"If Putin loses in Ukraine, he will be deeply wounded,” Wallace said. “He’s still got an air force and he’s still got a navy — and we see his navy do quite aggressive manoeuvres. Putin is not done with us yet. There is an ability for him, in the next three or four years, to lash out."

"If Putin loses in Ukraine", "If" not "when".
"If" as if there's a choice, as if they dont know that Ukraine will only survive if he loses. That "if" ays they'renot prepared for the "When".

When UK's Secretary of State for Defence publicly says "If Putin loses in Ukraine", you know that Western Europe fears Putin and would appease him if not for the pesky Ukrainians who just won't stop fighting him. They fear him so much they try to bully someone who doesn't, because Ukraine depends on them for arms.

This fear is why ukraine is denied NATO access & protection. Because NATO appeases & protects Putin. No lessons were learnt at all from WW2.

source : https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3736330-wallace-says-putin-may-lash-out-in-next-three-or-four-years.html

Archive link to main article in the times : https://archive.ph/CviEG

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When UK’s Secretary of State for Defence publicly says “If Putin loses in Ukraine”

The guy who is stepping down due to backlash over his ridiculous statements of late? Quite the opposite is the reality here. The only thing NATO is concerned about at this point is the Nukes. Every other concern is like a Parent being concerned their toddler might throw a tantrum. Changes nothing. The child gets punished for its bad behaviour regardless.

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politicians are the talking heads here. Our military leadership, in at least the oldest of the NATO states, know exactly what they're doing. The military, in the US at least, doesn't talk to the public except through the president, or very few, select press hearings with very high-level brass, and what they say is almost always directed at the international opposition (China and Russia) and as such never reflects the true strategy. I fully believe that NATO is maneuvering to destabilize Russia, and that their goal is regime change.

[–] baru@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I fully believe that NATO is maneuvering to destabilize Russia

NATO is acting after loads of Russian aggression. Above sounds too much like the Russian talking point that Russia somehow is a victim and was somehow forced to annex the various regions over the last 20 years or so.

[+] lemmyshmemmy@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The free world could and should have supplied Ukraine with long range missiles and jets a year ago.

[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The war would not have dragged on for so long had the skies been closed at the start of Russia's invasion.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ending the war quickly is not the plan. Sapping Russian reserves of manpower and equipment is, and that's accomplished by trying to keep Ukrainian forces alive but not winning.

[–] jedichric@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Some people are too young to remember Vietnam and 80's Afghanistan.

[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Yes. It's becoming obvious that NATO is using Ukraine to weaken Russia and Putin,then denyiing Ukraine the benefits of a NATO membership and it is what Zelenskyy protested.

NATO is destroying all the goodwill it has earned,

load more comments