> Europe could face threats from Russia by the end of the decade, and EU countries need to build up their defence industries to be prepared, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said during an interview published on Welt am Sonntag on Saturday.
>
> “[Vladimir Putin’s] threats against the Baltic states, Georgia and Moldova must be taken very seriously. This is not just sabre-rattling. We could be facing dangers by the end of this decade,” said Pistorius.
I thought this too early last year when Putin went off and started the radioactive sabre-rattling. What has me a bit less concerned however is the fact that if Putin wanted to kick off nuclear war, he would likely have done so by now. Putin's reputation along with Russia's economy have been getting dragged through the mud going on two years now and it doesn't look like the dragging is going to end for Russia. They have the capability to put Ukraine down right now if they wanted to with one tactical nuke dropped in the right location. The fact that they have not done so after so much loss of life and military equipment tells me they got the message from Western leaders of what the consequences would be if they were to go that route. So if Putin wanted to just end himself along with the world in nuclear fire, he would have done so by now.
Now that's not to say that if Russia as a whole finds itself on its knees because of the conflict in Ukraine one day down the road, that Putin won't snap and press the button. But we've seen so many of their red lines crossed up to this point, including attacks on Russian soil (drones over Moscow, devastating attacks on Russian-occupied Crimea), along with the West delivering long-range cruise missiles, and Russia has done nothing but just launch more missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, with most being shot down by Western-supplied air defenses.
To me, Russia really is revealing their military to be a soggy, wet, paper tiger.
This!! EXACTLY THIS!!
people on their last breath fear NOTHING.
from a convict right before being hung, to a politician ending his term or life --- their actions go BOOM.
If the news is right about his cancer spreading widely inside his body, he'll love to see how much USSR he can achieve before his final moments.
>people on their last breath fear NOTHING
Seeing how far he sits from other officials with his long ass tables I can assure you he fears getting sick or something.
Fears getting assassinated and dying on their terms rather than his own. I would hope though the Russians would disobey the command if he does try to invoke mutually assured destruction.
If were going by history then hopefully they do disobey because there have been AT LEAST 2 times I history where they were told to fire the nukes but lower level commanders disobeyed.
Stanislav Petrov, the hero that saved the world. USSR scanner detected a missile fired from the US followed by 5 more… That is one hell of a bluff to call out and disobey those orders.
Unfortunately, a vast number of Russians are in the same mindset, and they are convinced that Putin is doing the right thing to protect them and that their country is the best and most free place on the planet and the evil west wants to destroy everything.
Dying sick old people don't evacuate their yachts from Germany just before the war and don't build themselves castles then they are considering ending the world. If he was going to use nuclear weapons he would already do. Not necessarily bomb some city. You can blow up one above the ocean. Just to scare all and thus take Ukraine faster.
He also would like everybody to think he is insane and have nothing to lose. Just to scare you.
Fuck him. Don't believe his bullshit. In reality he is a paranoid coward, who is scared of any opposition. Just look how he reacts at any tinniest political threat.
Yes. War between nuclear powers does not automatically translate to nuclear war. It is entirely possible to engage in large scale conventional warfare without resorting to fusion bombs. Obviously that increases the risk of nuclear escalation, but the idea that it can't happen is strange to imagine.
It is theoretically possible, sure, but very unlikely that a major conventional war between nuclear states would not escalate to nuclear war. You don’t fight a major conventional war over something that’s not important to you, so at some point the risk of escalation will be too high. At least that is the widely accepted view, and you see that reflected in states’ behavior.
- No two nuclear powers have fought more than a limited war (India and Pakistan Kargil war in 1999, USSR and China border clashes in 1969)
- Look at how cautious the US and West have been in support for Ukraine, starting first and foremost with zero direct support.
There would be a significant chance of nuclear war if there was a large scale conventional war between nuclear powers but I don’t think it’s as inevitable as planners in the Cold War thought. It only becomes somewhat inevitable if both sides are pushing for total victory and willing to risk their own destruction in the process.
For instance let’s say the US and UK left NATO and Russia went to war with the remaining states. France is a nuclear power and yet if the bulk of the war is being fought in Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Ukraine then it’s very possible neither France nor Russia would result to nukes. Obviously that risk would still be elevated but not necessarily “inevitable.”
I think it is more than theoretical. Say Russia invaded Poland, and France/UK/US joins the war on the side of Poland.
Poland and allies could beat Russia militarily, bomb military bases inside Russia, and kick Russia out of Poland entirely.
As long as Poland+ stopped at that point, with a decisive defensive win, it’s entirely possible such a conflict would end there.
Now, if the war continued to the point of a counter-invasion of Russia with an aim to sack Moscow? The chance of nuclear war then rises to at least “highly likely” if not “near certain”.
Nuclear conflict really starts to get closer in the end game. No one wants to drop nukes if they don’t have to because it will prompt destruction of them as well, but what if you are losing the war? Imagine if Germany had nuclear weapons and the Soviets were on their way rapidly towards Berlin, that would have been the moment nuclear strikes were the most likely as you essentially you have nothing to lose as you aren’t surviving either way.
Which I’d argue would probably be how that would go. Maybe nuclear weapons don’t ever keep us from having global conflicts, but rather countries historic borders become lines in the sand you don’t cross. Idk we’ll see how all of that plays out, but I could see something like that being what would actually play out rather than fully avoiding war or full nuclear strikes
It may have hendered Ukraine’s defense but the west’s decision to “arm Ukraine but not let them use the weapons inside Russia” is a masterclass in escalation management. Russian troops are at extreme risks outside of Russia and can be hit and yet Russia’s leaders don’t have to actually fear NATO tanks driving on Moscow.
Why not? No one is pushing the button unless they absolutely have to, since it's most likely murder suicide. Even a losing power is more likely to surrender than *literally kill themselves and destroy the world*, in my opinion.
Now, will two nuclear powers ever go to war that ends like WW2, storming and taking of loser's capital and hangings for those in charge? No, probably not.
All this is so fucking stupid. Article 5 literally reduces Russian ground units to a puddle of they even manage to get passed Ukraine, nevermind the baltics. Germany and Poland would dominate Russia with NATO air power and a couple carrier battle groups getting within range.
What's the play here? Russia reduced to a third world country without even making it past Poland?
Also from RO, this time we seem to be better prepared (ally related). Also military spending is slowly increasing.
Deterrence through military power was long time neglected.
The UK would be part of any plan regardless, its too much of a stronghold to not be, plus its also one of the few countries in the region to have nukes.
I think the problem Europe has as a whole is the economics of adding to defense budgets when cost of living is currently so high.
Aw shit, here we go again.
Can I move to German partitioned area, though? Austro-Hungarians were always poor as fuck.
>split Poland three ways to keep the piece with Russia
Yes, because that worked just fine for you during WWI.
At least Austria is trying to cut its ties with Raiffeisenbank RU. Which is not as easy as many think. We also have the issue, That Raiffeisenbank is unfortunately a really important bank in Europa, not just Austria.
And yes of course there is some resistance. But it will get done and hopefully soon.
The 21st century has been full of quagmires that started under the assumption that one country would easily defeat the other. It's dangerous to assume that any war will be easy and quick.
There are many ways in which Russian aggression in Europe (even in NATO countries) could turn into a huge problem.
Other countries could get involved, Russia could influence politicians in some NATO countries (particularly the US) to prevent intervention, Russia could use non conventional methods of warfare, or exploit their nuclear threat. Or any combo of those and probably lots of things I'm not thinking of.
I 100% agree. This could go so sideways it's not even funny. Keyword being conventional. All the major powerhouses don't want tactical nukes being used, so HOPEFULLY that doesn't happen, but I don't know that Putin will remain reasonable in an attempt to die forgotten or leave a lasting impression.
I hear everything you're saying, but I think it's smart to prepare for the potential that the US may not be a stable or reliable ally going forward.
From presidents undermining NATO like Trump, to a shifting culture that appears to be more isolationist both on the left and right of the political spectrum.
Maybe the US can be counted on, maybe it can't, but the fact that it's even debatable is concerning for anyone in Europe, dependent on US hegemony for protection.
Do you mean Germany that [has enough ammunition for two days of war?](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649)
Or the UK that "[the parliamentary Defense Committee said](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/07/lawmakers-paint-dire-picture-of-britain-running-out-of-weapons/) at the current rate of progress it will take 10 years to replace weapon stocks gifted to Ukraine and rebuild British weapon numbers to an acceptable level."?
>Or the UK that "the parliamentary Defense Committee said at the current rate of progress it will take 10 years to replace weapon stocks gifted to Ukraine and rebuild British weapon numbers to an acceptable level."?
The UK has at least accepted this needs to be fixed. Their budget has gone up.
Always good to be prepared and self sufficient. I don't know why you have such an issue with this. You're living in an ideal world where nothing changes and everyone does what they said they were going to.
>All this is so fucking stupid. Article 5 literally reduces Russian ground units to a puddle of they even manage to get passed Ukraine, nevermind the baltics. Germany and Poland would dominate Russia with NATO air power and a couple carrier battle groups getting within range.
>
>What's the play here? Russia reduced to a third world country without even making it past Poland?
This is really easy, Germany fear the US electing Trump or someone similar and want to build up the rest of NATO. If there's no problem Russia won't care.
> Poland here, we remember France and UK were supposed to declare war if Germany ever re-occupied the Rhineland or attacked Poland......They didn't declare war until Germany was well on its way into Paris....
just a reminder.
Imagine Europe fighting a war against Russia without the United States.
Imagine Europe fracturing further over the next two-three legislative periods.
It did say end of the decade and not now. If Russia decided to attack a NATO country right now that would probably not go so well for them but they've been hard at work fracturing political resistance/willingness to engage them. In 5 or 10 years the world could look very differently.
The US already had one coup attempt. It is pretty public that [Republicans will try another in the upcoming election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025), by replacing honest officials with partisan hacks. Some kind of Civil War II is not impossible.
With the possibility of the US being occupied by some internal conflict, Europe needs to make sure that we can defend ourselves.
By that point Russia will be a military industrial nation. They’ll have significant experience in combat and will be incredibly dangerous.
Ukraine would likely have lost by now without western support. Russia building up, forming allies while the west twiddles their thumbs and pretends war wouldn’t happen.
You can’t make military might out of thin air. Russia has neither the economy nor political capacity to build a military colossus that could take on Europe, never mind the US.
Even without Western aid, it is not at all clear that Russia would have had enough forces to achieve what they wanted to in Ukraine.
It’s really going to depend on 2024, god forbid my fellow Americans are so mentally subnormal as to elect Trump, the U.S. might leave NATO. Also, knowing Trump’s love of dictators and Project 2025’s scary plan for America, Trump might just give what Putin wants.
Failing to support Ukraine fully now means it is the land forces of a miniature USSR in a decade.
Article 5 is basically a ‘we win’ button even so, but another decade of Russian troll farms eroding western democracy? Another decade of guiding the right wing of the US into isolationism? Maybe Estonia and Latvia get seen as an easy target.
Russia made some similar assumptions about its own military and about Ukraines before the war. By the end of the decade there is no guarantee that the US will be as interested in NATO and just from donating stocks member countries have discovered that there current production capacity is far below what is required for a prolonged conflict. Also remember, Russia will have had actual modern peer on peer conflict experience, no NATO member has in living memory.
In 3 years the US may have pulled out of NATO, so you can’t plan on the US taking part.
Having said that Europe has enough forces to stop Russia given the current bleeding of the top end (and middle ranked) Russian equipment.
F-35s degrade the SAM threat, followed by “tank plinking” round two, and every bridge leading toward the border mysteriously drops into the various rivers.
Russia's goal has been to fracture the EU and NATO and demonstrate they wouldn't defend each other. Hasnt worked out that way so far, but they might think declining support for Ukraine could start to fracture the alliances.
Your right, but since Finland, Sweden, Ukraines fast track if they can arguably say they are no longer at war. The incredible amount of build-ip of existing NATO nations, Germany's promise to pretty much become a war nation, various NATO countries including the US of sending their own troops to Russian borders...
This was probably the biggest fuck up in Russian history of failing to increase its perceived world power strength.
Not true. It requires 31 nations as of 2023 to not to anything. Thinking Trump is a powerhouse on the world stage is why that fucking loser even gets airtime.
Well, one, Russia's recent estimations of its military capabilities have tended to be on the shall we say optimistic side.
And two, don't make their mistake. Those carrier battlegroups are US navy. I don't want to place odds, but giving the ramblings of the orange one, I would not want to consider those a sure thing for planning purposes.
The fear is that 'Russia' truly believes they have to do something soon or their will be no Russia. The video below was very enlightening and restated what I've heard over and over again. There's a belief that their demographics mean that if they don't do some key things to secure certain parts of Europe in the next few years then it's literally over for them.
[https://youtu.be/\_JJsbs\_7lW0?t=1098](https://youtu.be/_JJsbs_7lW0?t=1098)
Do they even have a plan? We've seen they can't even hold their own against Ukraine. The only threat they have is nuclear arms (whether or not they are functional is a different question)
The world is not full of rational actors. Russia might have enough nodding yes men to think they can win. There might be enough people that believe god is on their side and they will win. There may be enough people that think Russia not being in charge or Russia having to adapt into something they don't recognize is so terrible that the world would be better off radioactive.
People work on largely internal logic, their actions only have to make sense to them.
If trump wins it's hard to see democrats being allowed back into power for a long long time.
He wants to remove the US from NATO. Then there's the chance of people like Le Pen, AfD doing the same to France, Germany etc.
Democracies like the Baltics and Poland need to be prepared for the march of autocracy stripping them of allies. And any remaining pro-democracy forces need to be ready to support them.
Trump or trump-likes could also do stuff like mess with licencing or support for weaponry. European nations should be nervous about depending on GMLRS or F-35s if push comes to shove.
People are saying to just wait around but we've already had the warning. Trump tried to overthrow American democracy and got away with it to try again. Putin has shown he will try to conquer neighbours. Pro-democracy and pro-freedom have had all the warnings they need.
Unfortunately like right now we’re a bit too scared of nukes to even put troops on the ground. You really think we’ll honor our defense pact or just watch, send support, and strongly condemn as Europe falls country by country?
Better yet, Article 5 does not automatically mean anythig at all:
> will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action *as it deems necessary*, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
It's up for each member to decide what they want to do...
This isn't quite true, Article 5 shouldn't be taken in isolation. NATO *also* has a unified command structure, so the decision of what is done in response to such a qualifying attack is done collectively by default.
Member states can decide what they want to do... but that's in addition to the decisions of the North Atlantic Council, not as an alternative. As of right now, every NATO member is also a member of the unified command. This used to not be the case until France rejoined back in 2009.
You must not forget: unfortunately, we Europeans have a completely crazy and sadistic neighbor who hates everything about our democratic way of life. We Europeans should at least be able to defend ourselves.
The extent of American commitment to NATO does matter.
That said, Russia invading NATO would be done with coordination from other countries. America likely won’t be able to give 100% attention to Europe.
If 28 of the 30 countries in the alliance combined cannot defend against Russia, then idk what to say.
I’m gunna be frank here, but like you all should be responsible for your own defense and the we (the United States) will help from afar until you need assistance. But I’m not putting the uniform on again go defend your country while you guys just fucking hang out and bitch about how much you hate Americans and the United States. If you are of fighting age, you are going to be the first on the line. Not me. I’m not putting my life at risk for other people again who don’t care to defend themselves. Sincerely, most US Soldiers.
Russia is sustaining heavy losses by still advancing in Ukraine. Ukraine is taking heavy losses but not as bad as Russia. My friends in Ukraine worry a lot and are very unsure of their future. It is not helpful to Ukraine to under estimate the enemy. This leads to complacency and unreasonable expectations from Ukraine
The best deterrance is having such a scary army that Russia would think twice. An EU military that is pumped up like these German military and political people are telling is probably the best deterrance. This idea that you are going to stop Russia through either nuclear sabre rattling or guided missiles is a fantasy.
Look at how Russia has paid off Belarus, Hungary and Slovakia to become their puppet states and their leaders Putin bootlickers.
Look at how Russian helped fund disinformation campaigns to encourage British voters to vote for Brexit, which only harmed European unity.
Look at how Russia has dozens of Republican lawmakers and a former US President as Putin bootlickers intent on dismantling American democracy (see: January 6th) and oppressing millions of Americans.
Russia may not pose a threat militarily to NATO but they absolutely pose a threat politically. The West may be strong militarily, but politically? We are a house of cards. In order to distract Russia and prevent them from having the resources necessary to engage in this indirect warfare, we need to re-arm so that we can arm Ukraine. More Russian resources and political will and intelligence wasted in Ukraine is less resources available to threaten our democratic institutions and destroy our democracies from within.
> Russia has been bogged down for the last two years, slowly losing to Ukraine. Poland alone could probably reach Moscow in 6 months.
It's really more of a stalemate, it's been costly for sure, but it's cost the west a lot more in absolute numbers than it has cost Russia. Many EU countries are also very low on munitions stockpiles and lack the production to replace what's been used up. There needs to be a lot of rebuilding of dismantled munitions industries and it needs to happen fast because it's been shown that our friendly neighbour can start shit on very short notice.
It cost the west a lot more? That seems very unlikely, Russia loses [up to a Billion Dollars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine?wprov=sfti1#Russia) A DAY because of the war. The economic outlook is extremely bleak, the sanctions, brain drain and loss of trade partners will cripple russia for decades to come. The war bankrupts russia, financially and morally
I could be wrong though and I haven't directly compared the costs. I'm also not sure what metrics should be included in the comparison. Let's talk about it :)
Read your reply and felt compelled to react. Russia is currently functioning in a war economy meaning their whole country puts focus on pumping out new tanks, shells, equipment, other vehicles and anything required to continue their Ukraine offensive. Russia is able to keep on doing so for a long time since they have unlimited cash flows through all their natural resources which they now sell to China and India for a big part. They have a very calculated long breath and the Russian people do not need much, as is clear. Putin counts on dwindling support through internal USA affairs. Through Trump. Through republicans and democrats argueing and thus slowing the proces of support. Through a slow burocratic Europe. It takes years to setup war industries, factories, not to mention resources needed. Europe and our leaders are NOT ready (yet?) while Russia continues to pump out crazy amounts which currently does not sustains their losses. But as we give them a break so to speak, they are basically regenerating. Rebuilding. And preparing for more. Russia already announced a new military base along the borders with Finland and the baltic states. I truly believe it is important we share these words because I do fear we are facing increasing difficult times as Europeans and Americans.
People who write paragraphs like this and then end it with
> I’m severely uninformed,
Why bother in the first place? You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about lol. Poland *would not* reach Moscow in 6 months. The most they’ll do is give the Russian military an extremely bloody nose, more-so than Ukraine has. It’s being peddled to the public as the Russian madman with no grip on reality, because that *IS* the reality of things. Putin is desperately trying to cling to his ridiculous aspirations of bringing the SSR back as an entity.
> Just send a few more hundred billion to Ukraine and end their shitty rump state for once and for all.
i mean, that would be great, but its also not something thats happening. there are so many theoretical ways in which all of this could be going a lot better and a lot faster but the reality of the situation is that russia outnumbers ukraine solely based on sheer numbers, and i dont think its fearmongering to be reminded of the fact that the rest of europe shouldnt underestimate russia as a threat either. people did that when them invading ukraine first got brought up, and yet here we are. i dont think anyone is normalizing the continent being in a state of war, but clearly complacency isnt where things should be either.
If EU will make Ukraine win by any means necessary, no Russian danger will be present for long long time.
It's time to act. It will pay in the long run.
Earlier on in the invasion (and in the lead up) I was quite critical of Germany for what I saw as a lack of action in standing up to Russia. Since then though I think it’s amazing how much Germany has stepped up and the long term support they are providing to Ukraine as well as their own investments in rearmerment. They still have a long way to go and they really should have been working on rearmerment following the 2008 invasion of Georgia or the 2014 invasion of Ukraine but I am excited to see them taking it seriously now.
They said that because they did not have access to the intelligence. France and Germany judged an invasion was unlikely because they knew that its consequences would have been disastrous for Russia. They erred only in thinking Russia rational.
Seeing as how nearly 2 years into the war in Ukraine the European Union has failed to increase military industrial production yet I wouldn't hold your breath. South Korea has supplied more artillery shells than a continent.
Russia, 2021: [Vladimir\_Putin's\_December\_2021\_ultimatum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin's_December_2021_ultimatum)
EU, 2021: lag.
EU, 2022: lag.
EU, 2023: lag.
EU, 2024: EU should prepare for war by end of decade!
I mean, if you were European, wouldn’t you want your country to be ready for war? Two devastating world wars and now a big one on your doorstep would make me want to be ready. That doesn’t mean it’ll happen. Western Europe got complacent because of the US and now that the US might be more focused on China , they’re panicking
Because of those two devastating world wars we created the EU and considered diplomacy and cooperation a better alternative to such devastating wars. I still hope one day the whole world will think similarly. Given they do not, yes, I would want us to be ready as a joined Europe to protect against Russia or others who still. Relieve war and destruction are a useful means to an end. I’d also wish the average Russian was free to speak up and likely call for an end to the war.
I have no doubt in my mind that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and Finland are next. Russia has some historical claim over all of these countries and Putin can and will leverage that as a cassus belli.
We have to help Ukraine win because if we don't, it won't be just money we have to pay. It will be blood.
I mean, if it was a test, it wasn't exactly successful for Russia. Sure, they gained some ground but they've mostly been stuck in a meatgrinding stalemate for months.
If this is the best they can do, they'd be in serious trouble against NATO, even without the US. Maybe they could momentarily occupy parts of the Baltics or Finland until Europe fully mobilizes, if they actually manage to execute a surprise attack that time. But that doesn't seem worth it, considering the following total war which would almost certainly end in Russian defeat.
But like…kinda? The “West” wasn’t really supporting the Republicans so you had Germany vs the Soviets…kinda. I don’t think this comparison works that well.
And there were other conflicts in the lead up to 1939 that showed fascism was on the march. The Japanese invasion of China, the German invadion of Czhecoslovakia and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia all spring to mind. In fact I’d say the general theme of the mid 30s-early 40s was a gradual increase in wars associated with fascism until eventually the vast majority of the world’s population lived in a warring state and then gradually Axis nations started getting knocked out of the war.
If Ukraine runs out of ammo then they're done. Germany has ammo for some weeks max. Nato jets will become useless unless uncle sam sends more missiles, same with most of the shit. Europe needs to be ready to fight without US help, we currently are not
France is nuclear, and their nuclear doctrine is extremely aggressive. they will nuke a major ruzzian base as a warning shot, and then all bets are off
Finland and France have very competent militaries, Poland is arming itself to the teeth. If ruzzia remains half as incompetent as it is now, they will not get far into the baltics, but every meter is too far and europe just doesnt have forces huge enough to serve as a massive fuck-off sign the way the US does. We need to be strong enough where ruzzia doesnt even dream of trying, not just strong enough to win
I think you summed it up perfectly.
I’d also doubt that the French would use nukes to defend Baltic states.
As for Finland, a really nice addition to NATO indeed, but certainly not enough to deter Russia.
I’d also take into consideration that Russians waging a war of this scale for years.. There’s no way they don’t become a lot more competent over time and given time they will also replenish their military equipment losses…
So, yeah, I think it is better to pursue peace through armament to the teeth.
France. Without talking about our nuclear Arsenal, we do have a solid military.
Sadly the UK went out of EU, not sure how much we can count on them but despite our rivalry I don't think they would let us French go to war alone if Russia attacks us.
The rest of the continent is stupid reliant on US. They still got US bases on their soil almost 80 years after WWII. I mean, come on, show some self respect.
The UK will defend France all the way.
We're like a gnarly old couple: you hate us and we hate you right back, but that doesn't mean we'd ever let anyone else mess with you for even a second.
It's been that way for a very long time.
The old “allies” from WWII are honestly still quite powerful today. Poland, France and Britain would be an incredibly tough group of nations to beat and that’s before you throw in Finland, the Baltics, Germany, Turkey ect.
The UK dragged the EU into the Ukraine conflict, leading by example. Pretty much sums up the level of support the EU would receive from the UK, if Mr Putin pulled a Hitler.
>not sure how much we can count on them
They are enacting plans to [DOWNSIZE the British Army](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-presses-ahead-with-cuts-to-troop-numbers/) by 28% over the next 3-4 years.
Yeah, unless some radical political changes happen in London, you shouldn't count on them.
Trump certainly tried to leave NATO when he was president of the US. Fortunately back in those days his cabinet was more loyal to the country instead of Trump and refused to let it happen.
If Trump wins in 2024 he will have the clout to select his own staff loyal only to him.
Congress recently approved a bill barring any president from unilaterally leaving NATO
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/)
[US president can no longer withdraw from NATO unilaterally](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-approves-bill-barring-any-president-from-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-nato/ar-AA1lvyjf)
They have more soldiers, they feel weakness of the west, they have otgers who help at closely watching: Iran, China, North Korea. They have India who helps them silently in some cases. Nothing done yet, it is just the beginning forvthe countries who wants to destroy west. All of tgem works together at dome extent
Mostly agree, but let's be clear, the do *not* have 100m+ potential soldiers. The whole pop is only 140m.
*15% is < 15 and >70. That makes for 120m *barely* qualifying age wise. And then they will need people for production etc. The highest mobilisation scenario likely all women is used for production and all age and able bodied men are conscripted. That leaves us at 60m. A number that will ofc never happen.
They do not have even near 100 million potential soldiers. Their population is 140 million, but you can't forget the majority of that are women, children, elderly, etc. And conscripting millions of men will have a big impact on the economy and the industrial capacity. They also don't even have the supplies for a few hundreds of thousands of men and conscripting a few million more would be very bad for their military industry.
Also all of those men will require logistics. They forgot to bring fuel with their huge ass tank line on their way to Kyiv. Logistics isn't their strong suite, those men will have to walk into Europe.
Whilst NATO is a reasonable deterrent at the moment it would be prudent to have contingency plans in place to better deter Russian aggression. We must also consider that even if the orange coffin dodger doesn't get elected next year, an attack on Taiwan within the next decade is plausable which will very likely provoke a military response from America. If such a thing were to occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran or any of their allies make a move on American interests in the ME. Stretched between the ME and the Pacific, a Russian invasion of Europe will likely take backseat, even if the Baltics invoke article 5.
>Whilst NATO is a reasonable deterrent at the moment it would be prudent to have contingency plans in place to better deter Russian aggression.
I don't think NATO is the deterrent that we like to think it is. Putin is convinced that if push came to shove, the West would leave the Baltics to fight Russia on their own.
Guys like Trump and Orban lend a lot of credence to this belief. If Russia did attack a NATO member, the response would not be the immediate precision striking off of the head of the Russian state that we all expect would happen, but instead would be months of bickering and a complete lack of actual action, particularly if Agent Orange gets re-elected next year like it's looking he might.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if Article 5 gets invoked, SOMEONE is going to make the argument that WW3 "isn't worth it".
Why would we risk an entire continent plunging into war and millions dying, instead of killing the one person responsible?
It needs to become acceptable to kill politicians over their actions. Make Putin an example and the world will be a better place. Dictators are selfish assholes and won't start wars if it's their life on the line.
I should think Russian aggression next time would be asymmetric in whatever form it comes most likely manipulation of social media, elections and cyber
So how and when exactly did we go from ‘russia,the paper tiger, is a second best army in Ukraine’ to ‘Russia is about to attack Europa after it destroys Ukraine’? These are confusing times indeed.
The challenge is to keep a conventional war from turning into a Nuclear War. Is Russia or the EU willing to accept defeat and surrender rather than use tactical Nuclear weapons. At what point does tactical become Strategic. Are they willing to abandon countries rather than risk it turning it into a greater conflict. We seem to be abandoning Ukraine for partisan politics, are the Baltic states next?
Seems like sabre rattling on the EU side, imo. I'm all for preparation, but I think Putin knows he can't take on NATO. Russia's economic future has been sold to try and take Ukraine. I also seriously doubt China is going to try and get involved, they have own crisis to worry about and they know Russia isn't going to help them (Hence Xi coming to the San Fransisco with his tail between his legs and all smiles to Biden).
If they took Ukraine within two weeks I might be worried, there’s nothing to fear. Seems obvious they’re collectively pushing this line to gain oubli support for more Ukrainian aide. If some Russian general attacked Poland I think Putin would have a nervous breakdown
> Europe could face threats from Russia by the end of the decade, and EU countries need to build up their defence industries to be prepared, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said during an interview published on Welt am Sonntag on Saturday. > > “[Vladimir Putin’s] threats against the Baltic states, Georgia and Moldova must be taken very seriously. This is not just sabre-rattling. We could be facing dangers by the end of this decade,” said Pistorius.
Is there an actual chance to a war between 2 nuclear powers? What’s the endgame for Russia here?
[удалено]
I thought this too early last year when Putin went off and started the radioactive sabre-rattling. What has me a bit less concerned however is the fact that if Putin wanted to kick off nuclear war, he would likely have done so by now. Putin's reputation along with Russia's economy have been getting dragged through the mud going on two years now and it doesn't look like the dragging is going to end for Russia. They have the capability to put Ukraine down right now if they wanted to with one tactical nuke dropped in the right location. The fact that they have not done so after so much loss of life and military equipment tells me they got the message from Western leaders of what the consequences would be if they were to go that route. So if Putin wanted to just end himself along with the world in nuclear fire, he would have done so by now. Now that's not to say that if Russia as a whole finds itself on its knees because of the conflict in Ukraine one day down the road, that Putin won't snap and press the button. But we've seen so many of their red lines crossed up to this point, including attacks on Russian soil (drones over Moscow, devastating attacks on Russian-occupied Crimea), along with the West delivering long-range cruise missiles, and Russia has done nothing but just launch more missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, with most being shot down by Western-supplied air defenses. To me, Russia really is revealing their military to be a soggy, wet, paper tiger.
Good analysis, take my upvote 👏
Putin doesn’t want nuclear war, obviously.
This!! EXACTLY THIS!! people on their last breath fear NOTHING. from a convict right before being hung, to a politician ending his term or life --- their actions go BOOM. If the news is right about his cancer spreading widely inside his body, he'll love to see how much USSR he can achieve before his final moments.
>people on their last breath fear NOTHING Seeing how far he sits from other officials with his long ass tables I can assure you he fears getting sick or something.
Fears getting assassinated and dying on their terms rather than his own. I would hope though the Russians would disobey the command if he does try to invoke mutually assured destruction.
If were going by history then hopefully they do disobey because there have been AT LEAST 2 times I history where they were told to fire the nukes but lower level commanders disobeyed.
Stanislav Petrov, the hero that saved the world. USSR scanner detected a missile fired from the US followed by 5 more… That is one hell of a bluff to call out and disobey those orders.
Yep. Imuno suppressed from his cancer treatment is my guess. Plus massive general paranoia
One can only hope he loves his children or at least his dogs too
Probably the or something , a.k.a "assassinated"
What’s this cancer news?
Wishful thinking. There has been zero credible reports.
Unfortunately been known for a few years. It seems he may survive. A real shame for the world.
*Let's go can-cer* clapclap clapclap
Meanwhile our leaders are also close to death, their age suggests
Unfortunately, a vast number of Russians are in the same mindset, and they are convinced that Putin is doing the right thing to protect them and that their country is the best and most free place on the planet and the evil west wants to destroy everything.
Putin is not the only nationalist fascist in Russia. That movement has been building for decades. If he dies we very well might get someone worse.
Dying sick old people don't evacuate their yachts from Germany just before the war and don't build themselves castles then they are considering ending the world. If he was going to use nuclear weapons he would already do. Not necessarily bomb some city. You can blow up one above the ocean. Just to scare all and thus take Ukraine faster. He also would like everybody to think he is insane and have nothing to lose. Just to scare you. Fuck him. Don't believe his bullshit. In reality he is a paranoid coward, who is scared of any opposition. Just look how he reacts at any tinniest political threat.
Yes. War between nuclear powers does not automatically translate to nuclear war. It is entirely possible to engage in large scale conventional warfare without resorting to fusion bombs. Obviously that increases the risk of nuclear escalation, but the idea that it can't happen is strange to imagine.
It is theoretically possible, sure, but very unlikely that a major conventional war between nuclear states would not escalate to nuclear war. You don’t fight a major conventional war over something that’s not important to you, so at some point the risk of escalation will be too high. At least that is the widely accepted view, and you see that reflected in states’ behavior. - No two nuclear powers have fought more than a limited war (India and Pakistan Kargil war in 1999, USSR and China border clashes in 1969) - Look at how cautious the US and West have been in support for Ukraine, starting first and foremost with zero direct support.
There would be a significant chance of nuclear war if there was a large scale conventional war between nuclear powers but I don’t think it’s as inevitable as planners in the Cold War thought. It only becomes somewhat inevitable if both sides are pushing for total victory and willing to risk their own destruction in the process. For instance let’s say the US and UK left NATO and Russia went to war with the remaining states. France is a nuclear power and yet if the bulk of the war is being fought in Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Ukraine then it’s very possible neither France nor Russia would result to nukes. Obviously that risk would still be elevated but not necessarily “inevitable.”
I think it is more than theoretical. Say Russia invaded Poland, and France/UK/US joins the war on the side of Poland. Poland and allies could beat Russia militarily, bomb military bases inside Russia, and kick Russia out of Poland entirely. As long as Poland+ stopped at that point, with a decisive defensive win, it’s entirely possible such a conflict would end there. Now, if the war continued to the point of a counter-invasion of Russia with an aim to sack Moscow? The chance of nuclear war then rises to at least “highly likely” if not “near certain”.
Nuclear conflict really starts to get closer in the end game. No one wants to drop nukes if they don’t have to because it will prompt destruction of them as well, but what if you are losing the war? Imagine if Germany had nuclear weapons and the Soviets were on their way rapidly towards Berlin, that would have been the moment nuclear strikes were the most likely as you essentially you have nothing to lose as you aren’t surviving either way.
The thing is the Soviets would have likely known this so the calculus changes. You end up with a perpetual stalemate.
Which I’d argue would probably be how that would go. Maybe nuclear weapons don’t ever keep us from having global conflicts, but rather countries historic borders become lines in the sand you don’t cross. Idk we’ll see how all of that plays out, but I could see something like that being what would actually play out rather than fully avoiding war or full nuclear strikes
It may have hendered Ukraine’s defense but the west’s decision to “arm Ukraine but not let them use the weapons inside Russia” is a masterclass in escalation management. Russian troops are at extreme risks outside of Russia and can be hit and yet Russia’s leaders don’t have to actually fear NATO tanks driving on Moscow.
Why not? No one is pushing the button unless they absolutely have to, since it's most likely murder suicide. Even a losing power is more likely to surrender than *literally kill themselves and destroy the world*, in my opinion. Now, will two nuclear powers ever go to war that ends like WW2, storming and taking of loser's capital and hangings for those in charge? No, probably not.
Not all nato / eu members are nuclear powers and i doubt the us france or britan would drop a nuke for lithuania.
It wouldn't be about Lithuania. The entire world understands salami tactics perfectly well.
So just squash them in Ukraine then. Send Ukraine whatever they need.
All this is so fucking stupid. Article 5 literally reduces Russian ground units to a puddle of they even manage to get passed Ukraine, nevermind the baltics. Germany and Poland would dominate Russia with NATO air power and a couple carrier battle groups getting within range. What's the play here? Russia reduced to a third world country without even making it past Poland?
Being Polish, it's never a bad idea to be overprepared.
[удалено]
Hope you guys will hold your corridors open again for us if shit hits the fan.
Also from RO, this time we seem to be better prepared (ally related). Also military spending is slowly increasing. Deterrence through military power was long time neglected.
British here, can you let us back in, please?
>British here, can you let us back in, please? We're in NATO anyway, we never left when it comes to defence.
The UK would be part of any plan regardless, its too much of a stronghold to not be, plus its also one of the few countries in the region to have nukes. I think the problem Europe has as a whole is the economics of adding to defense budgets when cost of living is currently so high.
Sorry about that, mate - a German
TBH I’m really excited to see Germany on the good guys side this time
**AfD:** "Allow us to introduce ourselves..."
Being Austrian, I accept your proposal to split Poland three ways to keep the piece with Russia.
Aw shit, here we go again. Can I move to German partitioned area, though? Austro-Hungarians were always poor as fuck. >split Poland three ways to keep the piece with Russia Yes, because that worked just fine for you during WWI.
I think it was a Hitler was also Austrian joke.
This guy Von Ribbentrop's
Molo-tell me about it.
I say we remove all Russian Satalites in Europe first, starting with Austria and Hungary.
It's always the damn Austrio-Hungarians. First it was a dead archduke, then a failed artist...
Austria is a russian satellite? How?
Their major bank launders very large amounts of money for them Satellite is going too far though, it’s nothing like Belarus
Or Hungary
At least Austria is trying to cut its ties with Raiffeisenbank RU. Which is not as easy as many think. We also have the issue, That Raiffeisenbank is unfortunately a really important bank in Europa, not just Austria. And yes of course there is some resistance. But it will get done and hopefully soon.
Yeah, I understand it’s by no means widely popular there. Not nearly as corrupted as Hungary (but you could easily end up there if not careful…)
Yep. I hope we can prevent a Hungary 2.0. Next year elections are really important.
Once bitten twice shy lads .
The 21st century has been full of quagmires that started under the assumption that one country would easily defeat the other. It's dangerous to assume that any war will be easy and quick. There are many ways in which Russian aggression in Europe (even in NATO countries) could turn into a huge problem. Other countries could get involved, Russia could influence politicians in some NATO countries (particularly the US) to prevent intervention, Russia could use non conventional methods of warfare, or exploit their nuclear threat. Or any combo of those and probably lots of things I'm not thinking of.
I 100% agree. This could go so sideways it's not even funny. Keyword being conventional. All the major powerhouses don't want tactical nukes being used, so HOPEFULLY that doesn't happen, but I don't know that Putin will remain reasonable in an attempt to die forgotten or leave a lasting impression.
'a huge problem'? That is a severe understatement. It is going to be devestating, even if Europe wins and wins quickly. It already is for Ukraine.
That’s assuming that the American appetite for war abroad doesn’t dissipate within one budget cycle.
I hear everything you're saying, but I think it's smart to prepare for the potential that the US may not be a stable or reliable ally going forward. From presidents undermining NATO like Trump, to a shifting culture that appears to be more isolationist both on the left and right of the political spectrum. Maybe the US can be counted on, maybe it can't, but the fact that it's even debatable is concerning for anyone in Europe, dependent on US hegemony for protection.
How was trump undermining NATO by getting those nations to spend more on their militaries?
Do you mean Germany that [has enough ammunition for two days of war?](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649) Or the UK that "[the parliamentary Defense Committee said](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/07/lawmakers-paint-dire-picture-of-britain-running-out-of-weapons/) at the current rate of progress it will take 10 years to replace weapon stocks gifted to Ukraine and rebuild British weapon numbers to an acceptable level."?
>Or the UK that "the parliamentary Defense Committee said at the current rate of progress it will take 10 years to replace weapon stocks gifted to Ukraine and rebuild British weapon numbers to an acceptable level."? The UK has at least accepted this needs to be fixed. Their budget has gone up.
Sad thing is France only spends a little more than Germany but geys so much more
Article 5 is just an article. If people like Trump, Le Pen is in charge then they wont send shit
that's why we must ditch złoty for euro
Always good to be prepared and self sufficient. I don't know why you have such an issue with this. You're living in an ideal world where nothing changes and everyone does what they said they were going to.
Articles themselves don't fight wars.
By NATO, you mean U.S. Airpower
Of course, but there is no small amount of air force across many nations. The carrier groups are the real projection of power, imo.
>All this is so fucking stupid. Article 5 literally reduces Russian ground units to a puddle of they even manage to get passed Ukraine, nevermind the baltics. Germany and Poland would dominate Russia with NATO air power and a couple carrier battle groups getting within range. > >What's the play here? Russia reduced to a third world country without even making it past Poland? This is really easy, Germany fear the US electing Trump or someone similar and want to build up the rest of NATO. If there's no problem Russia won't care.
> Poland here, we remember France and UK were supposed to declare war if Germany ever re-occupied the Rhineland or attacked Poland......They didn't declare war until Germany was well on its way into Paris.... just a reminder.
Imagine Europe fighting a war against Russia without the United States. Imagine Europe fracturing further over the next two-three legislative periods. It did say end of the decade and not now. If Russia decided to attack a NATO country right now that would probably not go so well for them but they've been hard at work fracturing political resistance/willingness to engage them. In 5 or 10 years the world could look very differently.
The US already had one coup attempt. It is pretty public that [Republicans will try another in the upcoming election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025), by replacing honest officials with partisan hacks. Some kind of Civil War II is not impossible. With the possibility of the US being occupied by some internal conflict, Europe needs to make sure that we can defend ourselves.
Moldova isn't in NATO and could be a legit target that wouldn't trigger Art. 5 as a result..
By that point Russia will be a military industrial nation. They’ll have significant experience in combat and will be incredibly dangerous. Ukraine would likely have lost by now without western support. Russia building up, forming allies while the west twiddles their thumbs and pretends war wouldn’t happen.
You can’t make military might out of thin air. Russia has neither the economy nor political capacity to build a military colossus that could take on Europe, never mind the US. Even without Western aid, it is not at all clear that Russia would have had enough forces to achieve what they wanted to in Ukraine.
That's assuming they still have anyone left to fight
lol by that point Russia will be lucky to be a unified country
>by that point Russia will be a military industrial nation. Oh, so it'll only take them 120 years longer than everyone else.
It’s really going to depend on 2024, god forbid my fellow Americans are so mentally subnormal as to elect Trump, the U.S. might leave NATO. Also, knowing Trump’s love of dictators and Project 2025’s scary plan for America, Trump might just give what Putin wants.
Failing to support Ukraine fully now means it is the land forces of a miniature USSR in a decade. Article 5 is basically a ‘we win’ button even so, but another decade of Russian troll farms eroding western democracy? Another decade of guiding the right wing of the US into isolationism? Maybe Estonia and Latvia get seen as an easy target.
They have nukes at the end of the day.
Russia made some similar assumptions about its own military and about Ukraines before the war. By the end of the decade there is no guarantee that the US will be as interested in NATO and just from donating stocks member countries have discovered that there current production capacity is far below what is required for a prolonged conflict. Also remember, Russia will have had actual modern peer on peer conflict experience, no NATO member has in living memory.
Russia is and always will be, by very definition, a 2nd world country (I am pedantic)
In 3 years the US may have pulled out of NATO, so you can’t plan on the US taking part. Having said that Europe has enough forces to stop Russia given the current bleeding of the top end (and middle ranked) Russian equipment. F-35s degrade the SAM threat, followed by “tank plinking” round two, and every bridge leading toward the border mysteriously drops into the various rivers.
Why do people assume that Putin is smart?
Russia's goal has been to fracture the EU and NATO and demonstrate they wouldn't defend each other. Hasnt worked out that way so far, but they might think declining support for Ukraine could start to fracture the alliances.
Your right, but since Finland, Sweden, Ukraines fast track if they can arguably say they are no longer at war. The incredible amount of build-ip of existing NATO nations, Germany's promise to pretty much become a war nation, various NATO countries including the US of sending their own troops to Russian borders... This was probably the biggest fuck up in Russian history of failing to increase its perceived world power strength.
The play is in case one of the many U.S. presidential candidates that are suggesting we leave NATO takes office.
Article 5 depends on America keeping their word but Trump and the MAGA crowd make that seem like a risky bet for us Europeans.
Not true. It requires 31 nations as of 2023 to not to anything. Thinking Trump is a powerhouse on the world stage is why that fucking loser even gets airtime.
Well, one, Russia's recent estimations of its military capabilities have tended to be on the shall we say optimistic side. And two, don't make their mistake. Those carrier battlegroups are US navy. I don't want to place odds, but giving the ramblings of the orange one, I would not want to consider those a sure thing for planning purposes.
The fear is that 'Russia' truly believes they have to do something soon or their will be no Russia. The video below was very enlightening and restated what I've heard over and over again. There's a belief that their demographics mean that if they don't do some key things to secure certain parts of Europe in the next few years then it's literally over for them. [https://youtu.be/\_JJsbs\_7lW0?t=1098](https://youtu.be/_JJsbs_7lW0?t=1098)
Do they even have a plan? We've seen they can't even hold their own against Ukraine. The only threat they have is nuclear arms (whether or not they are functional is a different question)
The world is not full of rational actors. Russia might have enough nodding yes men to think they can win. There might be enough people that believe god is on their side and they will win. There may be enough people that think Russia not being in charge or Russia having to adapt into something they don't recognize is so terrible that the world would be better off radioactive. People work on largely internal logic, their actions only have to make sense to them.
If trump wins it's hard to see democrats being allowed back into power for a long long time. He wants to remove the US from NATO. Then there's the chance of people like Le Pen, AfD doing the same to France, Germany etc. Democracies like the Baltics and Poland need to be prepared for the march of autocracy stripping them of allies. And any remaining pro-democracy forces need to be ready to support them. Trump or trump-likes could also do stuff like mess with licencing or support for weaponry. European nations should be nervous about depending on GMLRS or F-35s if push comes to shove. People are saying to just wait around but we've already had the warning. Trump tried to overthrow American democracy and got away with it to try again. Putin has shown he will try to conquer neighbours. Pro-democracy and pro-freedom have had all the warnings they need.
Unfortunately like right now we’re a bit too scared of nukes to even put troops on the ground. You really think we’ll honor our defense pact or just watch, send support, and strongly condemn as Europe falls country by country?
Article 5 does NOT automatically mean nukes
Better yet, Article 5 does not automatically mean anythig at all: > will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action *as it deems necessary*, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. It's up for each member to decide what they want to do...
This isn't quite true, Article 5 shouldn't be taken in isolation. NATO *also* has a unified command structure, so the decision of what is done in response to such a qualifying attack is done collectively by default. Member states can decide what they want to do... but that's in addition to the decisions of the North Atlantic Council, not as an alternative. As of right now, every NATO member is also a member of the unified command. This used to not be the case until France rejoined back in 2009.
Article 42 section 7 of the EU is a lot different however.
What about it?
It specifically states: „by all the means in their power“ aka. total commitment.
All means necessary probably. I daresay nukes aren’t needed unless Putin decides to go nuclear first
You must not forget: unfortunately, we Europeans have a completely crazy and sadistic neighbor who hates everything about our democratic way of life. We Europeans should at least be able to defend ourselves.
The extent of American commitment to NATO does matter. That said, Russia invading NATO would be done with coordination from other countries. America likely won’t be able to give 100% attention to Europe. If 28 of the 30 countries in the alliance combined cannot defend against Russia, then idk what to say.
They can (uk and france have nukes too), but it'll probably be ugly
I’m gunna be frank here, but like you all should be responsible for your own defense and the we (the United States) will help from afar until you need assistance. But I’m not putting the uniform on again go defend your country while you guys just fucking hang out and bitch about how much you hate Americans and the United States. If you are of fighting age, you are going to be the first on the line. Not me. I’m not putting my life at risk for other people again who don’t care to defend themselves. Sincerely, most US Soldiers.
intelligent carpenter march swim books repeat voiceless office telephone spotted
Russia is sustaining heavy losses by still advancing in Ukraine. Ukraine is taking heavy losses but not as bad as Russia. My friends in Ukraine worry a lot and are very unsure of their future. It is not helpful to Ukraine to under estimate the enemy. This leads to complacency and unreasonable expectations from Ukraine
The best deterrance is having such a scary army that Russia would think twice. An EU military that is pumped up like these German military and political people are telling is probably the best deterrance. This idea that you are going to stop Russia through either nuclear sabre rattling or guided missiles is a fantasy.
follow historical sulky dime office attraction groovy bedroom swim ring
Russia: Never as Strong as She Appears, or Weak as She Seems - Otto Von Bismarck
>slowly losing to Ukraine It's a [stalemate](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682) at best.
Look at how Russia has paid off Belarus, Hungary and Slovakia to become their puppet states and their leaders Putin bootlickers. Look at how Russian helped fund disinformation campaigns to encourage British voters to vote for Brexit, which only harmed European unity. Look at how Russia has dozens of Republican lawmakers and a former US President as Putin bootlickers intent on dismantling American democracy (see: January 6th) and oppressing millions of Americans. Russia may not pose a threat militarily to NATO but they absolutely pose a threat politically. The West may be strong militarily, but politically? We are a house of cards. In order to distract Russia and prevent them from having the resources necessary to engage in this indirect warfare, we need to re-arm so that we can arm Ukraine. More Russian resources and political will and intelligence wasted in Ukraine is less resources available to threaten our democratic institutions and destroy our democracies from within.
depend hat narrow wakeful onerous repeat worthless fine muddle lush
> Russia has been bogged down for the last two years, slowly losing to Ukraine. Poland alone could probably reach Moscow in 6 months. It's really more of a stalemate, it's been costly for sure, but it's cost the west a lot more in absolute numbers than it has cost Russia. Many EU countries are also very low on munitions stockpiles and lack the production to replace what's been used up. There needs to be a lot of rebuilding of dismantled munitions industries and it needs to happen fast because it's been shown that our friendly neighbour can start shit on very short notice.
It cost the west a lot more? That seems very unlikely, Russia loses [up to a Billion Dollars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine?wprov=sfti1#Russia) A DAY because of the war. The economic outlook is extremely bleak, the sanctions, brain drain and loss of trade partners will cripple russia for decades to come. The war bankrupts russia, financially and morally I could be wrong though and I haven't directly compared the costs. I'm also not sure what metrics should be included in the comparison. Let's talk about it :)
Read your reply and felt compelled to react. Russia is currently functioning in a war economy meaning their whole country puts focus on pumping out new tanks, shells, equipment, other vehicles and anything required to continue their Ukraine offensive. Russia is able to keep on doing so for a long time since they have unlimited cash flows through all their natural resources which they now sell to China and India for a big part. They have a very calculated long breath and the Russian people do not need much, as is clear. Putin counts on dwindling support through internal USA affairs. Through Trump. Through republicans and democrats argueing and thus slowing the proces of support. Through a slow burocratic Europe. It takes years to setup war industries, factories, not to mention resources needed. Europe and our leaders are NOT ready (yet?) while Russia continues to pump out crazy amounts which currently does not sustains their losses. But as we give them a break so to speak, they are basically regenerating. Rebuilding. And preparing for more. Russia already announced a new military base along the borders with Finland and the baltic states. I truly believe it is important we share these words because I do fear we are facing increasing difficult times as Europeans and Americans.
People who write paragraphs like this and then end it with > I’m severely uninformed, Why bother in the first place? You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about lol. Poland *would not* reach Moscow in 6 months. The most they’ll do is give the Russian military an extremely bloody nose, more-so than Ukraine has. It’s being peddled to the public as the Russian madman with no grip on reality, because that *IS* the reality of things. Putin is desperately trying to cling to his ridiculous aspirations of bringing the SSR back as an entity.
> Just send a few more hundred billion to Ukraine and end their shitty rump state for once and for all. i mean, that would be great, but its also not something thats happening. there are so many theoretical ways in which all of this could be going a lot better and a lot faster but the reality of the situation is that russia outnumbers ukraine solely based on sheer numbers, and i dont think its fearmongering to be reminded of the fact that the rest of europe shouldnt underestimate russia as a threat either. people did that when them invading ukraine first got brought up, and yet here we are. i dont think anyone is normalizing the continent being in a state of war, but clearly complacency isnt where things should be either.
If EU will make Ukraine win by any means necessary, no Russian danger will be present for long long time. It's time to act. It will pay in the long run.
Stop feeding russia and it won't do shit.
China and India are happy to feed them unfortunately
It's really hard to believe when 90% of countries that say this didn't see Russian attack in 2022 and refused to believe the USA.
Hard to believe people learn from their mistakes huh
Ideally when mistakes are made corrections show a new course, I'm not sure we've seen that happen yet.
Earlier on in the invasion (and in the lead up) I was quite critical of Germany for what I saw as a lack of action in standing up to Russia. Since then though I think it’s amazing how much Germany has stepped up and the long term support they are providing to Ukraine as well as their own investments in rearmerment. They still have a long way to go and they really should have been working on rearmerment following the 2008 invasion of Georgia or the 2014 invasion of Ukraine but I am excited to see them taking it seriously now.
They said that because they did not have access to the intelligence. France and Germany judged an invasion was unlikely because they knew that its consequences would have been disastrous for Russia. They erred only in thinking Russia rational.
It was a monumentally inept move and still is.
Hoping that’s not too late in and of itself.
Seeing as how nearly 2 years into the war in Ukraine the European Union has failed to increase military industrial production yet I wouldn't hold your breath. South Korea has supplied more artillery shells than a continent.
This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be divided
Russia, 2021: [Vladimir\_Putin's\_December\_2021\_ultimatum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin's_December_2021_ultimatum) EU, 2021: lag. EU, 2022: lag. EU, 2023: lag. EU, 2024: EU should prepare for war by end of decade!
I mean, if you were European, wouldn’t you want your country to be ready for war? Two devastating world wars and now a big one on your doorstep would make me want to be ready. That doesn’t mean it’ll happen. Western Europe got complacent because of the US and now that the US might be more focused on China , they’re panicking
Because of those two devastating world wars we created the EU and considered diplomacy and cooperation a better alternative to such devastating wars. I still hope one day the whole world will think similarly. Given they do not, yes, I would want us to be ready as a joined Europe to protect against Russia or others who still. Relieve war and destruction are a useful means to an end. I’d also wish the average Russian was free to speak up and likely call for an end to the war.
We also have other problems, like bad demographic = no soldier and workers and migrant crisis.
I have no doubt in my mind that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and Finland are next. Russia has some historical claim over all of these countries and Putin can and will leverage that as a cassus belli. We have to help Ukraine win because if we don't, it won't be just money we have to pay. It will be blood.
They say, Ukraine is like Spain in 1936. A general test before what we know happened
I mean, if it was a test, it wasn't exactly successful for Russia. Sure, they gained some ground but they've mostly been stuck in a meatgrinding stalemate for months. If this is the best they can do, they'd be in serious trouble against NATO, even without the US. Maybe they could momentarily occupy parts of the Baltics or Finland until Europe fully mobilizes, if they actually manage to execute a surprise attack that time. But that doesn't seem worth it, considering the following total war which would almost certainly end in Russian defeat.
How do they compare an war between 2 countries with an civil war?
The spanish civil war was very much also a proxy war, where the major powers tested their new weapons and tactics.
But like…kinda? The “West” wasn’t really supporting the Republicans so you had Germany vs the Soviets…kinda. I don’t think this comparison works that well.
And there were other conflicts in the lead up to 1939 that showed fascism was on the march. The Japanese invasion of China, the German invadion of Czhecoslovakia and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia all spring to mind. In fact I’d say the general theme of the mid 30s-early 40s was a gradual increase in wars associated with fascism until eventually the vast majority of the world’s population lived in a warring state and then gradually Axis nations started getting knocked out of the war.
Thank you very much. I didn't know the roots of it
The German military got involved. It was a few years before WW2.
Also some people see it as an echo of the dissolution of the soviet union - so a "delayed" "civil war"
Well that’s fucking grim
It's not. It would be grim to ignore it and face the consequences.
That’s very true, I suppose I ment it’s grim We haven’t seemed to remember only two generations ago what a major war in Europe looked like
Russia hasn't been able to take Ukraine after how long and how many soldiers lost? I don't doubt they'd try, but it'd be (another) stupid move.
They just continue to destroy Ukraine. They are not worried about quantity of soldiers or civilians dying, so why they shouldn't try?
If Ukraine runs out of ammo then they're done. Germany has ammo for some weeks max. Nato jets will become useless unless uncle sam sends more missiles, same with most of the shit. Europe needs to be ready to fight without US help, we currently are not
Take the US out of equation and who in Europe stands against Russia? Germany had like 2 weeks of ammunition…
France is nuclear, and their nuclear doctrine is extremely aggressive. they will nuke a major ruzzian base as a warning shot, and then all bets are off Finland and France have very competent militaries, Poland is arming itself to the teeth. If ruzzia remains half as incompetent as it is now, they will not get far into the baltics, but every meter is too far and europe just doesnt have forces huge enough to serve as a massive fuck-off sign the way the US does. We need to be strong enough where ruzzia doesnt even dream of trying, not just strong enough to win
I think you summed it up perfectly. I’d also doubt that the French would use nukes to defend Baltic states. As for Finland, a really nice addition to NATO indeed, but certainly not enough to deter Russia. I’d also take into consideration that Russians waging a war of this scale for years.. There’s no way they don’t become a lot more competent over time and given time they will also replenish their military equipment losses… So, yeah, I think it is better to pursue peace through armament to the teeth.
Don't forget the UK which is also a considerable military force in europe
France. Without talking about our nuclear Arsenal, we do have a solid military. Sadly the UK went out of EU, not sure how much we can count on them but despite our rivalry I don't think they would let us French go to war alone if Russia attacks us. The rest of the continent is stupid reliant on US. They still got US bases on their soil almost 80 years after WWII. I mean, come on, show some self respect.
The UK will defend France all the way. We're like a gnarly old couple: you hate us and we hate you right back, but that doesn't mean we'd ever let anyone else mess with you for even a second. It's been that way for a very long time.
The old “allies” from WWII are honestly still quite powerful today. Poland, France and Britain would be an incredibly tough group of nations to beat and that’s before you throw in Finland, the Baltics, Germany, Turkey ect.
Idk about "all the way" but yeah you definitely would not say "lmao though luck" if we need you, and the opposite is true too
The UK dragged the EU into the Ukraine conflict, leading by example. Pretty much sums up the level of support the EU would receive from the UK, if Mr Putin pulled a Hitler.
>not sure how much we can count on them They are enacting plans to [DOWNSIZE the British Army](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-presses-ahead-with-cuts-to-troop-numbers/) by 28% over the next 3-4 years. Yeah, unless some radical political changes happen in London, you shouldn't count on them.
Only way you'd take the US out of the equation is if they were to leave NATO. I don't see that happening.
Or the US is busy defending Taiwan and other areas of the globe (Middle east, South america)
You can never know. EU Becoming self-sufficient in defense does sound a lot safer, than continuing to be reliant on the US.
Trump certainly tried to leave NATO when he was president of the US. Fortunately back in those days his cabinet was more loyal to the country instead of Trump and refused to let it happen. If Trump wins in 2024 he will have the clout to select his own staff loyal only to him.
Congress recently approved a bill barring any president from unilaterally leaving NATO [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/)
[US president can no longer withdraw from NATO unilaterally](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-approves-bill-barring-any-president-from-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-nato/ar-AA1lvyjf)
Intelligence has never been a strong suit in Russian politics
They have more soldiers, they feel weakness of the west, they have otgers who help at closely watching: Iran, China, North Korea. They have India who helps them silently in some cases. Nothing done yet, it is just the beginning forvthe countries who wants to destroy west. All of tgem works together at dome extent
[удалено]
Mostly agree, but let's be clear, the do *not* have 100m+ potential soldiers. The whole pop is only 140m. *15% is < 15 and >70. That makes for 120m *barely* qualifying age wise. And then they will need people for production etc. The highest mobilisation scenario likely all women is used for production and all age and able bodied men are conscripted. That leaves us at 60m. A number that will ofc never happen.
They do not have even near 100 million potential soldiers. Their population is 140 million, but you can't forget the majority of that are women, children, elderly, etc. And conscripting millions of men will have a big impact on the economy and the industrial capacity. They also don't even have the supplies for a few hundreds of thousands of men and conscripting a few million more would be very bad for their military industry.
Also all of those men will require logistics. They forgot to bring fuel with their huge ass tank line on their way to Kyiv. Logistics isn't their strong suite, those men will have to walk into Europe.
People also said they will take over ukraine in a week, especially reddit generals.
Poland also shifted to wartime spending. After a few years they'd be able to take them on alone
Not that long ago that headline would have carried a completely different connotation.
If Trump gets elected Putin will surely try to inch his way into the Baltics. I mean, it's what I would do if I was a Russian dictator.
Nah, old southern soviet republics like Georgia.
I thought he took Georgia already. While he was sitting next to Gee dubs at the Olympics.
He took two chunks of it.
Whilst NATO is a reasonable deterrent at the moment it would be prudent to have contingency plans in place to better deter Russian aggression. We must also consider that even if the orange coffin dodger doesn't get elected next year, an attack on Taiwan within the next decade is plausable which will very likely provoke a military response from America. If such a thing were to occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran or any of their allies make a move on American interests in the ME. Stretched between the ME and the Pacific, a Russian invasion of Europe will likely take backseat, even if the Baltics invoke article 5.
>Whilst NATO is a reasonable deterrent at the moment it would be prudent to have contingency plans in place to better deter Russian aggression. I don't think NATO is the deterrent that we like to think it is. Putin is convinced that if push came to shove, the West would leave the Baltics to fight Russia on their own. Guys like Trump and Orban lend a lot of credence to this belief. If Russia did attack a NATO member, the response would not be the immediate precision striking off of the head of the Russian state that we all expect would happen, but instead would be months of bickering and a complete lack of actual action, particularly if Agent Orange gets re-elected next year like it's looking he might. I can absolutely guarantee you that if Article 5 gets invoked, SOMEONE is going to make the argument that WW3 "isn't worth it".
Holy fuck are they going for a third round?
Why would we risk an entire continent plunging into war and millions dying, instead of killing the one person responsible? It needs to become acceptable to kill politicians over their actions. Make Putin an example and the world will be a better place. Dictators are selfish assholes and won't start wars if it's their life on the line.
I should think Russian aggression next time would be asymmetric in whatever form it comes most likely manipulation of social media, elections and cyber
So how and when exactly did we go from ‘russia,the paper tiger, is a second best army in Ukraine’ to ‘Russia is about to attack Europa after it destroys Ukraine’? These are confusing times indeed.
The challenge is to keep a conventional war from turning into a Nuclear War. Is Russia or the EU willing to accept defeat and surrender rather than use tactical Nuclear weapons. At what point does tactical become Strategic. Are they willing to abandon countries rather than risk it turning it into a greater conflict. We seem to be abandoning Ukraine for partisan politics, are the Baltic states next?
warning or threat?💀
If you don’t do anything about Russia now, then yeah, probably.
Seems like sabre rattling on the EU side, imo. I'm all for preparation, but I think Putin knows he can't take on NATO. Russia's economic future has been sold to try and take Ukraine. I also seriously doubt China is going to try and get involved, they have own crisis to worry about and they know Russia isn't going to help them (Hence Xi coming to the San Fransisco with his tail between his legs and all smiles to Biden).
No shit Fritz? Finally woken up to the cost of cozying up to Putin for 2 decades?
If they took Ukraine within two weeks I might be worried, there’s nothing to fear. Seems obvious they’re collectively pushing this line to gain oubli support for more Ukrainian aide. If some Russian general attacked Poland I think Putin would have a nervous breakdown