It looks worse for Ukraine than I thought
(yes Skybird, I know you are posting this since years)
How quickly could Europe be in a position to provide effective assistance, even though it would hardly be able to completely replace US supplies?
"The necessary decisions should have been made two or three years ago. We are experiencing a war of attrition here. Whoever can send more material and more soldiers into the field will win. Our help has so far given Ukraine many advantages, but not a really decisive advantage. If the USA fails, Europe will have to rethink things massively. The production of weapons and ammunition would have to be massively increased. But time is running out because Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Ukraine's population is much smaller than Russia's. That is a massive disadvantage."
Regardless who 'wins' in the US, Colonel Markus Reisner from the Austrian Armed Forces fears that aid from Washington will decrease either way.
The US help for Ukraine already only amounts to 10 percent of the promised (and proudly published) numbers (see article).
But the main problem was and is the numbers of ukrainian soldiers.
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Reisners...e25336040.html
english:
https://www-n--tv-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp
What is not in the article is that big parts of the german SPD are still very Russia-friendly, like the whole left movement, Die Linke and Sarah Wagenknecht.
Which is completely idiotic. The Soviet union was never "communist" or left in the meaning of the word, it is and was plain dictatorial. I wonder what the left thinks and interpretes if they are such peace-loving folks. Liars.
Russia has influenced and paid german peace and disarmamant movements for decades, together with supporting terrorist groups like the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) back then. So chancellor Scholz' "reluctance" in delivering Taurus follows those paths. What does this mean for Germany?
Never thought I'd say this but the old slogan "Wer hat uns verraten, Sozialdemokraten" still seems legit.