I have to think that with Ukraine's EU application being voted on in a few hours, this has changed the calculus. How I dont know but I have a hard time believing they admit UK into the EU only for them to not help militarily. Makes zero sense
Hitler didn't have nukes, and western Europe wasn't already committed to the common defense through NATO. You really need to let go of the Nazi analogies. It's a truly terrible comparison.
There's a world of difference between blockading a Soviet client state and taking direct military action against a nuclear-armed Russia.
I posted an article earlier today with Fiona Hill who takes this position. She says Putin will use whats at his disposal and he wants the whole world to know it. She also says that we are in WWIII but are failing to accept it. Its a good interview with pretty much our governments top Russia intelligenista.
They are also apparently using cluster bombs and thermobarics indiscriminately against civilian locations.
Yes, they have the pilots to fly them and they need air support to take out Russian convoys.
Nuclear deterrence is supposed to work both ways -- Putin shouldn't be allowed to commit crimes against humanity in Ukraine because he has nukes. It is spineless that Western powers won't support Ukraine when NATO itself consists of 3 nuclear powers.
I saw that. Hill made some good points, but I disagreed with a lot of her comparisons to WWII. The implication there being that taking decisive military action against Putin early is necessary to prevent atrocity later. Russia's ability to wage a conventional war (or even to occupy Ukraine!) isn't remotely comparable to the war machine that Nazi Germany built, and once nukes are on the table, the calculus is radically different.
Not to side track the discussion, but this is an interesting article on chip manufacturing.
Since the Cold War began, these are the unwritten rules of MAD:
Then you "sell" a few dozen drones to Ukraine and let CIA operators fly them if need be. This shit really isn't that complicated. Either you're willing to stand up to Putin now, or you're willing to let him conquer any territory that isn't a part of NATO.
It was truly shocking to me that we had satellite images of a 40 mile convoy rolling towards Kyiv to destroy everything and no one was willing to do anything to stop it. Building on your drone point, I refuse to believe that NATO powers have no covert options to support Ukraine militarily. At a certain point, the public understanding will shift from "we stand with Ukraine" to the reality that we feel bad but it's "below our line."
That's doable. They've got plenty of our equipment already, and providing them with some "consultants" to train their military on properly operating it is SOP.
With the current state of satellite and surveillance technology, it is harder than ever to take covert military action that isn't easily identifiable as a US operation. I'm certain we had American drone pilots in Germany who were itching to light that column up. But that's not meaningfully different than sending an AC-130 with a giant American flag painted on the side to destroy it. It would be an open declaration of war against a nuclear-armed opponent, which is something we simply do not do under the current rules of engagement. Has nothing to do with a lack of concern for Ukraine.
Ukraine has at least a dozen or more Turkish made UAVs.
I'm sort of here.
