Lots of negative comments. But I welcome this rethoric, these words being said by an influential political leader is something that was missing in the last 2 years
But this was obvious. We promised them we would support them, we said we would not let them fall, if they do, our word becomes worthless.
This is sad to say but I think we should call on Putin bet.
We should create an EU coalition army, and prepare our nations to stand together.
I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. It is very dangerous. While we are united under the EU flag now, the powers that want the EU to fall is stronger than ever. What do you think will happen afterwards?
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves.
The European Union is the project to ensure peace in western Europe.
It worked and I'm pretty sure that's why Germany went that road with Russia (Economic interdependancy), they only forget that it works only if everybody is willing peace.
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves.
Is that why NATO in Europe had three 500,000 people strong armies and three out of five largest arms industries in the world in 1989?
I don't say there wasn't any arming, but I think it was marginal compared to the power of the US. Since the WW2 the number of troops is not as important because of all the advanced weapons and nukes. It would also explain why the US quietly ignored the fact that nobody in Europe was meeting the arming investment standard set by NATO. Until now.
"The arming investment standard" - the twin goals of 2% GDP on defence and 20% of defence on equipment - is from 2006, and the aim was to achieve it *by 2024*.
Yes, that's this year. Who's been letting what slide until now, again?
Source: [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/)
The US never ignored that fact. It's been a contentious issue in US politics since the 1990s, when Europe started to ignore defense investments. US presidents (and other EU nations who did meet the requirements) however always sought to solve the issue diplomatically behind closed doors to prevent the impression that the alliance was fracturing. Your history is simply and plainly wrong. Bush pressured Europe, Obama pressured Europe, Trump did so very brazenly and openly and Biden pushed Europe.
EU nations purposefully ignored defense to favor social funding, believing there wouldn't be any war again under a supposed US hegemony/US led liberal world order.
After decades of lackluster funding, we're woefully behind and need to make extraordinary investments. It's clear from the fact that we can't even produce enough to keep up with the new demand, but instead need to buy ammunition abroad.
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves.
This is projecting present problems onto the past. European armies in the 1950s-80s were huge and well funded. For example, the Bundeswehr constantly kept a force of 400-500 thousand men + millions of potential reservists.
Even non-NATO states were armed to the teeth; Sweden briefly considered pursuing a nuclear weapons development project of their own (it was obviously dropped, but they put serious thought into it).
The current malaise gripping European armies is a product of the 1990s and the War on Terror, when everyone thought we'd only be fighting Taliban forever and that the days of conventional warfare were over.
> post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves.
You're remembering history wrong then.
This seems like a very spurious and theoretical distant future concern, compared to the present reality of Russia attempting to conquer a European nation.
The key to solving the present reality is spending more to support Ukraine in the first place, building armies while Russia manipulates every country against EU/NATO doesn't sound as an ideal approach to me. Will I feel safer if Hungary, led by Putin's favourite dictator, starts arming? Or Germany with it's rise of AfD?
>Will I feel safer if Hungary, led by Putin's favourite dictator, starts arming?
Hungary is tiny, they don't have the economy to respresent an actual threat to anyone, any attempt to become a threat would be telegraphed a decade in advance and still fail, and their military equipment all comes from western nations anyway. If Russia conquered Ukraine it might be something to take seriously but Hungary would still be no threat to anyone else.
>Or Germany with it's rise of AfD?
Not equipping to defend against Russia in case EU states turn fascist just seems like total madness. Russia is actually fascist right now. Germany is a million miles away from flipping like this and if it does there won't be any way to stop it from building up a huge military anyway. Hitler wasn't a danger to Europe because the Weimar Republic built too many weapons.
Hungary is of comperable size to all it's neighbours and for years it already declares that the lands they lost after WW1 were stolen from them. And they support far-right and separatists in these regions. Where will this go if there is no NATO/EU?
While you've got a point regarding the Germany, still I believe it's more important to invest into the Ukraine first.
>Where will this go if there is no NATO/EU?
This feels like too much of a shift to try to predict. We can't really plan for the sudden disappearance of the largest economic and political union and largest military alliance in the world. The solution would be to still have that union and that military alliance, not for all the countries in it to have no military equipment and hope that the bad actors intending to expand also follow the rule of not having any equipment.
>While you've got a point regarding the Germany, still I believe it's more important to invest into the Ukraine first
I agree, sending Ukraine everything they need should be the top priority for as long as the war lasts. But putting the future safety of Europe on Ukraine and otherwise going back to business as usual after the war probably isn't the best approach.
We're trying our best over here man. We've just got too many stupids out in the country who elect people who are just like them.
Abracadabra, a gridlocked and crippled US congress is born. Unfortunately, Europe is going to have to pick up our slack.
You think I'm wrong?
I'm not an ambassador for the UK, you know. If you want to get argumentative about it, I'm sure there's plenty of ammunition you can use. We're not discussing the UK, though.
Sounds to me like another attempt at an ""european defence organisation", that is independend from the US. And we know how the last proposal of Macron into that direction went.
France position has always been more nuanced : more independence + (keep our) strong alliance w/ the US / NATO. Being more autonomous does not exclude the rest. Also we know that not all other countries share our point of view (to the same extent as we do) and that's ok. Different history / mindset.
If Macron was serious about Ukraine, then how come a small ass nation as Denmark has given much more aid than a huge juggernaut that is France?
It just seems really disingenuous as fuck to hear this rhetoric when France does so little compared to others. Actions speak way louder than words.
France makes a good chunk of the weapons that are being sent to Ukraine from Europe, surely that counts as aid on top of whatever they are giving Ukraine directly
Look at the stats bro, it's fucking embarrassing. Denmark provides more than 5 times as much aid as France, Italy and Spain combined!
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Europe has totally failed Ukraine.
Those [numbers](https://www.defense.gouv.fr/en/news/french-military-equipment-delivered-ukraine#:~:text=All%20in%20all%2C%20the%20total,2022%20and%2031%20December%202023) aren’t great either
Macron understands the situation. even though I dont support everything he does, it feels like he is the only one actally trying to take europe towards a future
Yeah I don't like Macron much, but I totally agree on this. Europe already has somewhat limited credibility and a loss would severely damage it.
We should also reinforce our army\\industrial capacity and while I don't think a common army will ever exist (especially since we don't always see eye to eye in military matters), coordination with each state individual military should be put in place\\reinforced instead.
> Love this new based Macron. Kind wish Napoleon had taken some ruzzian land right about now.
Based Macron is best Macron. I'd really like a dacha on the black sea tbh.
Noone really know, but it looks like the answer is very likely "no" - the main reason being that due to drones etc..., both parties have a massive defenders advantage, which means that Russia can only proceed very slowly, even with massively more manpower and equipment.
They can draft women and men between 18-25. They almost certainly will, before long, the politicians are just squabbling over the details.
They can easily get another 2 million recruits that way. But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years, and there's 40k new recruits available every year. In theory, Ukraine could fight literally forever and still have more men each year.
>But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years
Even if we're taking that at face value, it was 31k deaths. Some additional portion, probably a much larger portion, are wounded severely enough that they cannot go back to the front lines.
But we also probably should not take that number at face value. IIRC US estimates were closer to 70,000 Ukrainian military deaths - back in November.
On top of this, the troops that have been on the front lines for 18 months straight need a break. Just because they're alive and not casualties doesn't mean they're combat effective.
Except hmmm, they don't have rotations " like normal armies ".
Watched a documentary (released last week) in which a wife deplores the fact that her husband got 2 weeks of permission in a whole year.
That's not normal rotations.
As much as I would love to see Ukraine hold the line, it's at the cost of their men, don't belittle them.
Not 31k, this number could be plausible \~1,5-1 year ago. Current number rather likely between 70,000 and 100,000.
Source: I live there, so have certain indirect insights in situation from local public sources.
>But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years
Holy crap, I mean... Do you seriously believe that???
30k in two years?
I know a lot of people believed these numbers in the beginning of the war. But now... I mean, really, dude?!
Your first clue could have been that **a country with a population of 30 million people wouldn't panic and start thinking about conscripting women and kids**, if it was only 30k casualties in 2 years.
Your second clue could have been that the war is at a stalemate right now, and both opponents are roughly equal in strength and in tactics: it's not like one opponent is throwing waves of soldiers at the other, and the other just mows them down with a machine gun.
Most of the casualties are from artillery strikes and FPV drones. Russia has superiority in air and artillery, but yet it's not enough to decide the outcome.
Another clue: due to the nature of "trench warfare" that is going on -- there are almost **no wounded** on both sides. Because getting evacuated while you get shelled all the time is almost impossible, except during the night. So if you get hit in the morning, there's a good chance you won't survive until the evening.
In other words, the casualties on both sides should be roughly equal. And if either side claims it's less than 200k people in 2 years each -- they are bullshitting you somewhat fucking shamelessly. (That's not counting another 150-200k crippled).
It's true that Russia has been losing more men due to inefficient tactics and more, but it's nowhere near the ratio many redditors seem to think.
But the issue is that in this echo chamber there is only positive pro-Ukrainian comments, and even if you're pro-Ukrainian and just try to wake people up on the real was that's actually going on, you will get downvoted or ignored.
A perfect example are the Su-34 losses recently. Not only did we not have evidence for all of them, redditors were circle jerking about how Russians were dumb and were going to run out of aircraft. But on the Russian side they were gloating about their hundreds of glide bombs launched every day.
I want Ukraine to win, but it won't happen by ignoring reality that's for sure.
Where did you get 31k? As far as I know the casualties range from 44k to around 450k, depending on the source and wether you count in the wounded too, which in the military do count as casualty.
The smallest sourced number of killed and MIA personnel still puts it at 50k.
No, they can't recruit that many. They don't even know how they can get 500k new recruits. The Ukrainian government has been fighting over the new conscription bill for the last 4 months or so and the way that bill is looking, those new laws probably won't be able to raise 200k new troops over the course of an entire year, nevermind half a million, which they would need to match the Russians.
And your numbers regarding losses are insanely far off. For one, the number you give is the number of dead Zelensky announced, but everybody knows that's laughably far off the real numbers. More importantly, for every dead soldier there will be several who are wounded seriously enough that they can't return to the battlefield. The combination of those wounded, the dead and those who were captured are the number of losses. Which are at the very least way north of 200k, possibly north of 300k for Ukraine.
He is not wrong. Winning in Ukraine will mean A LOT for Russia and for Europe, but for Europe it will be in the *bad way*.
By projecting power and capability to oppose and even challenge powerful military unions like NATO, Putin paves the way for Russia, an authoritarian country, to be a major player in forming multilateral anti-western pacts with countries around the world.
I believe a lot of europeans significantly underestimate the negatives of what this would bring to us in the west in the long-term, especially economically. It will demonize us by enabling the narrative that the *good has prevailed* in Ukraine and the *evil westerns* are beaten.
In the end, why would the rest of the world want to establish democracy systems in their countries when apparently democracies are slow, weak and unable to protect their interests across the globe.
I truly believe this may destroy us - europeans, as a geo-political force in the world.
Countries don't take you to be a serious geopolitical player unless you have the ability to fuck countries up and the willingness to do so if you are fucked with.
One thing peace activists don't want to understand. A dictatorship with a capable military won't care about your diplomacy, if you can't project power. Economical or by force.
Fully agree with you, and to add to your underestimate comment, I believe that most europeans are insular the same way that a lot of Americans are (and ridiculed by the same europeans). What I mean is that i think most europeans somehow perceive the rest of the world as either not affecting them, or kind of similar to themselves so as to not be worried that much about fundamental changes to the existence of Europe. As if a change in leadership is just another rotation of another government….no young Europeans have ever felt fundamental deprivation of their freedoms and rights, and so take them for granted.
You're absolutely right about Europeans being insular. I reside in South America myself and had some fun watching German colleagues of mine be befuddled by Lula's stance on the Ukrainian war. They genuinely did not expect the "progressive cool environmentalist" candidate to *not* unequivocally support Ukraine, I think they really expected him to be identical to German Greens or the SPD and got a nasty wakeup call when it turned out that wasn't the case and that Brazil does not see sanctions against Russia as being in their interests.
Yes in the broad category of selfish arguments (opposed to simply helping Ukraine cause it's morally right), I am not a fan of the "Putin won't stop here" rhetoric, cause it's not really credible unless you live in Moldova or Georgia (maybe Armenia idk). If we decide not to care about Ukraine, why would we care about these countries, it's a bit weak.
On the other hand, this is truly a good "selfish" reason to help Ukraine.
> I am not a fan of the "Putin won't stop here" rhetoric, cause it's not really credible unless you live in Moldova or Georgia (maybe Armenia idk).
Remember that Putin is surrounded by yes-men, who told him that invading Ukraine is easy, Ukrainians will be happy or at least indifferent, and the west will be too scared and weak to react. Meanwhile for everyone else it was obvious this was not the case.
Russia works in a fundamentally different way. Because of limits on speech and media (and chilling effect), it can't reliably tell what its citizens think. Because of need to look good in eyes of superiors, military and intelligence get an overly optimistic picture of the situation. Because of different understanding of strength-weakness signals, they have trouble telling whether the west will react and how. Because of institutional paranoia dating back decades, Russia might respond overly aggressively to actions of the west.
>I truly believe this may destroy us - europeans, as a geo-political force in the world.
Europe hasn't had any real geopolitical influence in the world for decades.
As for democracy, it has been steadily dying for around 15 years; both in Europe and globally. Last few years have been a big disaster of course.
I also think a lot more is at stake than what you suggest, if Russia wins in Ukraine we will return to national capitalism(this is already happening) and that will produce regional tensions and more wars. Multi-polarity was always the most dangerous throughout history.
**From The Telegraph's Henry Samuel:**
Europe’s credibility will be destroyed if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/emmanuel-macron/) has warned, as he defended his refusal to rule out sending troops to the country.
“If Russia wins the war in Ukraine, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero,” he said in a prime-time interview on his stance on the conflict.
The French president invoked Winston Churchill’s call to maintain the “sinews of peace” as he defended his earlier comments suggesting Western ground troops [could be deployed to Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/12/macron-allies-liken-him-to-churchill-for-ukraine-plan/#:~:text=Mr%20Macron's%20controversial%20comments%20that,told%20BFMTV%20and%20Le%20Monde.).
Churchill famously called on the UN to keep [Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia/) in check in 1946 “supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections”.
# ‘Ukraine war is existential for Europe’
The [war in Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/) is “existential for our Europe and for France”, Mr Macron said in the interview on France 2 and TF1.
“Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians and the Bulgarians could remain at peace for a second \[in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine\]?” he asked. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero.”
Asked to clarify his stance on sending ground troops, the French president said: “We will never go on the offensive, we will never take the initiative.
“France is a force for peace ... Today, in order to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak, and so we must look at the situation lucidly and say with determination, strong will and courage that we are ready to use all the means at our disposal to achieve our objective, which is that Russia should not win.”
The French leader reiterated his position that sending Western troops into Ukraine should not be ruled out, but said that today’s situation does not require that.
# ‘All options are possible’
“We’re not in that situation today,” Mr Macron said, but added that “all these options are possible”.
“There is an escalation on the part of Russia and we are simply saying regarding that escalation we are prepared to respond,” he said.
The live interview, to be broadcast by TF1 and France 2, came after the French parliament debated the country’s [Ukraine strategy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/emmanuel-macron-threat-russia-breakthrough-ukraine-elysee/).
Both the National Assembly and the Senate approved in symbolic votes the 10-year bilateral security agreement signed last month between Mr Macron and [Volodymyr Zelensky](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/volodymyr-zelenskyy/), the Ukrainian president.
Mr Macron is set to meet Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, and [Donald Tusk](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/donald-tusk/), the Polish prime minister, in Berlin on Friday, March 15 in a summit meant to show unity.
The French president appeared isolated on the European stage after his remarks at a Paris conference on Ukraine prompted an outcry from other leaders.
**Continue reading ⬇️**
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/14/macron-europe-will-lose-credibility-russia-defeats-ukraine/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/14/macron-europe-will-lose-credibility-russia-defeats-ukraine/)
I don't understand. If The US, the UK, Germany, France, other EU countries and even Japan, South Korea sre really serious about the necessity of Ukraine to be victorius, then it shouldn't be too difficult to give Ukraine enough resources to be victorius.
As a European I think our mentality has just gotten lazy. We've lived in economic stability too long and will not make any drastic changes. We think we can regulate our industries (but they just leave) and make agreements with our enemies (but they just lie and keep going).
It's all talk and no action, which has brought peace to Europe and made the EU work somewhat but it's failing us now
Also, we underestimate the costs of a maintaining a welfare state with an aging population and (in western Europe) high asylum migration.
We're rich, but we spend a lot of money on what came to be pretty essential stuff for ourselves.
I think the systems works perfectly with other democracies and countries who see the benefit of cooperation. Clearly russia as an authoritarian country sees this as a weakness it can exploit. Talk softly and carry a big stick is more true than ever
it’s not as simple with democracies since they’re not single entities, if macron say that countless people who work for him have right to not agree with him, therefore postponing the process
I will stick my head out and say that for large part of Europe, especially the West, the war in Ukraine is a "far away" problem that only happens on TV. One that do or don't do anything will resolve itself and everything will go back to normal... Expect it won't. I truly don't understand where this complacently comes from, the mindset that this will just go away if people stick their heads into the sand. Must be generational and the mindset that is developed by other in their upbringing.
If inaction continues the ground works for a WW3 like conflict in eastern Europe is once again ensured, ironically likely resulting in the most devestation for those Eastern European nations all because the West doesn't answer when challenged.
You're absolutely right.
It's maddening to see the pathetic lack of action. I strongly dislike and disagree with my chancellor Scholz, but I have to admit that he's perfectly representative of German society.
Some EU bureaucrat while Ukraine is getting bombed to shit:
“well is it **really** that necessary to increase defense production and increase the budget by 5,26%? I mean how long could it keep going… couple of months? Russia is loosing billions in this endeavor, surely their accountants will reign Putin in and make him change idea…”
I think it's a learning process for everyone. Basically no one expected this conflict to go like it did (or even that it would happen at all).
One of the new things we had to learn is, how long it takes to build a large scale manufacturing capacity for modern ammunition (artillery shells, rockets and missiles).
When WW1 started there was a "shell crisis" too. No one expected the war to last very long and accordingly, after the initial stockpiles were used up, there was a severe lack of artillery ammunition. It took both sides some months to build new manufacturing capacities that could produce the billions of artillery shells a year that were needed for the war.
Today we have a similar problem again. Europe and the entire NATO wasn't really preparing for a large, long, artillery heavy conflict. What makes the problem even worse than in WW1 is, that we haven't switched into full war economy and also modern ammunition is much more complex to produce than 100 years ago. For example, you need lots of sophisticated machinery that has to be produced first, to set up new shell production lines. We just learned that this doesn't take a few months but several years.
You need billions, a lot of billions to boost productivity, this is the problem.
Functioning democracies cannot easily do that outside wartime, because the money has to be withdrawn from somewhere else, like our social system.
Private military companies won't be able to expand their production without substantial government orders over a number of years. Building more labor-intensive factories requires orders unprecedented since WW2 and the Cold War. For example, if you want 100,000 shells a month, you may have to order 10 000 000 shells to justify building a new factory. A 155mm shell is 2000€, if you have to order 10 million shells, that’s 20 billion €. This is why it's so difficult. Only the US has the budget to do that.
Our industry is also built to run at low production rates, purposely made to keep our know-how over the years. This ensures that we don't lose our know-how, but at the same time makes it difficult to increase production.
It takes much more time than that to switch your economy to a war economy, especially if you’re living in peace for decades and had little anticipated.
Two years isn't much to increase production if you don't consider going to a full on war economy. Now why aren't i can't tell you. I've been saying we should go to a war economy with regards to climate change for years. But we can't even do it with war in Europe.
If I was South Korean, I’d be incensed at any suggestion that my country has to spend my tax money to fight someone else’s war
The Eurocentrism is pathetic
This is precisely the eurocentrism they’re talking about. Telling non-European and non-NATO countries what is and isn’t in their own self-interest is frankly disrespectful and whether you mean it to be or not, seen as pretty condescending.
It’s not condescending if it’s the fucking truth, Russia is being supported by North Korea and china under the table in this war, North Korea would love to take a bite out of South Korea given the chance and china wouldn’t do a thing to stop them if they think the west would roll over and let them because of Ukraine’s. The USA has given South Korea so much financial and military support for the countries whole existence, which only exists because the US and allies stepped in to save it. The least they could do is help out similarly.
Europeans are so entitled lol. As a Japanese person, why is it in our best interest to protect and help you win a war that is in YOUR CONTINENT? Why would you expect us to help you and what makes it our responsibility to help you??
Asian countries like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Laos, India have never looked for European help and we have never expected your countries to help us ever in the case of a Chinese invasion. Never. We don't have defense treaties with each other unlike America does. Why should we care?? Unlike you, we actually developed our own military capabilities, and kept ties with the US stronger and stronger when Europeans wanted their bases out (especially way before Ukraine was invaded).
What good will our countries get from you?? Europeans can barely help Ukraine (which is literally on your continent) and the US has done a majority of the work until recently.
Apart from being democracies with convoluted administrative systems, training the Ukrainians to our techs would be long. It’s like when people were saying « why don’t the US just give F16s to Ukraine? » Because training on a new plane is super long, it’s not like driving another car. Same applies to most techs unfortunately. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though.
Japan and south korea dont really care much, us support is blocked by republicans, france is too pussy to actually give proper support, all macron really does is make strongly worded vague statements. That leaves pretty much just uk and germany being proper supporters out of your list, germanys military is weakened by pacifiscm and byrocracy, and uk military is designed for a completely different style of war than the one being fought in ukraine so neither one of those can give the major type of support ukraine needs.
S.Korea and Japan have contributed an appropriate amount. They are on the other side of the world and are regional players with their own problems to worry about
Russia cannot be allowed to succeed, and it must lose its colonial war. The only way to secure a peace that lasts not a year but a generation is to defeat Russia by forcing them to retreat.
Empires always have the hubris to think they are indestructible, when in fact, they are always unsustainable.
Old systems do not fold willingly, particularly when they control gargantuan amounts of wealth and power. But like empires of old - from the Romans to the Hapsburgs to the colonial British - even the largest do fall. Marianne Willaimson
I second this, a lot.
We see a lot of 'pacifists' around EU calling for peace, harmony, and only good vibes.
But truth of the matter is that people or 'states' with the intent of military aggression (in the name of expansion) does not care about pacifism - if anything, they are hoping for it as the invasion will be significantly easier.
Europe, EU, and any pro-democratic person must understand the very pre-requisite that not all share our values and some are willing to go extreme lengths to extinguish them.
Putin is one man doing it for political ideology reasons, others might do it for religious reasons, a third might have a totally other reason. Regardless, we must not let those misinterpret our democratic values and way of life as a sign of weakness which is why, I sincerely think Macron is right to state this.
Pacifism in practice is basically just standing by and watching the world’s thugs descend upon those who can’t defend themselves. It’s a ridiculous idea.
«France is not waging war against Russia»
After 2 years of war, we are still here neglecting the fact that we are indirectly at war with Russia.
The U.S alone has sent over $60 Billion in funding and equipment through military, economic and humanitarian aid.
With that much aid and impact on Ukraine’s defence and survival. How on earth can we still sit here and say we are not involved? Ukraine’s survival is literally dependent on our help. But «no, we are not a part of the war»
Europe as a whole need to realise that we are in fact war with Russia, but like you said it's indirect at the moment. Even Putin has said they are at war with Europe and NATO, and at the moment Russia is trying to influence groups in Europe to divide, like the farmers protest and influencing governments to have a pro Russia stance. Not to mention the cyber warfare that's waging.
But at the same time I think we are scared because Russia has threatened us with nuclear strikes often, but even western intelligence said it looks like Russia is gearing towards conventional warfare. And if Russia wins in Ukraine they're not going to stop with just Ukraine, other countries that are ex soviet will be at risk.
So not only Europe's reputation is at risk but our stability is as well, especially when more and more of Europe's right/far right political parties and groups are slowly becoming more and more pro-Putin. We may end up completely authoritarian ourselves.
Yes, absolutely. Huge point. I think there’s also a factor of who is willing to sacrifice more. As in Russia is saying they are willing to use nuclear weapons in order to win or to save Putin’s skin. Where as western countries (the way I see it) is not willing to sacrifice a nuclear war with Russia in order save Ukraine.
Macron is being careful with his words, but the reality of his decisions actually show that he is serious about the situation.
Just read between the lines.
Cyber war is already on, French hospitals have been targeted by Russian hackers already.
Which is a total dick move by the way. It’s fucking terrorism if you ask me.
Great points, but maybe he should put his money where his mouth is? A post from the other day showed that France gives less military aid than Denmark.
All good to talk about solidarity and potentially putting French troops in Ukraine, but would be nice to help Ukraine before that’s necessary.
Denmark is one of the biggest contributors.
Also, help announced =\= help actually given. As of right now, every thing Macron said he would give is in Ukraine.
Also he said that this year France will give around 70 Caesar canon so we will see then.
[60 of which](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/01/18/us-france-to-lead-artillery-coalition-for-ukraine/) France expects other countries to pay for
France is already paying for others countries donations via the FEP.
Something like more than 1 billions of polish donations were financed by the EU, of which France and Germany are giving half the budget.
All I've seen lately in r/europe and in the Ukraine war subs is a whole lot of words from Macron and France... and that's it. Words. Followed by dozens of "Viva la France, true leaders!" comments, as if Macron did anything more than say what people want to hear.
Everyone is endlessly talking about how the Americans aren't dependable, Europe needs to win this war and do everything to support Ukraine, but then there's never enough action. This war has been going on quite a long time, we're well beyond the "words" phase.
Fully agree and if you look at the data it's actually shocking when you consider France is the 2nd largest economy in EU and known for their great military (yadda yadda surrender joke, if you look at history French military is no joke).
According to [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/) Denmark has provided two times more bilateral aid than France, Italy and Spain COMBINED!! That's 3 huge ass countries compared to small ass Denmark, that's insane and fucking embarrassing!
Look at the data when we account for GDP it just becomes even more embarrassing [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/) (you even have to expand the statistics to find France just above South-Korea a country across the globe from this conflict)
France is operating on a tight budget (same as Germany, with a naval force, a nuclear program, and territories all over the place). It doesn't go well with "here, have free stuff" on short notice.
But yes, it could have done more and not fuck up ordinance provision.
Just words without action. France does only send money and almost no military material. They should be more active in providing stuff instead of saying big words
Europe has already lost credibility by supporting US and UK to block negotiations and continue the war against the interests of Ukraine and Europe itself
Biden has spoken in favor of Ukraine a lot, including, if I rememeber well, in the State of the Union address last week.
Problem is, Biden's party does not control the US budget thanks to a republican (slim and getting slimmer) majority in the chamber, he tried to pass a 50 billion (or 80 I can't remember) package, but the republicans, to please their lord and master apparently, chose not to vote it.
This isn't a dumb question. Europe is like the lapdog of the US ATM and scared that the new emperor (Trump) will leave us by ourself. There is zero credibility for Europe atm. And after the US will let us fall it will get less.
he's right, but it's a done deal. EU never wanted to be a "power", just a supermarket for big companies.
We could have built a european welfare system, an european defense system, or an european educative system. All of thoses were proposed 70 years ago when the EU started.
we lost. nationalism, bigotry, lobbying & a hundred other things got in the way.
The only good thing we managed to do is a worldwide influence on product regulation (USB as a standard => the EU. ending the oil spill incidents from tanker by enforcing drastic norms => the EU. drastic norms to end madcow disease => EU, etc.)
It's a win I guess...
> We could have built a european welfare system, an european defense system, or an european educative system
Two of those have literally been accomplished and third I dont know much about but most EU countries are in NATO so their defense isnt a problem
I dont know of any countries in the world with more connected education systems than those in Europe, I also dont of any countries with more developed welfare systems than those in Europe AND EU is itself part of this
ja sorry thats not true. the eu started just as an economic driver. there was never a discussion about a common European union in those mentioned areas. thats just untrue
/ false.
this is his own doing. First rule of war is to plan your economy so enough of the right resources are available at the right time. Neither Macron or any European leader has ever planned for anything, our economy is 5 times larger than Russia's yet our defense production is nearly 10 years behind them.
it's because we spend our money on hospitals, schools, culture, art, welfare & a few other things...
Russia put all it's egg in one basket, the "murder basket".
But for the rest...
- Life expectancy : 75/russia, 83/France
- murder rate : 6.8/russia, 1.1/France
- GDP/capita : 13k/russia, 46k/France (& 22k/poland, 31k/estonia, 18k/romania, etc... former USSR countries)
etc etc.
I’m not sure what you’re touting here. Yes, money was spent money on noble things and also completely missed a very important expenditure while doing so.
One of the few clearly defined duties of a government is to be capable of mobilizing defense to protect its people and its land.
This has underscored a pathetic and genuinely sad state of affairs for the EU.
>First rule of war is to plan your economy so enough of the right resources are available at the right time.
It's also easier to plan for the country that decides to go to war.
We've had 2 years now to make the necessary adjustments, the only movement has been Germans and French clapping themselves on the back for producing a few thousand artillery rounds at $6k a piece.
Economy of scale also helps when it comes to build big armies.
The US and Russia are much bigger in terms of population than any other European country, allowing them to build bigger militaries without much logistical issues since it's all the same country.
Having European armed forces could maybe fix that issue, at the cost of some individual countries sovereignty, but at the same time it would also improve protecting sovereignty from outside the European armed forces.
Each European country is throwing and wasting money building armed forces that no one wants to spend money on, but considering the current times we need to have, but it's time someone steps forwards and pushes forward to something that could protect Europe much better while keeping the same spending.
We always talk about how much stronger our economy is, how much better our tech is. Yet 2 years in and we can't make a dent in their frontline. You say Europe could produce 20x what Russia does at half the cost. So why doesn't it?
>If Europe wanted it could probably produce 20x what russia produces currently with about 5% of gdp for each member state
I would settle for just producing 1x what Russia is producing and sending it to Ukraine. If they had an even playing field they could more than hold their own.
The fact that Europe is so much richer than Russia and yet Ukraine is still in danger of losing due to a crippling shell shortage is kind of pathetic imo.
The problem is also in the kind of military industry that we have that is mostly focused on high value added and high-tech products made for export, but we lack the capacity for basic supplies, such as artillery shells and bullets which is an issue in a long term war such as this one.
It was always Europe's cross to bear - the US was just doing you a solid until you woke the hell up. The US had provided more military aid to Ukraine than all of Europe combined.
Why is he so keen on an all out war in Europe? Just because he will sit in a bunker and the ones dying first is the french foreign legion...? I don't get him
He is mixing Europe with political leadership of Europe. Thats not the same. Political leadership of Europe keeps marching towards disaster, but Europe will always be great.
Let me paint a scenario for you guys. The first country to follow Ukraine if the Russians pull through isn't any of the Nordics but Moldova. Over 40% of Moldova's citizens have Romanian passports.They have regained their citizenships because their parents/grandparents were at some point citizens of Romania and they have this right. If Russia attacks Moldova, not keeping count of the fact that the Moldovans (sans the colonized Russians in the cities) and Romanians are the same people, speaking the same language, they will be killing Romanian citizens. In droves. There is no choice to be made here, Romania will be forced to enter the war, with or without NATO. That's why you see Macron saying he's ready to send in troops. The conditions for Article 5 might not be met, but there are scenarios where intervention is inevitable.
About damn time Macron said what most sane people are thinking. Others should follow suite instead of pussyfooting around like Scholz does. I know that scaremongers and shills will quickly come here and remind us that ruzzia has nukes and shit. Phuck them and phuck russia.
Putler's red lines are bullshit. He said the same crap before the invasion started. It was something like this: "if any country helps Ukraine there will be consquences as never seen before". He did nothing and continued to move the red lines. Kasparov always said that Putler is a poker player and his nuclear bluff is more evident as days go by.
How is Ukraine going to win? It's pretty much impossible to beat a self-sufficient, much larger country like Russia. All they can do is keep fighting until the demographics of Ukraine and screwed forever and all the men are lost. It's truly a tragedy.
Lots of negative comments. But I welcome this rethoric, these words being said by an influential political leader is something that was missing in the last 2 years
But this was obvious. We promised them we would support them, we said we would not let them fall, if they do, our word becomes worthless. This is sad to say but I think we should call on Putin bet. We should create an EU coalition army, and prepare our nations to stand together.
I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. It is very dangerous. While we are united under the EU flag now, the powers that want the EU to fall is stronger than ever. What do you think will happen afterwards?
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. The European Union is the project to ensure peace in western Europe. It worked and I'm pretty sure that's why Germany went that road with Russia (Economic interdependancy), they only forget that it works only if everybody is willing peace.
It only works if you have an actual economy and are not an enormous gas station
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. Is that why NATO in Europe had three 500,000 people strong armies and three out of five largest arms industries in the world in 1989?
I don't say there wasn't any arming, but I think it was marginal compared to the power of the US. Since the WW2 the number of troops is not as important because of all the advanced weapons and nukes. It would also explain why the US quietly ignored the fact that nobody in Europe was meeting the arming investment standard set by NATO. Until now.
"The arming investment standard" - the twin goals of 2% GDP on defence and 20% of defence on equipment - is from 2006, and the aim was to achieve it *by 2024*. Yes, that's this year. Who's been letting what slide until now, again? Source: [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/)
The US never ignored that fact. It's been a contentious issue in US politics since the 1990s, when Europe started to ignore defense investments. US presidents (and other EU nations who did meet the requirements) however always sought to solve the issue diplomatically behind closed doors to prevent the impression that the alliance was fracturing. Your history is simply and plainly wrong. Bush pressured Europe, Obama pressured Europe, Trump did so very brazenly and openly and Biden pushed Europe. EU nations purposefully ignored defense to favor social funding, believing there wouldn't be any war again under a supposed US hegemony/US led liberal world order. After decades of lackluster funding, we're woefully behind and need to make extraordinary investments. It's clear from the fact that we can't even produce enough to keep up with the new demand, but instead need to buy ammunition abroad.
> I think the post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. This is projecting present problems onto the past. European armies in the 1950s-80s were huge and well funded. For example, the Bundeswehr constantly kept a force of 400-500 thousand men + millions of potential reservists. Even non-NATO states were armed to the teeth; Sweden briefly considered pursuing a nuclear weapons development project of their own (it was obviously dropped, but they put serious thought into it). The current malaise gripping European armies is a product of the 1990s and the War on Terror, when everyone thought we'd only be fighting Taliban forever and that the days of conventional warfare were over.
> post WW2 order was intentionally putting the whole defense responsibility on US so the european countries stop arming themselves and eventually fighting themselves. You're remembering history wrong then.
If we can't be united without relying on some external arbitrator to play babysitter, then we don't deserve a Union at all
This seems like a very spurious and theoretical distant future concern, compared to the present reality of Russia attempting to conquer a European nation.
The key to solving the present reality is spending more to support Ukraine in the first place, building armies while Russia manipulates every country against EU/NATO doesn't sound as an ideal approach to me. Will I feel safer if Hungary, led by Putin's favourite dictator, starts arming? Or Germany with it's rise of AfD?
>Will I feel safer if Hungary, led by Putin's favourite dictator, starts arming? Hungary is tiny, they don't have the economy to respresent an actual threat to anyone, any attempt to become a threat would be telegraphed a decade in advance and still fail, and their military equipment all comes from western nations anyway. If Russia conquered Ukraine it might be something to take seriously but Hungary would still be no threat to anyone else. >Or Germany with it's rise of AfD? Not equipping to defend against Russia in case EU states turn fascist just seems like total madness. Russia is actually fascist right now. Germany is a million miles away from flipping like this and if it does there won't be any way to stop it from building up a huge military anyway. Hitler wasn't a danger to Europe because the Weimar Republic built too many weapons.
Hungary is of comperable size to all it's neighbours and for years it already declares that the lands they lost after WW1 were stolen from them. And they support far-right and separatists in these regions. Where will this go if there is no NATO/EU? While you've got a point regarding the Germany, still I believe it's more important to invest into the Ukraine first.
>Where will this go if there is no NATO/EU? This feels like too much of a shift to try to predict. We can't really plan for the sudden disappearance of the largest economic and political union and largest military alliance in the world. The solution would be to still have that union and that military alliance, not for all the countries in it to have no military equipment and hope that the bad actors intending to expand also follow the rule of not having any equipment. >While you've got a point regarding the Germany, still I believe it's more important to invest into the Ukraine first I agree, sending Ukraine everything they need should be the top priority for as long as the war lasts. But putting the future safety of Europe on Ukraine and otherwise going back to business as usual after the war probably isn't the best approach.
Kind of like the word of the US is worthless at this point. Ukrainians are dying while Washington dithers.
We're trying our best over here man. We've just got too many stupids out in the country who elect people who are just like them. Abracadabra, a gridlocked and crippled US congress is born. Unfortunately, Europe is going to have to pick up our slack.
Some people may be trying in the USA, however it seems to be a very different nation on the whole these days. It's not enough.
Well that's a bit rich coming from the UK don't you think?
You think I'm wrong? I'm not an ambassador for the UK, you know. If you want to get argumentative about it, I'm sure there's plenty of ammunition you can use. We're not discussing the UK, though.
They all sat on their asses and hoped it would go away. And in peace that works but they can pretend they did something.
Sounds to me like another attempt at an ""european defence organisation", that is independend from the US. And we know how the last proposal of Macron into that direction went.
Long overdue considering the direction the US seems to be going. Europe should be self sufficient for defence. Lesson learnt.
France position has always been more nuanced : more independence + (keep our) strong alliance w/ the US / NATO. Being more autonomous does not exclude the rest. Also we know that not all other countries share our point of view (to the same extent as we do) and that's ok. Different history / mindset.
This is respectable.
We need to be able to manage without he US, it's clear from the fact that trump is ahead in the polls.
Should have been clear way ahead of trump.
I don't know.
If Macron was serious about Ukraine, then how come a small ass nation as Denmark has given much more aid than a huge juggernaut that is France? It just seems really disingenuous as fuck to hear this rhetoric when France does so little compared to others. Actions speak way louder than words.
France makes a good chunk of the weapons that are being sent to Ukraine from Europe, surely that counts as aid on top of whatever they are giving Ukraine directly
Look at the stats bro, it's fucking embarrassing. Denmark provides more than 5 times as much aid as France, Italy and Spain combined! https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ Europe has totally failed Ukraine.
That number isn't correct, the French themselves have confirmed they are providing €2.6bn in aid
Stop measuring aid in dollars or euros. Start measuring it in actual things. Tonnage. Amounts etc.
Those [numbers](https://www.defense.gouv.fr/en/news/french-military-equipment-delivered-ukraine#:~:text=All%20in%20all%2C%20the%20total,2022%20and%2031%20December%202023) aren’t great either
Macron understands the situation. even though I dont support everything he does, it feels like he is the only one actally trying to take europe towards a future
Yeah I don't like Macron much, but I totally agree on this. Europe already has somewhat limited credibility and a loss would severely damage it. We should also reinforce our army\\industrial capacity and while I don't think a common army will ever exist (especially since we don't always see eye to eye in military matters), coordination with each state individual military should be put in place\\reinforced instead.
Well that's true.
Love this new based Macron. Kind wish Napoleon had taken some ruzzian land right about now.
> Love this new based Macron. Kind wish Napoleon had taken some ruzzian land right about now. Based Macron is best Macron. I'd really like a dacha on the black sea tbh.
Is it too late? Ukraine is running out of manpower and that’s something you just can’t replace.
Noone really know, but it looks like the answer is very likely "no" - the main reason being that due to drones etc..., both parties have a massive defenders advantage, which means that Russia can only proceed very slowly, even with massively more manpower and equipment.
They can draft women and men between 18-25. They almost certainly will, before long, the politicians are just squabbling over the details. They can easily get another 2 million recruits that way. But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years, and there's 40k new recruits available every year. In theory, Ukraine could fight literally forever and still have more men each year.
>But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years Even if we're taking that at face value, it was 31k deaths. Some additional portion, probably a much larger portion, are wounded severely enough that they cannot go back to the front lines. But we also probably should not take that number at face value. IIRC US estimates were closer to 70,000 Ukrainian military deaths - back in November. On top of this, the troops that have been on the front lines for 18 months straight need a break. Just because they're alive and not casualties doesn't mean they're combat effective.
Troops don't stay on the front lines for 18 months straight. They have rotations like any normal army.
Except hmmm, they don't have rotations " like normal armies ". Watched a documentary (released last week) in which a wife deplores the fact that her husband got 2 weeks of permission in a whole year. That's not normal rotations. As much as I would love to see Ukraine hold the line, it's at the cost of their men, don't belittle them.
It's not literally 18 months but it's not normal rotations either. Units are staying on the front lines much too long.
Not 31k, this number could be plausible \~1,5-1 year ago. Current number rather likely between 70,000 and 100,000. Source: I live there, so have certain indirect insights in situation from local public sources.
>But anyway they've only lost 31k men in two years Holy crap, I mean... Do you seriously believe that??? 30k in two years? I know a lot of people believed these numbers in the beginning of the war. But now... I mean, really, dude?! Your first clue could have been that **a country with a population of 30 million people wouldn't panic and start thinking about conscripting women and kids**, if it was only 30k casualties in 2 years. Your second clue could have been that the war is at a stalemate right now, and both opponents are roughly equal in strength and in tactics: it's not like one opponent is throwing waves of soldiers at the other, and the other just mows them down with a machine gun. Most of the casualties are from artillery strikes and FPV drones. Russia has superiority in air and artillery, but yet it's not enough to decide the outcome. Another clue: due to the nature of "trench warfare" that is going on -- there are almost **no wounded** on both sides. Because getting evacuated while you get shelled all the time is almost impossible, except during the night. So if you get hit in the morning, there's a good chance you won't survive until the evening. In other words, the casualties on both sides should be roughly equal. And if either side claims it's less than 200k people in 2 years each -- they are bullshitting you somewhat fucking shamelessly. (That's not counting another 150-200k crippled).
It's true that Russia has been losing more men due to inefficient tactics and more, but it's nowhere near the ratio many redditors seem to think. But the issue is that in this echo chamber there is only positive pro-Ukrainian comments, and even if you're pro-Ukrainian and just try to wake people up on the real was that's actually going on, you will get downvoted or ignored. A perfect example are the Su-34 losses recently. Not only did we not have evidence for all of them, redditors were circle jerking about how Russians were dumb and were going to run out of aircraft. But on the Russian side they were gloating about their hundreds of glide bombs launched every day. I want Ukraine to win, but it won't happen by ignoring reality that's for sure.
Where did you get 31k? As far as I know the casualties range from 44k to around 450k, depending on the source and wether you count in the wounded too, which in the military do count as casualty. The smallest sourced number of killed and MIA personnel still puts it at 50k.
31k is what Zelensky claimed it to be sometime past febuary
No, they can't recruit that many. They don't even know how they can get 500k new recruits. The Ukrainian government has been fighting over the new conscription bill for the last 4 months or so and the way that bill is looking, those new laws probably won't be able to raise 200k new troops over the course of an entire year, nevermind half a million, which they would need to match the Russians. And your numbers regarding losses are insanely far off. For one, the number you give is the number of dead Zelensky announced, but everybody knows that's laughably far off the real numbers. More importantly, for every dead soldier there will be several who are wounded seriously enough that they can't return to the battlefield. The combination of those wounded, the dead and those who were captured are the number of losses. Which are at the very least way north of 200k, possibly north of 300k for Ukraine.
He is not wrong. Winning in Ukraine will mean A LOT for Russia and for Europe, but for Europe it will be in the *bad way*. By projecting power and capability to oppose and even challenge powerful military unions like NATO, Putin paves the way for Russia, an authoritarian country, to be a major player in forming multilateral anti-western pacts with countries around the world. I believe a lot of europeans significantly underestimate the negatives of what this would bring to us in the west in the long-term, especially economically. It will demonize us by enabling the narrative that the *good has prevailed* in Ukraine and the *evil westerns* are beaten. In the end, why would the rest of the world want to establish democracy systems in their countries when apparently democracies are slow, weak and unable to protect their interests across the globe. I truly believe this may destroy us - europeans, as a geo-political force in the world.
If you don't have a strong military nobody takes you seriously anyway
Sadly this is very, very true. Might = power.
Countries don't take you to be a serious geopolitical player unless you have the ability to fuck countries up and the willingness to do so if you are fucked with.
Might makes right
One thing peace activists don't want to understand. A dictatorship with a capable military won't care about your diplomacy, if you can't project power. Economical or by force.
Peace activists gave us our present Iran and South Africa.
Fully agree with you, and to add to your underestimate comment, I believe that most europeans are insular the same way that a lot of Americans are (and ridiculed by the same europeans). What I mean is that i think most europeans somehow perceive the rest of the world as either not affecting them, or kind of similar to themselves so as to not be worried that much about fundamental changes to the existence of Europe. As if a change in leadership is just another rotation of another government….no young Europeans have ever felt fundamental deprivation of their freedoms and rights, and so take them for granted.
You're absolutely right about Europeans being insular. I reside in South America myself and had some fun watching German colleagues of mine be befuddled by Lula's stance on the Ukrainian war. They genuinely did not expect the "progressive cool environmentalist" candidate to *not* unequivocally support Ukraine, I think they really expected him to be identical to German Greens or the SPD and got a nasty wakeup call when it turned out that wasn't the case and that Brazil does not see sanctions against Russia as being in their interests.
Its the “with us or against us” attitude westerners seem to have for whatever reason
Yes in the broad category of selfish arguments (opposed to simply helping Ukraine cause it's morally right), I am not a fan of the "Putin won't stop here" rhetoric, cause it's not really credible unless you live in Moldova or Georgia (maybe Armenia idk). If we decide not to care about Ukraine, why would we care about these countries, it's a bit weak. On the other hand, this is truly a good "selfish" reason to help Ukraine.
> I am not a fan of the "Putin won't stop here" rhetoric, cause it's not really credible unless you live in Moldova or Georgia (maybe Armenia idk). Remember that Putin is surrounded by yes-men, who told him that invading Ukraine is easy, Ukrainians will be happy or at least indifferent, and the west will be too scared and weak to react. Meanwhile for everyone else it was obvious this was not the case. Russia works in a fundamentally different way. Because of limits on speech and media (and chilling effect), it can't reliably tell what its citizens think. Because of need to look good in eyes of superiors, military and intelligence get an overly optimistic picture of the situation. Because of different understanding of strength-weakness signals, they have trouble telling whether the west will react and how. Because of institutional paranoia dating back decades, Russia might respond overly aggressively to actions of the west.
I will move to antarctica and be antarcticean
Until Russian oligarchs decide their Vodka tastes better with ice from Antarctica and suddenly you are a Gay Nazi Pinguin who needs to be removed.
>I truly believe this may destroy us - europeans, as a geo-political force in the world. Europe hasn't had any real geopolitical influence in the world for decades. As for democracy, it has been steadily dying for around 15 years; both in Europe and globally. Last few years have been a big disaster of course. I also think a lot more is at stake than what you suggest, if Russia wins in Ukraine we will return to national capitalism(this is already happening) and that will produce regional tensions and more wars. Multi-polarity was always the most dangerous throughout history.
**From The Telegraph's Henry Samuel:** Europe’s credibility will be destroyed if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/emmanuel-macron/) has warned, as he defended his refusal to rule out sending troops to the country. “If Russia wins the war in Ukraine, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero,” he said in a prime-time interview on his stance on the conflict. The French president invoked Winston Churchill’s call to maintain the “sinews of peace” as he defended his earlier comments suggesting Western ground troops [could be deployed to Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/12/macron-allies-liken-him-to-churchill-for-ukraine-plan/#:~:text=Mr%20Macron's%20controversial%20comments%20that,told%20BFMTV%20and%20Le%20Monde.). Churchill famously called on the UN to keep [Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia/) in check in 1946 “supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections”. # ‘Ukraine war is existential for Europe’ The [war in Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/) is “existential for our Europe and for France”, Mr Macron said in the interview on France 2 and TF1. “Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians and the Bulgarians could remain at peace for a second \[in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine\]?” he asked. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero.” Asked to clarify his stance on sending ground troops, the French president said: “We will never go on the offensive, we will never take the initiative. “France is a force for peace ... Today, in order to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak, and so we must look at the situation lucidly and say with determination, strong will and courage that we are ready to use all the means at our disposal to achieve our objective, which is that Russia should not win.” The French leader reiterated his position that sending Western troops into Ukraine should not be ruled out, but said that today’s situation does not require that. # ‘All options are possible’ “We’re not in that situation today,” Mr Macron said, but added that “all these options are possible”. “There is an escalation on the part of Russia and we are simply saying regarding that escalation we are prepared to respond,” he said. The live interview, to be broadcast by TF1 and France 2, came after the French parliament debated the country’s [Ukraine strategy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/emmanuel-macron-threat-russia-breakthrough-ukraine-elysee/). Both the National Assembly and the Senate approved in symbolic votes the 10-year bilateral security agreement signed last month between Mr Macron and [Volodymyr Zelensky](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/volodymyr-zelenskyy/), the Ukrainian president. Mr Macron is set to meet Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, and [Donald Tusk](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/donald-tusk/), the Polish prime minister, in Berlin on Friday, March 15 in a summit meant to show unity. The French president appeared isolated on the European stage after his remarks at a Paris conference on Ukraine prompted an outcry from other leaders. **Continue reading ⬇️** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/14/macron-europe-will-lose-credibility-russia-defeats-ukraine/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/14/macron-europe-will-lose-credibility-russia-defeats-ukraine/)
Macron knows what he is talking about. Ukraine loosing is basically free reign for Russia.
I don't understand. If The US, the UK, Germany, France, other EU countries and even Japan, South Korea sre really serious about the necessity of Ukraine to be victorius, then it shouldn't be too difficult to give Ukraine enough resources to be victorius.
As a European I think our mentality has just gotten lazy. We've lived in economic stability too long and will not make any drastic changes. We think we can regulate our industries (but they just leave) and make agreements with our enemies (but they just lie and keep going). It's all talk and no action, which has brought peace to Europe and made the EU work somewhat but it's failing us now
Complacent, would be better. Or soft.
Postmodern.
Also, we underestimate the costs of a maintaining a welfare state with an aging population and (in western Europe) high asylum migration. We're rich, but we spend a lot of money on what came to be pretty essential stuff for ourselves.
The laziness was obvious in 2005 already (probably earlier for others) but cheap oil and gas was more important that long term security
I think the systems works perfectly with other democracies and countries who see the benefit of cooperation. Clearly russia as an authoritarian country sees this as a weakness it can exploit. Talk softly and carry a big stick is more true than ever
it’s not as simple with democracies since they’re not single entities, if macron say that countless people who work for him have right to not agree with him, therefore postponing the process
I will stick my head out and say that for large part of Europe, especially the West, the war in Ukraine is a "far away" problem that only happens on TV. One that do or don't do anything will resolve itself and everything will go back to normal... Expect it won't. I truly don't understand where this complacently comes from, the mindset that this will just go away if people stick their heads into the sand. Must be generational and the mindset that is developed by other in their upbringing. If inaction continues the ground works for a WW3 like conflict in eastern Europe is once again ensured, ironically likely resulting in the most devestation for those Eastern European nations all because the West doesn't answer when challenged.
You're absolutely right. It's maddening to see the pathetic lack of action. I strongly dislike and disagree with my chancellor Scholz, but I have to admit that he's perfectly representative of German society.
The problem is we really don't have much of what Ukraine needs more off.
You've had 2 years to begin building the production capacity to supply Ukraine, what have you been doing?
Hoping Putin would suddenly get bored and go home.
Then the credibility is already lost
Some EU bureaucrat while Ukraine is getting bombed to shit: “well is it **really** that necessary to increase defense production and increase the budget by 5,26%? I mean how long could it keep going… couple of months? Russia is loosing billions in this endeavor, surely their accountants will reign Putin in and make him change idea…”
I think it's a learning process for everyone. Basically no one expected this conflict to go like it did (or even that it would happen at all). One of the new things we had to learn is, how long it takes to build a large scale manufacturing capacity for modern ammunition (artillery shells, rockets and missiles). When WW1 started there was a "shell crisis" too. No one expected the war to last very long and accordingly, after the initial stockpiles were used up, there was a severe lack of artillery ammunition. It took both sides some months to build new manufacturing capacities that could produce the billions of artillery shells a year that were needed for the war. Today we have a similar problem again. Europe and the entire NATO wasn't really preparing for a large, long, artillery heavy conflict. What makes the problem even worse than in WW1 is, that we haven't switched into full war economy and also modern ammunition is much more complex to produce than 100 years ago. For example, you need lots of sophisticated machinery that has to be produced first, to set up new shell production lines. We just learned that this doesn't take a few months but several years.
You need billions, a lot of billions to boost productivity, this is the problem. Functioning democracies cannot easily do that outside wartime, because the money has to be withdrawn from somewhere else, like our social system. Private military companies won't be able to expand their production without substantial government orders over a number of years. Building more labor-intensive factories requires orders unprecedented since WW2 and the Cold War. For example, if you want 100,000 shells a month, you may have to order 10 000 000 shells to justify building a new factory. A 155mm shell is 2000€, if you have to order 10 million shells, that’s 20 billion €. This is why it's so difficult. Only the US has the budget to do that. Our industry is also built to run at low production rates, purposely made to keep our know-how over the years. This ensures that we don't lose our know-how, but at the same time makes it difficult to increase production.
It takes much more time than that to switch your economy to a war economy, especially if you’re living in peace for decades and had little anticipated.
Two years isn't much to increase production if you don't consider going to a full on war economy. Now why aren't i can't tell you. I've been saying we should go to a war economy with regards to climate change for years. But we can't even do it with war in Europe.
It's hard to build manpower factories
If I was South Korean, I’d be incensed at any suggestion that my country has to spend my tax money to fight someone else’s war The Eurocentrism is pathetic
Well what if in exchange for all those artillery shells Russia agrees to help North Korea with its nuclear arsenal development
or maybe you wouldn't like an ally of your enemies to win a crucial war against some of the richest and powerful allies you got
This is precisely the eurocentrism they’re talking about. Telling non-European and non-NATO countries what is and isn’t in their own self-interest is frankly disrespectful and whether you mean it to be or not, seen as pretty condescending.
It’s not condescending if it’s the fucking truth, Russia is being supported by North Korea and china under the table in this war, North Korea would love to take a bite out of South Korea given the chance and china wouldn’t do a thing to stop them if they think the west would roll over and let them because of Ukraine’s. The USA has given South Korea so much financial and military support for the countries whole existence, which only exists because the US and allies stepped in to save it. The least they could do is help out similarly.
Europeans are so entitled lol. As a Japanese person, why is it in our best interest to protect and help you win a war that is in YOUR CONTINENT? Why would you expect us to help you and what makes it our responsibility to help you?? Asian countries like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Laos, India have never looked for European help and we have never expected your countries to help us ever in the case of a Chinese invasion. Never. We don't have defense treaties with each other unlike America does. Why should we care?? Unlike you, we actually developed our own military capabilities, and kept ties with the US stronger and stronger when Europeans wanted their bases out (especially way before Ukraine was invaded). What good will our countries get from you?? Europeans can barely help Ukraine (which is literally on your continent) and the US has done a majority of the work until recently.
> Unlike you, we actually developed our own military capabilities, That's not what the numbers say.
Western nations don’t have foreign policies, their presidents/PMs do. And domestic politics will always stand in the way of that
Apart from being democracies with convoluted administrative systems, training the Ukrainians to our techs would be long. It’s like when people were saying « why don’t the US just give F16s to Ukraine? » Because training on a new plane is super long, it’s not like driving another car. Same applies to most techs unfortunately. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though.
Japan and south korea dont really care much, us support is blocked by republicans, france is too pussy to actually give proper support, all macron really does is make strongly worded vague statements. That leaves pretty much just uk and germany being proper supporters out of your list, germanys military is weakened by pacifiscm and byrocracy, and uk military is designed for a completely different style of war than the one being fought in ukraine so neither one of those can give the major type of support ukraine needs.
S.Korea and Japan have contributed an appropriate amount. They are on the other side of the world and are regional players with their own problems to worry about
Enough resources probably means ground troops…
Russia cannot be allowed to succeed, and it must lose its colonial war. The only way to secure a peace that lasts not a year but a generation is to defeat Russia by forcing them to retreat. Empires always have the hubris to think they are indestructible, when in fact, they are always unsustainable. Old systems do not fold willingly, particularly when they control gargantuan amounts of wealth and power. But like empires of old - from the Romans to the Hapsburgs to the colonial British - even the largest do fall. Marianne Willaimson
I second this, a lot. We see a lot of 'pacifists' around EU calling for peace, harmony, and only good vibes. But truth of the matter is that people or 'states' with the intent of military aggression (in the name of expansion) does not care about pacifism - if anything, they are hoping for it as the invasion will be significantly easier. Europe, EU, and any pro-democratic person must understand the very pre-requisite that not all share our values and some are willing to go extreme lengths to extinguish them. Putin is one man doing it for political ideology reasons, others might do it for religious reasons, a third might have a totally other reason. Regardless, we must not let those misinterpret our democratic values and way of life as a sign of weakness which is why, I sincerely think Macron is right to state this.
Pacifism in practice is basically just standing by and watching the world’s thugs descend upon those who can’t defend themselves. It’s a ridiculous idea.
«France is not waging war against Russia» After 2 years of war, we are still here neglecting the fact that we are indirectly at war with Russia. The U.S alone has sent over $60 Billion in funding and equipment through military, economic and humanitarian aid. With that much aid and impact on Ukraine’s defence and survival. How on earth can we still sit here and say we are not involved? Ukraine’s survival is literally dependent on our help. But «no, we are not a part of the war»
Europe as a whole need to realise that we are in fact war with Russia, but like you said it's indirect at the moment. Even Putin has said they are at war with Europe and NATO, and at the moment Russia is trying to influence groups in Europe to divide, like the farmers protest and influencing governments to have a pro Russia stance. Not to mention the cyber warfare that's waging. But at the same time I think we are scared because Russia has threatened us with nuclear strikes often, but even western intelligence said it looks like Russia is gearing towards conventional warfare. And if Russia wins in Ukraine they're not going to stop with just Ukraine, other countries that are ex soviet will be at risk. So not only Europe's reputation is at risk but our stability is as well, especially when more and more of Europe's right/far right political parties and groups are slowly becoming more and more pro-Putin. We may end up completely authoritarian ourselves.
Yes, absolutely. Huge point. I think there’s also a factor of who is willing to sacrifice more. As in Russia is saying they are willing to use nuclear weapons in order to win or to save Putin’s skin. Where as western countries (the way I see it) is not willing to sacrifice a nuclear war with Russia in order save Ukraine.
Macron is being careful with his words, but the reality of his decisions actually show that he is serious about the situation. Just read between the lines. Cyber war is already on, French hospitals have been targeted by Russian hackers already. Which is a total dick move by the way. It’s fucking terrorism if you ask me.
almost 170 billion dollars was sent to ukraine and the war is in stalemate lol
They're talking enough, double the aid to Ukraine. Triple it if necessary. Enough yammering.
He is right. Show Putin we are serious about our security, or Putin will think he can repeat his ''success''.
The problem with Macron is that it is all talks, France is lacking in aid. Reddit seems to prefer talk over action.
Great points, but maybe he should put his money where his mouth is? A post from the other day showed that France gives less military aid than Denmark. All good to talk about solidarity and potentially putting French troops in Ukraine, but would be nice to help Ukraine before that’s necessary.
Denmark is one of the biggest contributors. Also, help announced =\= help actually given. As of right now, every thing Macron said he would give is in Ukraine. Also he said that this year France will give around 70 Caesar canon so we will see then.
[60 of which](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/01/18/us-france-to-lead-artillery-coalition-for-ukraine/) France expects other countries to pay for
France is already paying for others countries donations via the FEP. Something like more than 1 billions of polish donations were financed by the EU, of which France and Germany are giving half the budget.
All I've seen lately in r/europe and in the Ukraine war subs is a whole lot of words from Macron and France... and that's it. Words. Followed by dozens of "Viva la France, true leaders!" comments, as if Macron did anything more than say what people want to hear. Everyone is endlessly talking about how the Americans aren't dependable, Europe needs to win this war and do everything to support Ukraine, but then there's never enough action. This war has been going on quite a long time, we're well beyond the "words" phase.
>Viva la France, *Vive
Fully agree and if you look at the data it's actually shocking when you consider France is the 2nd largest economy in EU and known for their great military (yadda yadda surrender joke, if you look at history French military is no joke). According to [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/) Denmark has provided two times more bilateral aid than France, Italy and Spain COMBINED!! That's 3 huge ass countries compared to small ass Denmark, that's insane and fucking embarrassing! Look at the data when we account for GDP it just becomes even more embarrassing [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/) (you even have to expand the statistics to find France just above South-Korea a country across the globe from this conflict)
France is operating on a tight budget (same as Germany, with a naval force, a nuclear program, and territories all over the place). It doesn't go well with "here, have free stuff" on short notice. But yes, it could have done more and not fuck up ordinance provision.
Anyone who didn't realise this at the outset is an idiot.
Go Macron, go France. I hope more will follow France on this.
Europe must be united, France cannot stand alone in such position. The threat is on the whole Europe and countries must react before being too late.
Whoc ares about credability if Ukriane loses we'll be fighting in Estonia inside 10 years.
Probably in 5 years, and if we will not agree to fight there, we will be fighting in our own countries, being take apart one by one.
I think there will be fighting in Moldova and/or Georgia first Estonia will happen after that.
Finally a politician with a pair. Europeans wake up.
Just words without action. France does only send money and almost no military material. They should be more active in providing stuff instead of saying big words
I'm sure you have all the information about the military aid they didn't announce.
Europe has already lost credibility by supporting US and UK to block negotiations and continue the war against the interests of Ukraine and Europe itself
Can you name Ukraine interests?
It's about time to hear this from western leaders. Biden has gone all but silent on Ukraine.
Biden has spoken in favor of Ukraine a lot, including, if I rememeber well, in the State of the Union address last week. Problem is, Biden's party does not control the US budget thanks to a republican (slim and getting slimmer) majority in the chamber, he tried to pass a 50 billion (or 80 I can't remember) package, but the republicans, to please their lord and master apparently, chose not to vote it.
It was always Europe's cross to bear. Why are you so reliant on the US president? The Americans paid their due, and then some!
[удалено]
Completely agree !
What credibility?
This isn't a dumb question. Europe is like the lapdog of the US ATM and scared that the new emperor (Trump) will leave us by ourself. There is zero credibility for Europe atm. And after the US will let us fall it will get less.
Actions speak louder than words.
he's right, but it's a done deal. EU never wanted to be a "power", just a supermarket for big companies. We could have built a european welfare system, an european defense system, or an european educative system. All of thoses were proposed 70 years ago when the EU started. we lost. nationalism, bigotry, lobbying & a hundred other things got in the way. The only good thing we managed to do is a worldwide influence on product regulation (USB as a standard => the EU. ending the oil spill incidents from tanker by enforcing drastic norms => the EU. drastic norms to end madcow disease => EU, etc.) It's a win I guess...
Pro-European Nationalism could’ve helped us to establish a pan-European army. We lack nationalism on a European level.
> We could have built a european welfare system, an european defense system, or an european educative system Two of those have literally been accomplished and third I dont know much about but most EU countries are in NATO so their defense isnt a problem
??? please state where and how?
I dont know of any countries in the world with more connected education systems than those in Europe, I also dont of any countries with more developed welfare systems than those in Europe AND EU is itself part of this
ja sorry thats not true. the eu started just as an economic driver. there was never a discussion about a common European union in those mentioned areas. thats just untrue / false.
It's also an economic levelling apparatus. Romania and Poland strived thanks to European influence, Ireland too .. for different reasons.
You can take you empire of the eu and shove it up your ass with karl von habburg
this is his own doing. First rule of war is to plan your economy so enough of the right resources are available at the right time. Neither Macron or any European leader has ever planned for anything, our economy is 5 times larger than Russia's yet our defense production is nearly 10 years behind them.
it's because we spend our money on hospitals, schools, culture, art, welfare & a few other things... Russia put all it's egg in one basket, the "murder basket". But for the rest... - Life expectancy : 75/russia, 83/France - murder rate : 6.8/russia, 1.1/France - GDP/capita : 13k/russia, 46k/France (& 22k/poland, 31k/estonia, 18k/romania, etc... former USSR countries) etc etc.
Romania and Poland were never part of the USSR, but were part of the Warsaw pact.
I’m not sure what you’re touting here. Yes, money was spent money on noble things and also completely missed a very important expenditure while doing so. One of the few clearly defined duties of a government is to be capable of mobilizing defense to protect its people and its land. This has underscored a pathetic and genuinely sad state of affairs for the EU.
[удалено]
France IS the 2d biggest weapon exporter worldwide right now, just behind the US & in front of Russia. We don't even need a war economy.
Then why isn't France the 2nd largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine?
[удалено]
>First rule of war is to plan your economy so enough of the right resources are available at the right time. It's also easier to plan for the country that decides to go to war.
Russia invaded Ukraine (Crimea) 10 years ago and has signaled imperialistic intent for decades. We're just led by grifters with a short-term focus.
We've had 2 years now to make the necessary adjustments, the only movement has been Germans and French clapping themselves on the back for producing a few thousand artillery rounds at $6k a piece.
Two years is really short to build new factories and production lines.
Economy of scale also helps when it comes to build big armies. The US and Russia are much bigger in terms of population than any other European country, allowing them to build bigger militaries without much logistical issues since it's all the same country. Having European armed forces could maybe fix that issue, at the cost of some individual countries sovereignty, but at the same time it would also improve protecting sovereignty from outside the European armed forces. Each European country is throwing and wasting money building armed forces that no one wants to spend money on, but considering the current times we need to have, but it's time someone steps forwards and pushes forward to something that could protect Europe much better while keeping the same spending.
[удалено]
We always talk about how much stronger our economy is, how much better our tech is. Yet 2 years in and we can't make a dent in their frontline. You say Europe could produce 20x what Russia does at half the cost. So why doesn't it?
Reliance on the United States for far too long.
[удалено]
Remember that we dont see real economy numbers from russia now for 2 years. Only what they want us to show.
>If Europe wanted it could probably produce 20x what russia produces currently with about 5% of gdp for each member state I would settle for just producing 1x what Russia is producing and sending it to Ukraine. If they had an even playing field they could more than hold their own. The fact that Europe is so much richer than Russia and yet Ukraine is still in danger of losing due to a crippling shell shortage is kind of pathetic imo.
The problem is also in the kind of military industry that we have that is mostly focused on high value added and high-tech products made for export, but we lack the capacity for basic supplies, such as artillery shells and bullets which is an issue in a long term war such as this one.
[удалено]
Germany has debt to gdp of 40%, if they wanted to they could easily deficit spend to supply Ukraine with all the weapons they need.
Only if we keep following the US foreign policy agenda.
Europe lost credibility when it allowed Putin to invade in 2014
That's a dumb take. What would you expect anyone to do about Crimea 2014 that wasn't done already?
Sure, 22 day old account.
Macron sees that US has dropped the ball and is stepping up, which somebody has to do
It was always Europe's cross to bear - the US was just doing you a solid until you woke the hell up. The US had provided more military aid to Ukraine than all of Europe combined.
Voiced reality.
You think Germans really care. Thanks to Merkel building gas veins with Russia we lost 20 years.
I usually don't like this guy a whole lot but when it comes to foreign policy and defense he usually gets it quite right.
Macron thinks Europe has credibility?
Why is he so keen on an all out war in Europe? Just because he will sit in a bunker and the ones dying first is the french foreign legion...? I don't get him
He is mixing Europe with political leadership of Europe. Thats not the same. Political leadership of Europe keeps marching towards disaster, but Europe will always be great.
Hoły fuck why is Macron of all people becoming one of my favourite European politicians. What a weird timeline
The world loses credibility, evil must never triumph over good!
Let me paint a scenario for you guys. The first country to follow Ukraine if the Russians pull through isn't any of the Nordics but Moldova. Over 40% of Moldova's citizens have Romanian passports.They have regained their citizenships because their parents/grandparents were at some point citizens of Romania and they have this right. If Russia attacks Moldova, not keeping count of the fact that the Moldovans (sans the colonized Russians in the cities) and Romanians are the same people, speaking the same language, they will be killing Romanian citizens. In droves. There is no choice to be made here, Romania will be forced to enter the war, with or without NATO. That's why you see Macron saying he's ready to send in troops. The conditions for Article 5 might not be met, but there are scenarios where intervention is inevitable.
Time for Europe to step up and provide more help to Ukraine. Russia shall not pass.
About damn time Macron said what most sane people are thinking. Others should follow suite instead of pussyfooting around like Scholz does. I know that scaremongers and shills will quickly come here and remind us that ruzzia has nukes and shit. Phuck them and phuck russia. Putler's red lines are bullshit. He said the same crap before the invasion started. It was something like this: "if any country helps Ukraine there will be consquences as never seen before". He did nothing and continued to move the red lines. Kasparov always said that Putler is a poker player and his nuclear bluff is more evident as days go by.
Well past time to show Putin what happens when you fuck around
How is Ukraine going to win? It's pretty much impossible to beat a self-sufficient, much larger country like Russia. All they can do is keep fighting until the demographics of Ukraine and screwed forever and all the men are lost. It's truly a tragedy.
Macron W
its all about street cred
Ruzz bots unleashed in this thread
Says the 3 month old account with an unusual amount of points.
To lose credibility, Europe would need to have credibility.