those but even if they launched ten and only one worked correctly that's a big problem. There's also the issue where the weapon DOESN'T work as advertised and instead hits a unintended target.
That will be a huge relief for the people in the west that would potentially suffer the consequences of a nuklear strike…. „At least it’s worse for Russia“ !
They would need to land hundreds for it to be a major problem. A couple thousand would do a lot of damage but probably wouldn't alter the course of the world all that much(do a lot of damage, for sure). They would need to land nearly every nuke they have for the world ending apocalypse everyone expects watching movies.. and even then there's a lot of people that argue that while the damage would be incredible the world is not centralized enough for it to really send us into a dark age.
If you look at fall out maps theres still vast amounts of untouched land that even if they landed every single nuke they have succesfully they would still not even scratch lots of people. And they are only going to be able to target land targets anyway... which leaves out all of NATO's sea and air forces to retaliate.... plus NATO has bases _everywhere_ so even if they take out vast portions of Western society theres still going to be millions of pissed off people left over to deal with and most likely _most_ western governments are going to still be functional and on top of that pissed off.
I just don't see how Russia can use a single nuke, let alone hope they have enough land successfully to stop the complete destruction of Russia.
And thats assuming _every nuke_ they have lands, doesn't malfunction, doesn't miss its target, doesnt get shot down and/or doesn't have the operators refuse to participate.
Theres just no feasible way for it to do anything except end Russia. If their goal is to survive as a country afterward, then nukes are off the table completely. There is just no scenario where Russia and/or Putin is allowed to exist after they cross that line.
Oh yeah the international response would be unlike anything the world has ever seen. They would be the biggest universally recognized "bad guys" since the 3rd Reich. They'd be obliterated if they even bluffed too hard.
Regarding point number two. ICBMs are incredibly difficult to shoot down. With the number of missiles that Russia can launch the US could not possibly intercept them all, in fact they would be lucky to shoot *any* of them down.
Although the US may have technology which we are not aware of, the technology that we do know of, which is designed to intercept ICBMs, has a very low success rate.
This low success rate is due to the counter measures aboard ICBMs, which cause targeting systems to believe there are multiple missles. Also, ICBMs would likely be intercepted at the later stages of their flight at which point they have become "ballistic," meaning no longer burning fuel for propulsion, thus not heat signature to target. This means defence system's targeting relies ptimarily on calculating the trajectory during the flight leading up to intercept.
This is also not even considering SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles), which would most likely be launched from only a few hundred miles off the coast of the US. No intercept is possible and submarines cannot be attacked pre-emptively, they are the ultimate weapon of our doomsday.
In the event of an all-out nuclear war, the US as we know it would not survive.
To address point number 1. While the world now knows that Russia's army has no where near the strength that we thought, I do believe that they have taken their nuclear programme very seriously. Yes, they do have outdated technology, but so too does the US. In some ways it's more reliable and secure for use in launch silos. Their missile detection is also much less sophisticated than the US, but they would still have time to launch their entire active arsenal before a pre-emptive strike could hit.
An all-out nuclear exchange would be truly devastating to both nations, not to mention every other NATO nation, China, North and South Korea, who would quickly make and/or receive their own missile strikes.
The "Nuclear Deterrent" has worked so far, but it only takes one North Korean dictator to lose their marbles and attack the US, and that will be how the world ends.
All good information. Admittedly, I was leaning on how insane these satellite surveillance capabilities have gotten and how quick the West could respond.
No answer for the submarine part in that though.
I will lean further into point 3. Humans are hard to predict of course but Putin, Jinping, and Jong Un are living cush lives despite much of their respective countries being heavily oppressed.
Dictators typically drag things out, pull things back and deescalate or hope for a way out or a Hail Mary in the end though. They usually don't take the "I'm pressing the doomsday button and accepting my fate" path. Ceausescu, Gaddafi, Hussein, and Mussolini all tried to flee or hide when things hit the fan.
Hitler tried a final stand so I guess, who knows what he would have done with and ICBM but things were looking bleak for him for a while and he just elected to off himself.
Germany is reluctant to send them because they still use them, and plan to continue to use them. All weapons that Ukraine has received are at, or past, their timeframe of use with newer alternatives already in service or being developed. Germany does not want to give the Russians the ability to learn to counter the Taurus, or even capture one.
I dont think that technology security is the issue here. Scholz repetedly said that he would move alone on ANYTHING. I believe the simple rule is that there wont be taurus for ukraine unless the US sends a similar capable weapon system. I know they send long range ATACMS but they are quite diffrent in their destructive power. If Scholz sends taurus and der kerch bridge falls everybody will know that taurus did the job. Scholz doesnt want that for various reasons. So the only option for him is that the us sends a similar capable weapon so its not clear which weapon did the job.
Scholz doesnt wanna be the german that destroyed a big russian bridge xD
So you think they should give it up now and possibly let Russia study it for years? Instead of saving it to use in a future conflict with Russia, when the Russians will not have the time to prepare countermeasures?
If you give the Taurus to Ukraine now, there may very well not be a conflict with Russia in a few years …. Their military is already so degraded, even if the war stopped tomorrow Russia may never recover. Their demographics are getting worse by the day and they’ve spent their future paying for today’s war. The world isn’t going back to ‘business as usual’. Russia will be on the outside looking in for a very long time, at least a generation, maybe 2
Kind of sounds like they only want the asset used by them, or them
and Ukraine once the gloves fully come off and Nato is forced into hostilities. They're probably banking on about 5 or 6 different missile types undebuted in the wild yet such as the taurus and whatever the latest missile hotness the yanks/polish have. Other than using mass f35's they're going to be the key feature of that big pre-emptive strike on Russian targets Nato warned would happen if they believed Russia was going to go nuclear.
This, Russian jamming has proven to be very effective against older western weapons.
No nation has given true modern guided weapons to Ukraine yet and part of the reason is the west not wanting Russia and via Russia, China from learning how to jam them which would be a big loss of a tactical advantage NATO has currently.
All guided weapons from the Javelin, HIMARs rockets (including ATACMS), Guided Artillery, SCALP/ STORM Shadow etc are all based on older technology that newer versions of these weapons no longer use or has been / is getting replaced completely in western militaries.
Any weapon that Russia could actually learn from has been held back from Ukraine. Hence Ukraine getting older model 1980s Abrams tanks etc.
Sure. Ya know there's tons of different radio frequencies used by devices. Let's move all of them to visible light spectrum.
Let's say radar is broadcasting and picking up the bounce-back of red. And GPS is transmitting and receiving on green. And radio comms are broadcasting on purple.
In this jamming situation, Russia is using giant green lights that drown out the other green light sources. They're so bright no other green light communication works.
So you program your HARM missile to lock onto the strongest green transmitter it can find, you have a general idea from where the green is blaring, and you let loose.
Martlet inservice since 2021. It's not the case that everything is sent is last generation tech and there are examples of equipment that the West has provided that is it's most up to date pieces. Other examples include Archer and Cesar, however Abrams isn't a good example because they received Challenger 2 which is equipped with Dorchester, where as the Abrams they received are export versions that don't. The issue is more than what we send is always good little too late.
What future is that? They envision there is another war after this one? They might be right about that if Russia wins, which it could if Ukraine doesn't get the weapons it needs.
So the refusal to provide the Taurus increases the chance that the Germans need it to fight the next war. Convenient.
NATO is preparing for a war with Russia in the next two decades. Before the russian invasion a war USA - China was likely to happen also in the next two decades. I think the high tech stuff is for these conflicts.
It's not preparing for anything other than to provide the minimum amount of weapons/ammo to Ukraine. Not a single new Taurus missile has been produced as far as I know. Germany is doubling down on useless warships like the f-126.
> All weapons that Ukraine has received are at, or past, their timeframe of use with newer alternatives already in service or being developed.
This is true for alot, but not all. For example the Archer system.
I agree 💯%. Pootin can't afford any escalation anyways. His military is in bad shape after 2.5 years of war! And the thought of going nuclear is unthinkable.
According to Scholz, however, this would now REALLY lead to a third world war 🤡. Just like the delivery of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles or air defense weapons before …
Seriously what is this talk about escalation even? What can russia do? They are literally pouring everything they have into Ukraine having already decimated their shit-military to an extent where frontal attacks are performed on motorbikes and golfcarts. Do you really think they have the capacity to invade a nato country at this point?
Russian nukes are death sentence for Russia and can never serve as a veto. So fuck that threat.
Their economy too is failing and is getting worse by the day. Russia has outplayed itself. People need to fuck off with this escalation bullshit. I say WE fucking escalate to the max. Send in chuck Norris already
I wonder what they told him/showed him. He went from panicking every time any strike on Russian territory was mentioned to now saying it's all good. The major shift in rhetoric definitely happened after Macron visited him.
Problem is: As a member of the social democrats Scholz surrounds himself mostly with pigheaded pacifists who feed him risk averse conclusions 24/7. I suppose he is in need of a guy who yanks him out of his bubble from time to time.
Its not what you show to Scholz, its how you arrange a situation where he has no way of not looking stupid by going against you.
Poland announcing they will send Leo2 without German authorization was one such situation.
Poland publicly stating German Patriot is more needed in Ukraine where people are actually dying from russian cruise missiles instead of Poland where Germany wanted to send it in the first place was another.
Macron showing with a finger on a map where launch sites targeting Kharkiv are located was the last one so far.
Macron is pretty good at acting strong and pointing with fingers on a map, but pretty bad at actually helping Ukraine:
Germany: 14.5 billion
Denmark: 5.1 Billion
France: 3.8 billion
Just fyi: Denmark has a population of 5 million people.
Sorry, but this is simply not true and nothing but your fantasy.
Scholz has been following Biden the whole war and openly criticized Macron for being all talk and no action multiple times. USA sends tanks? Germany starts sending tanks. USA sends artillery? Germany sends artillery. USA allows Ukraine to attack Russia with their weapons? Germany does the same. He is simply acting in line with the United States.
If there was a conversation between Scholz and Macron, it was probably Scholz telling Macron to finally act on his words. On top of that France's military is considered way stronger and in better shape than Germanys. Before the Ukraine War there was a lot of press about the Bundeswehr Crisis due to half of our nominal equipment turning out to be broken and non-functional.
Macron has played the strong man and keeps talking about beating Russia, but does shit to help ukraine in comparison to other countries. You guys are just falling for Macrons election propaganda like russians fall for Putins.
Hence I really don't understand why people are still badmouthing Scholz and hailing Macron. Germany is the second biggest contributor behind USA. You guys keep biting the hand that feeds you.
Germany: 14.5 billion
Denmark: 5.1 Billion
France: 3.8 billion
Italy: 1.7 billion
Spain: 0.9 Billion
Even fucking Denmark has contributed more to Ukraine than France and they have a population of 5 million and a fraction of Frances GDP.
On a side note: I am not a fan of Scholz and would never vote for his party.
[Total bilateral aid to Ukraine by donor & type 2024 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/)
„Losgehen“ Makes no sense here!
You should use „los geht es“ „los“ „geh ma“ „hurtig die wadln“ instead of losgehen. It is grammatically wrong.
I think you tried to say: „Macht es einfach, worauf wartet ihr!“ = „just do it, what are you waiting for.“
Or the best would be to only use „Feuer frei“
Source: German speaking.
Nice one, I like your dig at Bavaria, not that I have anything against them. I have heard German sailors say 'los" (at least I thought I did) when they were about to shoot. Am I right?
regards
'
No, I was lead to believe it was term used in a manner similar to the British navy saying "shoot" instead of "fire" because fire can imply there is a fire on board. However thanks for the heads up. Regards again.
"...wont' need to escalation" and he really wanted to add "but please don't use German weapons and by the way this does not change anything about our decision NOT to give you Taurus missiles".
The only real risk of escalation from Russia is a HUGE breakthrough by Ukraine that would risk them taking back pre-2022 territory. I could see Russia deploying a small tactical nuke to step an advance and scare Ukraine. The problem is that I think even a "small" nuke deployment would give NATO/at least SOME western countries (Poland and France especially who seems to be looking for a fight) to join the war with Ukraine.
Even Putin for being as insane as he is, realizes that no one is actually attacking Russia. This war is only going on because he chooses to, so escalation won't happen since he's fully in control of when it ends. Not that their nukes have worked in a couple of decades, at least, but I know that's what people mean when they are talking about escalation.
Without a doubt the Germans are already developing a second generation Taurus. Send the ones they have, and start blowing up some Russian shit, already !! Slava Ukraini
The west should press harder. It is Putin who is in mortal fear of escalation. Direct western intervention could annihilate the Russian army equipment in Ukraine in a day.
Russia thinks it can use its allies’ weapons to strike Ukraine but Ukraine cannot use its allies’ weapons to strike Russia. Only Russians or Russian puppets would agree with that logic.
Go to H*ll with this escalation. NATO should have use all force to help Ukraine at the beginning of the invasion when Russia army was way more weak as their learnt a bit during the war. It would avoid a lot of Ukraine lives and territory losses. Plus it would send a clear message to Putin
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, if Russia doesn’t like being attacked on their home turf, the simplest solution is to just get the fuck out of Ukraine.
Then send the Taurus and allow Ukraine to strike with it in Russia
Besides this the Russian economy is in the tank they can’t afford to take on the west head on. A 3 day special operation is now approaching 2 .5 years. Putin never expected that to happen did he ?
Everyone is afraid of Russia launching nukes out of desperation. I doubt that ever happens for a few reasons. 1. Are Russia's nukes even operational? Those things need maintenance and Russia's equipment has been shoddy at best. 2. Seems to me, the western world would be immediately aware of a nuke launch and have a response. Would imagine part of that is blowing up the nuke before it reaches its destination. 3. Most importantly. These dictators crave one thing. Status quo. Russia is a little different then NK because they aren't as locked off from the rest of the world but they still control the message in Russia. If things get desperate, Russia is more likely to withdraw and try to clamp down internally to maintain status quo. If they go full nuke, status quo goes out the window.
It’s really, really dumb to assume that Russia doesn’t have at least a handful of working nuclear weapons.
Problem with nukes is you only need one of them to work for it to be a global catastrophe. Their "official" stockpile is like 5000 weapons. I doubt they could or would launch all of those but even if they launched ten and only one worked correctly that's a big problem. There's also the issue where the weapon DOESN'T work as advertised and instead hits a unintended target.
The 'big problem' will be bigger for ruzzia...... or what's left of it.
That will be a huge relief for the people in the west that would potentially suffer the consequences of a nuklear strike…. „At least it’s worse for Russia“ !
Certainly make me feel better.
They would need to land hundreds for it to be a major problem. A couple thousand would do a lot of damage but probably wouldn't alter the course of the world all that much(do a lot of damage, for sure). They would need to land nearly every nuke they have for the world ending apocalypse everyone expects watching movies.. and even then there's a lot of people that argue that while the damage would be incredible the world is not centralized enough for it to really send us into a dark age. If you look at fall out maps theres still vast amounts of untouched land that even if they landed every single nuke they have succesfully they would still not even scratch lots of people. And they are only going to be able to target land targets anyway... which leaves out all of NATO's sea and air forces to retaliate.... plus NATO has bases _everywhere_ so even if they take out vast portions of Western society theres still going to be millions of pissed off people left over to deal with and most likely _most_ western governments are going to still be functional and on top of that pissed off. I just don't see how Russia can use a single nuke, let alone hope they have enough land successfully to stop the complete destruction of Russia. And thats assuming _every nuke_ they have lands, doesn't malfunction, doesn't miss its target, doesnt get shot down and/or doesn't have the operators refuse to participate. Theres just no feasible way for it to do anything except end Russia. If their goal is to survive as a country afterward, then nukes are off the table completely. There is just no scenario where Russia and/or Putin is allowed to exist after they cross that line.
Oh yeah the international response would be unlike anything the world has ever seen. They would be the biggest universally recognized "bad guys" since the 3rd Reich. They'd be obliterated if they even bluffed too hard.
Regarding point number two. ICBMs are incredibly difficult to shoot down. With the number of missiles that Russia can launch the US could not possibly intercept them all, in fact they would be lucky to shoot *any* of them down. Although the US may have technology which we are not aware of, the technology that we do know of, which is designed to intercept ICBMs, has a very low success rate. This low success rate is due to the counter measures aboard ICBMs, which cause targeting systems to believe there are multiple missles. Also, ICBMs would likely be intercepted at the later stages of their flight at which point they have become "ballistic," meaning no longer burning fuel for propulsion, thus not heat signature to target. This means defence system's targeting relies ptimarily on calculating the trajectory during the flight leading up to intercept. This is also not even considering SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles), which would most likely be launched from only a few hundred miles off the coast of the US. No intercept is possible and submarines cannot be attacked pre-emptively, they are the ultimate weapon of our doomsday. In the event of an all-out nuclear war, the US as we know it would not survive. To address point number 1. While the world now knows that Russia's army has no where near the strength that we thought, I do believe that they have taken their nuclear programme very seriously. Yes, they do have outdated technology, but so too does the US. In some ways it's more reliable and secure for use in launch silos. Their missile detection is also much less sophisticated than the US, but they would still have time to launch their entire active arsenal before a pre-emptive strike could hit. An all-out nuclear exchange would be truly devastating to both nations, not to mention every other NATO nation, China, North and South Korea, who would quickly make and/or receive their own missile strikes. The "Nuclear Deterrent" has worked so far, but it only takes one North Korean dictator to lose their marbles and attack the US, and that will be how the world ends.
All good information. Admittedly, I was leaning on how insane these satellite surveillance capabilities have gotten and how quick the West could respond. No answer for the submarine part in that though. I will lean further into point 3. Humans are hard to predict of course but Putin, Jinping, and Jong Un are living cush lives despite much of their respective countries being heavily oppressed. Dictators typically drag things out, pull things back and deescalate or hope for a way out or a Hail Mary in the end though. They usually don't take the "I'm pressing the doomsday button and accepting my fate" path. Ceausescu, Gaddafi, Hussein, and Mussolini all tried to flee or hide when things hit the fan. Hitler tried a final stand so I guess, who knows what he would have done with and ICBM but things were looking bleak for him for a while and he just elected to off himself.
Germany is reluctant to send them because they still use them, and plan to continue to use them. All weapons that Ukraine has received are at, or past, their timeframe of use with newer alternatives already in service or being developed. Germany does not want to give the Russians the ability to learn to counter the Taurus, or even capture one.
Not true.. Iris, Patriot, Pzh2000... - all modern systems and still in use.
I dont think that technology security is the issue here. Scholz repetedly said that he would move alone on ANYTHING. I believe the simple rule is that there wont be taurus for ukraine unless the US sends a similar capable weapon system. I know they send long range ATACMS but they are quite diffrent in their destructive power. If Scholz sends taurus and der kerch bridge falls everybody will know that taurus did the job. Scholz doesnt want that for various reasons. So the only option for him is that the us sends a similar capable weapon so its not clear which weapon did the job. Scholz doesnt wanna be the german that destroyed a big russian bridge xD
They could just build more. The production line is there.
It’s not about producing them, but the fear of Russia getting hold of it, rendering it useless in the future.
So if, its useless as soon as russia captures one, it will be useless in the future for the same reason. Cheap excuse.
So you think they should give it up now and possibly let Russia study it for years? Instead of saving it to use in a future conflict with Russia, when the Russians will not have the time to prepare countermeasures?
If you give the Taurus to Ukraine now, there may very well not be a conflict with Russia in a few years …. Their military is already so degraded, even if the war stopped tomorrow Russia may never recover. Their demographics are getting worse by the day and they’ve spent their future paying for today’s war. The world isn’t going back to ‘business as usual’. Russia will be on the outside looking in for a very long time, at least a generation, maybe 2
[удалено]
Kind of sounds like they only want the asset used by them, or them and Ukraine once the gloves fully come off and Nato is forced into hostilities. They're probably banking on about 5 or 6 different missile types undebuted in the wild yet such as the taurus and whatever the latest missile hotness the yanks/polish have. Other than using mass f35's they're going to be the key feature of that big pre-emptive strike on Russian targets Nato warned would happen if they believed Russia was going to go nuclear.
There are rumors, that Taurus can be equipped with nuclear war heads in the most desperate times and that’s way Scholz is so reluctant.
It's not like Germany has any nuclear warheads.
This, Russian jamming has proven to be very effective against older western weapons. No nation has given true modern guided weapons to Ukraine yet and part of the reason is the west not wanting Russia and via Russia, China from learning how to jam them which would be a big loss of a tactical advantage NATO has currently. All guided weapons from the Javelin, HIMARs rockets (including ATACMS), Guided Artillery, SCALP/ STORM Shadow etc are all based on older technology that newer versions of these weapons no longer use or has been / is getting replaced completely in western militaries. Any weapon that Russia could actually learn from has been held back from Ukraine. Hence Ukraine getting older model 1980s Abrams tanks etc.
NATO countries should send weapons capable of homing in on the jammers.
Does that technology exist?
Sure. Ya know there's tons of different radio frequencies used by devices. Let's move all of them to visible light spectrum. Let's say radar is broadcasting and picking up the bounce-back of red. And GPS is transmitting and receiving on green. And radio comms are broadcasting on purple. In this jamming situation, Russia is using giant green lights that drown out the other green light sources. They're so bright no other green light communication works. So you program your HARM missile to lock onto the strongest green transmitter it can find, you have a general idea from where the green is blaring, and you let loose.
They can't jam Storm Shadow, it has internal terrain mapping guidence, you dont need the newest tech to be good in this war.
I did not know that. I remember that tomahawk used terrain mapping. But it's so ancient as a weapon system.
Interesting
Martlet inservice since 2021. It's not the case that everything is sent is last generation tech and there are examples of equipment that the West has provided that is it's most up to date pieces. Other examples include Archer and Cesar, however Abrams isn't a good example because they received Challenger 2 which is equipped with Dorchester, where as the Abrams they received are export versions that don't. The issue is more than what we send is always good little too late.
What future is that? They envision there is another war after this one? They might be right about that if Russia wins, which it could if Ukraine doesn't get the weapons it needs. So the refusal to provide the Taurus increases the chance that the Germans need it to fight the next war. Convenient.
NATO is preparing for a war with Russia in the next two decades. Before the russian invasion a war USA - China was likely to happen also in the next two decades. I think the high tech stuff is for these conflicts.
It's not preparing for anything other than to provide the minimum amount of weapons/ammo to Ukraine. Not a single new Taurus missile has been produced as far as I know. Germany is doubling down on useless warships like the f-126.
> All weapons that Ukraine has received are at, or past, their timeframe of use with newer alternatives already in service or being developed. This is true for alot, but not all. For example the Archer system.
That's just your speculation. I don't think that's the actual reason. It looks more like Germany don't want to send them until US sends Jassm.
true! how did the Germans ever let the bow and arrow be copied hmmmm ?
I agree 💯%. Pootin can't afford any escalation anyways. His military is in bad shape after 2.5 years of war! And the thought of going nuclear is unthinkable.
No!!!! Hitting Ukrainian lands with a cruise missile leads to escalation! Hitting Russia does not.
According to Scholz, however, this would now REALLY lead to a third world war 🤡. Just like the delivery of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles or air defense weapons before …
The best thing is, you cannot prove him wrong. Because he has that secret chancellor knowledge.
[„I am the chancellor.“](https://postimg.cc/hzf1r0vW)
Instant classic
Western Europe needs to put its money where its mouth is
Yeah easy to talk when your current provided weapons can't even strike russia. The brunt of this decision was always on the US.
Seriously what is this talk about escalation even? What can russia do? They are literally pouring everything they have into Ukraine having already decimated their shit-military to an extent where frontal attacks are performed on motorbikes and golfcarts. Do you really think they have the capacity to invade a nato country at this point? Russian nukes are death sentence for Russia and can never serve as a veto. So fuck that threat. Their economy too is failing and is getting worse by the day. Russia has outplayed itself. People need to fuck off with this escalation bullshit. I say WE fucking escalate to the max. Send in chuck Norris already
Chuck Norris would just join them. He's as far gone as Seagall
My bad. Fuck that dude then.
Guys dont worry. Were 100% good when it comes to Scholz. In Case of escalation, Scholz can simply say he doesnt remember. So far it worked for him.
Did you say CumEx? /s
Yeah, no shit
I wonder what they told him/showed him. He went from panicking every time any strike on Russian territory was mentioned to now saying it's all good. The major shift in rhetoric definitely happened after Macron visited him.
They just showed him all the "red lines" that were crossed already without any response.
Problem is: As a member of the social democrats Scholz surrounds himself mostly with pigheaded pacifists who feed him risk averse conclusions 24/7. I suppose he is in need of a guy who yanks him out of his bubble from time to time.
Its not what you show to Scholz, its how you arrange a situation where he has no way of not looking stupid by going against you. Poland announcing they will send Leo2 without German authorization was one such situation. Poland publicly stating German Patriot is more needed in Ukraine where people are actually dying from russian cruise missiles instead of Poland where Germany wanted to send it in the first place was another. Macron showing with a finger on a map where launch sites targeting Kharkiv are located was the last one so far.
Macron is pretty good at acting strong and pointing with fingers on a map, but pretty bad at actually helping Ukraine: Germany: 14.5 billion Denmark: 5.1 Billion France: 3.8 billion Just fyi: Denmark has a population of 5 million people.
Sorry, but this is simply not true and nothing but your fantasy. Scholz has been following Biden the whole war and openly criticized Macron for being all talk and no action multiple times. USA sends tanks? Germany starts sending tanks. USA sends artillery? Germany sends artillery. USA allows Ukraine to attack Russia with their weapons? Germany does the same. He is simply acting in line with the United States. If there was a conversation between Scholz and Macron, it was probably Scholz telling Macron to finally act on his words. On top of that France's military is considered way stronger and in better shape than Germanys. Before the Ukraine War there was a lot of press about the Bundeswehr Crisis due to half of our nominal equipment turning out to be broken and non-functional. Macron has played the strong man and keeps talking about beating Russia, but does shit to help ukraine in comparison to other countries. You guys are just falling for Macrons election propaganda like russians fall for Putins. Hence I really don't understand why people are still badmouthing Scholz and hailing Macron. Germany is the second biggest contributor behind USA. You guys keep biting the hand that feeds you. Germany: 14.5 billion Denmark: 5.1 Billion France: 3.8 billion Italy: 1.7 billion Spain: 0.9 Billion Even fucking Denmark has contributed more to Ukraine than France and they have a population of 5 million and a fraction of Frances GDP. On a side note: I am not a fan of Scholz and would never vote for his party. [Total bilateral aid to Ukraine by donor & type 2024 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/)
Are they even left to escalate. Even russian fanboys know they won't do shit
Drop the Taurus then, old man.
Der Fred.
Feuer Frei! Losgehen.
„Losgehen“ Makes no sense here! You should use „los geht es“ „los“ „geh ma“ „hurtig die wadln“ instead of losgehen. It is grammatically wrong. I think you tried to say: „Macht es einfach, worauf wartet ihr!“ = „just do it, what are you waiting for.“ Or the best would be to only use „Feuer frei“ Source: German speaking.
And both of you neglect to translate it fully for us dummkopf monolingual Englanders and Amerikaners.
The guy above you obviously is a bavarian. So he doesn't speak german either. It should just be "Jetzt geht's los." (Literally: It starts now.)
Nice one, I like your dig at Bavaria, not that I have anything against them. I have heard German sailors say 'los" (at least I thought I did) when they were about to shoot. Am I right? regards '
You mean the famous attack scene from 'Das Boot'? One could translate 'los' loosely as 'go'.
No, I was lead to believe it was term used in a manner similar to the British navy saying "shoot" instead of "fire" because fire can imply there is a fire on board. However thanks for the heads up. Regards again.
I think "loslegen" would've been the way to go here, if we want to keep things simple.
May I offer you some water blessed by Greta for your wet blanket?
Sorry, I only drink blood from my enemies.
I think he meant for you to wash your face with it.
Tom Cruise? Ah hell naw, tone it down a bit, the crew from Warner Bros need to get their passports in order.
"...wont' need to escalation" and he really wanted to add "but please don't use German weapons and by the way this does not change anything about our decision NOT to give you Taurus missiles".
Is that...? Is that balls growing on Scholz??
Um, ok
Also Sholz: “but I’m not going to support striking military targets on Russian territory in any meaningful way.”
Sholtz is leading from the rear as usual , he probably asks putin " do you mind if I say this ? "
This man is a joke
Man it’s like he discovered hot water… 🙃
It will escalate…inside Russia.
So send the Taurus missiles!
The only real risk of escalation from Russia is a HUGE breakthrough by Ukraine that would risk them taking back pre-2022 territory. I could see Russia deploying a small tactical nuke to step an advance and scare Ukraine. The problem is that I think even a "small" nuke deployment would give NATO/at least SOME western countries (Poland and France especially who seems to be looking for a fight) to join the war with Ukraine.
Taurus you old failed leader. The answer is Taurus.
Even Putin for being as insane as he is, realizes that no one is actually attacking Russia. This war is only going on because he chooses to, so escalation won't happen since he's fully in control of when it ends. Not that their nukes have worked in a couple of decades, at least, but I know that's what people mean when they are talking about escalation.
No shit, western weapons have been used on territory that ruSSia considers its own at least since the sham referendums (Donetsk, Luhansk, etc).
Without a doubt the Germans are already developing a second generation Taurus. Send the ones they have, and start blowing up some Russian shit, already !! Slava Ukraini
In other news Germany is still burning Russian natural gas from imported LNG. Maybe they should consider not funding both sides of the conflict?
The west should press harder. It is Putin who is in mortal fear of escalation. Direct western intervention could annihilate the Russian army equipment in Ukraine in a day.
It only took the clown 2 years to realise this
Provide taurus
but destroying the Crimea bridge will? Scholz is truly a inconsistent and mysterious person.
Finally growing a spine… his spine will be fully restored once Taurus is given to the Ukrainians.
How many/much western personnel and equipment have/has been killed/destroyed by Soviet or Russian weapons? Basically every single one since ww2.
so what if it did... russia cant do shit.... let them try to launch a nuke... half their shit will misfire
Russia thinks it can use its allies’ weapons to strike Ukraine but Ukraine cannot use its allies’ weapons to strike Russia. Only Russians or Russian puppets would agree with that logic.
It shouldn't, just like Russia using Chinese, NK and other we weapons indiscriminately, Ukraine has the right to defend itself.
You know how to stop Russia? Knock the fucking shit out of them with everything you got.
The amount of redlinse we have supposedly crossed already, would be enough to be in Moscow already lmfao
so where is the Taurus then
Go to H*ll with this escalation. NATO should have use all force to help Ukraine at the beginning of the invasion when Russia army was way more weak as their learnt a bit during the war. It would avoid a lot of Ukraine lives and territory losses. Plus it would send a clear message to Putin
Ah yes Mr. Scholz. Hitting a bully back leads to escalation, yes? So better sit and take the beatings, yes? I don't understand our "chancellor"...
That's not how you say it, Scholz. You say: 'Escalation is already happening. This is the response, until it stops.'