"If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there. Our support is not charity. It is an investment in our security," - NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

"The only way to reach a just and lasting solution is to convince President Putin that they will not win on the battlefield," @jensstoltenberg continued.

"And the only way to ensure that President Putin realises that he is not winning on the battlefield is to continue to support Ukraine."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Chamberlain has long been seen as an idiot for appeasement. But we now know that when Chamberlain negotiated a deal with Hitler in Munich, his generals were secretly advising him to delay for a year, so they could have a while longer to prepare for war. For example:

However, the Royal Air Force had two major weapons systems in the works: better interceptors (Hurricanes and Spitfires) and especially radar. They promised to counter the German bombing offensive but were not yet ready and so appeasement was necessary to cause a delay. Specifically, regarding the fighters, the RAF warned the government in October 1938 that the German Luftwaffe bombers would probably get through: "the situation... will be definitely unsatisfactory throughout the next twelve months".

Now look what our leaders are doing now? They've failed to drastically increase spending. They're failing to support Ukraine. They're often weaker than Chamberlain.

I'm deeply pessimistic that we'll be able to pull our thumbs out of our collective arses in time. And that's a huge problem, because strength is the only way to deter someone like Putin.

Not that Putin will actually win a war with NATO, or even against what remains of NATO in the event of a second Trump presidency and US withdrawal from NATO, but it's very likely to escalate, cause massive casulties, and perhaps even lead to a limited nuclear exchange.