Pyro as Bill said:
EpicRandy said:
Well this is obviously an over exegeration but just in case it isn't, there's simply no outcome with nukes that will bring stability to ukraine and that won't bring unstability to a lot more countries. I know that the situation appears quite simple, and at face value it is, Russia is an agressor and a true terrorist state, it must be stops and we should do everything to make it happens. The problem is, Russian have allies which I'll put into 2 categories, slaves regime like Belarus, and countries with strong anti-west views like China. The problem is obviously with the latters as the former does not really move the needle much. The issue with countries like China is that they're now stuck between multiple positions which I'll simplify to 2: 1) The russian agression is so obvious and so uncontestably wrong and bad that China cannot support them outright. 2) China cannot support a country which want to join and is being supported by the West. So China does not voice a strong position either way, all the while profiteering from cheap discounted russian oil and willfully ignoring all atrocities russians perpetrates in Ukraine by simply using "uncertainty" or other scapegoat to do nothing. This put Nato and the west on thin ice. They need to support Ukraine andRussia must loose, yet, if they overdo something it may help China "justify" a support for Russia. Which would extremly bad for Ukraine and world stability. So the status quo of China sitting on the fence must be preserved, therefore, Russia must loose but must loose while in Ukrainians battlefield, not with Ukrainians army in Russia and certainly not with nukes. It truly sucks, but WW3 would even more. |
Idgaf about 'muh escalation'. I get that the US has an opportunity to outplay China by bringing Russia onside and it could easily swing in the opposite direction but had we sent 2 years ago what we've sent since, Russia would be on their arse. Ukraine has obeyed when we told them Western weapons can't be used on Russia proper. If Russia is willing to blow up a nuclear power station and multiple dams, it's only fair Ukraine has the option to make their own land inaccessible to an invading army. TLDR: Russia is bluffing and they're not even good at it. Don't call them, raise them. |
Nato response has not been perfect, but it was on point when it came to giving Ukraine what it needed when it needed it and when it was ready to make use of it.
There's no "if we sent at first all we've sent up to today" even when not taking into account political play.
millions of rounds of ammunition and artillery shells have been given to Ukraine, If you were to provide Ukraine that much at the beginning the vast majority of those would have been sitting in storage for a long period awaiting to be used and many would likely have been blown up especially prior to nato ramping up Ukraine's air defense.
Western equipment needed the training, those were always going to be slow to roll out to Ukraine. You don't want Abraham tanks sitting in storage where they could be blown up when no one could even make use of them.
Even greatly increasing the number of equipment Ukrainians were used to was not as straightforward, Ukrainians still needed to train new units to take advantage of the added supply yet those able to form new units were much needed otherwise.
"Ukraine has obeyed when we told them Western weapons" because they can make use of them the way NATO told them to, In a scenario where Ukraine has successfully liberated most of its territory, what are they supposed to do if Russia continues its shelling from Russian territories? The only answer is that they would need to pick the fight within Russia and they would be right to do so, yet China does not care anymore about logic and reasons than Russia does so what would be their response then?
