ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

Good for Germany. And oh the evilness of Western media! :)

"War propagandaAbsolute majority of Spiegel readers are in favor of using Western weapons against targets in RussiaDer Spiegel has launched a reader survey and, according to current figures, 89 percent of Der Spiegel readers believe that Ukraine should be allowed to use Western weapons in Russia. This result shows how effective and dangerous the war propaganda of the Western media is.
Thomas RöperDer Spiegel has set up a "debate page" where Der Spiegel readers can discuss whether Ukraine should be allowed to use Western weapons in Russia. There is also a survey in which Der Spiegel asks "Should Ukraine be allowed to use Western weapons in Russia?"The shocking result is that of the 5,407 Spiegel readers who have taken part in the survey to date, 89 percent are in favor of Ukraine being allowed to use Western weapons in Russia, while only eleven percent are against it.
This shocking result shows how effective and dangerous the war propaganda of the Western media is. The Western media does not inform their readers about the consequences this could have. The use of Western weapons on Russian territory is the most direct way to become a party to the war against Russia.
Most Spiegel readers may not realize this.And they obviously think that war is a kind of video game if they think that Western weapons could be used against targets in Russia without Russian weapons being used against targets in the West. If a survey like this had been carried out 30 or 40 years ago, when people who had experienced the Second World War and knew what war meant were still alive, such a result would have been unthinkable. People in Germany have obviously forgotten what war means."

 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD and Torg
1. It makes sense since Ukraine has to assimilate the F16s.
2. But if the West is stalling on the F16s this just makes that situation worse. And if you really weren't that interested in upsetting Putin, this is the way to continue to delay both aircraft from finally making their debut.

 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: HawkMD and Torg
GOrLrlkagAA6uZ2
 
Expecting the F 16, a 50 year old design, to turn the tables in Ukraine is laughable. It’s just a band aid. Other countries are giving theirs up to replace them with something that could actually fend off the Russians.
I don't think most people are expecting those f-16s to be used to go toe-to-toe with Russia's latest and greatest in air-to-air combat. They will, however, be very important destroying long-range targets within Ukraine, and they fire weapons for which we have shit tons of ammo/missiles to provide to them.
 
To be fair each nation donating the F-16s needs to balance deliveries of new planes, and, there is a limit to how many F-16s Ukraine can integrate immediately. A time frame of several years might be appropriate for winning the war and positioning Ukraine to join the EU and NATO. Planes will be lost to combat, weather, poor piloting... A flow of jets is needed. I just wish there was another platform in the mix.
Like the Gripen, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
Expecting the F 16, a 50 year old design, to turn the tables in Ukraine is laughable. It’s just a band aid. Other countries are giving theirs up to replace them with something that could actually fend off the Russians.
Don’t you feel that they would be deterrents to the Soviet era birds that the orcs are using to launch glide bombs?
 
I don't think most people are expecting those f-16s to be used to go toe-to-toe with Russia's latest and greatest in air-to-air combat. They will, however, be very important destroying long-range targets within Ukraine, and they fire weapons for which we have shit tons of ammo/missiles to provide to them.

They are better than pretty much any Russian jet, or at minimum same level. The issue is ground based air defense. F-16 can definitely fill a SEAD role though better than anything the Ukrainians have. But they aren't just going to hang out at high altitude and chill.
 
You conveniently ignore Turd's efforts to destabilize NATO...a MAJOR element in Europe.

Why don’t you say “Trump tried to get European NATO members to spend more on defense”?

Instead of accurately pointing out Trump tried to get NATO members to spend more, you have to couch things in spin with words like ‘destabilize’.
 
1. It makes sense since Ukraine has to assimilate the F16s.
2. But if the West is stalling on the F16s this just makes that situation worse. And if you really weren't that interested in upsetting Putin, this is the way to continue to delay both aircraft from finally making their debut.

Option 3:

Since Ukraine ain’t paying for either, the guy picking up the tab may have balked at buying spare parts from Sweden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
Why don’t you say “Trump tried to get European NATO members to spend more on defense”?

Instead of accurately pointing out Trump tried to get NATO members to spend more, you have to couch things in spin with words like ‘destabilize’.
Spin it any way you want. Vlad's boy, DJT, tried to destroy NATO and would have succeeded except for his landslide loss in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD
Spin it any way you want. Vlad's boy, DJT, tried to destroy NATO and would have succeeded except for his landslide loss in 2020.

How is encouraging NATO members to increase their defense spending ‘destroying NATO’?

Does it ‘destroy’ NATO for them to have more missiles and bombs on the shelf if needed?

If I wanted to destroy NATO I’d pretend it was fine that 2/3rds of them still aren’t meeting spending goals set back in 2006.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogBoyRy
How is encouraging NATO members to increase their defense spending ‘destroying NATO’?

Does it ‘destroy’ NATO for them to have more missiles and bombs on the shelf if needed?

If I wanted to destroy NATO I’d pretend it was fine that 2/3rds of them still aren’t meeting spending goals set back in 2006.
Encouraging aggression from Putin is ABSOLUTELY trying to destroy NATO

Bottom line!
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD and win4jj
I suspect there may be some misleading public statements from some Western allies regarding various support in an attempt to make Russia believe things are safer in some regions in the buildup of Russian troops...baiting them into congregating in areas and then bombing the piss out of them.

At least, that's my hope.
 
Trump was 100 percent correct to call out NATO for lack of commitment, funding, manning and R&D. He was also 100 percent correct for calling them out for developing a dependency on Russian fossil fuels, and through that funding Putins military. History has proven Trump to be correct in Europe.
Was he right to blackmail Ukraine over aid in order to get them to fabricate stories designed to damage Joe Biden?
 
Encouraging aggression from Putin is ABSOLUTELY trying to destroy NATO

Bottom line!

You think the neocons are trying to destroy NATO?
On purpose, or just because they’re idiots who serially bungle wars?

Angela Merkel has said she feels no regrets for her handling of Vladimir Putin during her time in power, arguing that Russia’s president would have perceived a 2008 Nato membership plan for Ukraine that was blocked by her government as a “declaration of war”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “didn’t want to provoke it further”.
 
I suspect there may be some misleading public statements from some Western allies regarding various support in an attempt to make Russia believe things are safer in some regions in the buildup of Russian troops...baiting them into congregating in areas and then bombing the piss out of them.

At least, that's my hope.
I kinda think you are correct. The Ukrs have been cagey when setting traps.
My hope is that this is no formal announcement of allowing weaponry to be used in orcland, but rather massive coordinated strikes into multiple areas.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT