Ukraine’s leader says the chancellor wants the missiles to defend Germany — which is not the version of events given to the German public.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sharply criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for refusing to provide Kyiv with German-made Taurus cruise missiles and suggested the reluctance is based on his desire to keep the weapons for Berlin’s own defense against a threat from Russia.
“As far as I understand, the chancellor believes that, as he is a representative of a non-nuclear state, this is is the only weapon that Germany has, is the most powerful one,” Zelenskyy said of the Taurus missiles in an interview with Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. “He shared messages with me saying that he cannot leave his country without such a powerful weapon,” Zelenskyy added of Scholz.
Germany’s government, however, presents its public with quite different logic for not sending the weapons. Scholz has steadfastly refused to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, saying in public statements that such a move could lead to an escalation of the war and could even draw Germany into direct conflict with Russia.
I thought that question was suggested by the post and wasn’t necessary, but sure- should Ukraine just roll over and let Russia plow over them?
Because I’m not sure what else saying they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell implies.
Ukraine should and most likely will surrender without intervention by foreign militaries.
“Rolling over and letting Russia plow them” means to me that they would let Russia massacre them without fighting back. I do not think Ukraine should do this, but it’s also not wording I would ever use because it is hyperbolic and ambiguous.
So you’re saying that they should do that, just not in the way I worded it?
This is why you should let people use their own words instead of speaking for them.
You have a bad habit of doing the latter.
So, you’re saying they should surrender, but also fight back.
Do you see how that might be confusing?
deleted by creator