Close Menu
    Welt

    Wir hätten der Ukraine früher mehr Waffen geben sollen, sagt der ehemalige NATO-Chef


    Wir hätten der Ukraine früher mehr Waffen geben sollen, sagt der ehemalige NATO-Chef

    https://www.politico.eu/article/war-ukraine-nato-chief-weapons-russia-jens-stoltenberg/

    View 23 Comments

    23 Comments

    2. BringbackDreamBars on

      *Ukraine’s allies “should have given them more advanced weapons, faster, after the invasion,” Stoltenberg said. “I take my part of the responsibility,” he added.*

      Realistically, could a Ukraine with a blank cheque for NATO weapons eventually win much faster against Russia or would the sheer numbers mean the conflict still drags out?

    3. BigNickAndTheTwins on

      Should’ve, Would’ve Could’ve, doesn’t help them now!

    4. hoocoodanode on

      > “we should have provided Ukraine with much more military support much earlier,” Jens Stoltenberg told the Financial Times. “I think we all have to admit, we should have given them more weapons pre-invasion.”

      While I agree wholeheartedly, this is 20/20 hindsight. The USA had just armed Afghanistan and saw their entire national army collapse in days, and they probably worried Ukraine would collapse the first few days of the war. I can understand why the USA didn’t want weapons immediately falling into the hands of Russia if Ukraine surrendered early.

    5. skipnw69 on

      No shit. So start making up for past mistakes by getting them everything they need now to end this war. Russia won’t stop until Ukraine is nothing but scorched earth.

    6. watcherofworld on

      Ngl, I feel like we need to get the “old guard” mentality out of our system of not acting and realize dictatorships won’t collapse internally before military action upon their neighbors and minorities. Inkling out weapon shipments is some pussy-shit, and the political party that held up shipments are gonna reap-what-they-sow’d this November (in my home country).

    8. Go_Back_To_SchoolBB on

      They’re fighting our adversary for us to prevent them from expanding their borders so we don’t have to.

      Yeah, we should be giving them what they need.

    10. LewisLightning on

      Well give them a ton more weapons now with less restrictions. STOP DRAGGING YOUR FEET!

    11. ContentWhile on

      im still with ukraine, but NATO says the same thing every year while still holding up more/better weapons for ukraine

    12. Xazzzi on

      Well he is an EX-chief now, nothing will be expected regardless of what he says, might as well make some statements.

    13. AVeryFineUsername on

      The west and their half measures allowing global catastrophe, a tale as old as time 

    14. tonkatsu2008 on

      Its quite obvious that the war in Ukraine would of gone in a different direction if Ukraine got all the weapons it needed without restrictions instead of this slow war of attrition we have today. Rather than spending all this time reflecting on what NATO should do, The west needs to remove all restrictions on all military aid to Ukraine. Start with allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia with those long range missiles.

    15. VegetableWishbone on

      Virtual signaling after you don’t have the job anymore. Why didn’t you do it when you had the job bozo?

    18. BallBearingBill on

      Once Finland and Sweden joined, NATO should have ended that war. Now Russia has a stronger alliance than before.

    21. fotun8 on

      Instead of being scared of Putin, NATO should have done what they were supposed to do. Lucky Ukraine is full of bad asses.

    22. SignifigantZebra on

      Ukraine was armed with the intention that the government was going to fall, so Nato armed them for an insurgency.

      The moment that it was clear that the Ukrainian army wasn’t going to fold, and Kyiv wasn’t going to fall, about 3-4 weeks after the start of the invasion, the floodgates should have been opened. or not at all.

      yes. it takes months to organize the logistics and training of throwing things like Himars, western tanks, f16, m777 into the Ukrainian military, but you know what takes longer? STARTING the process after almost 2 years of fighting, Just STARTING it…

      by the time Nato started taking this remotely seriously, Russia had already switched to almost a full war economy, and the opportunity to win a total victory passed on. Now there’s no scenario where Ukraine ends this war intact without there isn’t an even larger war elsewhere.

      Even in a best case scenario where they take the territory back, the only way that is going to happen is if there’s an internal collapse within Russia, and guess what, then we’ve got a Nuclear armed Russian Civil war for the world to deal with, and that’s even more dangerous than the shit-show we’re already in.

      The only scenario where the fighting ends and there is actual peice, is where Ukraine has to give up part of its territory, but NATO and Ukraine tell Russia to pound sand, and Ukraine is accepted into NATO and given Article 5 protection. Otherwise its war with Nato.

      Short of a scenario where either Russia or Ukraine ceases to exist, and we’re in a further escalated war on one side of eurasia or the other… a scenario where both sides end up unhappy. is unfortunately the only one thats viable.

      (and dont take this as being a pro vatnik opinion, if it were up to me, well, you dont want to hear a crazy person’s opinions on what should have been done to the russians. but i will just say that this is the only realist scenario that makes any sense if people actually want the war to stop, because russian peace treaties without article 5 are only good for wiping your ass)

    Leave A Reply