- Messages
- 1,535
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
There are 4 burdens of proof that NATO still would not have the capacity to assist Ukraine which I wonder if you would have an agreement or disagreement on?
1. Poland, France and Germany have openly admitted they don't want to start a war with Russia which would nullify article 5 without the U.S. support, you can thank the clown Starmer for making Europe look weak if it was to fight a war with Russia without the U.S. backing them.
2. The VP admitted to Europe not having the industrial capability(which is true) to match Russia. The user Relic has showcased here how hard Europe is trying to supply Ukraine but besides all those contracts the contracts have proven that Europe for example can not match Russia in shell production or even proven that they can produce 100+ tanks per month. They might also be too scared to completely empty their entire tank/shell/missile inventory to Ukraine because they do not have the production capability to replace them for their own militaries.
3. They are supposedly using 700 billion euros to assist Ukraine.
But the fact the U.S. still does not want to support Ukraine despite this proposal from Europe only shows that Ukraine would still lose.
4. Blinken and other European leaders kept pushing Zelensky to lower the mobilization age to 18. Not only that, but a week ago Ukraine news sources like kyiv independent among others were talking about 1 year contracts for free college and income if 18-24 year olds were to conscript to Ukraine but nothing about benefits if they were to die. The money and equipment are not the problem it's the amount of useable bodies Ukraine have left for this war.
I dont know if you were around this thread awhile back but the US's produces like 550 PACs missiles year with hopes to raise it to 650. Not only are these missile's really expensive but most of Russia's attacks are drone strikes and they have not been proven to be effective against kinzhal or iskander missile strikes with videos that have shown them getting blown up. I dont know how many SAMP-T or Iris-T missiles there are but production and inventory wise there is absolutely no way Europe can match the U.S. in air defense missile production. Also think about it, a PACS-3 missile is like 4 million dollars and using them to shoot down 40,000 dollar long range drones is going to cost the US more than Russia.
Rafales and F-16s, the problem is Ukraine has very few air ways to operate them in(and they can get blown up, Lviv is an example of that) and you can't use these aircrafts to go land on any road because roads in eastern europe are complete shit even during the war and you need logistics and communication for fuel and ammo if roads were perfect which wouldn't be feasible to do during war. Russia still has too many Su-30s, mig-31s, Su-35s and 20 something su-57s so I wonder what Europe can even offer assuming these aircrafts don't get blown up on airways before getting a chance to combat Russian aircraft.
production rate for long range missiles like ATACMs is low and for Europe its even lower.
And Ukraine launches enough of these to make it hard for production replacement.
Russia seems to also be developing new technology which I don't know if it will reach the operation zone soon.
Last edited:
recently agreed to increase their military commitment to Ukraine in 2025 as part of a European effort to increase support in some areas and sustain it in others. That said, the Italians have kept most of their military donations quiet throughout the conflict, in similar fashion as countries such as France 
.
previously announced new military aid package for Ukraine has now grown to approximately $21 Billion usd, after initially being reported in the $6-$10 Billion usd. 
