Deutsche Abgeordnete schlagen vor, dass die NATO Drohnen über der Ukraine abfangen soll

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/05/11/7455358/

25 comments

  1. Wish that was the mood two and a half years ago, but hey, I’m absolutely glad we’re getting there **now**.

  2. Better late than never. Go for it. Ukraine need all the help it can receive.

  3. That is an *awful* lot of intercepts. Russia is using tens of thousands a month.

  4. Now we talking! I’m sure Russia wouldn’t like that and threaten world annihilation for the millionth time.

  6. I need to remind y’all that if you shoot at russians, russians will shoot back. Just in case a worm ate your brains, or you forgot it. Also if you say “close the skies”, as closing the skies means you are willing to shot down russians, and russians have a tendency to shoot back.

    Also I’ve been seeing awfully lots of videos of russian jets flying uncontested near the front lines and dropping bombs, in fact that’s what I attribute their progress over the last few months – to limited air superiority. AA systems are a priority target.

  7. Problem is if NATO begins to dip it’s *actual* toe in, Russia can declare a greater conflict.

  8. do it, better nate than lever.

    down all Russian drones and missiles

  9. I may be stating the obvious here, but i think NATO is slowly warming up the public to the idea of direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. Think of it like the famous “frog in a pot of water” experiment.

    If that’s the case, i would say part of it is Europe is worried that the then-current US president would cut off all aid to Ukraine

  10. The problem is pussyfooting around the Russia problem and at least 2 of the strongest countries in nato have begun to realize it (France and Poland) thanks

  11. I approve.

    Fuck it, I think we all approve. Do it NATO.

  12. It’s always easy to say “finally” when it’s not on *your* doorstep and your military power is big enough to strike back accordingly.

    As a German (and I can speak for the majority of Germans considering recent representative polls) I am afraid that any NATO involvement will lead to a devastating outcome in Europe.

    It’s easy to say “Putin’s just bluffing” and “those are empty threats” when no one really knows what’s really going on in this mad man’s head and I take it serious. We should not ignore his threats completely because who will be his first target in a wider confrontation, who do you attack first? The bigger brother (America) or the weaker, little one?

  14. Its sad that progress is slow. But i kinda understand that there are factors public do not know. Also there must be public support for pretty much anything. Not even dicktatorships can do anything, without price that is. 

    Thats why we have not seen China assault Taiwan and North Korea staying where it is. Push the population too much and bad timing is all the difference

  15. But that is a terrible idea isnt it? You could protect Lviv at best.
    I mean Air Defence just does not work that way.

    You dont fire a million dollar missile at a drone, which you might not even hit because you are too far away, unable to reliably track with your own tracking radar(as the drone likely wont fly towards your position) and is much closer to the target you are trying to defend than you are.

    If you want to throw money at the problem, throw money at the problem directly. Give Ukraine the AA unit to begin with.
    I am all in for support for Ukraine, but i am fed to the gills with all those “alibi”-actions, which are only there to pretend we are doing something, rather than actually doing something.

  17. NATO isn’t an alliance of aggression. European countries that jump out and starting firing missiles at Russians should be on their own.

  18. Holy shit so many reddit keyboard warriors who have never seen war. You people are out of your fucking minds to think getting directly involved is OK.

  19. Good! This is what I’ve been saying for a while now. It’s very easy to make the argument that NATO doesn’t want missiles and drones buzzing close to its borders and that they’ll shoot anything down that comes close to them. Russia has already stepped over the line here by having a missile or two enter NATO airspace, so this is simply the mirror image of the same.

    Something else that is in the cold hard interest of NATO countries is investments. Countries that have invested in factories and the like in Ukraine should definitely have short-range AA placed around them. The only rule would be that it has to stay around the area that has been invested in, and that it gets returned to the country after the war, but otherwise Ukrainian soldiers will operate them. And if it’s in a big Ukrainian city that Russia had intended to destroy, I guess that’s too bad for Russia then. “We are going to protect our investments” is an easy sell to voters.

  21. Considering russia is currently jamming european civilian aircraft, this might be a good payback

  22. Wasn’t this always the plan? Did you really think the “allied” forces were going to let the “axis” forces take countries for free? Especially one with a lot of natural resources such as Ukraine. The fight wars through proxy until they start gaining public support. Or unless the proxy wins. It is pretty clear Russia will throw just about anyone out there to slowly erode the Ukrainian fighting force. Not to mention the Chinese are trying to secretly fund the Russians from the shadows. NATO has to take a stand eventually as it appears something is going to force their hand. Whether it’s Ukraine, Iran with Hamas, or eventually China going for Taiwan. And yes I understand these aren’t NATO countries. But these things in the future will concern them.

  23. Should have given Patton free reins. Lets learn from that mistake.

  25. I mean, Russia keeps saying NATO is in Ukraine fighting already, why not just make it true

Leave a Reply