I thought Russia lost this war already, 2 years ago Nato and Europe claimed Russians are fighting with shovels and chips from washing machines π
Problem with the long-range missiles is they are expensive and high-tech meaning they have a limited stock and difficult to replace quickly.
Semantics... "Crazy" = "Emotional overload" Right?!?
The Russian bots/trolls are out in full force in this comments section. Edit: And now in my replies, lol.
As an Irish person observing the German conversation regarding the Ukrainian conflict, the most striking thing is the degree to which Germans have been persuaded of the truth of a set of false narratives that were confected by media outlets in full public view. The degree to which these false narratives rely on German people not doing basic due diligence is remarkable. I expected more from an educated and savvy population like I formerly assumed Germany to possess.
It means Orisnikh coming to Germany
Change in tone? What planet is DW on?
I see Russia marching to Cancelors house again!!ππ
Europe?????????Failed for 3 years You had Macron who gets beat up from his wife negotiate π
America stepping out of the muddy ground, Germany stepping into quick sand π
Imagine if Germany wasn't a NATO member, I dont think it will play tough against Russiaπ.
This war has gone beyond insanity.
Is DW allowed to report from Gaza?
0:28 did he not get the memo that Americans decide what American weapons are for ?????
Merz is the Blackrock dog.
It's incredible that they have to lift weapons restrictions against those who fight only with shovels and washing machine chips. It seems unfair to me.
My understanding is long range western missiles like Taurus, are actually targeted and guided by western systems, so it would be no different than if they flew Reaper drones housed in Ukraine, from Germany. Is that about right?π€π€
This restriction should have never been forced on Ukraine in the first placeβ¦ but Scholz didnβt have the balls π
They mean absolutely nothing. The article "Not enough long range missiles to make a difference for Ukraine" from Responsible Statecraft argues that supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles is unlikely to significantly alter the course of the war and could escalate tensions with Russia. Key Points: Limited Strategic Impact: Ukraine's use of air-launched cruise missiles is unlikely to change the dynamics of the war, which has become a war of attrition favoring Russia due to its larger population and military manufacturing capabilities. Responsible Statecraft Russian Adaptability: Russia has previously adapted to Western-supplied weapons like HIMARS and ATACMS by dispersing supply depots and enhancing electronic warfare measures, reducing the effectiveness of such systems. The Times +5 Responsible Statecraft +5 Responsible Statecraft +5 Insufficient Missile Supplies: For Ukraine to have a meaningful impact on Russian territory, it would require a substantial number of long-range missiles, which Western allies are unlikely to supply due to limited stockpiles and the risk of provoking direct Russian retaliation. Responsible Statecraft +5 Responsible Statecraft +5 The Guardian +5 Political Risks: Authorizing deep strikes into Russia may not pressure President Putin to negotiate but could strengthen his narrative that Russia is at war with NATO, potentially hardening Russian public opinion and demands in future negotiations. Potential Russian Responses: While immediate nuclear escalation is deemed unlikely, Russia might respond with increased sabotage in Europe, support for groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis, or attacks on Western satellites critical for Ukrainian targeting. In summary, the article suggests that the strategic benefits of supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles are limited and may be outweighed by the risks of escalating the conflict and provoking broader confrontations.
@gazpachopolice7211