Comment by threeseed

I don't know if EU would be able to match the current support the US gives to Ukraine (maybe it already does? Or maybe it exceeds? I don't know either way) but what I'm sure off is that Europe won't stop trying even if it wouldn't be enough.

> it's about whether European countries can replace the US support enough that Ukraine can reasonably keep defending themselves.

Your economy is nearly 10 times the size of Russia.

If Russia can continue, then you can almost 10 times more easily.

It's not a "can" issue. It's a "are you willing to do more than absolute minimum?" issue.

> Public opinion is against further weapons shipments to Ukraine

The linked article is about the opinion of Germans about shipments of German weapons. When you don't specify that in the context of this thread, which is about Europe, not Germany, people might mistakenly interpret that as data about Europe.

Okay, now let's see polls for Poland, Finland, or UK.

I know there are some countries where support is less than in other places (Germany being one, as you highlighted).

I still stand by my original statement that unilateral decision in EU of stop supporting Ukraine and letting Russia keep the occupied territories.

Unfortunately, many of my German countrymen are either stupid or complacent for not wanting more weapon deliveries, so a striving democracy can defend itself.

I think he is asking how well the devastating sanctions have been working so far. Which is a retorical question of course, because obviously they haven't harmed Russia all that much. Actually, they are hurting the EU as well because of the risen energy prices.

look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solution to finally win.

I wonder if anyone thinks this seems likely:

American Secretary of Defense: "Mr. President, the Chinese just destroyed our Naval base in the Philippines, killing hundreds of US servicemen. As part of a plan to annex the country or something."

American president: "Let's not intervene too much."

Well the result of China's 5d chess has been to install a leader in the US that is likely to escalate a trade war with china when with an impending demographic crisis they most need someone to stop the trade war. Sheer genius!

Sure, but I am commenting from a non-military, non-geopolitics, non-strategy related background: It's a stupid game. Stupid in the sense of: I don't like it, I don't want to play it, thus it's stupid.

That's beside the point.

It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.

But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.

A fair point, but described by who?

And was this just a post-hoc justification, or had the western powers declared that they would retaliate if Russia involved other armies?

In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?

North Korean soldiers that mysteriously have yet to materialize in a fashion that isn't blatant propaganda.

No, you are wrong.

Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.

But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.

Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.

German here. Yes, it seems pretty obvious these sanctions have harmed Russia more than Europe.

Russia: inflation around 8-9%.

EU: inflation around 2%.

As a European, I can say that the sanctions did harm European economies, which is reflected in various political Eu government crises.

It is hard to know how much Russia has been harmed, because both sides probably exaggerate the figures.

I wonder whether "more harm" is the right question. The question should be whether the sanctions have any impact on Russia's war economy, which they do not. If anything, they make Russia more independent and strengthen Russian ties with China and India.

This is all to the detriment of the EU, the only one here who profits is the U.S. by making the EU more dependent.

These consumer side sanctions are idiotic. When a Russian buys a European beer, he spends money which goes from Russia to Europe, and in addition he damages his health.

On the other side, Europe buys billions of dollars of oil and gas from Russia. That money goes in the opposite direction, from Europe to Russia, and is used toward soldier salaries, Iran drones and North Korean mercenaries.

[dead]