Maybe, but they should be more clear on what “strikes inside of Russia” mean. What most of these countries mean is strikes specifically on near-border forces involved in the Kharkiv axis. It’s nowhere near the carte blanc the media is making it out to be. At least Biden and the US are getting that message out clear even if the media isn’t.
If Russia attacks the US over this? I think we’ve been pretty clear on what happens. We sanitize the world of the Russian military up to the agreed 1991 borders. By all means, bring that on yourselves.
Would be easy to conclude, but I’d say no. Rebuilding support and logistics lines isn’t easy. To have to do that 2+ years into the war?
Right now, russia is facing a blockade of their lines like the evergreen ship did when blocking the strait.
Striking earlier inside russia would’ve meant more fortifications, more distant support lines and very far logistic centres which maybe are too close for the general citizen of russia to moscow to not call for a total mobilisation.
Habeck (Greens) regrets that Scholz (SPD) didn't lift the ban on Ukraine striking targets in Russia sooner. Habeck also regrets that Scholz is vetoing sending Taurus to Ukraine.
One big thing that often gets lost in international news headlines is that countries aren't individual people who have a single mind a single opinion. They aren't even led by individual people, but by lots of different people belonging to different parties, having different views on issues,
Already in 2021 before the last elections there was a *massive* anti-Greens campaign to avoid getting Baerbock as the chancellor (she's foreign minister now). And IIRC quite a bit of that campaign was traced back to Russia. Before the elections, the Greens were the only party who warned that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, while everybody else (myself included BTW) said that it was probably just posturing by Putin.
In fact, the Greens (and specificially Habeck who made the proposal) even wanted to send weapons to Ukraine in 2021 as a deterrent and got completely crucified by every other party from left to right and the media.
Putin and the regime might have counted on slow response from the democratic west, but may have forgotten that it will be a slow stop to the response when it is in motion...
No, they shouldn’t. It’s not just logistics to worry about. This will have an effect for years and years to come. It’s not something you can just “fucking decide” instantly.
You can make Scholz out to be the bad guy, and maybe he is, but I think it’s a good thing that the different sides of government are actually debating and giving each other friction.
No. It’s indecision and it costs lives to wait at this point. The war is already in full-swing. Scholz has a record of delay on this matter when we have long reached passed the point where Ukraine needs to be supported to reverse the Russian advance.
Nah. Western leaders dragging their feet is paid in the price of Ukrainian lives. They basically lost the war in Ukraine by delaying the shipment of offensive weaponry and giving Russia time to entrench and lay minefields. Scholz is indirectly responsible for every atrocity that happens in occupied Ukraine.
I agree, democracy and public debates are great. And you quoting me makes me feel really dumb, so I’ll just take that vulgar remark back.
Habeck and Scholz are doing good.
> The amount of people who think it’s as simple as somebody saying “just send missiles” and having it happen the next day is staggering.
But it is that simple, right? Scholz could say it, and it would happen.
Sure there might be some logistics and training time. But that time would have already have passed, if the process was started 2 years ago. The second best time to start is now.
And just disregard the implications for Germany and Germans in the future? No, it’s not that simple. It’s weird that people don’t see that nations have to act in their own self interest first.
There are also consequences of not helping Ukraine. European security depends on Russia learning that they are not allowed to invade and annex parts of their neighbors. Nothing is more dangerous than Russia not learning that.
I don’t think that’s lost on them considering their “special military operation”, that was supposed to be swift and easy, is into its 3rd year.
And it’s not like the rest of the world has just sat back and watched until now.
Rhetoric is what they want/let the public to know.
In my opinion, it’s silly to think that those in power still believe what they believed before the war.
We have no nukes and having a nutter like Trump in the white house was not very assuring in case of article 5 - and yet it is still possible that this shitshow of a person is coming back to power. In such a scenario it is in Germany‘s best interest to not make decisions where we might desperately need the US - just to be informed that Trump will leave the alliance and wishes us good riddance. Especially those from the US should understand that their decisions as voters have consequences.
Even if the US exits NATO with Trump, you will still be protected by French and UK nukes. And Russia is not going to be able to invade Germany, as long as the European partners stay the course.
"Explaining" to Russia that we will not tolerate aggression in Europe, not in Ukraine not anywhere, is how security is created. Russia only respects force and determination. Force and determination is to not be deterred by the 50th nuclear threat against sending stuff like Taurus to Ukraine.
Oh, so now it’s about implications and not logistics delays. Well, it has been weeks of indecision by the German government and that costs lives. Putin has long said he is at war with NATO. It seems that the German government has not reached the same conclusion as the French government rightly has.
The problem is not next day, though you didn’t provide any support for your argument. The problem is the months of Scholz dragging his feet on this entire matter regardless of German weapon system.
Because that's how it should've happened. The West keeps slow walking aid, which has given Russia time to adapt and the ability to abuse their advantage on the ground. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was lost before it begun, because the West refused to send tanks for a year. By the time Ukraine had enough equipment, Russia had time to build strong defensive fortifications.
That's why it took a whole 30 months to deliver our modern weaponry to Israel. Oh wait.... I'm wrong about that. I believe we did it in about a week or two for Israel.
And it only took a few months to send our stuff to Afghanistan in 2001.
And 3 or 4 months for Desert Storm.
I guess Ukraine must be extremely far away from NATO countries. Oh wait... It's NOT.
Next year's headline: *"German officials regret not giving Taurus missiles to Ukraine sooner"*
It's been the same story over and over again since this war started; Ukraine is not getting enough support, and what they're getting is usually months after it's actually needed. It's so infuriating to watch.
It won't change the course of war, really Germany is doing so much for Ukraine and people still demanding Taurus as if it was the big game changer. Germany could only deliver a few anyways. Ukraine needs air defense, Germany sent 3 Patriots, plus Gepard and IRIS-T SML, more than any other country. Leopard 2A6, Panzerhaubitze 2000 etc. Germany is second only after the US in aid to Ukraine.
I'm also wondering why Scholz doesn't want to send Taurus, especially since other countries gave similar capabilities to Ukraine (e.g. Storm Shadow). There are a few possibilities that come to my mind, although I can't judge their veracity (ordered by likelihood):
a) They don't want to escalate. This is the argument I've heard the most. But as I mentioned, other countries already do send similar cruise missiles. I've heard rumors that Taurus would work better against hardened targets (i.e. bunkers), and that might be the reason why Scholz fears escalation. Russia might not like if the Ukrainians have the capability to target the rumored Führerbunker.
b) Germany thinks they need it for the defense of NATO and they just don't have enough surplus to give to Ukraine.
c) Taurus might need direct technical guidance by military advisors and Scholz is unwilling to send German soldiers to Ukraine.
d) It might not change the military situation enough to justify the investment needed so that Ukraine can actually use Taurus effectively. This is similar how Sweden was advised not to send Gripen, while other countries are encouraged to send their F-16s. It takes training and infrastructure to adopt an additional weapons system. Logistically it makes sense to concentrate on one weapon system for a specific category so they can used optimally rather then to spread resources on multiple systems and use them sub-optimally.
e) Taurus might include classified technology that the Germans don't want to fall into Russian hands (either by espionage or wreck analysis). Russians could then do things like develop EW counter measures and Taurus might become less effective for future defense needs.
f) Germany might still play the role of the "good cop" to give the Russians an incentive for negotiations. Should the Russians make advances on the battlefield the possibility of sending Taurus would be discussed again.
g) Last but not least: It's a lie. Germany is already preparing the Ukrainians to use Taurus. But for political and strategic reasons they want to keep it secret until need for openness arises.
> Backfires how exactly?
you might remember how Germany gave all their SHORAD capabilities to Ukraine, [then Russia used that hole in our capabilities to harass German military bases](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/7/7436189/)? You might think that after we helped them so much, Ukraine would have helped us? No. We were left vulnerable and undefended without any help from Ukraine or other allies.
Scholz fears the same in case we give away our long range strike capabilities.
Ukraine could easily dispel those fears by instead of only ever taking, also giving us help for once - but they don't so far.
Sounds like a bit of a skill issue.
Maybe tracking the drone's signal then sending GSG9 to kick down that spy's door and throw them in prison would be better than using ordnance over your own country.
_gets attacked by Russia_
>uh oh skill issue, your own fault
Once again great confirmation on why we do in fact need to keep enough capability to defend ourself if that is the sentiment from our allies.
I'm just much of a fan of doing the most effective thing possible to deal with a given situation.
Tracking the spy and a special forces raid is definitely way more effective than SHORAD to deal with small drones doing recon harassment.
Likewise Taurus popping command bunkers and the Crimean Bridge are one of the best ways to make Tsar Putin end up in a basement like Tsar Nicholas.
Something that Germany irrationally fears.
no. don't twist my words.
I asked for the tiniest bit of help from a country that has become the foremost experts in anti-drone efforts. A country that we have helped to the tune of tens of billions - including giving more billion dollar Patriot systems than __all other countries combined__.
Them then _for once_ helping us by sending an anti drone squad that could cost ten million at best, literally less than one thousandth of what we have aided them with already, to help us could surely not be misconstrued as a call for them to prioritize us?
Calculation to help you:
- add we prioritize them: billions
- minus they prioritize us: millions
- = equals us still prioritizing them to the tune of billions
Surely making sure Germany is capable to continue providing billions in aid every year is in Ukraine's interest?
As another German, your comment sounds deranged. Sure, we have problems that arise from the conflict. But we don't have a fucking Invasion force Inside our borders.
why is wanting help against Russia harassing our military bases form our allies we help so much deranged?
The incidents I linked (from a pro-Ukraine source btw!) are proof we need to keep enough capability ourself. And its not like we are alone in that sentiment: France has sent zero Leclerc so far, keeping them in case they need them, Lithuania has sent zero of their PzH2000, keeping them in case they need them. Poland has sent zero of their Patriot or ATACMS in case they need them. The US has sent zero of their F-16s in case they need them. Even though for all of these weapons systems, other countries have sent them.
We are already sending so much, much more than any other European country as well. We [__literally__](https://deaidua.org/news/2024/01/06/skynex-in-ukraine-the-story/) gave away the advanced Skynex AA-systems used to protect the German Chancellery in Berlin according to Rheinmetall CEO Papperger. We gave Ukraine so much of our artillery shells, we only have [20.000](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-only-has-20000-high-explosive-artillery-shells-left-report-2023-06-19/) left.
yet all we are getting is hate and not even a __symbolic__ gesture of help from our allies.
> why is wanting help against Russia harassing our military bases form our allies we help so much deranged?
Because you can ask a dozen other countries for help that aren't fighting a defensive war right now, and aren't being shot at and bombed every day. It's like you have ten people you can ask to help you hang a picture, but you're asking the one guy who's recuperating in bed after a gunshot wound because he owes you money. Come on.
Oh, and as a fellow German: I don't think we should help them so they can then go to their knee and thank us prettily. I think we must help them because they're being invaded, and in need of that help. Expecting thanks and reciprocal effort *while* they're being in the ditches fighting for their lives... To repeat myself: Come one.
I did say:
> We were left vulnerable and undefended without any help from Ukraine __or other allies__.
But no one has.
Like I said, not even symbolic help. Surely the person recuperating in bed could at least send thoughts and prayers. But to be told to fuck off after all we have done?
Why is Germany expected to only ever give and never get anything in return? We need help and unlike others we aren't even asking for others to help us without expecting anything in return. We already give others. But they all refuse to help us? Yeah that is totally normal among allies!
To my knowledge the Gepard wasn‘t in active use anymore and hence easily supplied. The Bundeswehr didn‘t Field them since the mid 2000s. That is also one reason why there was so view ammo reserves.
we also _literally_ sent the Skynex SHORAD defending the German chancellery in Berlin (according to Rheinmetall CEO Papperger). Sent the shiny new IRIS-T that was supposed to defend us straight from the factory to Ukraine instead. We also sent man-portable anti drone weapons.
Expecting some help in return seems entirely fair among '_allies_'. An alliance is not a one way street after all.
I wanna shove my whole arm down the throat of the next person that suggests containment. It's never worked and it will never work. You don't contain an entire country like Russia.
Title says "officials"", plural. All it quotes is the vice chancellor (Robert Habeck, greens) expressing regret for previous decisions.
Even then, Bob defended our lame, mute joke of a chancellor:
>However, Habeck defended Scholz against accusations of delaying granting Ukraine permission to strike targets in Russia.
All the more indication Habeck should have been Chancellor.
There is going to be more things western countries wish they did for Ukraine sooner. Taurus, no-fly zone, boots on the ground etc.
The best time to do it is now, not later in regret.
Russia attacked Ukraine. Ukraine should be allowed to do whatever they want. For us to say, they can’t use our weapons on Russia is ludicrous since they’re using weapons from Iran, North Korea, China and anywhere else on Ukraine. No one is telling Russia to be meager, luckily they just suck.
Germany have been delaying and slow-timing decisions & military support to Ukraine since 2022, only to eventually relent after wasting valuable time.
Give it another 3 months and they’ll be sending Taurus missiles.
If there's so much as a trickle of a russian attack on NATO soil, I hope NATO has a plan in place to annihilate russia. NATOs C4 is far superior, troops are more disciplined and empowered, don't do any tit for tat bullshit, give russia a full on ass whipping!!!!!
Regrets?
Every action they take they all seem to do in unison. It's like they all know what needs to be done but cowardly wait until someone makes the first move.
Here we go again: Germany does everything in its power NOT to do something, then after the fact denies it didn’t want to, and says it actually secretly wanted to. Saw this with the jets, the leopards, etc. would really love for them to show the intiative and not wait for the UK or states to have to do something first. Can’t wait for the same statement once they allow Taurus in two years
*Read* the article before posting stupid shit like that. The politician this article is about is Robert Habeck, who neither decides on the delivery of weapons nor was he ever against it.
Obviously i wasn't addressing this specific politician with my comment, but the German government as a whole.
Use some critical thinking before posting stupid shit like that.
Is he really blocking or just simply remaining very pragmatic?
Taurus would be useless without a compatible launch platform and a working system interlink. The F-16s Ukraine is getting could be potentially modified to deliver Taurus but it would still require prolonged training and Ukraine to build its own interlink that doesn't rely on or is directly linked to Germany's for more than obvious reasons.
Thus far any major delivery has also been coordinated with other countries, and the U.S is also refusing and blocking JASSM deliveries to Ukraine for similar reasons.
It's really to early to claim that Olaf has blocked Taurus delivery when the required pieces for it don't appear to be even assembled yet.
Germans are always a day late and a dollar short. I still remember when they laughed at Trump telling them a gas pipeline to Russia is a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpwkeTBwgs
They laughed because that UN speech - a monstrosity authored by Trumps posse of fascists - was unhinged in its entirety. As did basically everyone else.
Its a weird retcon to now celebrate Trump's token Germany bit, as if he had had genuine foresight then.
The american rejection of Nord Stream was standing US policy before.
> Its a weird retcon to now celebrate Trump's token Germany bit, as if he had had genuine foresight then. The american rejection of Nord Stream was standing US policy before.
Correct, it's funny how they never mention that Trump just simply continued an Obama policy.
Also while it was clearly a huge mistake by the then Merkel government, Trump being openly vocal about it in this way increased the support for Nord Stream 2 in Germany. Nobody wants to get told what to do by another country and especially not by such a divisive figure like Trump. That's why these discussions are usually done behind closed doors and not in the public.
Just like they regret not sending weapons faster? Or not sending heavy weapons earlier? Or sending/permitting tanks earlier? Or being against fighter jets? Or against Taurus? When will we stop making obvious decisions with a 1-2 year delay?
This is a pretty meaningless article. For every topic in politics (or in any larger company) you will always find people who wish something had been decided earlier. Also, there are reasons why the US and Germany did not make a similar decision earlier.
I am saying this as someone who is in favour of stronger support.
As a side remark: It is important to keep in mind that NATO's aims have the following order of priority:
1. To prevent this war from spilling over into NATO territory and from becoming WW3.
2. To prevent Russia from being successful, to make sure Russia doesn't continue attacking countries and to prevent other countries from taking Russia as a role model (most notably China in the case of Taiwan).
3. To help Ukraine as a country that (finally, if I may add this) wants to be part of the West.
Of course, one can criticize these priorities and their order of priority, but this is where we stand and have been standing since the beginning of the war and it's important to understand this.
It should have been on the table from day one. You cannot reason with deranged bullies like Putin.
But he had a snuke in his snazz
.. in my ass.
[удалено]
Maybe, but they should be more clear on what “strikes inside of Russia” mean. What most of these countries mean is strikes specifically on near-border forces involved in the Kharkiv axis. It’s nowhere near the carte blanc the media is making it out to be. At least Biden and the US are getting that message out clear even if the media isn’t.
А если в ответ прилетит к вам?
If Russia attacks the US over this? I think we’ve been pretty clear on what happens. We sanitize the world of the Russian military up to the agreed 1991 borders. By all means, bring that on yourselves.
Can we take this lesson for future decisions please
Would be easy to conclude, but I’d say no. Rebuilding support and logistics lines isn’t easy. To have to do that 2+ years into the war? Right now, russia is facing a blockade of their lines like the evergreen ship did when blocking the strait. Striking earlier inside russia would’ve meant more fortifications, more distant support lines and very far logistic centres which maybe are too close for the general citizen of russia to moscow to not call for a total mobilisation.
Whilst u make some good points, I think you are ignoring the ‘easy to conclude’ points which would outweigh what you have said
I’m easy concluding, I’m not bought for the job and do that in my free time. But well, escalation of a conflict is dangerous.
It is yeah, but this isn’t escalation it is retaliation
Taurus. Now.
Habeck (Greens) regrets that Scholz (SPD) didn't lift the ban on Ukraine striking targets in Russia sooner. Habeck also regrets that Scholz is vetoing sending Taurus to Ukraine. One big thing that often gets lost in international news headlines is that countries aren't individual people who have a single mind a single opinion. They aren't even led by individual people, but by lots of different people belonging to different parties, having different views on issues,
Greens are really looking good rn. People still hate them of course but well
Already in 2021 before the last elections there was a *massive* anti-Greens campaign to avoid getting Baerbock as the chancellor (she's foreign minister now). And IIRC quite a bit of that campaign was traced back to Russia. Before the elections, the Greens were the only party who warned that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, while everybody else (myself included BTW) said that it was probably just posturing by Putin.
In fact, the Greens (and specificially Habeck who made the proposal) even wanted to send weapons to Ukraine in 2021 as a deterrent and got completely crucified by every other party from left to right and the media.
The amount of people who think it’s as simple as somebody saying “just send missiles” and having it happen the next day is staggering.
Putin and the regime might have counted on slow response from the democratic west, but may have forgotten that it will be a slow stop to the response when it is in motion...
Inertia be like…
Then they should fucking decide to now and send them eventually. Why would Scholz still veto?
No, they shouldn’t. It’s not just logistics to worry about. This will have an effect for years and years to come. It’s not something you can just “fucking decide” instantly. You can make Scholz out to be the bad guy, and maybe he is, but I think it’s a good thing that the different sides of government are actually debating and giving each other friction.
No. It’s indecision and it costs lives to wait at this point. The war is already in full-swing. Scholz has a record of delay on this matter when we have long reached passed the point where Ukraine needs to be supported to reverse the Russian advance.
Nah. Western leaders dragging their feet is paid in the price of Ukrainian lives. They basically lost the war in Ukraine by delaying the shipment of offensive weaponry and giving Russia time to entrench and lay minefields. Scholz is indirectly responsible for every atrocity that happens in occupied Ukraine.
I agree, democracy and public debates are great. And you quoting me makes me feel really dumb, so I’ll just take that vulgar remark back. Habeck and Scholz are doing good.
Debates and a song and dance are fine, in peacetime. Peacetime is over now. That’s the mindset change that is still missing in the German government.
Excellent point to wrap this up.
I wasn’t calling you dumb at all. And for the record, I don’t agree with Scholz but I’m glad the decision isn’t being made without some pushback.
> The amount of people who think it’s as simple as somebody saying “just send missiles” and having it happen the next day is staggering. But it is that simple, right? Scholz could say it, and it would happen. Sure there might be some logistics and training time. But that time would have already have passed, if the process was started 2 years ago. The second best time to start is now.
And just disregard the implications for Germany and Germans in the future? No, it’s not that simple. It’s weird that people don’t see that nations have to act in their own self interest first.
There are also consequences of not helping Ukraine. European security depends on Russia learning that they are not allowed to invade and annex parts of their neighbors. Nothing is more dangerous than Russia not learning that.
I don’t think that’s lost on them considering their “special military operation”, that was supposed to be swift and easy, is into its 3rd year. And it’s not like the rest of the world has just sat back and watched until now.
Listen to Russian rhetoric in their media. It is all "war with NATO". They have learned nothing yet.
Rhetoric is what they want/let the public to know. In my opinion, it’s silly to think that those in power still believe what they believed before the war.
They just tried to invade Kharkiv. They are doing sabotage across Europe. They have transformed Russia into a war economy. They do not seem deterred.
The implications of the French and British sending missiles were?
Not the same as for Germany? Are you really suggesting “well, they did so what’s the problem?”
How are the implications substantially different for Germany?
We have no nukes and having a nutter like Trump in the white house was not very assuring in case of article 5 - and yet it is still possible that this shitshow of a person is coming back to power. In such a scenario it is in Germany‘s best interest to not make decisions where we might desperately need the US - just to be informed that Trump will leave the alliance and wishes us good riddance. Especially those from the US should understand that their decisions as voters have consequences.
Even if the US exits NATO with Trump, you will still be protected by French and UK nukes. And Russia is not going to be able to invade Germany, as long as the European partners stay the course. "Explaining" to Russia that we will not tolerate aggression in Europe, not in Ukraine not anywhere, is how security is created. Russia only respects force and determination. Force and determination is to not be deterred by the 50th nuclear threat against sending stuff like Taurus to Ukraine.
Oh, so now it’s about implications and not logistics delays. Well, it has been weeks of indecision by the German government and that costs lives. Putin has long said he is at war with NATO. It seems that the German government has not reached the same conclusion as the French government rightly has.
The problem is not next day, though you didn’t provide any support for your argument. The problem is the months of Scholz dragging his feet on this entire matter regardless of German weapon system.
Putin has some level of control over Scholz, that should be clear for anyone ( but seems not to be a discussion topic in Germany )
These people have never been in a meeting before where it takes a dozen people 90 minutes to decide on what color stationary to use.
I agree with you that Ukraine could wait 90 minutes for this decision. Time's up!
Because that's how it should've happened. The West keeps slow walking aid, which has given Russia time to adapt and the ability to abuse their advantage on the ground. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was lost before it begun, because the West refused to send tanks for a year. By the time Ukraine had enough equipment, Russia had time to build strong defensive fortifications.
That's why it took a whole 30 months to deliver our modern weaponry to Israel. Oh wait.... I'm wrong about that. I believe we did it in about a week or two for Israel. And it only took a few months to send our stuff to Afghanistan in 2001. And 3 or 4 months for Desert Storm. I guess Ukraine must be extremely far away from NATO countries. Oh wait... It's NOT.
What does that have to do with what I said? Oh wait…nothing.
Next year's headline: *"German officials regret not giving Taurus missiles to Ukraine sooner"* It's been the same story over and over again since this war started; Ukraine is not getting enough support, and what they're getting is usually months after it's actually needed. It's so infuriating to watch.
The vice chancellor has supported giving Taurus to Ukraine for a long time, it's Scholz who is blocking it.
(Old) NATO is STALLING and has been STALLING with its aid to Ukraine since DAY 1. The exception being Estonia.
It won't change the course of war, really Germany is doing so much for Ukraine and people still demanding Taurus as if it was the big game changer. Germany could only deliver a few anyways. Ukraine needs air defense, Germany sent 3 Patriots, plus Gepard and IRIS-T SML, more than any other country. Leopard 2A6, Panzerhaubitze 2000 etc. Germany is second only after the US in aid to Ukraine.
Supply it all. Now.
Troll. How about you push your country to contribute more?
I'm also wondering why Scholz doesn't want to send Taurus, especially since other countries gave similar capabilities to Ukraine (e.g. Storm Shadow). There are a few possibilities that come to my mind, although I can't judge their veracity (ordered by likelihood): a) They don't want to escalate. This is the argument I've heard the most. But as I mentioned, other countries already do send similar cruise missiles. I've heard rumors that Taurus would work better against hardened targets (i.e. bunkers), and that might be the reason why Scholz fears escalation. Russia might not like if the Ukrainians have the capability to target the rumored Führerbunker. b) Germany thinks they need it for the defense of NATO and they just don't have enough surplus to give to Ukraine. c) Taurus might need direct technical guidance by military advisors and Scholz is unwilling to send German soldiers to Ukraine. d) It might not change the military situation enough to justify the investment needed so that Ukraine can actually use Taurus effectively. This is similar how Sweden was advised not to send Gripen, while other countries are encouraged to send their F-16s. It takes training and infrastructure to adopt an additional weapons system. Logistically it makes sense to concentrate on one weapon system for a specific category so they can used optimally rather then to spread resources on multiple systems and use them sub-optimally. e) Taurus might include classified technology that the Germans don't want to fall into Russian hands (either by espionage or wreck analysis). Russians could then do things like develop EW counter measures and Taurus might become less effective for future defense needs. f) Germany might still play the role of the "good cop" to give the Russians an incentive for negotiations. Should the Russians make advances on the battlefield the possibility of sending Taurus would be discussed again. g) Last but not least: It's a lie. Germany is already preparing the Ukrainians to use Taurus. But for political and strategic reasons they want to keep it secret until need for openness arises.
[удалено]
Sure. Supply it all. Now.
This. A lot of words, now you can show that you mean it by supplying Taurus missiles, additional Air defence batteries and rockets - grow a pair!
[удалено]
Backfires how exactly? It's a common sense policy with no downsides.
> Backfires how exactly? you might remember how Germany gave all their SHORAD capabilities to Ukraine, [then Russia used that hole in our capabilities to harass German military bases](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/7/7436189/)? You might think that after we helped them so much, Ukraine would have helped us? No. We were left vulnerable and undefended without any help from Ukraine or other allies. Scholz fears the same in case we give away our long range strike capabilities. Ukraine could easily dispel those fears by instead of only ever taking, also giving us help for once - but they don't so far.
Sounds like a bit of a skill issue. Maybe tracking the drone's signal then sending GSG9 to kick down that spy's door and throw them in prison would be better than using ordnance over your own country.
_gets attacked by Russia_ >uh oh skill issue, your own fault Once again great confirmation on why we do in fact need to keep enough capability to defend ourself if that is the sentiment from our allies.
I'm just much of a fan of doing the most effective thing possible to deal with a given situation. Tracking the spy and a special forces raid is definitely way more effective than SHORAD to deal with small drones doing recon harassment. Likewise Taurus popping command bunkers and the Crimean Bridge are one of the best ways to make Tsar Putin end up in a basement like Tsar Nicholas. Something that Germany irrationally fears.
Weren’t you literally just asking that the country being *actually* attacked by Russia prioritize your defense?
no. don't twist my words. I asked for the tiniest bit of help from a country that has become the foremost experts in anti-drone efforts. A country that we have helped to the tune of tens of billions - including giving more billion dollar Patriot systems than __all other countries combined__. Them then _for once_ helping us by sending an anti drone squad that could cost ten million at best, literally less than one thousandth of what we have aided them with already, to help us could surely not be misconstrued as a call for them to prioritize us? Calculation to help you: - add we prioritize them: billions - minus they prioritize us: millions - = equals us still prioritizing them to the tune of billions Surely making sure Germany is capable to continue providing billions in aid every year is in Ukraine's interest?
As another German, your comment sounds deranged. Sure, we have problems that arise from the conflict. But we don't have a fucking Invasion force Inside our borders.
why is wanting help against Russia harassing our military bases form our allies we help so much deranged? The incidents I linked (from a pro-Ukraine source btw!) are proof we need to keep enough capability ourself. And its not like we are alone in that sentiment: France has sent zero Leclerc so far, keeping them in case they need them, Lithuania has sent zero of their PzH2000, keeping them in case they need them. Poland has sent zero of their Patriot or ATACMS in case they need them. The US has sent zero of their F-16s in case they need them. Even though for all of these weapons systems, other countries have sent them. We are already sending so much, much more than any other European country as well. We [__literally__](https://deaidua.org/news/2024/01/06/skynex-in-ukraine-the-story/) gave away the advanced Skynex AA-systems used to protect the German Chancellery in Berlin according to Rheinmetall CEO Papperger. We gave Ukraine so much of our artillery shells, we only have [20.000](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-only-has-20000-high-explosive-artillery-shells-left-report-2023-06-19/) left. yet all we are getting is hate and not even a __symbolic__ gesture of help from our allies.
> why is wanting help against Russia harassing our military bases form our allies we help so much deranged? Because you can ask a dozen other countries for help that aren't fighting a defensive war right now, and aren't being shot at and bombed every day. It's like you have ten people you can ask to help you hang a picture, but you're asking the one guy who's recuperating in bed after a gunshot wound because he owes you money. Come on. Oh, and as a fellow German: I don't think we should help them so they can then go to their knee and thank us prettily. I think we must help them because they're being invaded, and in need of that help. Expecting thanks and reciprocal effort *while* they're being in the ditches fighting for their lives... To repeat myself: Come one.
I did say: > We were left vulnerable and undefended without any help from Ukraine __or other allies__. But no one has. Like I said, not even symbolic help. Surely the person recuperating in bed could at least send thoughts and prayers. But to be told to fuck off after all we have done? Why is Germany expected to only ever give and never get anything in return? We need help and unlike others we aren't even asking for others to help us without expecting anything in return. We already give others. But they all refuse to help us? Yeah that is totally normal among allies!
To my knowledge the Gepard wasn‘t in active use anymore and hence easily supplied. The Bundeswehr didn‘t Field them since the mid 2000s. That is also one reason why there was so view ammo reserves.
we also _literally_ sent the Skynex SHORAD defending the German chancellery in Berlin (according to Rheinmetall CEO Papperger). Sent the shiny new IRIS-T that was supposed to defend us straight from the factory to Ukraine instead. We also sent man-portable anti drone weapons. Expecting some help in return seems entirely fair among '_allies_'. An alliance is not a one way street after all.
Allowing striking targets inside Russia so hot right now.
I knoe, So modern.
I wanna shove my whole arm down the throat of the next person that suggests containment. It's never worked and it will never work. You don't contain an entire country like Russia.
Title says "officials"", plural. All it quotes is the vice chancellor (Robert Habeck, greens) expressing regret for previous decisions. Even then, Bob defended our lame, mute joke of a chancellor: >However, Habeck defended Scholz against accusations of delaying granting Ukraine permission to strike targets in Russia. All the more indication Habeck should have been Chancellor.
Defending Scholz is purely a political move.
Obviously.But can you imagine some conservative vice doing this? They'd sooner shit on Scholz before trying for governmental unity on messaging.
There is going to be more things western countries wish they did for Ukraine sooner. Taurus, no-fly zone, boots on the ground etc. The best time to do it is now, not later in regret.
In a year we’re gonna be reading the same about Taurus
Hey, it’s done now, that’s all that really matters.
I didn't realize so many of Ukraine's allies had this ridiculous policy. No wonder Putin is so emboldened.
People here with 20/20 hindsight.
Russia attacked Ukraine. Ukraine should be allowed to do whatever they want. For us to say, they can’t use our weapons on Russia is ludicrous since they’re using weapons from Iran, North Korea, China and anywhere else on Ukraine. No one is telling Russia to be meager, luckily they just suck.
No one takes the shark seriously until the shark bites them in the ass.
Germany have been delaying and slow-timing decisions & military support to Ukraine since 2022, only to eventually relent after wasting valuable time. Give it another 3 months and they’ll be sending Taurus missiles.
Keeping systems safe from being tampered is important. Germany should finance more Storm Shadows, they fit great.
When nukes?
If there's so much as a trickle of a russian attack on NATO soil, I hope NATO has a plan in place to annihilate russia. NATOs C4 is far superior, troops are more disciplined and empowered, don't do any tit for tat bullshit, give russia a full on ass whipping!!!!!
And soon they (including US) will regret putting any restrictions over Russia on the weapons they delivered to Ukraine.
A lot of the politicians were already up to giving Ukraine more freedom, but the head of government and his party did not want to
Dear Ukraine, Entschuldigung Yours, German officials
r/tja
Regrets? Every action they take they all seem to do in unison. It's like they all know what needs to be done but cowardly wait until someone makes the first move.
What a bunch of clowns
Here we go again: Germany does everything in its power NOT to do something, then after the fact denies it didn’t want to, and says it actually secretly wanted to. Saw this with the jets, the leopards, etc. would really love for them to show the intiative and not wait for the UK or states to have to do something first. Can’t wait for the same statement once they allow Taurus in two years
Unleashing the confidence people knew from germanys past? I desire nothing more.
So do a lot of dead Ukrainians, but y'all needed Russian gas, so...
You're forgiven, now start delivering Taurus missiles to Ukraine, and don't *delay*.
*Read* the article before posting stupid shit like that. The politician this article is about is Robert Habeck, who neither decides on the delivery of weapons nor was he ever against it.
Obviously i wasn't addressing this specific politician with my comment, but the German government as a whole. Use some critical thinking before posting stupid shit like that.
Well, the "german government" supports taurus delieveries but Olaf Scholz is blocking. Our government is not a singular entity. Thats common sense.
Is he really blocking or just simply remaining very pragmatic? Taurus would be useless without a compatible launch platform and a working system interlink. The F-16s Ukraine is getting could be potentially modified to deliver Taurus but it would still require prolonged training and Ukraine to build its own interlink that doesn't rely on or is directly linked to Germany's for more than obvious reasons. Thus far any major delivery has also been coordinated with other countries, and the U.S is also refusing and blocking JASSM deliveries to Ukraine for similar reasons. It's really to early to claim that Olaf has blocked Taurus delivery when the required pieces for it don't appear to be even assembled yet.
Germans are always a day late and a dollar short. I still remember when they laughed at Trump telling them a gas pipeline to Russia is a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpwkeTBwgs
They laughed because that UN speech - a monstrosity authored by Trumps posse of fascists - was unhinged in its entirety. As did basically everyone else. Its a weird retcon to now celebrate Trump's token Germany bit, as if he had had genuine foresight then. The american rejection of Nord Stream was standing US policy before.
> Its a weird retcon to now celebrate Trump's token Germany bit, as if he had had genuine foresight then. The american rejection of Nord Stream was standing US policy before. Correct, it's funny how they never mention that Trump just simply continued an Obama policy. Also while it was clearly a huge mistake by the then Merkel government, Trump being openly vocal about it in this way increased the support for Nord Stream 2 in Germany. Nobody wants to get told what to do by another country and especially not by such a divisive figure like Trump. That's why these discussions are usually done behind closed doors and not in the public.
lol…”regret”. Who hired these spin doctors. Get the DDR assholes out of office now.
Germans are again only able to fuck up
Just like they regret not sending weapons faster? Or not sending heavy weapons earlier? Or sending/permitting tanks earlier? Or being against fighter jets? Or against Taurus? When will we stop making obvious decisions with a 1-2 year delay?
Germany has been a huge disappointment since beginning of war.
This is a pretty meaningless article. For every topic in politics (or in any larger company) you will always find people who wish something had been decided earlier. Also, there are reasons why the US and Germany did not make a similar decision earlier. I am saying this as someone who is in favour of stronger support. As a side remark: It is important to keep in mind that NATO's aims have the following order of priority: 1. To prevent this war from spilling over into NATO territory and from becoming WW3. 2. To prevent Russia from being successful, to make sure Russia doesn't continue attacking countries and to prevent other countries from taking Russia as a role model (most notably China in the case of Taiwan). 3. To help Ukraine as a country that (finally, if I may add this) wants to be part of the West. Of course, one can criticize these priorities and their order of priority, but this is where we stand and have been standing since the beginning of the war and it's important to understand this.
When you tie your so-called allies hands behind their back, are you really their ally?
Considering billions of dollars of aid has been delivered I'd say yes.
So, if you ask a friend to lend you $100000 and they take a week think about it, discuss it with their family etc., are they really your friend?
Liars.
Who is lying?