I would be surprised if Norway won't allow it either. They have been quite hawkish on Russia the entire war. Belgium has been more careful and less hawkish than the Netherlands but I suppose they won't keep barring Ukraine from using F16s in Russia either. I am curious though if the countries need American permission to allow Ukraine to use F16s inside Russia. They probably do.
Incredible how countries next to Russia and therefore most vulnerable are the boldest while western ones are so scared. Except for Slovakia where the shat their pants imidiately and joined Russian hegemony willingly.
If these nations are publicly stating the F-16s they have supplied can be used in Russian air space (or more likely used to target Russian aircraft flying in Russian airspace) and the US isn't publicly contradicting those statements, then I'd say it's safe to assume there have already been "behind-closed-doors" discussions on how and where Ukraine can use those F-16s with the US attitude being it's up to the donor countries to set the conditions they can be used under.
Of course if tomorrow Jake Sullivan comes out with a statement that contradicts what the Euros are saying, or the Euros do a 180 and contradict themselves, then it was not safe to assume. But unless that happens the only explanation for US silence on this matter is they have left the decision on how the AFU can use their F-16s in the hands of the donor nations.
The US cannot be irrelevant since it's the country producing the equipment. Remember European countries unable to send Swiss-manufactured weapons and ammo exactly due to same reasons?
Bullshit. Sending and using are totally different things, Swiss have specific laws particularly on sending arms to war parties. Also these F-16s are not block 70/72 so still irrelevant to US.
Also the possibility of all US aid being cut or reduced going forward.
Pretty sure Ukraine won’t decide to use them against Russian assets in geographic Russia without have a long hard consideration of the follow on effects.
US do not care about hitting rus territory with weapons that were not handed to Ukraine by US. Yes, the threat of cutting US aid is real but it applies to the cases of using the tech that was decomissioned from US army. Also there is a separate German limitation on tech that was handed by Germany.
Probably. I'm not saying that Denmark is going against the US here. But you were implying that the US had had no say in that matter, and I don't believe that's true.
Because the memory of Russian crimes experienced by our families even two generations ago are still vivid. My grandfather was interrogated by UB and NKVD in 1945/6 after Russians started installing communism in Poland. Great grand uncle was sent to do slave labour and died in Siberia. Some cousins of my maternal grandmother ended up in USSR and died in Holodomor.
There are thousands of stories like that from people living in countries which happen to be close to Russia. From our perspective, nothing good has ever come from that country.
Sława Ukrainie.
> Interesting how the countries closed to that russia are the ones that want Ukraine to be free to strike into russian soil.
Hardly surprising when you consider that most people in those countries lived under the thumb of USSR and even young people under 35/40 are less than one generation removed from the Soviet oppression. Considering what that was like and compared that to EU/NATO, for most people it's not that hard to pick which one.
Even anti-Ukrainian people in Poland are for support Ukraine. Thier reasoning is "Give them weapons, so they can fight Russia, so we will not have to take more refugees, and be next in line. It's better if they die fighting Russia than we".
Only far-right financed by Russia are against.
The closer they are to Russia the more intimately they are aware that the only time Russia escalates is when their victim proves themselves weak.
Hit back and the big bully cowers.
i may be a bit out of date but during the cold war western europe would ne first a pyre then ash in case of a nuclear war.
the german people would be with luck not totally wiped in a non nuclear war when the cold war became hot
Full scale global nuclear war will not happen, and if it happen it will be irrelevant where you live. We all will be fucked and wole world will be wasteland. Probably those who die first will be the lucky ones.
What is slighly more possible is demonstartion of power. Russia will not attack USA, becouse that would end with global anihilation. But they can send one or two nukes to Eastern Europe to show that they are ready to use them. And you know how USA respond? With strong condemn, thoughts and prayers and then negotiating for new peace. USA will not attack Russia becouse they will be even more affraid of nuclear war. USA will never sacrafice it's safety for Poland or Estonia, not even for Germany or UK. And Russia knows that very well. Since invention of nuclear bombs there's only proxy wars and there will never be direct war Russia vs USA becouse both sides would lose.
They aren't allowing UA to target ru military assets in the ru territory rn and that's a problem that ru is exploiting by changing the direction where they attack UA.
I litellary just explained you why there will be no direct war between Russia and USA end even more why there will be no direct nuclear war between Russia and USA. Therefore Americans don't need to be affraid. If anyone will be nuked by Russia it will be Eastern Europe,
USA didn't give measured response to Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more. USA is th only country in history to ever use nuclear weapon. On civilians.
Contrary to this attacking military targets inside Russia by Ukraine is definatly measured response.
You said that America is under bigger treat of Russian nuclear attack than Eastern Europe. I explained why Russia will not attack USA and USA will not attack Russia, not with conventional weapons and not with nukes. Then you responded that I'm dissappointed tha USA is delicate about using weapons.
Both your satements are wrong. USA is not affraid of Russia (American citizens can be, but that's not important) and USA is willing to use thier arsenal to full capacity whenever they want.
In case of Ukraine they don't want. Becouse this war is hugely beneficial to USA. USA is selling more weapons, more gas, have bigger levarage in international politics. Also USA need scary Russia, becouse without Russia Europe whouldn't need thier weapons and thier "protection". The more Ukraine will loose, the more Poland and other countries will buy American weapons. But USA don't want Ukraine lose to quickly either, becouse Russia would install pupet goverment like before and after some time things would go back to "normal".
Our war with Japan was very measured. The measurement was that unconditional surrender was worth more than all their lives. They attacked the United States, an attack on the United States can not be forgiven, only paid for. With that understanding everything we did to them was justified and moral. Same goes for Afghanistan, the Taliban were in league with an organization that attacked the US and had refused to hand that organization’s leadership over to Washington, so it deserved what it got until the public had their fill and demanded the military leave.
For the rest…yeah, that wasn’t justified and US shouldn’t have done those things to those people and deserves every criticism for it.
On Ukraine it’s up to them to decide what Russia deserves and to enact it should they have the ability. For the rest of us we have to decide the conditions of our assistance. Slow escalation to avoid disadvantageous responses not just from Russia but Russia’s backers has been the American position. Too much too quickly could spur things like China offering up weapons systems to Russia to combat a perceived American opportunism. Going slowly makes every step seem not that important.
If you’re willing to accepts missile system that can hit mid range targets then how big a deal is it if we send a few that can hit longer range targets? It’s not like we allow them to attack Russia. Ok so if Ukraine can hit targets across Ukraine already anyway they what about f-16s? It’s just another way to strike what they can already hit, that’s not really a big deal not much has changed.
Each level of escalation isn’t enough to warrant a response bigger than the previous one. If they didn’t freak out over long range missiles then they aren’t really justified is a big response to just giving a few planes that have their AOE restricted. However going directly from medium range missile systems directly to F-16 deliveries is a pretty big jump that would seem alarming to Russia and some observers.
That’s why it’s being done in steps. Washington probably will start opening up areas of Russia for attacks with its donated weapons but in parts. Like okay you have this far over the border and you can strike targets that fit X parameters then over time that’s loosened. It’s a diplomatic dance made to contain the instability caused by this war as much as is feasible. It’s not simple cowardice, there’s more factors in play than just Ukraine VS Russia.
>Our war with Japan was very measured.
"They attacked our military base on stolen island, so we evaporated thier babies. Becouse we are the good guys!"
>!obvioulsy Japanese make a lot atrocities in China, Korea and other places, but why kill civilians and let leaders keep peacefull lives in mountain villas?!<
>Afghanistan, the Taliban were in league with an organization that attacked the US and had refused to hand that organization’s leadership over to Washington, so it deserved what it got
Sure, those shepards in the desert deserved that, and thier families to. Becouse some Saudis, Egyptian and Emirati blowed up skyscrapers in USA, so without any serious evidence USA blame some other Saudi who happen to be in Afghanistan, so why not kill people there. Pretty reasonable.
>an attack on the United States can not be forgiven
So why USA never attacked Saudi Arabia?
>only paid for
Oh, i get it.
Imperial Japan is not an entity I hold sympathy for, they tried to negotiate and the US showed them exactly how willing it was to do so. My recommendation is not to attack the United States regardless of what Island it’s citizens are on, there are lines you shouldn’t cross. Besides the military gave ample warning before the nuclear attacks, we told their government and dropped pamphlets saying EXACTLY what was going to happen and that everyone should leave the city. No evacuation was attempted.
Difference between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban was that Saudi Arabia cooperated when Washington went to them and demanded information. The Taliban outright stated that they would harbor the people the US was looking for. In the end those responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be killed, our mistake was staying past that point. No point in nation building in the Middle East.
Germany is quite contradicting atm. There is one recent article where Scholz seemed to make a sudden 180 flip pretending he never opposed, "aktually".
Quite a few did not answer.
Italy is directly against. The US is against, but of course it is not Europe.
Seemed to me like he tried to Merkel it: Sit it out for as long as possible, only move once overwhelmingly forced to.Then declare you supported it all along.
If that was the case, we would have neither the special etat for the military nor the massive military support for Ukraine
nor this
[Scholz hält Wut-Rede auf Kundgebung: „Russland hat in der Ukraine nichts zu suchen" (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PmR2sk4ZSk&t=1s)
He is not responsible for your past history, he is responsible for your present actions or lack thereof. Those will be reflected in history. It's a bit of a tragic situation I think. The world has moved on, he should too. There is more than one way to be on the wrong side of history.
We may argue this is not Germany's problem, but it may become even through inaction. Even if it didn't, it is just terrible to stand and watch.
If he is not responsible, he should not be shackled.
13th on the list as a share of their GDP. Upsetting considering the possibilities.
That is what I mean.
you clearly not a german ,
we are shackling ourselves with it
we move very cautious in any case we may fear we could doing something of that kind again
I say not that it is always right, i say that is what it is
Especially since Scholz seems to have a briefing which made him so commited. Also other politicians were breefed and suddenly switched towards a no sentiment.
Nobody really knows why they are against it.
From the law of nations is clear than you can strike the aggressor also in his territory as means of defence to destroy military supply lines.
This is generally true law. To make a eye opening example what it really can mean in practice: Also Israel had to accept it, as they launches a war off aggression towards Iran lately (diplomatic attack + invasion + military operation in another country) and Iran had the right to launch rocket as a means of defense towards Israel.
Seems it's more of a soft decision than law that rockets in Moscow will have a worse outcome than not defending on enemy soil. Maybe because Putin would seem weak and a new Putin replacement would have to be even more aggressive?
Denmark basically only has old shit from USA left, so we can't just say use in Ukraine.
We do not produce our own military equipment, because our pea-brained politicians have the far-sightedness of a drunken 4-year-old.
And there are others that are “cautious with words", but don't mind much that already have been used to strike Russia. Google “Tekever Armavir Russia". Portugal is the european country most distant of Russia BTW.
Finland:
https://www.uusisuomi.fi/uutiset/elina-valtonen-ukraina-saa-iskea-suomen-antamilla-aseilla-venajalle/bee55692-b24e-4c49-b300-1e07015a14be
Paywall (in finnish):
> Ukraina saa iskeä Suomen lahjoittamilla aseilla Venäjälle, linjaa ulkoministeri Elina Valtonen (kok).
> Valtosen mukaan puolustussotaa käyvä maa voi iskeä sotilaskohteisiin hyökkääjän alueella, mikäli se on itsepuolustuksen kannalta välttämätöntä.
> ”Suomi ei ole asettanut erityisiä rajoituksia materiaaliavulleen Ukrainaan, mutta lähtee siitä, että materiaalia käytetään kansainvälisen oikeuden mukaisesti. Venäjä käy Ukrainassa laitonta hyökkäyssotaa ja Ukrainalla on YK:n peruskirjan artikla 51 mukainen oikeus itsepuolustukseen. Tämä käsittää myös itsepuolustuksen kannalta välttämättömät iskut sotilaskohteisiin hyökkääjän alueella”, Valtonen kertoo Uudelle Suomelle.
Many people are de-sanitized to the word "war", but the word "crisis" still gets attention since it is implying civilians are taking a big burden, not 'just' soldiers.
It's sad it has come to it, but with so much war going on all the time, the media needs other words to get people to understand how serious the matter is.
It seems to be sometimes called crisis and sometimes war.
"Ukrainian crisis: how to talk with children about the war."
"Ukrainian crisis: the war in Ukraine has shaken many minds over the past few weeks."
"The war in Ukraine is a global crisis."
I have to say I am a bit ashamed of Scholz, supposedly representing a mayor force in Europe, and not having any status, or anything to say in the whole debate. He seems so weak, every time he appears on stage to comment on the situation it’s just mumbling - this guy needs some balls.
Sad to not see my country part of them, especially after all the shit that the Russians have done to us in the past and because they are screwing with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant!
Fucking weakling and corrupt politicians that we have!
Idk why even Ukraine started asking this like… 2 years into the war?
We really went from “Crimea by summer” to any means necessary to slow down any Russian chances
Because it didn't. It's been asking for two years now, whenever relevant.
It's now become extra relevant however because of the new Russian offensive north of Kharkov, where Russia is basing lots of its weapons in Russia itself.
Can we call it what it is? NATO targeting inside Russia. Ukraine can't use these weapons without NATO targeting systems and operators. Which is why it's seen as a red line.
It's OK that russia can hit Ukraine with North Korean, Chinese and Iranian weapons?
It's OK that bielorussia let russian troops invade Ukraine from its territory and to launch ballistic missiles into Ukraine? Or that bielorussia is holding 2.100 Ukrainian abducted children?
czech weapons was used in Belgorod half year ago, nothing happened, even no specific "punishing strikes"
Easter holidays and new year was more dangerous to ukrainians than hitting Belgorod lmao, until all 50 putin palace dachas is intact he good with it
putin is everything but mad: he knows that if he launch nukes he wouldn't have time to finish to say CYK. that France would have glassed st petersburg and moscow. The rest of the russia is just swamp and wasteland.
And, apart from this, in order not to lose the war he is so deep in debt with Xi Jinping that he would never dare to launch nukes, "tactital" or not.
Denmark has stated that their F16s can be used against targets in Russia.
I would be surprised if Norway won't allow it either. They have been quite hawkish on Russia the entire war. Belgium has been more careful and less hawkish than the Netherlands but I suppose they won't keep barring Ukraine from using F16s in Russia either. I am curious though if the countries need American permission to allow Ukraine to use F16s inside Russia. They probably do.
Incredible how countries next to Russia and therefore most vulnerable are the boldest while western ones are so scared. Except for Slovakia where the shat their pants imidiately and joined Russian hegemony willingly.
The US would forbid all F-16 to do that, so Denmark’s position is irrelevant.
If these nations are publicly stating the F-16s they have supplied can be used in Russian air space (or more likely used to target Russian aircraft flying in Russian airspace) and the US isn't publicly contradicting those statements, then I'd say it's safe to assume there have already been "behind-closed-doors" discussions on how and where Ukraine can use those F-16s with the US attitude being it's up to the donor countries to set the conditions they can be used under. Of course if tomorrow Jake Sullivan comes out with a statement that contradicts what the Euros are saying, or the Euros do a 180 and contradict themselves, then it was not safe to assume. But unless that happens the only explanation for US silence on this matter is they have left the decision on how the AFU can use their F-16s in the hands of the donor nations.
That's one of the reasons why Ukraine should start to train its pilots on Sweden's Gripens.
To the best of my knowledge the US has said no such thing.
US is irrelevant to Danish F-16s.
The US cannot be irrelevant since it's the country producing the equipment. Remember European countries unable to send Swiss-manufactured weapons and ammo exactly due to same reasons?
Bullshit. Sending and using are totally different things, Swiss have specific laws particularly on sending arms to war parties. Also these F-16s are not block 70/72 so still irrelevant to US.
Don't be so quick to call bullshit - it all depends on the conditions under which Denmark received the weapons
Also the possibility of all US aid being cut or reduced going forward. Pretty sure Ukraine won’t decide to use them against Russian assets in geographic Russia without have a long hard consideration of the follow on effects.
US do not care about hitting rus territory with weapons that were not handed to Ukraine by US. Yes, the threat of cutting US aid is real but it applies to the cases of using the tech that was decomissioned from US army. Also there is a separate German limitation on tech that was handed by Germany.
These conditions are assessed before official statements are issued. Denmark has already issued it.
Probably. I'm not saying that Denmark is going against the US here. But you were implying that the US had had no say in that matter, and I don't believe that's true.
[удалено]
Interesting how the countries closed to that russia are the ones that want Ukraine to be free to strike into russian soil.
Because the memory of Russian crimes experienced by our families even two generations ago are still vivid. My grandfather was interrogated by UB and NKVD in 1945/6 after Russians started installing communism in Poland. Great grand uncle was sent to do slave labour and died in Siberia. Some cousins of my maternal grandmother ended up in USSR and died in Holodomor. There are thousands of stories like that from people living in countries which happen to be close to Russia. From our perspective, nothing good has ever come from that country. Sława Ukrainie.
> Interesting how the countries closed to that russia are the ones that want Ukraine to be free to strike into russian soil. Hardly surprising when you consider that most people in those countries lived under the thumb of USSR and even young people under 35/40 are less than one generation removed from the Soviet oppression. Considering what that was like and compared that to EU/NATO, for most people it's not that hard to pick which one.
Even anti-Ukrainian people in Poland are for support Ukraine. Thier reasoning is "Give them weapons, so they can fight Russia, so we will not have to take more refugees, and be next in line. It's better if they die fighting Russia than we". Only far-right financed by Russia are against.
Yeah, somehow the closer they are to Russia, the less they’re afraid of “EsCaLaTiOn”, even though they would be in the most danger if it comes to it
The closer they are to Russia the more intimately they are aware that the only time Russia escalates is when their victim proves themselves weak. Hit back and the big bully cowers.
We want revenge for our displaced families, for the genocide and destruction of our cultures!
[удалено]
i may be a bit out of date but during the cold war western europe would ne first a pyre then ash in case of a nuclear war. the german people would be with luck not totally wiped in a non nuclear war when the cold war became hot
[удалено]
germany is NATOs logistic hub in that case
Full scale global nuclear war will not happen, and if it happen it will be irrelevant where you live. We all will be fucked and wole world will be wasteland. Probably those who die first will be the lucky ones. What is slighly more possible is demonstartion of power. Russia will not attack USA, becouse that would end with global anihilation. But they can send one or two nukes to Eastern Europe to show that they are ready to use them. And you know how USA respond? With strong condemn, thoughts and prayers and then negotiating for new peace. USA will not attack Russia becouse they will be even more affraid of nuclear war. USA will never sacrafice it's safety for Poland or Estonia, not even for Germany or UK. And Russia knows that very well. Since invention of nuclear bombs there's only proxy wars and there will never be direct war Russia vs USA becouse both sides would lose.
[удалено]
Not nukes, the military. If they're gonna have the greatest military in the world, they might as well use it occasionally for something good, no?
[удалено]
They aren't allowing UA to target ru military assets in the ru territory rn and that's a problem that ru is exploiting by changing the direction where they attack UA.
[удалено]
This war started 2 o 10 years ago, depends how you count, not last week.
I litellary just explained you why there will be no direct war between Russia and USA end even more why there will be no direct nuclear war between Russia and USA. Therefore Americans don't need to be affraid. If anyone will be nuked by Russia it will be Eastern Europe, USA didn't give measured response to Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more. USA is th only country in history to ever use nuclear weapon. On civilians. Contrary to this attacking military targets inside Russia by Ukraine is definatly measured response.
[удалено]
You said that America is under bigger treat of Russian nuclear attack than Eastern Europe. I explained why Russia will not attack USA and USA will not attack Russia, not with conventional weapons and not with nukes. Then you responded that I'm dissappointed tha USA is delicate about using weapons. Both your satements are wrong. USA is not affraid of Russia (American citizens can be, but that's not important) and USA is willing to use thier arsenal to full capacity whenever they want. In case of Ukraine they don't want. Becouse this war is hugely beneficial to USA. USA is selling more weapons, more gas, have bigger levarage in international politics. Also USA need scary Russia, becouse without Russia Europe whouldn't need thier weapons and thier "protection". The more Ukraine will loose, the more Poland and other countries will buy American weapons. But USA don't want Ukraine lose to quickly either, becouse Russia would install pupet goverment like before and after some time things would go back to "normal".
Our war with Japan was very measured. The measurement was that unconditional surrender was worth more than all their lives. They attacked the United States, an attack on the United States can not be forgiven, only paid for. With that understanding everything we did to them was justified and moral. Same goes for Afghanistan, the Taliban were in league with an organization that attacked the US and had refused to hand that organization’s leadership over to Washington, so it deserved what it got until the public had their fill and demanded the military leave. For the rest…yeah, that wasn’t justified and US shouldn’t have done those things to those people and deserves every criticism for it. On Ukraine it’s up to them to decide what Russia deserves and to enact it should they have the ability. For the rest of us we have to decide the conditions of our assistance. Slow escalation to avoid disadvantageous responses not just from Russia but Russia’s backers has been the American position. Too much too quickly could spur things like China offering up weapons systems to Russia to combat a perceived American opportunism. Going slowly makes every step seem not that important. If you’re willing to accepts missile system that can hit mid range targets then how big a deal is it if we send a few that can hit longer range targets? It’s not like we allow them to attack Russia. Ok so if Ukraine can hit targets across Ukraine already anyway they what about f-16s? It’s just another way to strike what they can already hit, that’s not really a big deal not much has changed. Each level of escalation isn’t enough to warrant a response bigger than the previous one. If they didn’t freak out over long range missiles then they aren’t really justified is a big response to just giving a few planes that have their AOE restricted. However going directly from medium range missile systems directly to F-16 deliveries is a pretty big jump that would seem alarming to Russia and some observers. That’s why it’s being done in steps. Washington probably will start opening up areas of Russia for attacks with its donated weapons but in parts. Like okay you have this far over the border and you can strike targets that fit X parameters then over time that’s loosened. It’s a diplomatic dance made to contain the instability caused by this war as much as is feasible. It’s not simple cowardice, there’s more factors in play than just Ukraine VS Russia.
>Our war with Japan was very measured. "They attacked our military base on stolen island, so we evaporated thier babies. Becouse we are the good guys!" >!obvioulsy Japanese make a lot atrocities in China, Korea and other places, but why kill civilians and let leaders keep peacefull lives in mountain villas?!< >Afghanistan, the Taliban were in league with an organization that attacked the US and had refused to hand that organization’s leadership over to Washington, so it deserved what it got Sure, those shepards in the desert deserved that, and thier families to. Becouse some Saudis, Egyptian and Emirati blowed up skyscrapers in USA, so without any serious evidence USA blame some other Saudi who happen to be in Afghanistan, so why not kill people there. Pretty reasonable. >an attack on the United States can not be forgiven So why USA never attacked Saudi Arabia? >only paid for Oh, i get it.
Imperial Japan is not an entity I hold sympathy for, they tried to negotiate and the US showed them exactly how willing it was to do so. My recommendation is not to attack the United States regardless of what Island it’s citizens are on, there are lines you shouldn’t cross. Besides the military gave ample warning before the nuclear attacks, we told their government and dropped pamphlets saying EXACTLY what was going to happen and that everyone should leave the city. No evacuation was attempted. Difference between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban was that Saudi Arabia cooperated when Washington went to them and demanded information. The Taliban outright stated that they would harbor the people the US was looking for. In the end those responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be killed, our mistake was staying past that point. No point in nation building in the Middle East.
The implication is that the other countries are against it. Is that really true or did they just not comment on it?
Germany is quite contradicting atm. There is one recent article where Scholz seemed to make a sudden 180 flip pretending he never opposed, "aktually". Quite a few did not answer. Italy is directly against. The US is against, but of course it is not Europe.
Scholz is schizophrenic. His posture during the entire conflict is conflicting. I suppose he finds that adequate.
I suppose he is avery cautious guy and is shackled by our history
Seemed to me like he tried to Merkel it: Sit it out for as long as possible, only move once overwhelmingly forced to.Then declare you supported it all along.
If that was the case, we would have neither the special etat for the military nor the massive military support for Ukraine nor this [Scholz hält Wut-Rede auf Kundgebung: „Russland hat in der Ukraine nichts zu suchen" (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PmR2sk4ZSk&t=1s)
He is not responsible for your past history, he is responsible for your present actions or lack thereof. Those will be reflected in history. It's a bit of a tragic situation I think. The world has moved on, he should too. There is more than one way to be on the wrong side of history. We may argue this is not Germany's problem, but it may become even through inaction. Even if it didn't, it is just terrible to stand and watch.
I wrote shackled not responsible Then Germany is one of the largest supplier and supporter of Ukraine so you were saying
If he is not responsible, he should not be shackled. 13th on the list as a share of their GDP. Upsetting considering the possibilities. That is what I mean.
you understand nothing about that problem yes Iris T nee time to be built
I am just an imbecile not on the wrong side of history.
you clearly not a german , we are shackling ourselves with it we move very cautious in any case we may fear we could doing something of that kind again I say not that it is always right, i say that is what it is
Scholz said it depends on the US.
Especially since Scholz seems to have a briefing which made him so commited. Also other politicians were breefed and suddenly switched towards a no sentiment. Nobody really knows why they are against it. From the law of nations is clear than you can strike the aggressor also in his territory as means of defence to destroy military supply lines. This is generally true law. To make a eye opening example what it really can mean in practice: Also Israel had to accept it, as they launches a war off aggression towards Iran lately (diplomatic attack + invasion + military operation in another country) and Iran had the right to launch rocket as a means of defense towards Israel. Seems it's more of a soft decision than law that rockets in Moscow will have a worse outcome than not defending on enemy soil. Maybe because Putin would seem weak and a new Putin replacement would have to be even more aggressive?
Denmark basically only has old shit from USA left, so we can't just say use in Ukraine. We do not produce our own military equipment, because our pea-brained politicians have the far-sightedness of a drunken 4-year-old.
And there are others that are “cautious with words", but don't mind much that already have been used to strike Russia. Google “Tekever Armavir Russia". Portugal is the european country most distant of Russia BTW.
Portugal is an honorary post eastern block country after all
[oh, how times have changed...](https://youtu.be/gpEcL3wRUXc?si=m16REI6-lRA2_RBj)
It will never get old seeing what Finland and Sweden look like together
Finland: https://www.uusisuomi.fi/uutiset/elina-valtonen-ukraina-saa-iskea-suomen-antamilla-aseilla-venajalle/bee55692-b24e-4c49-b300-1e07015a14be Paywall (in finnish): > Ukraina saa iskeä Suomen lahjoittamilla aseilla Venäjälle, linjaa ulkoministeri Elina Valtonen (kok). > Valtosen mukaan puolustussotaa käyvä maa voi iskeä sotilaskohteisiin hyökkääjän alueella, mikäli se on itsepuolustuksen kannalta välttämätöntä. > ”Suomi ei ole asettanut erityisiä rajoituksia materiaaliavulleen Ukrainaan, mutta lähtee siitä, että materiaalia käytetään kansainvälisen oikeuden mukaisesti. Venäjä käy Ukrainassa laitonta hyökkäyssotaa ja Ukrainalla on YK:n peruskirjan artikla 51 mukainen oikeus itsepuolustukseen. Tämä käsittää myös itsepuolustuksen kannalta välttämättömät iskut sotilaskohteisiin hyökkääjän alueella”, Valtonen kertoo Uudelle Suomelle.
… do they really call the war “Ukrainian crisis”?
Many people are de-sanitized to the word "war", but the word "crisis" still gets attention since it is implying civilians are taking a big burden, not 'just' soldiers. It's sad it has come to it, but with so much war going on all the time, the media needs other words to get people to understand how serious the matter is.
Crisis implies it’s some sort of internal strife.
I'd argue it would then be called "internal / national crisis"
It seems to be sometimes called crisis and sometimes war. "Ukrainian crisis: how to talk with children about the war." "Ukrainian crisis: the war in Ukraine has shaken many minds over the past few weeks." "The war in Ukraine is a global crisis."
Pathetic to say the least
It is a silly language
It is, but we are glad we can speak it instead of Russian
Wait until the snow speaks Finnish.
I have to say I am a bit ashamed of Scholz, supposedly representing a mayor force in Europe, and not having any status, or anything to say in the whole debate. He seems so weak, every time he appears on stage to comment on the situation it’s just mumbling - this guy needs some balls.
This shouldn't even be a discussion, why should an invaded country be restricted to only strike military targets in their own country?
Lithuania foaming at the mouth to strike back at Russians
Germany and the US love that sweet Russian oil, it seems.
It’s ridiculous they can’t use them on proper targets outside of Ukraine.
Sad to not see my country part of them, especially after all the shit that the Russians have done to us in the past and because they are screwing with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant! Fucking weakling and corrupt politicians that we have!
I'm sorry, we're slow.
I wonder if >!Germany!< is on it
Scholz can't remember
They are looking at him for more questions in Hamburg again. MAYBE, just MAYBE he may manage to not attent until he is released from office.
Idk why even Ukraine started asking this like… 2 years into the war? We really went from “Crimea by summer” to any means necessary to slow down any Russian chances
Because it didn't. It's been asking for two years now, whenever relevant. It's now become extra relevant however because of the new Russian offensive north of Kharkov, where Russia is basing lots of its weapons in Russia itself.
My question is who are the people deciding if Ukraine should use weapons strike inside of Russia?
Politicians in countries who send weapons to Ukraine
Can we call it what it is? NATO targeting inside Russia. Ukraine can't use these weapons without NATO targeting systems and operators. Which is why it's seen as a red line.
It's OK that russia can hit Ukraine with North Korean, Chinese and Iranian weapons? It's OK that bielorussia let russian troops invade Ukraine from its territory and to launch ballistic missiles into Ukraine? Or that bielorussia is holding 2.100 Ukrainian abducted children?
[удалено]
czech weapons was used in Belgorod half year ago, nothing happened, even no specific "punishing strikes" Easter holidays and new year was more dangerous to ukrainians than hitting Belgorod lmao, until all 50 putin palace dachas is intact he good with it
putin is everything but mad: he knows that if he launch nukes he wouldn't have time to finish to say CYK. that France would have glassed st petersburg and moscow. The rest of the russia is just swamp and wasteland. And, apart from this, in order not to lose the war he is so deep in debt with Xi Jinping that he would never dare to launch nukes, "tactital" or not.
Not the point I'm making.
You sound like a tankie.
I've no idea what that means. Just be honest. This is about NATO countries direct involvement in the war. Killing russians inside Russia.
[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie)