1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons. 2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine. 3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine.
1/7
4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador. 5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work. 6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press. 7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time.
2/7
8) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks. 9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer. 10) NATO officials and German generals deny this.
3/7
11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine. 12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine.
4/7
13) Under pressure Scholz announces β¬2 billion for Ukraine's military. 14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just β¬1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy.
5/7
15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz. 16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the β¬1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list.
6/7
17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the β¬1 billion.
Scholz isn't incompetent or mendacious... he just works for the russians.
7/7
18) Scholz claims that there is no ammunition anymore for the Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles. 19) Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Egypt respectively France are saying the produce these ammo types.
8/n
20) Scholz says countries delivering armored vehicles to Ukraine will be attacked by russia with nuclear weapons. 21) The US, UK, Australia, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Czechia, Netherlands, Denmark all report they were not hit by nuclear weapons.
9/n
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
πΊπΈ the US
πΊπ¦ Ukraine
These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the 1/9
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:
Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a π¬π§ Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2Γ aircraft carriers, 8Γ destroyers, 16Γ frigates, 6Γ attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy. 1/8
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit. 2/n
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1Γ destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the π¬π§ UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9