Western allies are no longer imposing any restrictions on the use of long-range weapons delivered to Ukraine for Kyiv against Russian military targets, the German chancellor said on Monday.
There is no legitimate reason to not allow Ukraine to fight a war with the weapons provided using all possible tactical and strategic options available to them. If the logic is “Russia can end the world” then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won’t stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
It is not hard to argue against not fighting an enemy because they are dangerous considering that by allowing them to gain more space unimpeded it only emboldens further conquest and increases the risk of nuclear war.
The risk of nuclear war really does exist. It’s easy to be an armchair general and call Russia’s bluff. I’m glad NATO’s leaders think with more nuance.
I do not deny the risk of nuclear war but that risk alone is not enough to justify complacency to tyrants. It’s easy to say NATO is making the right call when one is safely behind a computer screen and the front lines. The problem is NATO actively avoiding direct involvement will see those safeties you take for granted disappear sooner or later.
No, it’s a genuine question because it was unclear. Do you mean “allow Ukraine to use all possible tactical and strategic options available to them” is your solution?
Because if so like… Ukraine has been doing that. The restrictions on direct strikes on russian territory is only for weapons systems provided by NATO member countries, and importantly we haven’t been giving them weapons capable of doing that (except arguably HIMARS, it’s complicated) for a number of reasons (the desire to not entrust sensitive equipment to a force we necessarily do not have direct control over who then would take it into territory controlled by the nation NATO exists in opposition to is one of the big reasons). Ukraine has and has always had the ability to strike deep into russia proper using their own equipment, and (to an extent) they have been doing that for the entirety of the war.
There are arguments to be made here that it was the wrong call to make, but the retort boils down to “russia can end the world” and its hard to argue against that.
If the logic is “Russia can end the world” then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won’t stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
Yeah, I wasn’t really sure how to respond to that which is why I tactfully glossed over it instead of saying something unhelpful (like “this is so dumb and wrong that I had to check Trump didn’t say it”).
Russia being able to end the world is the reality in which these decisions are being made and yet Ukraine has not surrendered, their allies are removing the concessions to russian nuclear deterrence they already implemented and the world is re-arming in response to the invasion instead of kowtowing. Like it is trivially easy to show how this is a stupid, hysteronic take because it is proved wrong every second Ukraine continues to resist the invaders.
Wait, were you claiming that was the solution you presented before? You… just have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s why you haven’t responded to any of the substantive points anyone has made, except with this baby-tier bait waggling. Good grief are you seriously so insecure you have to resort to this instead of admitting to yourself that you just don’t know enough about the topic to be considered an authority with a respectable position? Come on, have some self respect. When you’re downvoting replies in a days-old thread… You know nobody except us is going to see this, right? What’s the point of doing that except to take what petty victory you can, to cover for the fact you cant find success on the merits of your ideas alone? Please, reflect on your behavior.
There is no legitimate reason to not allow Ukraine to fight a war with the weapons provided using all possible tactical and strategic options available to them. If the logic is “Russia can end the world” then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won’t stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
It is not hard to argue against not fighting an enemy because they are dangerous considering that by allowing them to gain more space unimpeded it only emboldens further conquest and increases the risk of nuclear war.
The risk of nuclear war really does exist. It’s easy to be an armchair general and call Russia’s bluff. I’m glad NATO’s leaders think with more nuance.
I do not deny the risk of nuclear war but that risk alone is not enough to justify complacency to tyrants. It’s easy to say NATO is making the right call when one is safely behind a computer screen and the front lines. The problem is NATO actively avoiding direct involvement will see those safeties you take for granted disappear sooner or later.
Okay, genuine question: what’s your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?
Not a very genuine question when the answer to it is in my initial response to you.
No, it’s a genuine question because it was unclear. Do you mean “allow Ukraine to use all possible tactical and strategic options available to them” is your solution?
Because if so like… Ukraine has been doing that. The restrictions on direct strikes on russian territory is only for weapons systems provided by NATO member countries, and importantly we haven’t been giving them weapons capable of doing that (except arguably HIMARS, it’s complicated) for a number of reasons (the desire to not entrust sensitive equipment to a force we necessarily do not have direct control over who then would take it into territory controlled by the nation NATO exists in opposition to is one of the big reasons). Ukraine has and has always had the ability to strike deep into russia proper using their own equipment, and (to an extent) they have been doing that for the entirety of the war.
Yeah, I wasn’t really sure how to respond to that which is why I tactfully glossed over it instead of saying something unhelpful (like “this is so dumb and wrong that I had to check Trump didn’t say it”).
Russia being able to end the world is the reality in which these decisions are being made and yet Ukraine has not surrendered, their allies are removing the concessions to russian nuclear deterrence they already implemented and the world is re-arming in response to the invasion instead of kowtowing. Like it is trivially easy to show how this is a stupid, hysteronic take because it is proved wrong every second Ukraine continues to resist the invaders.
Whatever you say bud.
Wait, were you claiming that was the solution you presented before? You… just have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s why you haven’t responded to any of the substantive points anyone has made, except with this baby-tier bait waggling. Good grief are you seriously so insecure you have to resort to this instead of admitting to yourself that you just don’t know enough about the topic to be considered an authority with a respectable position? Come on, have some self respect. When you’re downvoting replies in a days-old thread… You know nobody except us is going to see this, right? What’s the point of doing that except to take what petty victory you can, to cover for the fact you cant find success on the merits of your ideas alone? Please, reflect on your behavior.
You should log off and go for a walk.
There is a reason. Namely not wanting Ukraine to be able to win.
Your argument is that NATO wants Ukraine to lose the war?