German chancellor Scholz on Supporting Ukraine – “We will support ukraine for however long it is necessary. We will see that NATO is not becoming an war party in this conflict. We will not allow russia to dictate the conditions of peace with ukraine. [More translated in the comments]”

25 comments

1. Another quote from this:
   “If the russian president believes he just needs to sit this war out and our support will fumble he miscalculated. Russia is not strong, it cannot speculate we will lower our support. We will support for however long it is necessary. Russia is not as strong as you might think”

   Edit: Also: Holy fuck, the comments on this youtube video are 100% pro russian… I’ve been scrolling for a couple minutes now and didn’t find a single comment that was not along the lines of “GERMANY FIRST” “RUSSIA IS STRONG” “PLEASE DON’T FORCE NUCLEAR WAR” “WE LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP” “WE WANT ELECTIONS” “THIS GUY HAS TO GO”

   Another edit, as I’m reading **Taurus** all over this thread: While not sending taurus is annoying claiming that germany is not doing its part is just wrong – [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/) – Germany is #2 in total aids, #2 in military aids, #1 in humanitarian aids. (#1 is the USA, which is quite a bit bigger)

2. “We will see that NATO is not becoming an war party in this conflict” – so, no direct NATO troops and intervention?

3. Scholz seems to be very afraid of making Putin angry.

4. Declaring that NATO won’t under no condition intervene gives up strategical ambiguity. He is basically saying that Russia can do whatever it wants – even use WMOs if they like – because NATO will not intervene.

   This is extremely naive. They should never publicly declare that we won’t intervene even if it’s true.

5. “We will support ukraine for however long it is necessary.”

   is not the same as

   “We will support ukraine until it evicts every single russian soldier from their 1991 borders.”

   This “as long as it takes” can also mean “as long as russia decides to stop, ask for bullshit peace agreement, rearm and reposition and start again”.

6. Less words, more weapons for Ukraine.

7. This dude is as rousing as a bag of rocks. Send Taurus already. Let Ukraine fight with both hands.

8. Honestly, NATO should become a party in this war.

   We want Ukraine to win this, because them losing is a danger to europe as a whole, so just get it over with and follow the french plans for intervention.

9. I lately feel like Western politicians have given up on us already. They just don’t know how to admit it, so they continue to just talk.

   With all my respect and appreciation for the support and help that we already got, this clown fiesta with the American congress, Macron’s photoshopped workout pictures, and these speeches about supporting Ukraine for however long is necessary, looking really depressing here from the Ukrainian side.

10. From any other politician, I would consider this rather weak, fence-sitting rhetoric. From Scholz, though, it’s almost downright provocative.

11. With hesitation of weapon suppot and claims that under no circumstances nato step in he just tells Putin to step up pressure on Ukraine until it falls. Ukrainians are brave but not superhuman. A lot of motivated and hardened solders die every day because of sluggish weapon delivery. It seems like a game, loose 50.000 ppl and we unlock you another weapon type. It may be that there will be no-one to fly these fancy f-16 and scores of marauders coming in 18 months time.

12. When I hear this speech I can’t help but compare it to the state of my own country in this context as it’s sadly the same issue in the UK (with the exception of cultural/historical taboos). In some ways I actually think this should be a driver for my own country to do more and go even further. For example, in the UK the rhetoric is consistent and will always reaffirm support for Ukraine, with public support consistently high too. However, the underlying reality is that the UK, like many in Europe, grew complacent since the end of the cold war and modelled it’s military based on the idea that future conflicts would be smaller in scale and in far away places, so they would have to send small numbers of special forces, air power etc quickly with a minimal footprint . Though this might have made sense during the war on terror, it fails to meet the challenges we find ourselves in today. The stark reality is that a large scale conflict on mainland Europe is no longer a remote possibility but is already happening at Europe’s periphery. Like most in Europe, the UK too has been caught napping and simply does not have the appropriate tools at its disposal or in large enough quantities to meet the current challenges.

    While France and Germany should be commended for their renewed efforts to reorganize and resupply their militaries, I see little to no action within the UK to do the same, with a continuingly downsized armed forces and a paltry budget that fails to address the fundamental needs of this moment.

    I can’t believe that people still need convincing across Europe that this is an existential crisis and that we, together, have to pull out all the stops and ensure Ukraine wins. If they don’t win, the Macron is right, Europe will have zero credibility and have no ability to deter a Russian incursion/invasion. A Ukrainian defeat would almost certainly guarantee a wider conflict in Europe, as deterrence will no longer be considered credible.

    Fundamentally, the argument regarding escalation needs to be politically countered with a narrative that instead states that continued Russian presence in Ukraine risks escalation with Europe, and that it is Russia who are at risk of fermenting a wider European conflict. It is up to them to deescalate, or they run the risk of provoking us. It is far better to rip up the rules now and put all options on the table and give everything necessary to Ukraine than wait for a wider conflict where Europe is on the back foot politically.

13. I feel like US wants to prolong this conflict as much as possible in order to make it a resource pit for Russia. In other words – make it the new Afghanistan. So they are giving just enough. But unfortunately Ukrainian people are paying the price. The West should be much more decisive with their support.

14. Oh, so it’s so easy, great plan. And they lived happily ever after… /s

15. Let’s just hope that Scholz remembers this promise. As we all know, his memory is not the best (CumEx, Wirecard)

16. I’m glad that he spend some time to talk about French-German relations.

17. What is that supposed to mean “however long it is necessary”? This is not a strategy. How long? To what end? I hate this.
    If Ukraine cannot at least convince Russia that it can win this is not a winning strategy.

18. Good luck with that

19. I wish Scholz – even when trying to reassure his nation – would stop telling Russia all moves Germany decided to rule out.
    It only decreases leverage.

20. This is the way, Olaf. Let’s all put our balls and ovaries on the table in unison. Strong together against Russia 💪🏻

21. It is kind of “funny” how people see NATO and hwo they’re asking NATO to get involved on the conflict. NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance and the only way NATO gets involved is if a member is first attacked. If a member enters on a war by their own hand that wouldn’t trigger the 5th article of NATO.

    That said, every member of NATO is free to help others, Ukranie in this case, and that is what I think should be done. It would be a shame if we let Ukranie fall under that warmonger with Napoleon complex and Rusia should pay for all that they’re doing. And yeah, you’ve read right. The russian population should pay too. Putin is not there by himself and is the population, by their actions supporting him or their innaction, who let him be there.

22. Be carefull what you wish for.

23. As long as Ukraine is willing to fight we must support them.
    And I do it gladly

24. This is why every global leader hates Scholz, he has no plan and no strategy, he is fighting against everyones ideas but never proposing his own. Macron hate him or love him, he at the very least is doing something he has a vision of. (No matter how flaud or how perfect it is)

25. …and….?….Taurus…?