Comment on UK to build 12 nuclear submarines in preparation for potential war with Russia
echodot@feddit.uk 3 weeks agoOh God there are so many problems with your response where do I even start?
lots of the latest negotiations (with the US) seem to involve Russia gaining territory in any peace agreement.
That’s just Trump doing Trump things, it’s got no basis in reality. You cannot have a negotiation where one of the parties is not present. Anything agreed with Russia will not be enforced by the international community. This has already been condemned by pretty much everyone else in the western world so I don’t know why you brought it up.
they’re switching over to a fully wartime economy, so they’re in it for the long haul.
So? They are at war so obviously they are switching over to a wartime economy. That doesn’t indicate any intention to attack NATO.
Ukraine, even with all the western weapons, is treading water.
They are hardly getting given the latest stuff. Meanwhile Russia is Fielding Soviet era tanks. I think will be okay.
Just to demonstrate what I mean, the estimated military casualties for the Soviet Union in WW2 was around 8.6 million. And then they won.
Firstly that was 60 years ago and wasn’t under the auspices of Putin. Who is widely regarded as a nut case. Secondly they wouldn’t have won had it not been for the allied forces having already severely hammered the Nazis.
Throwing meat into the grinder is not a tactic, it’s just desperation.
cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Trump is the president of the most powerful country in the world, for the next 3 years. His team will be doing the negotiating, so he has a lot of power here.
Tell that to Palestine, or literally any country in Africa. Negotiations between superpowers don’t take into account the needs of the proxy countries.
It doesn’t need to be enforced by the international community. If Trump hands the Donbas to Russia, the various other NATO members aren’t going to do shit.
I don’t really want to get into the points about equipment because that’s well outside my wheelhouse, but I’ve heard all sorts of conflicting stuff about that.
You don’t switch over to a wartime economy for a limited military operation. You do it because you think the war is going to last a long time, just like the UK seems to think in this article.
I disagree, the Nazis had taken the whole of Western Europe by that point, then the Battle of Stalingrad meant that they had to divert a load of forces from the West, making a push from the West possible.
echodot@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Please stop okay it’s dunning-kruger at its finest.
Any agreement of a ceasefire has to be ratified by NATO if it isn’t ratified by NATO then it doesn’t happen. So Trump and Putin can have their little play acting session but it’s not going to result in anything because no one will ratify it if Ukraine isn’t part of the negotiations. America it’d been big is irrelevant.
What’s America going to do to enforce their version of the ceasefire, if Ukraine disagrees with it if the rest of NATO disagree with it? NATO will continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine will continue to use those weapons. And Trump will do what?
cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Says the person who just confidently stated that the Nazis were losing in Western Europe before the Soviet counteroffensive.
To state the obvious, the US has an outsized influence in NATO. Yes, there’s a legal mechanism where other NATO countries could continue sending weapons to Ukraine after a US-brokered ceasefire. But in practice this will never happen. I challenge you to name one time that all the non-US NATO members voted in favour of a war that the US was against.
A superpower being big is never irrelevant. That’s why history is shaped by their actions.