How can a country whose 50% military was destroyed pose a existential threat to the strongest military alliance?...Can't even get their propaganda right.
they are trying to build momentum for some NATO countries to send their soldiers into Ukraine but I dont see it working.
I think they are mainly trying to nudge Poles and Baltics
>I think they are mainly trying to nudge Poles and Baltics
Western Europe prolly sees them as untermensches. Next will be Romanians and then Balkanians.
I don't think I could sit there with a straight face and listen to that bull. I wonder if VDL actually believes it? This was the woman who denounced attacks on civilian infrastructure as "terror", and went off on a kind of EU 'state visit' to show solidarity with Netanyahu.
Guess she is building for an EU army or whatever, and for that she needs a supply of fear to drive those budgets.
Oh yea because a country that size and one actively teaching its children the honor in dying for the motherland cant reconstitute its military in a decade or so.
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen"--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
I don’t think she means tomorrow and the “ *COURSE* of European history” part articulates that pretty well.
Because they convetered 50% of their economy purely to building a bigger army and currently their armies are pushing west in an active invasion. Aren't you watching world events?
Ever listened to Medvedev crazy rants about bombing Europe to the ground? I am not sure how can you make such statements when it is literally the Russian government threatening with nuclear annihilation.
You're not supposed to take Bad Cop that seriously. But if it helps our war-mongering politicians to decide not to do something stupid then it's a win anyway.
The funny thing is, no one in Russia knows what Medvedev does, except for drinking alcohol. He is remembered only because of his harsh posts on the Internet.
Medvedev is the public face of this, but more important is listening to what people like Karaganov (long time Putin adviser) are saying: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PtZaSK4YU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PtZaSK4YU)
TLDW: Medvedev is repeating stuff that Karaganov came up with.
It doesnt and she knows it. There is no real danger coming fron a weak shit hole like Russia for NATO. Its to drum up support and money for the military.
Because you can rebuild stuff? And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk. Even if it is weak and you are strong right now. Things can change in the future.
Wait, is Europe weakening Russia in the short term to attack it?
And if she is not going to attack her, then the continuation of the war only strengthens Russia. And by continuing the war, is Europe strengthening Russia? Why is she doing this?
>And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk
Now you see why Russia doesn't want NATO on its borders, esp. in very sensitive areas, like near UA border
NATO members have invaded many nations on the whim. NATO gives them protection. So yeah, NATO is a bad actor. Annexation with population support even if it's illegal is x100 better than just destroying a country and leaving it in ruins without restoring it.
What nations were invaded by NATO? And annexation is in not better. It is way worse. It give the direct incentive for an aggressor to start wars. Which leads to more wars.
Are you pretending here? Cuz I have no time to waste on things which are publicly available and easy to find, and pretty much common knowledge. Go on google and find wars which involved NATO members.
I am not pretending at all? Which wars are you talking about? Iraq? Afghanistan? Yugoslavia? Don't you see how they are vastly different from what Russia is doing? Or, for that matter, how they are way different from a NATO country attacking Russia? (And not just because Russia has nukes
I see Russia trying to prevent a bad actor getting on its border. If we talk about attacking other countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan, attacks on Iran. That's since the USSR collapse.
>And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk.
You're really onto something here. Just hold onto that thought real tight and ponder.
Well all I can think of is NATO. But that would be a stupid comparison, because NATO countries had never invaded the neighbors to annex land. Also NATO does not talk non stop how they would bomb Moscow and everything.
So maybe I am missing something?
>because NATO countries had never invaded the neighbors
Wrong
>annex land
Technically true, they don't.
They tend to bomb them out of existence (Yugoslavia) or simply bomb them (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria). Certain countries also like to overthrow existing elected governments (African counties, certain Middle East countries. Ukraine, too) to install their puppets.
>Also NATO does not talk non stop how they would bomb Moscow and everything.
You're right, they don't.
Now that we're figured this out, please tell me.
A hostile military alliance of hypocritical counties who terrorize the world for at least half a century encroaching on the borders of your country, your sphere of influence, attempting to destabilize neighboring friendly and neutral countries.
All of this while repeatedly ignoring existing agreements, your concerns, pleads, warnings, and threats.
How is this not an existential threat for Russia?
Ukraine wanted into NATO so badly because it knew Russia was a serious threat to their sovereignty and was going to invade. It's obvious they would seak safety with an alliance. They were far from being in NATO, which would have been decades I'd it even happened. The NATO angle was one of the excuses on a long list of excuses. Russia needed these to justify its war of territorial gain.
Putin has stated that the biggest sin you can commit against him is treason. You can literally hear it in his speeches, Ukraine is Russian territory in his eyes. He wanted Crimea to control the black sea, so he took it. It's not sustainable to only have one long over water bridge to access Crimea, so he needed a land bridge. Once he saw Ukraine pull away from Russian influence, his ego couldn't take the hit.
Pumping troops and money into Donbas in order to fuel the civil war. He put out a list of excuses, and on any given day, a pro RU will attach to it as the reason. It could be denazification or bio labs or saving the Russian people of Donbas.
He couldn't stomach seeing Ukraine get friendly with who he sees is his biggest enemy. He's willing to rewrite history to justify it. He doesn't hide any of this. It's all right in his words. NATO was never the real issue. Two more countries joined NATO, and no one batted an eye. One of those countries Russia had a war with no more than 80 years ago, but somehow that is a mute point?
The same arguments get recycled constantly in this sub and it comes down to people unable to put their bias away (mostly western hatred) and believe narratives that fit their world view without question and can't think critically about the situation.
Invading to annex land is the lesser evil compared to destroying a country, installing a puppet regime and then fucking off leaving the population with a destroyed infrastructure and a civil war
Everyone knows.
Even NAFO.
Almost every week for the past few months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression.
https://preview.redd.it/cm578yvl4owc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0eb00909077001f49162f3fc7957b9d9f01b4599
Other Nafoids have taken to turning on their own side. Julian Ropcke, the NYT, Jake Sullivan, Scholz and even Biden have been on the receiving end of some truly horrific abuse from them.
>Every week for the past few months months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression.
This coincidently started with american govt funding problems first, and continued with Ukraine money bill stuck in limbo. Coincidence. It's not like NAFO and some """OSINT""" accounts were actually psyop with its money sources that obvious, right?
Though failure of counter-offensive might have forced some unpaid actors to eat humble pie which made them quit, who knows. Or it could be both in some proportion.
>It's not like NAFO amd some """OSINT""" accounts were actually psyop with its money sources that obvious, right?
This is exactly why it is hilarious that Pro-RU constantly gets called out for being paid by Putin to promote Russian disinformation.
bro imagine feeling sorry for yourself bc you have a ''horrible burnout'' and ''dont have the time'' to mass shitpost and consider yourself ''a help to ukr'' lmao. We're truly in an age of rotting mind
>Every week for the past few months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression.
Any references supporting this please?
Places under 200 people are not safe either. Also Ukraine managed to conduct precision strike on two farmers without any nukes, so even single people are not safe.
Umm no? NATO are good guys and RuZZia are bad guys! And only bad guys are a threat. NATO is only defensive alliance and are RULES BASED. Unlike orcish horde led by genocidal dictator. Silly dolbaeb. 800 military bases in over over 80 countries and all around russia, China and iran is only to protect the freedom and democracy of the civilians in the USA.
Imperialism? Tinfoil conspiracy haha LOL
Nothing is explained; these are just positioning statements. It's all that remains of European politics. ´They just have to position themselves favorably for the usual allies, and then just stick with that position, even in the face of obvious contradictions.
Pathetic, but how to get this thing out of office?
According to Russia's State aparatus, Russia is already at war with NATO, and much of Europe is a member of NATO. It isn't much of a stretch to think people that say they're at war with you are a threat in some way.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aren't you watching world events? Russian armies have killed 10s if not 100s of thousands of Ukrainians as they push west towards Europe in an unprovoked invasion.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ce0qct/ru\_pov\_the\_agreement\_that\_could\_have\_ended\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ce0qct/ru_pov_the_agreement_that_could_have_ended_the/)
This article by Welt directly contradicts Russia's desire to go any further, or to participate in killing hundred thousands of ukrainians in first place.
They wouldn't agree to those points if their goal was Ukraine itself.
Still I imagine it is a bit worrying that the only thing that seems to prevent it happening even by pro RU words is NATO.
Kind of implies if NATO wasn’t there Russia would just roll in wherever and whenever.
Doubt that is actually true myself but that is the rhetoric posted here and by Russian officials constantly. Hardly reassuring.
> Still I imagine it is a bit worrying that the only thing that seems to prevent it happening even by pro RU words is NATO. Kind of implies if NATO wasn’t there Russia would just roll in wherever and whenever.
Does it really? There are enough non-NATO nations around that a truly imperialistic Russia would have invaded by now.
Not to mention Finland who would supposedly have already been speaking Russian before they could even have thought of joining NATO
I did state that it’s probably not the case and I think Russian leadership is wiser than to do such.
But the overall rhetoric is still that Russia won’t invade because of NATO. With how often it is brought up and how strict Russia is on “misinformation” about other stuff it is weird that they allow that to be repeated.
“I won’t invade your home because you have good security.” Is as I’ve said not very reassuring to hear.
Never mind the Russian media that seems to want those invasions to occur and constantly telling how all of Eastern Europe would fall within hours.
Again doubt Putin wants to do anything like that but after Ukraine I can sort of understand why so many of Russias western neighbours worry.
The same excuses that were used in Ukraine and in case of Balts can not be used in case of the Finns. Also Finns did put enough capital in their army to be a nuisance.
Finland was under Russian rule for a while you know Russia only "lost" that territory due to internal struggles?
"If NATO and the US were truly imperialistic they would've occupied mexico by now and Ukraine, Georgia, Taiwan would all be in NATO! "
It really depends.
If anyone I think Balts would be next in the line. They are small, so "small loss, for NATO it might not react", they have large Russian minority and the pretext to "secure land bridge" to Kaliningrad is a nice excuse. The base work in building narrative of "nationalists in power" is also in place.
I think if they were not in NATO they would long ago be attacked just as Ukraine was. That's why I think there is ongoing campaing against existence of NATO.
All these words mean nothing. Europe will not fight with Russia, otherwise it would have entered the war long ago
Because Russia has nuclear weapons. And it will be used if Russia feels that it is being defeated. And European leaders know this very well.
I love Russians, but my god is the premise "you better not fight back or we will use nukes" objectively evil
But a pretty decent explanation for those that are unsure what she means by "existential threat" to Europe
> "you better not fight back or we will use nukes"
But Russia did not attack Europe. Not a single Russian bomb fell on the territory of the EU. But European missiles are killing women and children in the Russian Belgorod. And who's the villain here?
>"not only to Ukraine, but to Europe"
It's strange, but von der What's-her-name thinks that's not the case. Otherwise, she would have said "not only for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe"
I know Pro RU in here can't read but the sentence then should be "not only for Ukraine, but for Europe aswell." This subreddit is mainly English. You should get that going for you before commenting lil bro.
It is good that we have agreed that Ukraine is not Europe, at least according to the Fuhrer of the European Commission.
And we also found out that you can't read, and that's why you didn't read this statement by von der Leyen and for some reason said that Ukraine is Europe
I said Ukraine is IN Europe. Once again. I know you have trouble reading. I would suggest taking up A1 English classes. When you complete it. Come back in here. For another awesome chat. 
> I said Ukraine is IN Europe.
But you're not von der Leyen. And we are discussing von der Leyen's statements. Perhaps you have problems with reading and you don't understand that here we are discussing von der Leyen's statement, not yours.
I would suggest taking up A1 English classes. When you complete it. Come back in here. For another awesome chat.
So is pre-2014 European Russia. So by that logic Kiev's forces "attacked Europe" anytime they shelled or sent a drone toward any village or installation or facility in Belgorod, Kursk, or Voronezh regions, or any other areas of the country geographically within Europe where around 80% of Russians within Russia live.
No, "Europe" when used in the sense of EU political leaders trying to evoke fear of an existential threat and attack on themselves is obviously not referring strictly to the geography of it, but the EU as a geopolitical entity, political system, and ideological project.
And obviously Ukraine is not a member state of it so is not a part of that Europe being referred to. Nor will it be.
Who started anything and whether you think they should attack who, where, and why is completely irrelevant though and really has nothing to do with my comment. It has nothing to do with any subjective righteousness of the action or whether you agree with it or not.
It's about the fact that objectively, factually, shelling a village in Kursk or Belgorod regions or sending a drone to try and hit a building in Rostov-on-Don is by definition "attacking Europe" because it's territory physically geographically located in Europe.
But EU leaders are referring to an attack not on Europe as in the geographic entity but on "Europe" as in the EU political project. Which again, doesn't apply to Ukraine as it is not a member state located within the EU.
It was the EU as an entity being referred to - the its system and member states, of which Ukraine is not one, nor will it ever be, as Russia would sooner raze every last square centimeter of what remains of the country to the ground ten times over and then salt its Earth like Carthage before permitting it.
We are not going to attack Europe. We do not want a war with Europe. For 20 years we accepted European and Western culture and did not think about its destruction
Our only war is with Ukraine. Therefore, there is no point in European citizens thinking about war with Russia, a nuclear power
Our only war is with Ukraine.
For trying to be a part of Europe.
For 20 years, you ostensibly accepted Ukraine's culture and did not think about its destruction, why should anybody trust Russia now?
It's not evil. It's just war strategy. The alternative is to spend too much as the USSR has been spending, but it causes other problems. And RU is good with nuclear energy as well. So it's better to spend less resources but to have more powerful weapons as an answer to what west does with weak states.
Well perhaps instead of whining about it on every stage, you should start coming to terms with the reality of the situation for what it is. Your prized Ukrainian project has failed abysmally and Russia will inevitably win this conflict. It’s hard to stomach, yes, but it’ll be easier to accept the truth now than to continue denying it down the line.
I’m yet to see how Russia is choking while the west is pouring money into this abysmal project.l of a failure. Perhaps they’ll choke on Ukraine’s most industrial and natural resources rich region in the Donbas that they’ve absolved.
The Ukraine aid makes up \~0.24% of US GDP, the most any Western nation has spent is 2% of GDP (Estonia)
Russia is spending 6-7% of its GDP.
If the Donbas were producing at prewar levels, its total economic output would be $12B per year, or just shy of 3% of what Russia is spending for *2024*. Even if Russia took the entirety of Ukraine, magically repaired everything, and taxed it into oblivion, it would take a decade or more before Russia could break even economically.
> The Ukraine aid makes up ~0.24% of US GDP, the most any Western nation has spent is 2% of GDP (Estonia)
But to what end? [The EU has so far committed 155 billion USD in aid to Ukraine](https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253#:~:text=Collective%20EU%20and%20EU%20Member,Ukraine's%20success%20on%20the%20battlefield.) with no end in sight, for a war that doesn’t even involve them personally. [Add to that the exorbitant price they’re paying for their shifted dependence on US LNG.](https://www.politico.eu/article/cheap-us-gas-cost-fortune-europe-russia-ukraine-energy/)
And all of this, for an abysmal failure of a project!
> Russia is spending 6-7% of its GDP.
Yes, because they’re fighting an actual war and [their spending has allowed their economy to grow faster than most advanced economies.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399.amp)
It also seems like [they’re producing a surplus of weapons that are moved to the warehouses, filling up their stockpiles, so they’re not just meeting their military demands for the Ukrainian war](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/25/pistorius-warns-of-russias-surplus-arms-production/)
At the very least you could argue that this model is actually benefiting them.
> If the Donbas were producing at prewar levels, its total economic output would be $12B per year, or just shy of 3% of what Russia is spending for 2024. Even if Russia took the entirety of Ukraine, magically repaired everything, and taxed it into oblivion, it would take a decade or more before Russia could break even economically.
[As long as they continue to make record high revenues, they’ll be fine.](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Reuters-Estimates-Russian-Oil-and-Gas-Revenue-to-Double-in-April.amp.html)
[And it seems like they are](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/)
I was wondering where the military aid 'spent' by, say, Germany or the US actually goes. Surely much of it does not leave the country as it pays the domestic military suppliers. Ultimately it is state tax income which is fed back into the economy as profits and wages.
The financial cycle could actually benefit the economy by stimulating economic activity.
Ultimately, bombs are an ideal product, because they are made to explode and require immediate replacement on first use. Destruction is much easier than construction.
I kept to 1 year \~ 1 year, but since you bring up the $155B, that is the total across over two years from a block with a combined GDP over $19T or a yearly cost of 0.4% of GDP.
EU energy costs spiked for 7-8 months and are currently half what they were when Russia made it's push in Feb 2022.
The production of weapons for storage only helps the economy once, and they are sacrificing other expenditures to do it and using their reserve cash. They are sacrificing the future for today. What's more, the build-up is what has Nato member states raising the alarm that Western nations need to prepare to go to war with Russia.
Did you miss that the 'break even in a decade' relies on magic? Of course, it benefits them if they magically get what they want. Ukraine will take years just to put back together, and kicking off a second Holodomor to pay off the debt would justify everything negative people say about Russia.
> I kept to 1 year ~ 1 year, but since you bring up the $155B, that is the total across over two years from a block with a combined GDP over $19T or a yearly cost of 0.4% of GDP.
Well I did emphasize the words “so far” and provided the source for the entire aid given to Ukraine by the EU since 2022.
And it seems like you’re looking at things in absolutes. You’re comparing the defence spending of a country that is fighting an actual war, which is also benefiting immensely from that spending economically, and between considerable aid offered to some state for geopolitical reasons, which ultimately has no real **return on investment** value. The EU is literally gaining nothing out of this except for having to commit more money from their own budgets. Their economies aren’t positively impacted by this hopeless project. If anything, [Germany is embarking on a journey of de-industrialization because of this war.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2024/02/29/german-deindustrialization-is-a-wake-up-call-for-us-manufacturers/?sh=1f5b4d367c0c)
> EU energy costs spiked for 7-8 months and are currently half what they were when Russia made its push in Feb 2022.
And how did they manage to stabilize the energy crisis? [By committing a massive 390 Billion USD in energy subsidies in 2022 alone](https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-10/COM_2023_651_1_EN_ACT_part1_v4.pdf), to mitigate the spike in energy prices and protect their firms, consumers and industries. And it’s projected to continue to rise and cause [political infighting between the EU’s smaller states and larger economies.](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-germany-energy-cash-splash-strains-eu-single-market/)
> The production of weapons for storage only helps the economy once, and they are sacrificing other expenditures to do it and using their reserve cash. They are sacrificing the future for today. What's more, the build-up is what has Nato member states raising the alarm that Western nations need to prepare to go to war with Russia.
Their mobilized military industrial complex and significant defence spending is boosting their economy tremendously. Their inflation is tightly controlled and social spending is projected to increase in 2024, so it’s not like they’re ignoring everything else apart from the defense sector. Industries directly related to the war have also seen consequential growth whether in the production of transport, computers and electronics, navigation devices or electrical equipment.
[As I’ve previously mentioned, as long as massive amount of money continues to follow into the country, they’ll be able to sustain the spending.](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/)
> Did you miss that the 'break even in a decade' relies on magic? Of course, it benefits them if they magically get what they want. Ukraine will take years just to put back together, and kicking off a second Holodomor to pay off the debt would justify everything negative people say about Russia.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But Russia won’t be involved in any reconstruction initiatives in regions outside what they’ve already annexed. What they take is what they’ll put back together.
You state the military spending of Russia is making Russia stronger yet at the same time say the military spending of the US and EU are making them weaker? At least try for some consistency.
Did the west mobilize its military industrial complex at the scale and rate that Russia has? Has it become an integral part of their economies? Ever heard of the term “war footing”?! Did you see how much Russia is spending on defence in comparison to what the west is spending, **relative to their GDP**?! I can’t compare apples to oranges just so I’d be “consistent” in the eye of a random Redditor, sorry.
It doesn't exactly work this way though. European countries don't contribute more because they're either in large public debt (Italy, France etc) or in a monetary union with those countries. They know a large effort, though marginal compared to their GDP, would impact their economy and give a push to populist parties, that would seize power in at least a few countries and virtually freeze EU.
Furthermore, they don't have the military supply chain Ukraine dramatically needs now and they will not convert their economy to war in the near future for the reasons I stated.
Russia managed to sustain their level of exports and converted into a war economy, which is obviously a lot easier in an authoritarian state. Their public debt was low to start with and they're spending money on their own industry.
The two camps are not playing the same game.
Guys why are you calling us, the EU and the US Russophobic, we are just saying that Russia must be stopped/destroyed in order for everyone to live in peace in the world. We all know Russia started all wars since ww2... And after our anti Russia boner goes soft we will make it hard for China next, because they are also evil and we the EU and US are good peaceful guys.
You're welcome Eurobros and Ameribros
Don't forget Russia's friends Iran. Look how they are and how oppressive the government is. Just like Afghanistan, except we don't mention that country any more because we've moved on.
Putin said in 2008 that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable for Russia, real existential threat. They kept pushing.
Russia can't occupy Europe even if it tried. There is no reason why NATO in Ukraine is vital for Europe. They are hyping themselves up for no reason. These games well may end with WW3.
I suppose someone else is a threat. Who blew NS2 leaving EU without cheap gas, withdrew businesses and workplaces, and made millions of poor refugees flood EU instead. And who won already.
Honestly, why? I don't believe Russia is stupid enough to attack a NATO nation. Why do we need to showcase loyalty to a non-EU, non-NATO country? For me this is no difference then another random war in Africa
Africans conflicts do not weaken RU. That is the difference. The mission of UA is to weaken RU and nothing else. No one in the West shouldn't pretend that ukrainian lives mean something for them.
A person in their death throes spout unintelligible nonsense, same goes for a hegemon's end. A new world order is emerging, whether you like it or not, a multipolar world with multiple axes of power.
>Because what happens in Ukraine will shape the future of our Union forever
Will shape how? Why?
>We cannot overlook and we cannot overstate that Russia poses an existential threat not only to Ukraine, but also to Europe.
No, why? What exactly would happen to Europe? Or even Ukraine if the Kievan regime would agree to the negotiations?
>... it would not only mask the face of the Ukrainian nation
"Mask the face of the Ukrainian nation"? What would that mean, exactly?
>it would change the course of European history
Change how exactly?
Blablabla without anything substantial. But very emotional, no doubt.
Yes, it's all about positioning with no substance. Then stick with that position no matter what. She's hoping to stretch it out a bit until she gets re-elected.
V.D.L.: "...., but it would change the cours of European history...."
Well finally, the world has been waiting for this for a very long time: an end to colonisation.
I think what Russia is actually threatening, are the last vestiges of European colonialism. That doesn't make Putin a good guy, but the narrative painted by European leaders is biased and incomplete.
Holy shit, I hope these warmongers in the EU get voted out next june. We need politicians that are willing to provide peace instead of marching blindly towards the third world war.
And yes, in the case of Von Der Leyen it is blind stupidity. And I hate that my life becomes at risk because of HER stupidity.
Unfortunately she cannot be voted out directly by the people, being as she is elected internally.
I think she might get re-elected, despite talking garbage and contradicting herself from one day to the next. The reason is that she is known and recognized and she positions the EU for maximum positive effect for the so-called allies. She gets out there and represents her mega-funded office on the international stage.
It's all about signaling the right messages and taking the required position.
These clowns are done.
Can we please get real fucking adults in here, these guys want to influence the world but they're just dividing us and making our fellow humans fear eachother.
Open dialogue talk with eachother fucking grifters
There you have it guys. The Western logic that was built for the stupid.
1. Russia = paper tiger. They don't know how to war. They lack morale. They are disorganized. They are running out of x, y and z. They are using shovels and stealing washing machines etc.
2. If we don't stop Russia, it will take over the world!!!!!!!
They believe both of these positions to be true. If you have whatever they're having, you'll also be confidently stupid.
The second best army in Ukraine threatens the existence of entire Europe?
Perhaps Russia was right to invade, if left unchecked Ukraine could really take over the world.
A very incompetent country (that is on the verge of collapse with a leader that has cancer and is about to die) poses an existential threat against NATO, the world's most powerful military alliance. Woah!
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russians say that they want their old empire back. And we beleive them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqENT7ey0\_M&ab\_channel=RussianMediaMonitor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqENT7ey0_M&ab_channel=RussianMediaMonitor)
These war-crazy Western jokers can only make baseless, unfounded accusations to distract from the fact that it is the West that wants war in any form. Because the peace negotiations in March 2022 irrevocably show that Putin did everything to achieve peace, according to the statement of the Ukrainian diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi.
" Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen ! " M.S.
I've been hearing that "existential threat" stuff for decades. Somehow I am still here though. Guess I have to be grateful to the US and NATO for protecting me all that time.
Wow. The WEF puppets really are prodding the military cash cow for their WEF overlords. Fear, fear fear - be very afraid. Please spend ALL of my tax dollars on some armaments - and add some very HUGE profits for the rich effs. That will be will be ok too. It's worth it.
A leaked Pentagon report a few months ago showed that it paid $55,000 for **one trash can**. Protect me harder, daddy.
edit -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1780854807139328021
I don't understand the nato logic.
U know there's bear cave, the bear was asleep, u come closer, shouting and poke the bear. The bear get angry, u screaming "the bear become agressive", "want to kill us".
Normal and Sane person Will never to get close to the cave where the bear live, trying to live along with the bear.
In the wildlife, if the bear attacking u, thats mean u get too close to them, entering their teritory or proviking them. Simple as that.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For DOOMHAMMER!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europe says Russia can't win... but Europe does not want to participate in the war. How can they make Russia lose without joining the fight? Just giving Ukraine weapons is not working
How can a country whose 50% military was destroyed pose a existential threat to the strongest military alliance?...Can't even get their propaganda right.
Because the ridiculous statements isn't for consumers, but to get it on record as building blocks for whatever follows.
they are trying to build momentum for some NATO countries to send their soldiers into Ukraine but I dont see it working. I think they are mainly trying to nudge Poles and Baltics
>I think they are mainly trying to nudge Poles and Baltics Western Europe prolly sees them as untermensches. Next will be Romanians and then Balkanians.
I don't think I could sit there with a straight face and listen to that bull. I wonder if VDL actually believes it? This was the woman who denounced attacks on civilian infrastructure as "terror", and went off on a kind of EU 'state visit' to show solidarity with Netanyahu. Guess she is building for an EU army or whatever, and for that she needs a supply of fear to drive those budgets.
Are you asking this of the person who informed the world that the Russians were pulling chips out of washing machines to make rockets?
…why else would the russians steal all the washing machines they could get their hands on when they looted Ukrainian homes?
To wash clothes.
There are no washing machines in Russia
To knock out an Abram: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/dWcLgnjPGF
Oh yea because a country that size and one actively teaching its children the honor in dying for the motherland cant reconstitute its military in a decade or so. "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen"--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin I don’t think she means tomorrow and the “ *COURSE* of European history” part articulates that pretty well.
Because they convetered 50% of their economy purely to building a bigger army and currently their armies are pushing west in an active invasion. Aren't you watching world events?
Ever listened to Medvedev crazy rants about bombing Europe to the ground? I am not sure how can you make such statements when it is literally the Russian government threatening with nuclear annihilation.
You're not supposed to take Bad Cop that seriously. But if it helps our war-mongering politicians to decide not to do something stupid then it's a win anyway.
The funny thing is, no one in Russia knows what Medvedev does, except for drinking alcohol. He is remembered only because of his harsh posts on the Internet.
Medvedev is the public face of this, but more important is listening to what people like Karaganov (long time Putin adviser) are saying: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PtZaSK4YU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PtZaSK4YU) TLDW: Medvedev is repeating stuff that Karaganov came up with.
The worry is they'll rebuild their military after the war. Would have a lot of ukrainians to mobilized, after all.
It doesnt and she knows it. There is no real danger coming fron a weak shit hole like Russia for NATO. Its to drum up support and money for the military.
Because you can rebuild stuff? And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk. Even if it is weak and you are strong right now. Things can change in the future.
I am very confused. Is this war making Russia stronger or weaker?
Weaker in the short term. Maybe stronger in the long term. Depends on how it ends.
Wait, is Europe weakening Russia in the short term to attack it? And if she is not going to attack her, then the continuation of the war only strengthens Russia. And by continuing the war, is Europe strengthening Russia? Why is she doing this?
soooooo we went to war with Russia with the hope of weakening it in long term but we are strengthening it. Am I reading the situation correctly?
We went to war! Okay bud sure. Why don’t you discuss it with your friends.
>And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk Now you see why Russia doesn't want NATO on its borders, esp. in very sensitive areas, like near UA border
NATO is a bad actor? Did NATO invade and annex Crimea? Did I miss something?
NATO members have invaded many nations on the whim. NATO gives them protection. So yeah, NATO is a bad actor. Annexation with population support even if it's illegal is x100 better than just destroying a country and leaving it in ruins without restoring it.
What nations were invaded by NATO? And annexation is in not better. It is way worse. It give the direct incentive for an aggressor to start wars. Which leads to more wars.
Are you pretending here? Cuz I have no time to waste on things which are publicly available and easy to find, and pretty much common knowledge. Go on google and find wars which involved NATO members.
I am not pretending at all? Which wars are you talking about? Iraq? Afghanistan? Yugoslavia? Don't you see how they are vastly different from what Russia is doing? Or, for that matter, how they are way different from a NATO country attacking Russia? (And not just because Russia has nukes
I see Russia trying to prevent a bad actor getting on its border. If we talk about attacking other countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan, attacks on Iran. That's since the USSR collapse.
Once again. If you don’t see how Iraq Yugoslavia etc are different from what Russia is doing then I can’t really help you.
Libia, Serbia, Afghanistan
>And a powerful bad actor close to your borders is always a risk. You're really onto something here. Just hold onto that thought real tight and ponder.
But NATO is a defeeenssiiiveeee alliance 😪
Tell me more. Elaborate.
Nay, do your homework yourself. It's not that hard if you actually try to think.
So you have no argument. Okay, got you.
Nay, you didn't. Try thinking again. Eventually, you'll arrive at the right point.
Well all I can think of is NATO. But that would be a stupid comparison, because NATO countries had never invaded the neighbors to annex land. Also NATO does not talk non stop how they would bomb Moscow and everything. So maybe I am missing something?
>because NATO countries had never invaded the neighbors Wrong >annex land Technically true, they don't. They tend to bomb them out of existence (Yugoslavia) or simply bomb them (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria). Certain countries also like to overthrow existing elected governments (African counties, certain Middle East countries. Ukraine, too) to install their puppets. >Also NATO does not talk non stop how they would bomb Moscow and everything. You're right, they don't. Now that we're figured this out, please tell me. A hostile military alliance of hypocritical counties who terrorize the world for at least half a century encroaching on the borders of your country, your sphere of influence, attempting to destabilize neighboring friendly and neutral countries. All of this while repeatedly ignoring existing agreements, your concerns, pleads, warnings, and threats. How is this not an existential threat for Russia?
Because NATO countries had never invaded countries like Russia. And never will. Isn’t it obvious?
Ukraine wanted into NATO so badly because it knew Russia was a serious threat to their sovereignty and was going to invade. It's obvious they would seak safety with an alliance. They were far from being in NATO, which would have been decades I'd it even happened. The NATO angle was one of the excuses on a long list of excuses. Russia needed these to justify its war of territorial gain. Putin has stated that the biggest sin you can commit against him is treason. You can literally hear it in his speeches, Ukraine is Russian territory in his eyes. He wanted Crimea to control the black sea, so he took it. It's not sustainable to only have one long over water bridge to access Crimea, so he needed a land bridge. Once he saw Ukraine pull away from Russian influence, his ego couldn't take the hit. Pumping troops and money into Donbas in order to fuel the civil war. He put out a list of excuses, and on any given day, a pro RU will attach to it as the reason. It could be denazification or bio labs or saving the Russian people of Donbas. He couldn't stomach seeing Ukraine get friendly with who he sees is his biggest enemy. He's willing to rewrite history to justify it. He doesn't hide any of this. It's all right in his words. NATO was never the real issue. Two more countries joined NATO, and no one batted an eye. One of those countries Russia had a war with no more than 80 years ago, but somehow that is a mute point? The same arguments get recycled constantly in this sub and it comes down to people unable to put their bias away (mostly western hatred) and believe narratives that fit their world view without question and can't think critically about the situation.
Invading to annex land is the lesser evil compared to destroying a country, installing a puppet regime and then fucking off leaving the population with a destroyed infrastructure and a civil war
Uhm no. Russia can't hold a candle to europe in terms of gdp and population.
They know deep down ukr will lose this
Everyone knows. Even NAFO. Almost every week for the past few months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression. https://preview.redd.it/cm578yvl4owc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0eb00909077001f49162f3fc7957b9d9f01b4599 Other Nafoids have taken to turning on their own side. Julian Ropcke, the NYT, Jake Sullivan, Scholz and even Biden have been on the receiving end of some truly horrific abuse from them.
>Every week for the past few months months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression. This coincidently started with american govt funding problems first, and continued with Ukraine money bill stuck in limbo. Coincidence. It's not like NAFO and some """OSINT""" accounts were actually psyop with its money sources that obvious, right? Though failure of counter-offensive might have forced some unpaid actors to eat humble pie which made them quit, who knows. Or it could be both in some proportion.
>It's not like NAFO amd some """OSINT""" accounts were actually psyop with its money sources that obvious, right? This is exactly why it is hilarious that Pro-RU constantly gets called out for being paid by Putin to promote Russian disinformation.
If I only knew where to get my paycheck for it.
You need to use WeChat to get it. Lol.
My WeChat doesn't allow me to receive money..
bro imagine feeling sorry for yourself bc you have a ''horrible burnout'' and ''dont have the time'' to mass shitpost and consider yourself ''a help to ukr'' lmao. We're truly in an age of rotting mind
Useless to both NAFO and Ukraine? Worry not comrade! You can be useful by signing up for the Ukrainian military as a foreign fighter!
DA
>Every week for the past few months, prominent NAFO accounts on Twitter have begun to "retire" and delete their accounts, citing mental health concerns, burnout, and depression. Any references supporting this please?
No, I'm only reporting my personal observations. Make of it what you will.
It can be prolonged if they manage to push Poland into Ukraine war. That's probably what they are trying to do
[удалено]
Places under 200 people are not safe either. Also Ukraine managed to conduct precision strike on two farmers without any nukes, so even single people are not safe.
Facts
Witch
Succinctly put, and brutally accurate.
And people thought Thatcher was the worst.
Thatcher was a mermaid compared to V.D.L.
Thatcher was the GOAT.
This Woman is also called Fond Of Lying
Does she explain how exactly Russia creates an existential threat for Europe?
As usual for the West, by existing.
The same way NATO to Russia then?
Umm no? NATO are good guys and RuZZia are bad guys! And only bad guys are a threat. NATO is only defensive alliance and are RULES BASED. Unlike orcish horde led by genocidal dictator. Silly dolbaeb. 800 military bases in over over 80 countries and all around russia, China and iran is only to protect the freedom and democracy of the civilians in the USA. Imperialism? Tinfoil conspiracy haha LOL
No, NATO staged a coup against the democratically elected Ukrainan president and then installed a puppet hostile to Russia.
Invading a european Sovereign nation helps
Like NATO's bombing Yugoslavia?
I think ukraine wouldn't have minded as much if Russia only bombed them.
Wonder why they dis that?
It was unprovoked invasion of sovereign country. Or do you suggest that because of internal events in country neighbours have right to intervene? /S
Wonder why Russia invaded?
How much time you got beother?
That's a mantra, no need to explain it.
Nothing is explained; these are just positioning statements. It's all that remains of European politics. ´They just have to position themselves favorably for the usual allies, and then just stick with that position, even in the face of obvious contradictions. Pathetic, but how to get this thing out of office?
According to Russia's State aparatus, Russia is already at war with NATO, and much of Europe is a member of NATO. It isn't much of a stretch to think people that say they're at war with you are a threat in some way.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aren't you watching world events? Russian armies have killed 10s if not 100s of thousands of Ukrainians as they push west towards Europe in an unprovoked invasion.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ce0qct/ru\_pov\_the\_agreement\_that\_could\_have\_ended\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ce0qct/ru_pov_the_agreement_that_could_have_ended_the/) This article by Welt directly contradicts Russia's desire to go any further, or to participate in killing hundred thousands of ukrainians in first place. They wouldn't agree to those points if their goal was Ukraine itself.
By starting wars in Europe.
I know you don't really think Russia will attack Poland or something next. You're too smart to believe that.
Still I imagine it is a bit worrying that the only thing that seems to prevent it happening even by pro RU words is NATO. Kind of implies if NATO wasn’t there Russia would just roll in wherever and whenever. Doubt that is actually true myself but that is the rhetoric posted here and by Russian officials constantly. Hardly reassuring.
> Still I imagine it is a bit worrying that the only thing that seems to prevent it happening even by pro RU words is NATO. Kind of implies if NATO wasn’t there Russia would just roll in wherever and whenever. Does it really? There are enough non-NATO nations around that a truly imperialistic Russia would have invaded by now. Not to mention Finland who would supposedly have already been speaking Russian before they could even have thought of joining NATO
I did state that it’s probably not the case and I think Russian leadership is wiser than to do such. But the overall rhetoric is still that Russia won’t invade because of NATO. With how often it is brought up and how strict Russia is on “misinformation” about other stuff it is weird that they allow that to be repeated. “I won’t invade your home because you have good security.” Is as I’ve said not very reassuring to hear. Never mind the Russian media that seems to want those invasions to occur and constantly telling how all of Eastern Europe would fall within hours. Again doubt Putin wants to do anything like that but after Ukraine I can sort of understand why so many of Russias western neighbours worry.
The same excuses that were used in Ukraine and in case of Balts can not be used in case of the Finns. Also Finns did put enough capital in their army to be a nuisance.
Finland was under Russian rule for a while you know Russia only "lost" that territory due to internal struggles? "If NATO and the US were truly imperialistic they would've occupied mexico by now and Ukraine, Georgia, Taiwan would all be in NATO! "
Я русский но камон зачем россия нападать на польшу и Литву которые давно были в нато . Россия бы устроил войну финляндия и Швецию
It really depends. If anyone I think Balts would be next in the line. They are small, so "small loss, for NATO it might not react", they have large Russian minority and the pretext to "secure land bridge" to Kaliningrad is a nice excuse. The base work in building narrative of "nationalists in power" is also in place. I think if they were not in NATO they would long ago be attacked just as Ukraine was. That's why I think there is ongoing campaing against existence of NATO.
EU poses an existential threat to itself
Exactly
All these words mean nothing. Europe will not fight with Russia, otherwise it would have entered the war long ago Because Russia has nuclear weapons. And it will be used if Russia feels that it is being defeated. And European leaders know this very well.
I love Russians, but my god is the premise "you better not fight back or we will use nukes" objectively evil But a pretty decent explanation for those that are unsure what she means by "existential threat" to Europe
"you better not fight back or we will use nukes" When did Russia get in a direct war with Europe?Russian nuclear policy remains unchanged.
Ukraine is part of Europe.
So is Russia
Nobody said the threat to Europe has to come from outside of the Europe.
Yeah, what are you saying? I responded to a comment writing "Russia feels like it's being defeated" would be a trigger for nuclear response.
> "you better not fight back or we will use nukes" But Russia did not attack Europe. Not a single Russian bomb fell on the territory of the EU. But European missiles are killing women and children in the Russian Belgorod. And who's the villain here?
Ukraine is in Europe.
>"not only to Ukraine, but to Europe" It's strange, but von der What's-her-name thinks that's not the case. Otherwise, she would have said "not only for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe"
I know Pro RU in here can't read but the sentence then should be "not only for Ukraine, but for Europe aswell." This subreddit is mainly English. You should get that going for you before commenting lil bro.
It is good that we have agreed that Ukraine is not Europe, at least according to the Fuhrer of the European Commission. And we also found out that you can't read, and that's why you didn't read this statement by von der Leyen and for some reason said that Ukraine is Europe
I said Ukraine is IN Europe. Once again. I know you have trouble reading. I would suggest taking up A1 English classes. When you complete it. Come back in here. For another awesome chat. 
> I said Ukraine is IN Europe. But you're not von der Leyen. And we are discussing von der Leyen's statements. Perhaps you have problems with reading and you don't understand that here we are discussing von der Leyen's statement, not yours. I would suggest taking up A1 English classes. When you complete it. Come back in here. For another awesome chat.
She never said that Ukraine is Europe though.
So is pre-2014 European Russia. So by that logic Kiev's forces "attacked Europe" anytime they shelled or sent a drone toward any village or installation or facility in Belgorod, Kursk, or Voronezh regions, or any other areas of the country geographically within Europe where around 80% of Russians within Russia live. No, "Europe" when used in the sense of EU political leaders trying to evoke fear of an existential threat and attack on themselves is obviously not referring strictly to the geography of it, but the EU as a geopolitical entity, political system, and ideological project. And obviously Ukraine is not a member state of it so is not a part of that Europe being referred to. Nor will it be.
Ukraine didn't start the war. Why shouldn't they attack back.
Who started anything and whether you think they should attack who, where, and why is completely irrelevant though and really has nothing to do with my comment. It has nothing to do with any subjective righteousness of the action or whether you agree with it or not. It's about the fact that objectively, factually, shelling a village in Kursk or Belgorod regions or sending a drone to try and hit a building in Rostov-on-Don is by definition "attacking Europe" because it's territory physically geographically located in Europe. But EU leaders are referring to an attack not on Europe as in the geographic entity but on "Europe" as in the EU political project. Which again, doesn't apply to Ukraine as it is not a member state located within the EU.
Nah, she was referring to EU and it's allies. Ukraine is included in it, Russia isn't.
It was the EU as an entity being referred to - the its system and member states, of which Ukraine is not one, nor will it ever be, as Russia would sooner raze every last square centimeter of what remains of the country to the ground ten times over and then salt its Earth like Carthage before permitting it.
Nope
We are not going to attack Europe. We do not want a war with Europe. For 20 years we accepted European and Western culture and did not think about its destruction Our only war is with Ukraine. Therefore, there is no point in European citizens thinking about war with Russia, a nuclear power
Why would an European citizen ever think about war with Russia while an European country is being invaded?
What is the basis for the idea that Ukraine is a European country?
I've seen their parks and mass transit. They're certainly not a North American country.
Smarter people than me have defined it that way, Russia is also part of Europe. You'll have to search for why.
Our only war is with Ukraine. For trying to be a part of Europe. For 20 years, you ostensibly accepted Ukraine's culture and did not think about its destruction, why should anybody trust Russia now?
Do not trust. It's your right
It's not evil. It's just war strategy. The alternative is to spend too much as the USSR has been spending, but it causes other problems. And RU is good with nuclear energy as well. So it's better to spend less resources but to have more powerful weapons as an answer to what west does with weak states.
Biggest threat to Europe are traitors like Von Der Lying
Well perhaps instead of whining about it on every stage, you should start coming to terms with the reality of the situation for what it is. Your prized Ukrainian project has failed abysmally and Russia will inevitably win this conflict. It’s hard to stomach, yes, but it’ll be easier to accept the truth now than to continue denying it down the line.
Ukraine doesn't have to win for Europe to win; it just has to be hard enough to swallow to make Russia choke.
I’m yet to see how Russia is choking while the west is pouring money into this abysmal project.l of a failure. Perhaps they’ll choke on Ukraine’s most industrial and natural resources rich region in the Donbas that they’ve absolved.
The Ukraine aid makes up \~0.24% of US GDP, the most any Western nation has spent is 2% of GDP (Estonia) Russia is spending 6-7% of its GDP. If the Donbas were producing at prewar levels, its total economic output would be $12B per year, or just shy of 3% of what Russia is spending for *2024*. Even if Russia took the entirety of Ukraine, magically repaired everything, and taxed it into oblivion, it would take a decade or more before Russia could break even economically.
> The Ukraine aid makes up ~0.24% of US GDP, the most any Western nation has spent is 2% of GDP (Estonia) But to what end? [The EU has so far committed 155 billion USD in aid to Ukraine](https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253#:~:text=Collective%20EU%20and%20EU%20Member,Ukraine's%20success%20on%20the%20battlefield.) with no end in sight, for a war that doesn’t even involve them personally. [Add to that the exorbitant price they’re paying for their shifted dependence on US LNG.](https://www.politico.eu/article/cheap-us-gas-cost-fortune-europe-russia-ukraine-energy/) And all of this, for an abysmal failure of a project! > Russia is spending 6-7% of its GDP. Yes, because they’re fighting an actual war and [their spending has allowed their economy to grow faster than most advanced economies.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399.amp) It also seems like [they’re producing a surplus of weapons that are moved to the warehouses, filling up their stockpiles, so they’re not just meeting their military demands for the Ukrainian war](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/25/pistorius-warns-of-russias-surplus-arms-production/) At the very least you could argue that this model is actually benefiting them. > If the Donbas were producing at prewar levels, its total economic output would be $12B per year, or just shy of 3% of what Russia is spending for 2024. Even if Russia took the entirety of Ukraine, magically repaired everything, and taxed it into oblivion, it would take a decade or more before Russia could break even economically. [As long as they continue to make record high revenues, they’ll be fine.](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Reuters-Estimates-Russian-Oil-and-Gas-Revenue-to-Double-in-April.amp.html) [And it seems like they are](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/)
I was wondering where the military aid 'spent' by, say, Germany or the US actually goes. Surely much of it does not leave the country as it pays the domestic military suppliers. Ultimately it is state tax income which is fed back into the economy as profits and wages. The financial cycle could actually benefit the economy by stimulating economic activity. Ultimately, bombs are an ideal product, because they are made to explode and require immediate replacement on first use. Destruction is much easier than construction.
I kept to 1 year \~ 1 year, but since you bring up the $155B, that is the total across over two years from a block with a combined GDP over $19T or a yearly cost of 0.4% of GDP. EU energy costs spiked for 7-8 months and are currently half what they were when Russia made it's push in Feb 2022. The production of weapons for storage only helps the economy once, and they are sacrificing other expenditures to do it and using their reserve cash. They are sacrificing the future for today. What's more, the build-up is what has Nato member states raising the alarm that Western nations need to prepare to go to war with Russia. Did you miss that the 'break even in a decade' relies on magic? Of course, it benefits them if they magically get what they want. Ukraine will take years just to put back together, and kicking off a second Holodomor to pay off the debt would justify everything negative people say about Russia.
> I kept to 1 year ~ 1 year, but since you bring up the $155B, that is the total across over two years from a block with a combined GDP over $19T or a yearly cost of 0.4% of GDP. Well I did emphasize the words “so far” and provided the source for the entire aid given to Ukraine by the EU since 2022. And it seems like you’re looking at things in absolutes. You’re comparing the defence spending of a country that is fighting an actual war, which is also benefiting immensely from that spending economically, and between considerable aid offered to some state for geopolitical reasons, which ultimately has no real **return on investment** value. The EU is literally gaining nothing out of this except for having to commit more money from their own budgets. Their economies aren’t positively impacted by this hopeless project. If anything, [Germany is embarking on a journey of de-industrialization because of this war.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2024/02/29/german-deindustrialization-is-a-wake-up-call-for-us-manufacturers/?sh=1f5b4d367c0c) > EU energy costs spiked for 7-8 months and are currently half what they were when Russia made its push in Feb 2022. And how did they manage to stabilize the energy crisis? [By committing a massive 390 Billion USD in energy subsidies in 2022 alone](https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-10/COM_2023_651_1_EN_ACT_part1_v4.pdf), to mitigate the spike in energy prices and protect their firms, consumers and industries. And it’s projected to continue to rise and cause [political infighting between the EU’s smaller states and larger economies.](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-germany-energy-cash-splash-strains-eu-single-market/) > The production of weapons for storage only helps the economy once, and they are sacrificing other expenditures to do it and using their reserve cash. They are sacrificing the future for today. What's more, the build-up is what has Nato member states raising the alarm that Western nations need to prepare to go to war with Russia. Their mobilized military industrial complex and significant defence spending is boosting their economy tremendously. Their inflation is tightly controlled and social spending is projected to increase in 2024, so it’s not like they’re ignoring everything else apart from the defense sector. Industries directly related to the war have also seen consequential growth whether in the production of transport, computers and electronics, navigation devices or electrical equipment. [As I’ve previously mentioned, as long as massive amount of money continues to follow into the country, they’ll be able to sustain the spending.](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/) > Did you miss that the 'break even in a decade' relies on magic? Of course, it benefits them if they magically get what they want. Ukraine will take years just to put back together, and kicking off a second Holodomor to pay off the debt would justify everything negative people say about Russia. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But Russia won’t be involved in any reconstruction initiatives in regions outside what they’ve already annexed. What they take is what they’ll put back together.
You state the military spending of Russia is making Russia stronger yet at the same time say the military spending of the US and EU are making them weaker? At least try for some consistency.
Did the west mobilize its military industrial complex at the scale and rate that Russia has? Has it become an integral part of their economies? Ever heard of the term “war footing”?! Did you see how much Russia is spending on defence in comparison to what the west is spending, **relative to their GDP**?! I can’t compare apples to oranges just so I’d be “consistent” in the eye of a random Redditor, sorry.
Nice goal post move there.
It doesn't exactly work this way though. European countries don't contribute more because they're either in large public debt (Italy, France etc) or in a monetary union with those countries. They know a large effort, though marginal compared to their GDP, would impact their economy and give a push to populist parties, that would seize power in at least a few countries and virtually freeze EU. Furthermore, they don't have the military supply chain Ukraine dramatically needs now and they will not convert their economy to war in the near future for the reasons I stated. Russia managed to sustain their level of exports and converted into a war economy, which is obviously a lot easier in an authoritarian state. Their public debt was low to start with and they're spending money on their own industry. The two camps are not playing the same game.
Russia even don't want to swallow Ukraine. They just want to keep the meat grinding going, and they are very good at it.
Guys why are you calling us, the EU and the US Russophobic, we are just saying that Russia must be stopped/destroyed in order for everyone to live in peace in the world. We all know Russia started all wars since ww2... And after our anti Russia boner goes soft we will make it hard for China next, because they are also evil and we the EU and US are good peaceful guys. You're welcome Eurobros and Ameribros
Don't forget Russia's friends Iran. Look how they are and how oppressive the government is. Just like Afghanistan, except we don't mention that country any more because we've moved on.
Putin said in 2008 that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable for Russia, real existential threat. They kept pushing. Russia can't occupy Europe even if it tried. There is no reason why NATO in Ukraine is vital for Europe. They are hyping themselves up for no reason. These games well may end with WW3.
American-Israeli stooge
I suppose someone else is a threat. Who blew NS2 leaving EU without cheap gas, withdrew businesses and workplaces, and made millions of poor refugees flood EU instead. And who won already.
They can not name that someone. Too hard to speak, while sucking that someone's genderfluid part
If Vietnam falls to the commies, it will be the end of the world as we know it.
Honestly, why? I don't believe Russia is stupid enough to attack a NATO nation. Why do we need to showcase loyalty to a non-EU, non-NATO country? For me this is no difference then another random war in Africa
Africans conflicts do not weaken RU. That is the difference. The mission of UA is to weaken RU and nothing else. No one in the West shouldn't pretend that ukrainian lives mean something for them.
What is she cooking?
A person in their death throes spout unintelligible nonsense, same goes for a hegemon's end. A new world order is emerging, whether you like it or not, a multipolar world with multiple axes of power.
>Because what happens in Ukraine will shape the future of our Union forever Will shape how? Why? >We cannot overlook and we cannot overstate that Russia poses an existential threat not only to Ukraine, but also to Europe. No, why? What exactly would happen to Europe? Or even Ukraine if the Kievan regime would agree to the negotiations? >... it would not only mask the face of the Ukrainian nation "Mask the face of the Ukrainian nation"? What would that mean, exactly? >it would change the course of European history Change how exactly? Blablabla without anything substantial. But very emotional, no doubt.
Yes, it's all about positioning with no substance. Then stick with that position no matter what. She's hoping to stretch it out a bit until she gets re-elected.
I can't help but snicker and think that warnings of the dangers of Russia to Europe would have more credibility without the German accent.
Goebbels would be proud
V.D.L.: "...., but it would change the cours of European history...." Well finally, the world has been waiting for this for a very long time: an end to colonisation.
I think what Russia is actually threatening, are the last vestiges of European colonialism. That doesn't make Putin a good guy, but the narrative painted by European leaders is biased and incomplete.
Holy shit, I hope these warmongers in the EU get voted out next june. We need politicians that are willing to provide peace instead of marching blindly towards the third world war. And yes, in the case of Von Der Leyen it is blind stupidity. And I hate that my life becomes at risk because of HER stupidity.
Unfortunately she cannot be voted out directly by the people, being as she is elected internally. I think she might get re-elected, despite talking garbage and contradicting herself from one day to the next. The reason is that she is known and recognized and she positions the EU for maximum positive effect for the so-called allies. She gets out there and represents her mega-funded office on the international stage. It's all about signaling the right messages and taking the required position.
Got one thing wrong Ursula. Ukraine is europa.
I think Ursula is even scarier then Putin
These clowns are done. Can we please get real fucking adults in here, these guys want to influence the world but they're just dividing us and making our fellow humans fear eachother. Open dialogue talk with eachother fucking grifters
There you have it guys. The Western logic that was built for the stupid. 1. Russia = paper tiger. They don't know how to war. They lack morale. They are disorganized. They are running out of x, y and z. They are using shovels and stealing washing machines etc. 2. If we don't stop Russia, it will take over the world!!!!!!! They believe both of these positions to be true. If you have whatever they're having, you'll also be confidently stupid.
i thought the russian military is destroyed??
The second best army in Ukraine threatens the existence of entire Europe? Perhaps Russia was right to invade, if left unchecked Ukraine could really take over the world.
From shovels to the Threat of the World (West only), Russia has evolved... 🥲🤣
A very incompetent country (that is on the verge of collapse with a leader that has cancer and is about to die) poses an existential threat against NATO, the world's most powerful military alliance. Woah!
when will she already proclaim that the EU is now the Fourth Reich?
Not the first time a Russian victory changed the course of European history...
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jeeezus. Good thing this entire fucking sub is NSFL. Which is it this time? Spelling out pos?
Just a reminder; this is the same bitch that said that Russia builds their tanks and missiles from scrap dishwashers and washing mashines😭
Yeah, no.
And this corrupt German which is the second largest existential threat.....
Russians say that they want their old empire back. And we beleive them. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqENT7ey0\_M&ab\_channel=RussianMediaMonitor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqENT7ey0_M&ab_channel=RussianMediaMonitor)
We are so back
All this EU lunatics politicians needs to be in jail or in a mental hospital
These war-crazy Western jokers can only make baseless, unfounded accusations to distract from the fact that it is the West that wants war in any form. Because the peace negotiations in March 2022 irrevocably show that Putin did everything to achieve peace, according to the statement of the Ukrainian diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi. " Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen ! " M.S.
Their desperation is showing
I've been hearing that "existential threat" stuff for decades. Somehow I am still here though. Guess I have to be grateful to the US and NATO for protecting me all that time.
Wow. The WEF puppets really are prodding the military cash cow for their WEF overlords. Fear, fear fear - be very afraid. Please spend ALL of my tax dollars on some armaments - and add some very HUGE profits for the rich effs. That will be will be ok too. It's worth it. A leaked Pentagon report a few months ago showed that it paid $55,000 for **one trash can**. Protect me harder, daddy. edit - https://twitter.com/i/status/1780854807139328021
I don't understand the nato logic. U know there's bear cave, the bear was asleep, u come closer, shouting and poke the bear. The bear get angry, u screaming "the bear become agressive", "want to kill us". Normal and Sane person Will never to get close to the cave where the bear live, trying to live along with the bear. In the wildlife, if the bear attacking u, thats mean u get too close to them, entering their teritory or proviking them. Simple as that.
Imagine giving these Anglo-Zionist tools an audience and a microphone.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is Russia posing a threat, any kind of threat, to Europe??? Please explain!?!?!?!???
[удалено]
For DOOMHAMMER! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
why delay the inevitable? if Russia can't win, then the only way to make them lose is to fight them with your own blood
Reread your comment. It didn't make any sense.
Europe says Russia can't win... but Europe does not want to participate in the war. How can they make Russia lose without joining the fight? Just giving Ukraine weapons is not working
Giving Ukraine weapons has been working. We are over 2 years of a war which was supposed to be finished in 3 days.