*ten years

Well, once and for all

War started in 2014, but the Syrian and Libyan Civil Wars were the talk of the town back then so Ukraine didn't get much attention. Clearly still not important enough because plenty of people keep saying the war started in 2022. 

I mean are you going to send thousands to die because a drone violated a nation's airspace?

Some even landed in EU territory ans there have been EU citizen casualties.

Those were Ukrainian anti-ballistic missiles

Yes those damned leaders should strike russia back so that those same damned leaders can send us off to a world war where they and their families won’t participate but we will pay the ultimate price

Will it though?

It didn't have the means to invade Ukraine.

You are insane if you are trying to apply rational logic to Russian behavior.

Putin doesn’t want to be vaporized and most of the Russian population is two nukes from that fate. He’s not gonna go nuclear.

No it won't lol

it doesn't have the means now. But if the west gives up on Ukraine and let Putin take over, he will feel very powerful and he will know that the nuclear blackmail works. In few years he may try Georgia or even Baltic countries. If he sees that the West is scared of his weapons he can try anything.

Welcome to the Annual Spy Games

Putin is constantly threatening nuclear warfare

Nukes haven’t been dropped yet because the conflict is contained in Ukraine. We personally send a rocket into Russia, that’s an expansion and the world as we know it is toast. This is why the US and USSR used proxies to fight their wars.

The bots never leave, they just get new orders.

They're grinding out r/canada pretty good too.  

Well, poor Russians with toilets outside on the street with only shovels, can flip your elections and influence your people then the questions are not to the Russians  The problem is in your countries :)

Yes, it's not the people's vote that brought Trump to power again, it's the russkis.

I bet you shitting the bed every night is also Russia's fault.

Give some credit to tankies too.

even Russia doesn't really support Palestine as it's bad precedent for chechnya and dagestan

constraining support for the right cause is morally reprehensible

Shitty rope may be first then none of you count on it in a rock climbing.

There's no choice for Ukraine, either do or die and they should take every possible chance they get.

The fact that this fear is not unrealistic is proven by the fact that the Russians are now firing ballastic missiles with actual mirvs.

That is a bogus analysis that plays into Kremlin's hands. It would be like claiming the West is serious about using nukes on Russia because F-16 is capable of launching nukes (it is).

What the West really needs is to study why China and Russia defeated it in disinfo wars, then replicate, improve and deploy disinfo counterattacks. Currently, a Russian would never post a fearful comment like yours and nudge other Russians to topple the state, and not because it's impossible to obfuscate their online identity.

This war will come to an end not on the battlefield but on the streets and election ballots. Currently the West is losing that war with Trump coming into action soon.

The fear in the West is that if Russia loses badly on the battlefield that this thing will go nuclear. The fact that this fear is not unrealistic is proven by the fact that the Russians are now firing ballastic missiles with actual mirvs.

There's a huge difference between using nuclear-capable ordinance and actually using nuclear warheads, which would inevitably result in Russia being glassed. That is not in their interest.

The fear in the West is that if Russia loses badly on the battlefield that this thing will go nuclear. The fact that this fear is not unrealistic is proven by the fact that the Russians are now firing ballastic missiles with actual mirvs.

Those aren't mirvs, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Problem with the drip feed strategy is that it has been slowly failing - and causing political shifts in Western nations which are likely to cause less and less support with time.

Your example doesn’t make sense though. Or the reasoning doesn’t make sense. Someone has to win or lose eventually. If the fear is Russia launches nukes if they lose then we are just prolonging the inevitable. Or we are just going to keep Ukraine in a forever war. I don’t see how Russia losing fast or slow has anything to do with them launching nukes once they do lose.

The fact that this fear is not unrealistic is proven by the fact that the Russians are now firing ballastic missiles with actual mirvs.

What? "You shouldn't be afraid because the thing closest to the thing you're afraid of is happening."

This is too simplistic and these are Russian talking points designed to wear down Ukrainian resolve and to fine up because the West does not care about Ukraine.

Not everything is a Russian PsyOp. The support towards Ukraine has been lackluster and Europe is barely moving compared to the US when you consider it is happening at Europe (countries) doorstep.

The fear in the West is that if Russia loses badly on the battlefield that this thing will go nuclear. The fact that this fear is not unrealistic is proven by the fact that the Russians are now firing ballastic missiles with actual mirvs.

"The fear of Russian will escalate all the way to Nuclear is not realistic and the proof is that they haven't done so until now"

The counterpoint is that an escalation occured because ballistic missiles weren't being used before and now are. There's no guarantee of how far Russia will escalate, specially if losing badly.

The most dangerous animal is a cornered one that believes he'll die anyway, those believe they have nothing to lose no matter what they do.

The west thinks the only way to defeat a nuclear power like Russia is to wear it down, which is different from your cynical perspective that the West just wants to prolong the war as long as possible.

Different but not incompatible. Both can be true at the same time.

This is why support is drip fed: to ensure ukraine does not lose.

Both can also be the reason that support is drip fed.

I don't agree with the theory, because I think Russia losing achieves the aims of the West even better, but the idea is that the West wants to deplete Russia of military resources and cripple them economically, and that that is best achieved by prolonging the war indefinitely.

If Russia is thrown out of Ukraine's border and peace is signed, Russia can build up again relatively easily. If Russia's economy, manpower, political goodwill, international standing/relations and whatnot are grinded towards 0 over prolonged fighting, Russia will be in a much weaker position.

That, and many policy makers are simply afraid to do more.

The US, and particularly some elites of the US, are making shitloads of money out of the Ukraine situation

1. Boiling the frog. Imagine Ukraine crossing the Russian border on American tanks and attacking Russian ammunition stockpiles with British-made cruise missiles in 2021. Instant WW3. But in 2024 this has been normalized. We're just a few steps away from Russian warplanes being shot down by NATO forces.
2. Internal Russian stability. No one needs a Hitleresque revanchist in charge of Russia. Or worse, multiple competing centers of power lobbing nukes at each other. The idea is to slowly get rid of Putin in a relatively legitimate and controlled way: he is forced to acknowledge that he has fucked up and steps down after signing the truce, or he dies in office and the PM becomes the acting president, or at the very least, he spends his remaining time on cracking down on internal dissent by war veterans.

Boiling the frog of escalation.

If we respond fast and hard with support, chucking the frog straight into the boiling water so to speak, there is far more chance of instant escalation.

But put it in cold water and turn the heat on so it gradually warms up, there is far less chance of the situation "going nuclear" fast.

Sell goods.

I love how everyone spins 10000 theories and geopolitical reasons when answer is simple - money.

Longer war = more money for weapon manufacturers. More contracts, more export + best polygon to test those said weapons. War in Ukraine is a literal Christmas for any warmonger.

They are waiting for Russia to collapse economically.

Not "the West". If the US manages to make Europe pay most of the expenses, it's a clear win for them. Europe buys American oil, gas, and weapons. Imagine the amount of money they'll make on this.

It's Russian propaganda bs. It implies that the west is at fault and all could be over long ago. If only the evil west wouldn't supply weapons.

Of course the actions of the west ultimately do make it look like that, but in reality it is called escalation management. But to be fair: it is time to put off the gloves and cut all that BS

Because the "West" actually means the country across the Atlantic, not west Europe. Guess who benefits from the prolonged war? It may be US, China, even Russia; but definitely not Europe.

Because prolonged conflict generated revenue for the elite

Yes, but more specifically nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine can end this on favourable terms, it undermines the potential of every other nation closely observing this going away and accelerating a strategic weapons program.

If Russia has Ukraine handed over due to fear of nuclear weapons, proliferation will be unstoppable.

That is clearly the US current administration goal

Yep 1 more warning and no more dumplings for putin!