More video's from the crowd. pic.twitter.com/awheAp83Na

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) March 1, 2024

🤔🤔🤔

While there was anger in London, Paris was calmer about Scholz's comments despite broader friction between France and Germany over arming Ukraine. The government had no official comment, but MP Benjamin Haddad from President Emmanuel Macron's Renaissance party tweeted that the chancellor's comments created a "diplomatic crisis" with London. "Berlin is very isolated," he added.

"Looks like Scholz cares as little (or even less) for his U.K. allies as he does for the French. Silver lining nonetheless: he's unwittingly helping to break the taboo on the presence of NATO-member forces in Ukraine," tweeted François Heisbourg, a senior adviser with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

UK Slams Scholz Over Claims Britain, France are Helping Ukraine Target Missiles – POLITICO

Ex-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace Tears a Strip off Germany's Olaf Scholz in Bust-Up Over Missiles for Ukraine | Evening Standard

As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less whether there's troops in Ukraine, I'd cheer on British troops helping to launch missiles onto Russians, having said that, Scholz needs to pick his words more carefully if these things are even true and if allies don't want it in the open. Having said that, it's curious how France have mentioned the possibility now, followed by Canada and a few other countries, it feels intentional.

Anyway, Taurus has a better shot at taking down Kerch Bridge than Storm Shadow (which likely couldn't) but if a compromise is for Germany to send UK Taurus missiles so that UK can send more Storm Shadow's to Ukraine then I really don't see any excuse why Germany can't do that, Taurus wouldn't be used, they'd just be used to keep UK's defences up while we empty our stock of Storm Shadow.

Unless Germany doesn't trust us with the technology, Lol.

"These are sufficiently serious issues; every one of the words that I say on this issue is weighed, thought through and measured," Macron told reporters on the sidelines of a visit to the 2024 Olympic village near Paris. But he refused to answer any further questions on the topic.

Macron Stands by Remarks About Sending Troops to Ukraine – POLITICO

Finland's Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said his country has not set any restrictions on what Ukraine can do with the weapons it provides, Finnish broadcaster Yle reported on Thursday. Häkkänen added that blocks have been imposed mainly by countries which have provided Ukraine with long-range weapons systems.

“If necessary, Ukraine should also strike military targets on the Russian side. It is a completely legitimate defensive battle that Ukraine is waging. The U.N. Charter allows military targets to be attacked across land borders,” said Jukka Kopra, chair of the Finnish parliamentary defense committee.

That's a stark difference from other Western countries including Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz is reluctant to send long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, fearing the weapons will be used to strike targets deep inside Russia and draw Germany directly into war with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

“I encourage Germany to seriously consider it. The German government does know that they would be of great importance,” said Häkkänen.

Finland: Ukraine is Free to Bomb Russia With Our Weapons – POLITICO

🤔🤔🤔

Bring on the next Ringtausch then.

As for soldiers of NATO countries in Ukraine, I wouldn't be afraid of that. At least then we would know for sure that Ukraine is going to get more and better equipment, because NATO countries wouldn't send in their own soldiers with second-grade equipment. The red line should be Russian territory (as in, the real Russia), not Ukrainian territory.

I'm pretty sure that Russia knows that using nukes or attacking any NATO country in any manner in retaliation will only invoke a stronger NATO response, so if Storm Shadow could obliterate Russia's plans for the Black Sea while Russia did nothing in response (other than retreat, of course), then NATO soldiers in Ukraine really aren't as much of a daring move as a lot of politicians (Russia's and the West's alike) want us to believe.

Love Finland for that, the balls on the Nordic, Baltic and some Central/Eastern European countries is admirable. France's statements are a bit curious, I like Macron not ruling it out but it's weighed against my distrust of Macron, Lol. It's smart to put the statement out there though if only to make Russia have doubts, the option should always be kept open.

We need to let Russia feel the fear for once, those fuckers threaten to nuke UK on a weekly basis and we sit there and take it, fuck em, Russia is all bark and no bite when it comes to NATO, Russia has backed down on every single threat that it has made against the West, from HIMARS to Anti-Ship Missiles to Tanks, to F-16s to Long-Range Missiles, they've threatened us every single time and every single time did nothing.

The only way Russia attacks NATO is if they think NATO won't fight back, but if we show that we mean business, nobody would be sane enough in the Kremlin to pick a fight with us, as long as we don't cross into Russia's borders, Lol. The Politicians, Oligarchs, Generals would lose everything in a fight against NATO. We need to show Russia we aren't afraid of them, we need to set the lines.

Let Ukraine use ALL western weapons on Russia, looking at UK with Storm Shadow and France with SCALP in particular. Russia always folds when they're seriously challenged. Russia's entire Black Sea Fleet is being sunk by a country which doesn't have a Navy, short of nukes, there's nothing Russia can do against NATO and France has enough nukes to hit all the important spots in Russia as well.

Honestly wouldn't be opposed to sending peacekeeping forces into Ukraine West, along the Transnistria border and inside of Moldova on the other side of Transnistria and along the Belarusian border thus freeing up Ukraine's troops and then WE can set the lines for once, we can tell Russia, try it, I dare you to strike our troops with your missiles and see what happens to your troops inside of Ukraine.

Even just placing NATO troops to secure the border to Belarus and to secure the cities from drones/cruise missiles would already help Ukraine a lot. They could operate hundreds of miles away from Russia just to shoot down whatever is going to hit the cities. No single Russian soldier would get killed as long as they wouldn't invade from Belarus. That's really not much to complain about. 

UK should take the Taurus and then introduce the totally original Stormrus with a detonation fuse designed for taking down bridges!

Yes, let us make the red lines for once, I wouldn't be opposed to troops inside of Ukraine anymore either, every single Russian threat has amounted to nothing aside from them taking it out on innocent civilians in Ukraine, they wouldn't even dare use a nuke on Ukraine, let alone a NATO country. The only red line is invading Russia, we wouldn't be invading Russia inside of Ukraine. Russia threatened us like crazy about Storm Shadow, it has wiped out chunks of their Black Sea Fleet including a Submarine and they did absolutely nothing.

Even the suggestion should serve to scare Russia.

The NATO troops would be massively protected too by a huge host of anti-air equipment which would be sent with them, likely including Patriots. There has also been a number of times in the past where NATO and Russia were operating in the same country, against each other, Syria as an example and the famous battle of Wagner forces (who everyone knows were doing the bidding of Russia) picking a fight with American troops, thus getting wiped out and Russia didn't do shit.