|
| Come on man, starting WW3 is a stupid strategy with loads of unforeseen consequences.
Life is not a game of risk.
And Europe is not a country. The European Union, even as a unique supranational political and economic union, doesn’t have its own army or a formal military alliance. European defence is primarily structured through NATO, which is a collective defence pact, not an interventionist force. That means any military effort in Ukraine would require a separate coalition, outside NATO’s command structure and intelligence sharing.
So what would this "marriage of convenience" to support Ukraine on the ground even look like? It would likely include countries most aligned with Ukraine’s defence, Poland, the Baltic states, the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
But organizing such a coalition isn’t as simple as drawing lines on a map. It takes political will, legal frameworks, logistics, interoperability, and a clearly defined chain of command that everyone has grown to respect. Without that, you’re not building a strategy, you’re setting yourself up for chaos.
Charging ahead unprepared without coordination or a clear structure isn’t strength. It’s strategic failure. And the rest of the world? They won’t sit on their hands.
Wars of this scale never stay confined. The world is a house of cards. If some sort of Western coalition intervenes directly, Russia could draw in sympathetic or aligned states like Belarus, North Korea, Azerbaijan, and Serbia.
Even Hungary, a member of both the EU and NATO, has shown pro-Russian leanings and would likely oppose or obstruct such action.
So how many Ukrainian lives would you save with your suggestion of "defeating him beforehand"?
This isn’t passivity (or as you call it 'chicken chit'). It’s realism.
| |
|
Kaja Kallas Personal Hatred of Russians Will Destroy Europe
