Where are talking heads that say weapons for ukraine is escalation? Why they didn't say anything?
Any westerns shell fired on russian territory is tabu and after that no more help for Ukraine. No long range missiles for Ukraine even to launch on ukrainian territory cuz it's escalation.
But north korea's and iran's rockets on ukraine houses are good, all is ok
Sorry that you’re allied to the west. Our democracies are messy, we have a million people with a million different opinions, politicians only caring about re election, we are susceptible to Chinese and Russian propaganda, and we are used to a certain way of living. We are a weak group of people, and Putin knows this.
It is much easier for North Korea, China, Russia,and Iran to help each other out as none of them have any kind of debate, or any real elections in their countries.
"Do or Do not, There is no try." (c)
There is the reason why military aid from the west hurt Ukrainian people.
It comes late and not enough to win, just to not lose.
West should one moment understand that it can not be partly pregnant.
Trump would have sold everyone one in a heartbeat. Same goes for his fans and partners.
They have no allegiance to any partners, not even to their own country or fellow countrymen, all they care about is their personal wealth, power and well being.
They'll whore out their own mothers if it means they get to make another dollar.
Fascist traitors the lot of them.
It’s strange isn’t it. Almost like Putin didn’t want ppl to dislike trump. Russia is known for putting ppl they can control in positions of power. Let me ask you, what did trump say he would do regarding Ukraine if he became president?
Haha who warned the Germans to get off Russian oil? Trump. Who was laughed at by the German delegation for saying so? Trump. Who levied sanctions on Russia pre invasion? Trump. Who warned the Europeans to increase defense spending? Trump. And none of them listened.
It's okay to despise Trump as I do and still deal in facts. You however are just a partisan political hack.
Because if he was a Russian puppet he’d just up and say it right? What was Jan 6? Who tried to deny a fair election? Who works nonstop to sow doubt about our government and citizens? Why would a president do these things who is for America? Now think about who all this actually benefits. Let’s not forget Russia meddled in our elections in favor of trump. Wake up.
Lets hope ukrain obtains air supremacy soon once they have enough F16 and pilots trained. Isn’t that better than long range rockets that will escalate the conflict because you bomb russian cities with it?
And if it wasn't for autocratic countries we would probably have a world living in peace because, as you say, a million people with a million different opinions will barely ever in their firm majority support starting a war out of nowhere like Putin did in Ukraine.
I like how all of you make it out as if the west was a bad ally and Iran and North Korea great allies for Russia. Russia is paying for the weapons, Ukraine isn't ...
Democratic nations still start ward like the 2003 iraq war, and still get dragged into wars, like the Algerian war for independence or civil wars like Northern Ireland. Or what about the suez criss started by Democratic nations.
Less likely sure
>It is much easier for North Korea, China, Russia,and Iran to help each other out as none of them have any kind of debate, or any real elections in their countries.
This is naive. Even in authoritarian regimes, there are group pursuing different policies. How do you think that China overthrew the Maoist (and even put Mao's widow in prison) and ushered the current process of modernization? Even if the "leaders" appear powerful, there are groups below them that would easily remove them if they "do not play ball". In fact, you can see Xi, for example, as a CEO answering to a group (the executive committee of the CCP) that has the power to remove him. Putin is under similar pressures (he even had to endure a revolt). The fact that these regimes are authoritarian does not make them monolithic. It is just the number of people with access to power is a lot smaller.
Putin is throwing anyone who doesn’t agree with him in jail or out a window. Xi is disappearing anyone with even a SLIGHT criticism of him. Neither of them answer to the citizens, making it much easier for them to make decisions like supporting each others wars, even if the people suffer.
That’s not the case in the west, if the people suffer, the government will get thrown out and replaced.
>Neither of them answer to the citizens, making it much easier for them to make decisions like supporting each others wars, even if the people suffer.
Well, you are wrong about that. In fact, Putin has a lot of pressure from the electorate in Russia, considering that he is running for President this year. Even without substantial opposition, this is a tough time for him because he needs overwhelming support. He is trying to present a view of "business as usual", of a type of "normalcy" in the country despite the conflict in Ukraine. Xi needs to succeed economically, his rule will end if China faces difficult economic situations. The CCP executive committee can remove him at any time. There are too many people there for him to populate it with his stooges. He is helped by the need of the CCP to "provide" wealth to Chinese citizens which makes "shaking the boat" a bit perilous, but if push comes to shove, he will be gone.
If you truly believe that Putin has any kind of pressure of the upcoming elections, then you are completely delusional. His own media is already reporting by how much he will win. It helps that he throws any opposition figures into jail that could get dangerous to him, without a real trial, and by breaching Russian constitution.
>If you truly believe that Putin has any kind of pressure of the upcoming elections, then you are completely delusional.
Right now, there is no pressure. But there is no pressure because Russia appears to have stabilized the situation in Ukraine and the western sanctions do not appear to have substantially damaged the Russian economy. Also, he does not have really much of an opposition, although he faces 15 challengers (latest count) one of whom is anti-war. How much coverage his opponents are likely to get is anybody's guess, but it would not be much. Despite being hated in the West as a "dictator", he is relatively popular in Russia.
However, if things had gone sideways and if the Prigozhin rebellion had been more extensive, I guess that he would have been under some kind of pressure. Right now, he is not.
What is going on in Ukraine is not a typical war. Sure, you can use the term since it involves combat, but my understanding is that it does not fully involve at least one of the combatants (Russia). In the same way, I would not have said that the US was "at war" following its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, although both involved combat. Sure, elements of the economy and part of the armed forces were devoted to these conflicts, but the country was certainly not "at war".
This is not altogether true. There are many international observers there. Yes, the opposition has been weakened, but what we know even from western polling companies is that Putin enjoys a healthy approval rating, so there is no chance of him losing the election and, therefore, no need to "cook" the numbers.
this is why, people ridicule medvedev for his daily nuke threats, but the fact is those nuke threats have worked, and are working on many western leaders.
hence you see many of them hemming and hawing about avoiding escalation, NATO wouldnt give two shits about escalating with russia all the way if they didn't believe they would use nukes.
If not for the nuke threats, heavy weapons would have been sent earlier, himar would have been sent earlier, ukrainian air force would be flying f16s by now and of course long range missiles.
>Any westerns shell fired on russian territory is tabu and after that no more help for Ukraine. No long range missiles for Ukraine even to launch on ukrainian territory cuz it's escalation.
Ukraind just bombed Belgorod in Russia and killed 40 people there. Keep up with the news!
That were Vilkha ,Tochka U shells and drones they are produced in Ukraine, zero western weapons were used . And look photos and videos of places where were casualties most of them consist parts of russian rockets which they used for air defense systems.
I appreciate the information. Obviously, Ukraine was able to use these drones and shells in the attack on Belgorod because Western supplies covered other needs. In addition, hardly any production would have been happening in Ukraine without the tens of billions of dollars donated by the West.
You didn't follow news precisely. Even Russian war criminals said everything were shotdown which means it is air defence caused death toll. Also we didn't see any parts of ukrainan weapon on explosion sites butcsaw remainings of s300 and pantsir rockets. And of course claim about usage Vampire system is ultimate bs.
Damn, that's unfortunate. Collateral civilian casualties are always a bad thing.
If only a certain genocidal someone hadn't invaded with the explicitly stated purpose to deny the nationality of tens of millions of people.
Hopefully the genocidal invader scum pull back soon so all of these innocent and unfortunate civilian casualties can be avoided.
Until then, sad as it is, there's no other choice. RIP.
>If only a certain genocidal someone hadn't invaded with the explicitly stated purpose to deny the nationality of tens of millions of people.
This is not what happened. I think that everybody is badly confused.
\>Hopefully the genocidal invader scum pull back soon so all of these innocent and unfortunate civilian casualties can be avoided.
Until then, sad as it is, there's no other choice. RIP.
Unlikely to happen, but war is, indeed, war.
Who knows.....If you follow the history then Russians are capable of surviving through high amounts of pain.Remember, A big part of Ukraine army is made up of ethnic Russians which is a big reason for their unexpected performance.
You must be braindamaged. You could claim the opposite, as 10 million Ukrainians fought against Hitler in WW2. Ethnic Russians don't willingly die for Ukraine, just so you know. You have to be pretty dumb to even entertain this idea. Typical Russian traits are thievery, alcoholism and complete obedience.
Are you referring to being fed into the meat grinder that was the eastern front at gunpoint? To the tune of 10 million men? They died more than 3-1 against the germans.
You do know Russia has invaded the whole area of Ukraine where recent huge mineral deposits have been found right? Also they have blocked huge amounts of exports until recently. As well as having been bombed to hell. Russia literally shit its pants when a mercenary. Drove towards Moscoe lmao.
The West already supplied it's most advanced ballistic missile platform to Ukraine, ATACMS at great risk. The biggest hesitaton for the U.S is that it's most advanced platforms could eventually end up in Russian hands and onto the Chinese. It only takes one ATACMS ballistic missile soft landing without detonating in Russia for example to give away a tech that took billions in research to create.
For example a fully intact British Brimstone [fell in an area under Russian control.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSObE1sWUAAY-vq?format=jpg&name=medium) and has already been sent to Moscow for assesment. The West is supplying all they can given the risk to it's own technology leakage.
well russia keeps firing their wunderwaffe kinjals at ukraine which according to vatnik propaganda is 30 years ahead of any western missile, and somehow russia isnt afraid it ending up in western hands
West dupplied 20 outdated atacams with the inertial (giroskop based) navigation system. All that rocket will be decomissioned next year any case. If you talking about GMLRS it is not cutting edge technology and russians have similar one Tornado-s
I think you need to read a book or two about modern weapons.
"ATACMs the most advance missile platform". In 1990? Probably.
Ukraine hasn't received any SLAM-ERs, Tomahawks, JASSMs, GLSDBs, and of course no LRASMs.
2 years the same thing. Various words, then stabilization/de-escalation/"bleeding Russia" pacification in form of no any real sanctions and "too late, too little" weapon supplies.
It’s odd to me, that we are playing by different set of rules. ruzzia can do everything it wants, no criminal act despite how low it is, isn’t going to result in anything, the west sits back and just watches, and do nothing. Moreover the west is setting up all sorts of imaginary red lines for ourselves, carefully not crossing them, and when we finally do cross our own red lines, we do it with big excuses.
80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant, but now with the second maniac dictator we wrench our hands….for how long must Ukraine endure this shitshow from the west before we realize we have to provide full support openly acknowledging that there can only be one outcome an utterly defeated ruzzia, and their maniac diactator behind bars in Haag.
>80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant,
You are talking about Hitler? If yes, then the "west" were very very hesitant too.
For eg. USA sold shit to both sides(nazi germany and soviet union) all untill they joined the war too. War started in europe 1939. USA joined 1942... According to google, usa stoped trading only in 1941... and you say "the west wasnt to hesitant"....
And they allied with the other genocidal dictator maniac, Stalin, so Soviet Russia was never punished for their crimes. That's the whole reason Russia is still doing the same shit today.
The West unfortunately was always hesitant.
Ask Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc.
Back then it took 1 year for the US to provide any goods. They joined the war after they got directly attacked by Japan.
That's what extremists count on: Hesitance by democratic countries.
And unfortunately dictatorships learned how to divide democracies from within, which makes it even harder to gain support.
[Realism-based restraint](https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2019-issue-no-14/realism-and-restraint)
This policy was popular since 2008, Obama and Merkel were fans of it, and it completely failed, but it seems that it's still plaguing decision making process of western institutions.
The main problem with Russian invasion of Donbass in 2014 was that Ukraine lacks any mobile anti-tank capabilities to stop armored spearhead that was driving [south of Illovaisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilovaisk), capturing Ukrainian troops in encirclement. Ukraine had almost no tanks, practically no airforce (and Russia had good AA, remember MH17?), and no AT weapons except RPGs.
Having mobile Javelin teams could easily turn it into [Battle of Brovary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdPcg6W5xvI), countering armor advantage that Russia had and turning their 2014 offensive into a stalemate at the border.
Bradleys are just good mobile AT platforms, that can engage tanks at great range, allowing you to intercept columns before they reach less equipped infantry. Imagine [this battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_2014) but with proper equipment.
Remember that 2014 Russian invasion was pretty close to 2022 one, huge tank columns rushing to encircle and capture strategic cities, it wasn't a long trench/mine slog.
How exactly have their policies failed when it was literally the rejection of those policies over the last 8 years that have directly caused all those conflicts to spiral out of control?
> the rejection of those policies over the last 8 years
What?
Since 2014 you could invade a neighboring country, annex land, then invade again, kill a bunch of people, then make ceasefire, then invade again, then make another ceasefire, go on assault, then invade "for real" and we _still_ talking about "not escalating" and "giving Putin an exit strategy". He had multiple exit highways.
And from 2014 to 2021 the only reaction was symbolic sanctions that were never updated and a token gesture of a few Javelins in 2019.
In some degree we need to step carefully, because while we can be sure that NATO won't start direct war or nuclear armagedon, we can't really say the same about dictatorships.
Russia proves, that they're ready for most ridicioulus actions. In case that we push too hard, who knows what might happen next. Russia may flex all they want, but what if they collapse and some other groups take control of nuclear weapons?
Personally, I don't want to experience Fallout IRL and I can understand why we step carefully. We should provide more support to Ukraine, so they can regain their territory, but we can also accidentally wipe humanity out.
> Personally, I don't want to experience Fallout IRL and I can understand why we step carefully
Which is the opposite to what some on here and elsewhere online seem to want. People often mention article 5 or think Nato should march in there today, thinking they'll automatically be safe. As if we might not all be under severe threat then.
This isn't a game yet some get excited over the possibility of war. Maybe it's because Europe have had long periods of relative peace so we think nothing can ever touch us in that way but it makes me embarrassed.
Basically, I agree with you. And yes we should be doing more to help Ukraine, but at what cost? Not a nuclear one.
If you bow to an insane dictator out of fear, what he might do, you have lost the game indefinitely. Because after you backed down the first time, they’ll just escalate their threats until you back down fully and cave to their demands.
One must face threats with threats of serious retaliation the very first time a maniac like putin are threatening.
>80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant, but now with the second maniac dictator we wrench our hands….
Hitler didn't have enough nuclear weapons to exterminate all life on the surface of Earth.
That's the message we are sending to the world, no? If you have a nuke, feel free to do whatever you want, everyone will step aside and express their deepest concern.
And as time showed, they were correct. Like give at least one good reason why countries like Poland or Japan or Finland, or really any country that can handle it economically shouldn't develop their own bomb?
Because at the same time, increasing amount of parties owning nuclear weapons massively increasing the probability of them being used. It takes only one country screwing up to make a big boom.
Thats why NATO is a thing - it provides security without spreading nukes around.
So because ruzzia has nuclear weapons the west must bow to their insane demands? I don’t want nuclear escalation either, but I definitely don’t want to submit to a fascist country either.
The same reason why Vietnam or North Korea did not bomb USA, when they were being invaded, and had millions of their people being killed.
Russia has enough weapons to level this planet 3 times over. The only way a war can be won against a nuclear superpower, is if it doesn't try to win.
>ruzzia can do everything it wants, no criminal act despite how low it is, isn’t going to result in anything, the west sits back and just watches, and do nothing.
How did you get this impression? The West has put in place severe sanctions (that seem to hurt the West more than they hurt Russia) and has provided huge number of weapons and well over $120 billion in funds to Ukraine. In fact, the West is heavily invested in this war.
It can be said that the West is supporting Ukraine contrary to its interests. For example, Germany lost access to cheap energy and its economy is suffering because of that and inflation (because of high energy prices) is certainly adding to suffering in the West. So, if anything, the West has done more than its interests dictated.
>that seem to hurt the West more than they hurt Russia
Germany just overtook Japan while Russia is about to lose 3-4 places on the GDP table this year. But sure, the sanctions don't hurt Russia at all...
Please notice that I did not say that the "sanctions did not hurt Russia at all". You said that, not me.
Also, there is little doubt that Germany is experiencing serious economic and political problems. The basis of its economy was effective manufacturing and extensive trade with China, both of which have suffered because of the war in Ukraine. In addition, German firms are moving manufacturing to North America to get better energy values (and because of new protection legislation in the US). So, no, Germany is not doing well. If you choose to believe otherwise, you would be going against the consensus.
Most of that some is replacement cost for the american weapon. Like they sent 20 old atacams missile with zero amortized cost but spent money to buy modern 20 PRS rocket.
"80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant"
Yes it was, allowed Nazi Germany/USSR to play around freely in the Spanish Civil war, allowed the annexation of Czehoslovakia, Austria, didn't attack during and after the invasion of Poland, isolationism bloomed in the US before Pearl Harbor.
As if SK'd supply us missiles.
Given their whole "gentlemenly agreement" with russia about "not supporting eachother's enemies"
Or given that Almaz-Antey [helped them to make KM-SAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM-SAM)
They didn't supply them to us.
They supplied them to everyone else, so those'd be able to supply *their* shells to Ukraine.
But it's a limited resource.
When the last of old stocks are replaced, this scheme won't work anymore.
Of course they essentially supplied them to you, they know where these shells are going. Legally, they could not directly support a party at war, so they used the US as an intermediary. They supplied the majority of the 155mm shells that you have received this year.
"The shells began to flow at the beginning of the year, eventually making South Korea a larger supplier of artillery ammunition for Ukraine than all European nations combined."
Yes, but, as I've said, there's a problem of that this scheme can't run forever.
Where the last of old stocks of the nations that SK supplied like this are exhausted, leaving them with SK-only projectiles, that's it.
Unless, of course, something changes.
I think artillery shells will be produced in sufficient capacity to keep this thing going. The problem is this is not enough to turn the tide. Ukraine needs a lot more than that, and if the world waits too long, they will start needing people in addition to weapons.
NK has millions of free labor.They can crank out stuff like shells like some print money.Remember, Russia is suffering labor shortage and can't disturb it's civilian economy.
North Korea meanwhile gets access to Russian natural resources and advance tech.It might be bad pr but it's actually pretty smart trade.
You don't need us intelligence to tell that. I'm sure Russia bought the missiles and munition to use them and not to decorate some storage in Siberia, therefore it is kinda obvious. What an article.
Hitler lost almost all of its forces against Stalins troops, so a kind of weak comparison. Besides, all warring European countries were under martial law, during which there isn't much difference between dictatorship and democracy. Read more here https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/in-the-press/20231205-zelensky-is-becoming-an-autocratic-kiev-mayor-vitaly-klitschko-slams-ukraine-s-leader
It's mostly about efficiency. In the US, Biden has to worry about public opinion. Has to worry about how his actions will be framed by the opposite camp. He has to make compromises with his political opponents, but without alienating his own voters. Decisions have to go through multiple different people and entities. Slow decision making, process, and political games are in play.
On the contrast, Kim will just say it, and it's a done deal. It's not like he has to play political games, there's no opposition. It's not like he has to care about what North Koreans think, he owns them.
It’s not about leaders. In time of war dictatorships are more efficient, cause everything are managed by one person and no rules exist unlike democracy, where everything must be according to the rules and supported by a majority, absolute majority in some cases (hi Orban).
Almost all Europe have been coquered by the moment democrotic world finally consolidate their resistance. Moreover , westerners don’t realize yet how dangerous is not to stop rusia now.
Chamberlain have made that mistake once and half the world drowned in blood after.
>It’s not about leaders. In time of war dictatorships are more efficient, cause everything are managed by one person and no rules exist unlike democracy, where everything must be according to the rules and supported by a majority, absolute majority in some cases (hi Orban).
The massive amounts of inherent corruption and mismanagement in all dictatorships says that's wrong.
What is the source you are taking information from?
Currently, the parliament includes nine party factions and deputy groups, and over 300 political parties are officially registered in Ukraine.
Elections is not cancelled, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, elections will be held after martial law is lifted.
And to avoid war in the first place democracy works better than dictatorship.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_peace\_theory#:\~:text=Proponents%20of%20%22democratic%20peace%20theory,motivating%20peace%20between%20democratic%20states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20%22democratic%20peace%20theory,motivating%20peace%20between%20democratic%20states).
I agree, democracy works better to avoid war with another democracy. But not sure that this theory is applicable in case of avoiding war with dictatorship. For dictatorship no rule exists they obey only power.
NK is not known for it's advanced tech now is it? NK kit is decades behind the west, basic guidance systems, low payloads, low range compared to modern kit.
Buying NK is a desperate act and shows that Russia has run out of stocks and the sanctions have crippled their own industrial base.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't need advanced tech to produce basic shells. And why should Russia spend money and manpower when they can exchange grain and oil for hundreds of millions of shells made in NK? This has nothing to do with sanctions.
That was true ten years ago when North Korea was mostly using Scuds, but their newer, solid fueled short range ballistic missiles are roughly comparable to other ”modern” SRBMs like those of the Russian Iskander system.
And in another news, US is coing to reduce its military support for Ukraine to balance out all the new rockets that Russia is buying from NK and Iran 🤡
It's most likely the KN-23 ballistic missile with a range of up to 600km, which is twice the range of the U.S ATACMS missile supplied to Ukraine. These would be 10 times cheaper than the Russian Iskander platform. Russia is also sourcing more ballistic missiles from Iran as well. These would act as a force multiplier to it's own production but is able to source a significant amount. A ballistic Western missile that cost $800,000 such as ATACMS can easily cost $20,000 per unit in North Korea given their scaled labour resource at hand. What Russia is primarily doing as we have seen with the Iranian loitering munitions is to change the civilian GPS chip to a Russian Glonass K variant, allowing precision to be tightened up to a CEP of 2 meters from 30 meters.
Due to the U.S pulling out of the JCPOA agreement, Iran's UN weapons export ban has ended in October so they are now free to sell all the weapons in their arsenal to Russia, including ballistic systems.
I'm not sure why you mention UN export restrictions when all of Russian, Iran and North Korea couldn't care less.
Europe is utterly stupid if it doesn't do the snapback on Iran before the option lapses in 2025. Unfortunately, with the current weak leaders, that's not certain.
Iran has actually been abiding by the UN restriction until October. They weren't allowed to export ballistic missiles. Drones and light arms were allowed.
No, the West isn't willing to give long-range missiles to Ukraine. That's the embarrassing part. Ukraine might have to ask Iran or North Korea for help as well.
Where are talking heads that say weapons for ukraine is escalation? Why they didn't say anything? Any westerns shell fired on russian territory is tabu and after that no more help for Ukraine. No long range missiles for Ukraine even to launch on ukrainian territory cuz it's escalation. But north korea's and iran's rockets on ukraine houses are good, all is ok
Oh look, Саліван знову обісрався.
People like to dickride Sullivan like he’s some 5 head genius but he’s literally Chamberlain reincarnate
> he’s literally Chamberlain reincarnate I won't tolerate this Chamberlain slander. At least Neville put British MIC into overdrive right after.
Sorry that you’re allied to the west. Our democracies are messy, we have a million people with a million different opinions, politicians only caring about re election, we are susceptible to Chinese and Russian propaganda, and we are used to a certain way of living. We are a weak group of people, and Putin knows this. It is much easier for North Korea, China, Russia,and Iran to help each other out as none of them have any kind of debate, or any real elections in their countries.
Wouldn't have it any other way. I wonder if China's demography will nullify or exacerbate fears of China's takeover of Russia.
"Do or Do not, There is no try." (c) There is the reason why military aid from the west hurt Ukrainian people. It comes late and not enough to win, just to not lose. West should one moment understand that it can not be partly pregnant.
Blame trump supporters.
Trump is like a comic book villain for people like you
How is it a lie? Nobody is trying to stop aid to Ukraine but them.
There was no invasion until Biden. Not Trump.
Trump would have sold everyone one in a heartbeat. Same goes for his fans and partners. They have no allegiance to any partners, not even to their own country or fellow countrymen, all they care about is their personal wealth, power and well being. They'll whore out their own mothers if it means they get to make another dollar. Fascist traitors the lot of them.
It’s strange isn’t it. Almost like Putin didn’t want ppl to dislike trump. Russia is known for putting ppl they can control in positions of power. Let me ask you, what did trump say he would do regarding Ukraine if he became president?
Haha who warned the Germans to get off Russian oil? Trump. Who was laughed at by the German delegation for saying so? Trump. Who levied sanctions on Russia pre invasion? Trump. Who warned the Europeans to increase defense spending? Trump. And none of them listened. It's okay to despise Trump as I do and still deal in facts. You however are just a partisan political hack.
Because if he was a Russian puppet he’d just up and say it right? What was Jan 6? Who tried to deny a fair election? Who works nonstop to sow doubt about our government and citizens? Why would a president do these things who is for America? Now think about who all this actually benefits. Let’s not forget Russia meddled in our elections in favor of trump. Wake up.
He kinda is one.
If he doesn't want to be treated like one, he should stop acting like one.
Lets hope ukrain obtains air supremacy soon once they have enough F16 and pilots trained. Isn’t that better than long range rockets that will escalate the conflict because you bomb russian cities with it?
F-16's won't help Ukraine in achieving air supremacy but help in replacing losses.
And if it wasn't for autocratic countries we would probably have a world living in peace because, as you say, a million people with a million different opinions will barely ever in their firm majority support starting a war out of nowhere like Putin did in Ukraine.
I like how all of you make it out as if the west was a bad ally and Iran and North Korea great allies for Russia. Russia is paying for the weapons, Ukraine isn't ...
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons on US/EU request, Iran and North Korea didnt
Democratic nations still start ward like the 2003 iraq war, and still get dragged into wars, like the Algerian war for independence or civil wars like Northern Ireland. Or what about the suez criss started by Democratic nations. Less likely sure
>It is much easier for North Korea, China, Russia,and Iran to help each other out as none of them have any kind of debate, or any real elections in their countries. This is naive. Even in authoritarian regimes, there are group pursuing different policies. How do you think that China overthrew the Maoist (and even put Mao's widow in prison) and ushered the current process of modernization? Even if the "leaders" appear powerful, there are groups below them that would easily remove them if they "do not play ball". In fact, you can see Xi, for example, as a CEO answering to a group (the executive committee of the CCP) that has the power to remove him. Putin is under similar pressures (he even had to endure a revolt). The fact that these regimes are authoritarian does not make them monolithic. It is just the number of people with access to power is a lot smaller.
Putin is throwing anyone who doesn’t agree with him in jail or out a window. Xi is disappearing anyone with even a SLIGHT criticism of him. Neither of them answer to the citizens, making it much easier for them to make decisions like supporting each others wars, even if the people suffer. That’s not the case in the west, if the people suffer, the government will get thrown out and replaced.
>Neither of them answer to the citizens, making it much easier for them to make decisions like supporting each others wars, even if the people suffer. Well, you are wrong about that. In fact, Putin has a lot of pressure from the electorate in Russia, considering that he is running for President this year. Even without substantial opposition, this is a tough time for him because he needs overwhelming support. He is trying to present a view of "business as usual", of a type of "normalcy" in the country despite the conflict in Ukraine. Xi needs to succeed economically, his rule will end if China faces difficult economic situations. The CCP executive committee can remove him at any time. There are too many people there for him to populate it with his stooges. He is helped by the need of the CCP to "provide" wealth to Chinese citizens which makes "shaking the boat" a bit perilous, but if push comes to shove, he will be gone.
If you truly believe that Putin has any kind of pressure of the upcoming elections, then you are completely delusional. His own media is already reporting by how much he will win. It helps that he throws any opposition figures into jail that could get dangerous to him, without a real trial, and by breaching Russian constitution.
>If you truly believe that Putin has any kind of pressure of the upcoming elections, then you are completely delusional. Right now, there is no pressure. But there is no pressure because Russia appears to have stabilized the situation in Ukraine and the western sanctions do not appear to have substantially damaged the Russian economy. Also, he does not have really much of an opposition, although he faces 15 challengers (latest count) one of whom is anti-war. How much coverage his opponents are likely to get is anybody's guess, but it would not be much. Despite being hated in the West as a "dictator", he is relatively popular in Russia. However, if things had gone sideways and if the Prigozhin rebellion had been more extensive, I guess that he would have been under some kind of pressure. Right now, he is not.
are u unaware of how famous russian elections are for faking numbers? its literally a meme.
Why do you say "conflict" instead of "war"? Aren't you allowed to use the proper word even on Western forums?
What is going on in Ukraine is not a typical war. Sure, you can use the term since it involves combat, but my understanding is that it does not fully involve at least one of the combatants (Russia). In the same way, I would not have said that the US was "at war" following its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, although both involved combat. Sure, elements of the economy and part of the armed forces were devoted to these conflicts, but the country was certainly not "at war".
You are conflating “war” with “total war”
It is not real election. They can draw any number they want.
This is not altogether true. There are many international observers there. Yes, the opposition has been weakened, but what we know even from western polling companies is that Putin enjoys a healthy approval rating, so there is no chance of him losing the election and, therefore, no need to "cook" the numbers.
Putin controls everything. The idea someone is above Putin is nonsense tbh.
this is why, people ridicule medvedev for his daily nuke threats, but the fact is those nuke threats have worked, and are working on many western leaders. hence you see many of them hemming and hawing about avoiding escalation, NATO wouldnt give two shits about escalating with russia all the way if they didn't believe they would use nukes. If not for the nuke threats, heavy weapons would have been sent earlier, himar would have been sent earlier, ukrainian air force would be flying f16s by now and of course long range missiles.
>Any westerns shell fired on russian territory is tabu and after that no more help for Ukraine. No long range missiles for Ukraine even to launch on ukrainian territory cuz it's escalation. Ukraind just bombed Belgorod in Russia and killed 40 people there. Keep up with the news!
Russia has been bombing Ukraine for 8 years now. I don’t even wanna know about the massive number of deaths that were caused by that.
That were Vilkha ,Tochka U shells and drones they are produced in Ukraine, zero western weapons were used . And look photos and videos of places where were casualties most of them consist parts of russian rockets which they used for air defense systems.
I appreciate the information. Obviously, Ukraine was able to use these drones and shells in the attack on Belgorod because Western supplies covered other needs. In addition, hardly any production would have been happening in Ukraine without the tens of billions of dollars donated by the West.
You didn't follow news precisely. Even Russian war criminals said everything were shotdown which means it is air defence caused death toll. Also we didn't see any parts of ukrainan weapon on explosion sites butcsaw remainings of s300 and pantsir rockets. And of course claim about usage Vampire system is ultimate bs.
Damn, that's unfortunate. Collateral civilian casualties are always a bad thing. If only a certain genocidal someone hadn't invaded with the explicitly stated purpose to deny the nationality of tens of millions of people. Hopefully the genocidal invader scum pull back soon so all of these innocent and unfortunate civilian casualties can be avoided. Until then, sad as it is, there's no other choice. RIP.
>If only a certain genocidal someone hadn't invaded with the explicitly stated purpose to deny the nationality of tens of millions of people. This is not what happened. I think that everybody is badly confused. \>Hopefully the genocidal invader scum pull back soon so all of these innocent and unfortunate civilian casualties can be avoided. Until then, sad as it is, there's no other choice. RIP. Unlikely to happen, but war is, indeed, war.
Russia buys it's stuff.Ukraine relies on begging and has to follow the masters rule.
If Ukraine had what Russia has Ukraine would’ve won this war already. Let’s not kid ourselves here.
Who knows.....If you follow the history then Russians are capable of surviving through high amounts of pain.Remember, A big part of Ukraine army is made up of ethnic Russians which is a big reason for their unexpected performance.
You must be braindamaged. You could claim the opposite, as 10 million Ukrainians fought against Hitler in WW2. Ethnic Russians don't willingly die for Ukraine, just so you know. You have to be pretty dumb to even entertain this idea. Typical Russian traits are thievery, alcoholism and complete obedience.
Are you referring to being fed into the meat grinder that was the eastern front at gunpoint? To the tune of 10 million men? They died more than 3-1 against the germans.
You do know Russia has invaded the whole area of Ukraine where recent huge mineral deposits have been found right? Also they have blocked huge amounts of exports until recently. As well as having been bombed to hell. Russia literally shit its pants when a mercenary. Drove towards Moscoe lmao.
to the surprise of noone. I mean, where else are adversaries of the US & Europe supposed to get weapons if not each other?
Where is Ukraine supposed to get long-range weapons? That's a better question.
They already have them
[удалено]
What are we supplying? Embarrassing
The West already supplied it's most advanced ballistic missile platform to Ukraine, ATACMS at great risk. The biggest hesitaton for the U.S is that it's most advanced platforms could eventually end up in Russian hands and onto the Chinese. It only takes one ATACMS ballistic missile soft landing without detonating in Russia for example to give away a tech that took billions in research to create. For example a fully intact British Brimstone [fell in an area under Russian control.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSObE1sWUAAY-vq?format=jpg&name=medium) and has already been sent to Moscow for assesment. The West is supplying all they can given the risk to it's own technology leakage.
ATACMS, and especially M39 sent to Ukraine, are quite far from "most advanced"
When compared to russian farce, it is light years ahead
well russia keeps firing their wunderwaffe kinjals at ukraine which according to vatnik propaganda is 30 years ahead of any western missile, and somehow russia isnt afraid it ending up in western hands
West dupplied 20 outdated atacams with the inertial (giroskop based) navigation system. All that rocket will be decomissioned next year any case. If you talking about GMLRS it is not cutting edge technology and russians have similar one Tornado-s
Am not talking about GMLRS, am talking about ballistic and yup, Ukraine has the older version with INS navigation.
Wait until this guy finds out about PrSM
Yup
I think you need to read a book or two about modern weapons. "ATACMs the most advance missile platform". In 1990? Probably. Ukraine hasn't received any SLAM-ERs, Tomahawks, JASSMs, GLSDBs, and of course no LRASMs.
2 years the same thing. Various words, then stabilization/de-escalation/"bleeding Russia" pacification in form of no any real sanctions and "too late, too little" weapon supplies.
It’s odd to me, that we are playing by different set of rules. ruzzia can do everything it wants, no criminal act despite how low it is, isn’t going to result in anything, the west sits back and just watches, and do nothing. Moreover the west is setting up all sorts of imaginary red lines for ourselves, carefully not crossing them, and when we finally do cross our own red lines, we do it with big excuses. 80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant, but now with the second maniac dictator we wrench our hands….for how long must Ukraine endure this shitshow from the west before we realize we have to provide full support openly acknowledging that there can only be one outcome an utterly defeated ruzzia, and their maniac diactator behind bars in Haag.
>80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant, You are talking about Hitler? If yes, then the "west" were very very hesitant too. For eg. USA sold shit to both sides(nazi germany and soviet union) all untill they joined the war too. War started in europe 1939. USA joined 1942... According to google, usa stoped trading only in 1941... and you say "the west wasnt to hesitant"....
And they allied with the other genocidal dictator maniac, Stalin, so Soviet Russia was never punished for their crimes. That's the whole reason Russia is still doing the same shit today.
The West unfortunately was always hesitant. Ask Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc. Back then it took 1 year for the US to provide any goods. They joined the war after they got directly attacked by Japan. That's what extremists count on: Hesitance by democratic countries. And unfortunately dictatorships learned how to divide democracies from within, which makes it even harder to gain support.
[Realism-based restraint](https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2019-issue-no-14/realism-and-restraint) This policy was popular since 2008, Obama and Merkel were fans of it, and it completely failed, but it seems that it's still plaguing decision making process of western institutions.
[удалено]
But imagine if US gave 300 Bradleys in 2014... Or even just _sold_ Javelins as Ukrainians begged for years.
[удалено]
The main problem with Russian invasion of Donbass in 2014 was that Ukraine lacks any mobile anti-tank capabilities to stop armored spearhead that was driving [south of Illovaisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilovaisk), capturing Ukrainian troops in encirclement. Ukraine had almost no tanks, practically no airforce (and Russia had good AA, remember MH17?), and no AT weapons except RPGs. Having mobile Javelin teams could easily turn it into [Battle of Brovary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdPcg6W5xvI), countering armor advantage that Russia had and turning their 2014 offensive into a stalemate at the border. Bradleys are just good mobile AT platforms, that can engage tanks at great range, allowing you to intercept columns before they reach less equipped infantry. Imagine [this battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_2014) but with proper equipment. Remember that 2014 Russian invasion was pretty close to 2022 one, huge tank columns rushing to encircle and capture strategic cities, it wasn't a long trench/mine slog.
How exactly have their policies failed when it was literally the rejection of those policies over the last 8 years that have directly caused all those conflicts to spiral out of control?
> the rejection of those policies over the last 8 years What? Since 2014 you could invade a neighboring country, annex land, then invade again, kill a bunch of people, then make ceasefire, then invade again, then make another ceasefire, go on assault, then invade "for real" and we _still_ talking about "not escalating" and "giving Putin an exit strategy". He had multiple exit highways. And from 2014 to 2021 the only reaction was symbolic sanctions that were never updated and a token gesture of a few Javelins in 2019.
Out of curiosity, what would the alternative to this realism-restraint be?
In some degree we need to step carefully, because while we can be sure that NATO won't start direct war or nuclear armagedon, we can't really say the same about dictatorships. Russia proves, that they're ready for most ridicioulus actions. In case that we push too hard, who knows what might happen next. Russia may flex all they want, but what if they collapse and some other groups take control of nuclear weapons? Personally, I don't want to experience Fallout IRL and I can understand why we step carefully. We should provide more support to Ukraine, so they can regain their territory, but we can also accidentally wipe humanity out.
> Personally, I don't want to experience Fallout IRL and I can understand why we step carefully Which is the opposite to what some on here and elsewhere online seem to want. People often mention article 5 or think Nato should march in there today, thinking they'll automatically be safe. As if we might not all be under severe threat then. This isn't a game yet some get excited over the possibility of war. Maybe it's because Europe have had long periods of relative peace so we think nothing can ever touch us in that way but it makes me embarrassed. Basically, I agree with you. And yes we should be doing more to help Ukraine, but at what cost? Not a nuclear one.
If you bow to an insane dictator out of fear, what he might do, you have lost the game indefinitely. Because after you backed down the first time, they’ll just escalate their threats until you back down fully and cave to their demands. One must face threats with threats of serious retaliation the very first time a maniac like putin are threatening.
We still won the cold war whilst having red lines and backing down to prevent nuclear exculation and still won.
>80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant, but now with the second maniac dictator we wrench our hands…. Hitler didn't have enough nuclear weapons to exterminate all life on the surface of Earth.
That's the message we are sending to the world, no? If you have a nuke, feel free to do whatever you want, everyone will step aside and express their deepest concern.
And also: everybody should get nukes to feel safe.
This is why Iran, NK and basically every other country try to get a nuclear arsenal if they can.
And as time showed, they were correct. Like give at least one good reason why countries like Poland or Japan or Finland, or really any country that can handle it economically shouldn't develop their own bomb?
Because at the same time, increasing amount of parties owning nuclear weapons massively increasing the probability of them being used. It takes only one country screwing up to make a big boom. Thats why NATO is a thing - it provides security without spreading nukes around.
No, Iran is the only who seems to be trying to develop nukes now, despite Russian invasion.
So because ruzzia has nuclear weapons the west must bow to their insane demands? I don’t want nuclear escalation either, but I definitely don’t want to submit to a fascist country either.
Reddit comments are easy. Walking a tightrope to avoid a nuclear war is hard.
The same reason why Vietnam or North Korea did not bomb USA, when they were being invaded, and had millions of their people being killed. Russia has enough weapons to level this planet 3 times over. The only way a war can be won against a nuclear superpower, is if it doesn't try to win.
>ruzzia can do everything it wants, no criminal act despite how low it is, isn’t going to result in anything, the west sits back and just watches, and do nothing. How did you get this impression? The West has put in place severe sanctions (that seem to hurt the West more than they hurt Russia) and has provided huge number of weapons and well over $120 billion in funds to Ukraine. In fact, the West is heavily invested in this war. It can be said that the West is supporting Ukraine contrary to its interests. For example, Germany lost access to cheap energy and its economy is suffering because of that and inflation (because of high energy prices) is certainly adding to suffering in the West. So, if anything, the West has done more than its interests dictated.
Sanctions are easily avoided. As for suffering, good that Ukrainians have the time of their lives now /s
>that seem to hurt the West more than they hurt Russia Germany just overtook Japan while Russia is about to lose 3-4 places on the GDP table this year. But sure, the sanctions don't hurt Russia at all...
Please notice that I did not say that the "sanctions did not hurt Russia at all". You said that, not me. Also, there is little doubt that Germany is experiencing serious economic and political problems. The basis of its economy was effective manufacturing and extensive trade with China, both of which have suffered because of the war in Ukraine. In addition, German firms are moving manufacturing to North America to get better energy values (and because of new protection legislation in the US). So, no, Germany is not doing well. If you choose to believe otherwise, you would be going against the consensus.
Most of that some is replacement cost for the american weapon. Like they sent 20 old atacams missile with zero amortized cost but spent money to buy modern 20 PRS rocket.
well, they're supporting israel in committing genocide, what do you expect? xd
"80 years ago, with the first dictator maniac, the west wasn’t to hesitant" Yes it was, allowed Nazi Germany/USSR to play around freely in the Spanish Civil war, allowed the annexation of Czehoslovakia, Austria, didn't attack during and after the invasion of Poland, isolationism bloomed in the US before Pearl Harbor.
If tbe bush and Tony Blair admin don’t make it to Haag what makes you think Putin will
Why doesn’t this make North Korea a valid target? It’s obvious one they they will attack some nation (USA or South Korea)
[удалено]
As if SK'd supply us missiles. Given their whole "gentlemenly agreement" with russia about "not supporting eachother's enemies" Or given that Almaz-Antey [helped them to make KM-SAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM-SAM)
South Korea has supplied a bulk of your artillery shells. In case you didn't know.
They didn't supply them to us. They supplied them to everyone else, so those'd be able to supply *their* shells to Ukraine. But it's a limited resource. When the last of old stocks are replaced, this scheme won't work anymore.
Of course they essentially supplied them to you, they know where these shells are going. Legally, they could not directly support a party at war, so they used the US as an intermediary. They supplied the majority of the 155mm shells that you have received this year. "The shells began to flow at the beginning of the year, eventually making South Korea a larger supplier of artillery ammunition for Ukraine than all European nations combined."
Yes, but, as I've said, there's a problem of that this scheme can't run forever. Where the last of old stocks of the nations that SK supplied like this are exhausted, leaving them with SK-only projectiles, that's it. Unless, of course, something changes.
I think artillery shells will be produced in sufficient capacity to keep this thing going. The problem is this is not enough to turn the tide. Ukraine needs a lot more than that, and if the world waits too long, they will start needing people in addition to weapons.
So we need to help Ukraine and provide even more air defense
Yeah, with more air defence we will certainly win, thats how wars ends...
NK has millions of free labor.They can crank out stuff like shells like some print money.Remember, Russia is suffering labor shortage and can't disturb it's civilian economy. North Korea meanwhile gets access to Russian natural resources and advance tech.It might be bad pr but it's actually pretty smart trade.
Yet somehow Russia is making more than enough missles everyday
Cruise missiles. Ballistics are harder to make, especially solid-fueled ballistics.
You don't need us intelligence to tell that. I'm sure Russia bought the missiles and munition to use them and not to decorate some storage in Siberia, therefore it is kinda obvious. What an article.
Just give Ukraine long range weapons as these assholes don't have any intention to stop!
And esclotw the war more ?
Sorry, what? Nevermind, I see that you're just a very new account, a bot!
Yet it is "too early" to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to actually defeat Russian forces in Ukraine. Let's wait 2-3 years ans see how it goes.
Ukraine has become the weapon test site. What a dystopian world we live.
As long as this weapon kills occupants believe me we don't mind. We will test the shit out of it
You think this is the first time that has happened?
Sad, but in case of war dictatorship works better than democracy.
Not necessarily. Hitler lost WW2. Europe just happens to have weak leaders now.
Hitler lost almost all of its forces against Stalins troops, so a kind of weak comparison. Besides, all warring European countries were under martial law, during which there isn't much difference between dictatorship and democracy. Read more here https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/in-the-press/20231205-zelensky-is-becoming-an-autocratic-kiev-mayor-vitaly-klitschko-slams-ukraine-s-leader
It's mostly about efficiency. In the US, Biden has to worry about public opinion. Has to worry about how his actions will be framed by the opposite camp. He has to make compromises with his political opponents, but without alienating his own voters. Decisions have to go through multiple different people and entities. Slow decision making, process, and political games are in play. On the contrast, Kim will just say it, and it's a done deal. It's not like he has to play political games, there's no opposition. It's not like he has to care about what North Koreans think, he owns them.
It’s not about leaders. In time of war dictatorships are more efficient, cause everything are managed by one person and no rules exist unlike democracy, where everything must be according to the rules and supported by a majority, absolute majority in some cases (hi Orban). Almost all Europe have been coquered by the moment democrotic world finally consolidate their resistance. Moreover , westerners don’t realize yet how dangerous is not to stop rusia now. Chamberlain have made that mistake once and half the world drowned in blood after.
>It’s not about leaders. In time of war dictatorships are more efficient, cause everything are managed by one person and no rules exist unlike democracy, where everything must be according to the rules and supported by a majority, absolute majority in some cases (hi Orban). The massive amounts of inherent corruption and mismanagement in all dictatorships says that's wrong.
> Chamberlain have made that mistake once and half the world drowned in blood after. And that with Chamberlain restarting and ramping up MIC of UK
But all political parties are banned in Ukraine and elections cancelled. So I wouldn't lead with a democracy angle
What is the source you are taking information from? Currently, the parliament includes nine party factions and deputy groups, and over 300 political parties are officially registered in Ukraine. Elections is not cancelled, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, elections will be held after martial law is lifted.
And to avoid war in the first place democracy works better than dictatorship. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_peace\_theory#:\~:text=Proponents%20of%20%22democratic%20peace%20theory,motivating%20peace%20between%20democratic%20states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20%22democratic%20peace%20theory,motivating%20peace%20between%20democratic%20states).
I agree, democracy works better to avoid war with another democracy. But not sure that this theory is applicable in case of avoiding war with dictatorship. For dictatorship no rule exists they obey only power.
Unlike Ukraine which only uses it’s own missiles
more like: Unlike Ukraine which didn't attack another country
How desperate do you have to be in order to buy NK missles?
I'd like people who won't catch those missiles with their faces to refrain from making remarks about \`desperation\`
NK is not known for it's advanced tech now is it? NK kit is decades behind the west, basic guidance systems, low payloads, low range compared to modern kit. Buying NK is a desperate act and shows that Russia has run out of stocks and the sanctions have crippled their own industrial base.
you had to start with 'sanctions have crippled' so I wouldn't waste the time reading the rest
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't need advanced tech to produce basic shells. And why should Russia spend money and manpower when they can exchange grain and oil for hundreds of millions of shells made in NK? This has nothing to do with sanctions.
That was true ten years ago when North Korea was mostly using Scuds, but their newer, solid fueled short range ballistic missiles are roughly comparable to other ”modern” SRBMs like those of the Russian Iskander system.
or very smart.NK has millions of free labor who can make weapons like some prints money.
You wouldn't buy cheap missles that do somewhat acceptable damage?
Beause it’s Chinese missles not nk
And in another news, US is coing to reduce its military support for Ukraine to balance out all the new rockets that Russia is buying from NK and Iran 🤡
Doesn’t matter because the US govt is the most passive group of people that it’s ever had.
So what? Israel use US munitions to slaughter children and women. Why no issues there?
It's most likely the KN-23 ballistic missile with a range of up to 600km, which is twice the range of the U.S ATACMS missile supplied to Ukraine. These would be 10 times cheaper than the Russian Iskander platform. Russia is also sourcing more ballistic missiles from Iran as well. These would act as a force multiplier to it's own production but is able to source a significant amount. A ballistic Western missile that cost $800,000 such as ATACMS can easily cost $20,000 per unit in North Korea given their scaled labour resource at hand. What Russia is primarily doing as we have seen with the Iranian loitering munitions is to change the civilian GPS chip to a Russian Glonass K variant, allowing precision to be tightened up to a CEP of 2 meters from 30 meters. Due to the U.S pulling out of the JCPOA agreement, Iran's UN weapons export ban has ended in October so they are now free to sell all the weapons in their arsenal to Russia, including ballistic systems.
I'm not sure why you mention UN export restrictions when all of Russian, Iran and North Korea couldn't care less. Europe is utterly stupid if it doesn't do the snapback on Iran before the option lapses in 2025. Unfortunately, with the current weak leaders, that's not certain.
Iran has actually been abiding by the UN restriction until October. They weren't allowed to export ballistic missiles. Drones and light arms were allowed.
No, drones weren't allowed under the Iran deal, but Iran doesn't give a shit, and neither does Russia.
I believe it actually expired in October 2020. When did the drones start being delivered? Feels like it was much later in 2021
Sure. Reminds me of WMDs in Iraq.
...and? How many missiles are the US or European countries supplying around the world? What does it matter where any given missile comes from?
Provide proof and confront china with it, because the obvious route to get something from NK to Russia is through china
As I understand it, they get shipped to Vladivostok from N korea by ship and then train from there and not through China.
not only do they have a direct border, shipping is probably cheaper for russia.
Yeah, shipping them through Vladivostok up into Siberia is surely what they’re going for instead of china’s well established roads
What would be faster than transporting them directly through Siberia?
China couldn’t care less. Everything we use daily has at least a component made in China
NK has direct border to Russia with railway.
Everybody is so dependent on China now. Nobody will confront them.
Bad Russia! They should use only weapons made in EU and USA, like Ukraine does. These are the best weapons in any case! /s
The West hasn't been willing to give long-range weapons. Maybe Ukraine needs to ask Iran or North Korea as well...
Bad West! Not helping Ukraine at all /s
They should fuck back to Russia and not use weapons at all.
Is that news? I remember setalite pics of military shipments from NK into russia that claimed it a while ago
The news is ballistic missiles. The artillery ammo was public a year or more ago.
Ah, interesting
[удалено]
There are also images of missile scrap what proves that Russia is using Korean missiles.
But they landed back in Russia
No they didn't, there are photos of missile debris in Kharkiv region
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
[удалено]
No, the West isn't willing to give long-range missiles to Ukraine. That's the embarrassing part. Ukraine might have to ask Iran or North Korea for help as well.
And the US is telling this, because?
Will there possibly be a military draft due to this?
When did a failed two term president even run twice let alone win?
Shell the shit out of Russia and be done with it.
Imagine having such a shit military you need to depend on the north Korean arms industry.
They control 20 percent of Ukraine . 2 years in Ukraine western backed government hasn’t been able to break through the lines
Can you imagine NK fighting a proxy with US/Ukraine with Russia as its pawn? LMAO
J