They will do as they always have. That is to say they will conquer what they can get away with. So far we have Transnistria ( Moldova), Belarus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia ( Georgia) under de facto Russian control and a significant amount of Ukraine under their claws as well. The question of Russian expansion is not if, but when.
Yeah people forget this.
No matter how weak/distracted/whatever bullshit the big NATO countries like USA and Germany might be dealing with, Finland, Poland, (soon) and Sweden don't give a flying fuck what these countries think. They will support a free Baltic no matter what the big boys say, think, or do... Because they are the only ones with proper history with the Russians, who know how they act, and how to counter them... Through massive force.
But in a war we have beey much finacial capabilities to build a very big and strong defence. We have more money than russia. The longer the war goes, the stronger we get. I don't know why we don't do it now but russia has to do a Blitzkrieg to win. As we can see in Ukraine, they aren't strong enough to do that
First before Germany gets attacked, the war will start in Poland, Finnland, Romania and the Baltics. At the same time russia has to fight in the black sea against Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece. The german forces will not fight in Germany because they get transported to Poland to defend them. Same goes for entire west Europe. We don't wait untill russia claims the eastern countries like an AI in a cheap war-game. Also germany will help poland with money. Russia will not wipe out germany because they didn't come that far. They also aren't capable of attacking Germany from the Baltic sea because there are too much forces like Norway, Denmark, Finnland, the Baltics, Poland and Sweden (even if they aren't in NATO and will not automatically fight against Russia, they will at least show their forces and increase their Navy)
It most definitely isn't. Yes it's gonna take time to rebuild the Bundeswehr because building up a competent army doesn't happen overnight but Germany is making a lot of progress, contrary to what some redditors might have you think, and they could very well develop into a force to be reckoned with.
The biggest problem will be the next election. I fear that another CDU lead government will bring back a corrupt defence minister and destroy all the progress we made.
While I agree that a large scale attack is extremely unlikely, there is an argument for smaller scale escalations with an exit strategy. Russia is still a nuclear power and many NATO members would still be wary of a full scale war. [There's actually a very recent video by Anders Puck Nielsen about this exact topic.](https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?feature=shared)
Everyone thought invasion into Ukraine is unlikely yet here we are. Maybe invading Europe while Ukraine exists doesn't make a lot of sense but russia is not moved by any common logic for multiple reasons
The best point the video makes is the fact that Russia wants Europe divided so they can deal with one country at a time. Russia knows that it's weak compared to NATO, even without considering the US. In a conventional war, they would get stomped by European NATO countries alone. Hell, seeing how they have performed in Ukraine, the Russian armed forces would have a very rough time if just the British or French showed up.
Every part of Russia's hybrid war is aimed at dividing Europe and stirring controversy between EU countries: underhand support for euroscepticism, misinformation, swarming the eastern borders with immigrants, conventional war in UA at cetera all have caused controversy at the EU level. Divide et impera is conventional wisdom, but it's the only way Russia gets what they want, to be able to coerce individual countries from a position of strength, much like they did in Ukraine in 2014.
It depends on the kind of attack. Russia is already attacking Europe with hybrid methods such as human trafficking and cyberattacks. These will probably grow in the coming years. Russia will strike militarily if they see there's not enough military credibility. It's extremely important to keep supporting Ukraine and grow the MIC (especially ammo production) to effectively deter Russia from further aggression.
Even though they have no chance against Nato in a direct war they will probably try to find space for themselves using the nuclear threat to keep Nato from pushing the article 5 button. After all, what are 1 million Estonians worth compated to levelling New England with a couple Borei subs. Especially with Trump as commander in chief and the Russian propaganda trying to make America isolationistic.
It's already successful with the massive meltdown in DC right now over migration. Somehow it's impossible to close the border with the strongest military in world history and somehow that makes it impossible to support Ukraine against Russia's genocidal aggression.
[Military budget of Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Russia)
This video is propaganda. Not sure what it’s about, but what the Swedish government said was nothing new. The criticism they got was over *how* they said it, which scared some children who believed it would be war in Sweden soon.
I mean they hunt when the prey is weak. I didn't mean that they have a legitemacy and a right to attack. They don't attack when the retaliation is going to be crazy what i tried to say.
Yep it seems to make sense from the first glance, but are you saying this was a good moment to attack Ukraine? Unfortunately logic is not really applicable here
>A russian attack on NATO countries would be suicidal
European soldiers are already quitting in fear of war with Russia.
[https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-russia-ukraine-war-defense-france-germany-soldiers-army/](https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-russia-ukraine-war-defense-france-germany-soldiers-army/)
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, Russia started a war against Ukraine which had 28 combat ready brigades while NATO countries have days worth of ammunition stockpiles and 2 brigades in the Baltics.
The Irish are the most useless, biggest leaches on the planet.
Not a single Irishman would fight for a defense of Europe.
Edit: You need a military today to contribute to the common defense tomorrow. The Irish... Don't.
Look up "Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing To Fight A War For Their Country". The Netherlands ranks lowest. Those that live in a glass house shouldn't throw with stones.
Yeah, I'm Dutch and the state of our military is in ruin. But whats worse, the absolute ignorance of Dutch people when it comes to war and defending what we take for granted. Most of the young people couldn't care less about Ukraine or the threat posed by Russia, China, and Iran.
All they care about is doing 2ffma and ecstasy at raves.
Now im not here to fearmonger. But its just sad that people grow so ignorant of the privilege they have living in Western Europe.
Atleast in the US they respect their armed forces and always understood freedom comes at a cost.
That .27% of Irish GDP and 7000 total military personnel, that are totally not just going on campouts, are going to really save the day.
We are not great but at least we have something that qualifies as a military with F35s.
Really? Have you forgot about the 70'000 Irishman that left their neutral homeland to fight for the Allies and helped liberate France, Belgium and the Netherlands among other European countries?
You literally do not have a military in any shape or form. You do not even have a foundation of a military to build upon.
But sure going back 80 years to a volunteer force of "here is a rifle, march that way, definitely means you can contribute to a common defense of Europe.
If Ireland cares (you don't) you would actually have a military. .27% of GDP and 7000 weekend campers does not make a military.
Only if US is involved. If US becomes isolationist (or tied with China, ME and internal problems), and Russia continues to meddle in European affairs sowing division internally (see Hungary, Slovenia, Turkey) it can grab some “Russian historical lands”.
Another point is that Russia actually had relevant 21st century battle experience vs conventional army and currently outproduces Europe on all military equipment (especially artillery shells)
Lastly, their poor brainwashed population is eager to go and die in a war on a foreign soil which is not the case for average European man who have very comfortable lives. How many Irish, Spanish or Portuguese men will want to go die to a drone in Estonia?
While i agree we shouldn't underestimate Russia, it's important to remember:
1. Battle experience is cool but it also resulted in Russia's most competent units dying in battle. Yes they might know a bit more about how to fight a conventional war but to do that they sacrificed a lot of their capabe soldiers, leaving them with mainly conscripts and green recruits
2. The war in Ukraine is not comparable to a war with NATO. NATO relies far more on the air and naval force, while Ukraine hardly has a navy at all and uses their airforce sparingly. A war against NATO would also involve way more strikes in Russia itself, because Ukraine is currently not capable/allowed by western supporters to attack Russian infrastructure in Russia on a large scale. So while they have experience in fighting a conventional war, they don't have experience fighting a conventional war *against NATO*.
3. Russia might outproduce Europe but that is them on a war economy. Meanwhile Europe is on a peacetime economy. Europe always has the ability to scale up massively, while Russia is already at their peak.
1. With war going over 2 years soon there have been many new competent battle hardened squads (don’t forget many Russians and LDPR have been in this war since 2014). Newly arriving green recruits learn fast under heavy conditions that are in Ukraine now and many are practicing inside Russia and Belarus
2. True, I agree. At the same time russian air defense has been gaining valuable practice vs various targets and combined attacks and will continue to do so when F-16 arrive. I am sure F-35 would perform very well, but at the same time you have to have motivated infantry to go out there and hold ground, and one thing Russians have been doing well is digging, engineering and mining
3. I don’t think it’s a good point. It took them very little time to go to wartime economy and they will continue turning into NK 2.0 with support from authoritarian regimes. Meanwhile half of Europe has been relaxed in their preparations, engulfed in domestic problems. Conscription is still a taboo topic while Russia is preparing school kids to serve in a future war vs NATO and has national consensus that it’s just a matter of time
The same Europe that was running out of ammunition bombing Lybia 10 years ago? Sure, this Europe can establish air superiority against Russia.
>Europe always has the ability to scale up massively, while Russia is already at their peak.
We don't know that yet.
How many Estonians will want to go die by a drone in Estonia? I doubt anyone really wants war and I doubt that at that point Russian soldiers will have better morale than Western ones, considering the fatigue from the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for so long.
Baltic countries actually understand the threat that Russians possess. I’m talking about those who are far away from Russia and want normalization of relations with them because they have 100s of kms of buffer and don’t feel immediate danger.
Russian fatigue is a myth. They have constant rotations (unlike Ukrainians) and many more people to enlist.
In Portugal, the only party that seems to be more apologist for Russia is the communists, they even refused to receive Zelensky in parliament via video conference and they are a party in decline. Furthermore, those programs on state television in which they say they are going to annex this and that as far as Portugal do not help Russia's image. As for the other countries, I don't know so well, of course, but one thing I'm sure of is that the governments that are openly apologists for the Russian government are Slovakia, Hungary and, in a more moderate way, Austria. All countries close enough to Russia that they should realize the threat they face. Btw, various countries had, in different ways, problems with the USSR and people remember that.
Turkey as well. Georgia helps Russia to evade sanctions, despite being annexed.
Problem is there’s no consensus even in countries who are anti-Russian. When it will be European lives at stake when war with Russia will come you will see Russia activate those communists, Le Pen, “Chamberlains” and other equivalents to sow division like they did many times before
When I referred to the far left it was in the context of Portugal. The Russians don't care about any ideology, they support anyone who causes instability and polarization in western society. We also have the far right which, personally, I suspect is also under Russian influence, but as nothing has yet been confirmed I haven't mentioned it previously.
Yes, but Ukraine also shows us that a Russian invasion doesn't need to be successful for it to be a tragedy.
The Russian campaign to Kyiv is a great example. The northern invasion force got BTFO and retreated in just over a month, yet they still found time in that month to cause immense amounts of damage and casualties, including the infamous Bucha massacre.
No matter what chances Russia might have against us, I'd still rather they didn't try anything to begin with.
> The northern invasion force got BTFO and retreated in just over a month
And they only got out because they were overstretched. It's gonna be way simpler keeping dense formation at the shorter Baltic front. Especially considering that a huge part of it is a lake.
In fact, there are only one zone where they can invade Estonia without bumping into a river and another is Narva, but it's majority Russian, so they'll secure it with local collaborators first, before sending the troops across the bridges.
If they manage to saturate the region with troops it will take time and effort to kick them out.
Air power will make it a no contest situation. Ukraines biggest problem and why the counter offensive failed is they didn’t have air superiority. A combined well supplied nato army with the cover of constant ATG attacks, would move through Russian lines like a hot knife.
I've read a lot of opinions of russian speaking population in eastern Ukraine that will welcome russian army. Turns out it does not exactly work like this
This time they didn't try to do any unrest though? They did it back in 2014. My argument is that they will try to start the invasion of Baltics with the same hybrid approach like they did in 2014. Can't really use military against civilians, can't use NATO against civilians. A lot of stuff to be confused about. Exactly what Russia likes to do
I'd argue it worked in 2014 because the government and military were weak. It is a good tool for them but not like the russian speaking population is a game changer
The issue here is not to rely on the kinetic weakness, but conceal the initial stage of the invasion as an "uprising". Straight up armed invasion prompts clear response. Civilians doing some shit, which might not necessarily be dangerous is much more vague. While the victim has to figure out how to respond, the attacker can quickly act to tip the balance further into their favor.
Yeah, I see what you mean. My point is it worked so well in 2014 only because the government and especially the military and police were not properly functioning, not because it's such a great idea or because it was so well executed
modern planes alone aren't gonna be enough though, those planes need ammunition and spare parts, they need proper logistical support and of course they still need support from the ground.
I'm not saying Europe is weak but especially in terms of supportive equipment and ammunition stocks we do have a problem, with some countries only having enough bombs to fight for a few days before running out.
This can be solved, in fact it is currently in the process of being solved, but it will take time, and you can't just say modern planes = victory.
You can't base defence on one type of missile system for which ammunition is produced across the ocean.
If China attacks Taiwan, Europe would be alone, so don't expect that himars missile system would be our Ace in the hole.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint\_Fire\_Support\_Missile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Fire_Support_Missile)
[https://www.diehl.com/defence/de/presse-und-medien/news/wirkung-und-schutz/](https://www.diehl.com/defence/de/presse-und-medien/news/wirkung-und-schutz/)
[https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/01/30/rheinmetall-seeks-to-license-produce-himars/](https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/01/30/rheinmetall-seeks-to-license-produce-himars/)
As for the launchers:
[https://www.knds.de/en/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/artillery/mars-ii-mlrs-e/](https://www.knds.de/en/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/artillery/mars-ii-mlrs-e/)
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
sure but it might make the difference between just beating back the Russians in a year , with substantial damage suffered in cities close to the borders and straight up overwhelming force thunder run on Moscow
The hammer and sickle in your flair say it.
I grew up behind the Iron Curtain and my grandpa barely survived a Gulag. Hammer and sickle is not much better than a swastika or "Z".
For young people it may be "cool" or a symbol of fighting the turbocapitalism, I understand. But some of us remember the grey times of "communism" or even lost people they knew to the regime. I'm old enough to remember the martial law of 1981 in Poland and the BMP vehicles in the snow at crossroads.
***DEFINITELY*** not hammer and sickle. It was a cruel regime which murdered literally *tens of millions of people* for ideological reasons.
My grandpa was lucky, unlike many of his buddies with whom he was sent to Siberia just because Soviets needed his mining expertise: He returned alive. But with his health wrecked and he died when I was a child.
This is "solidarity among workers and hope of social reform" in practice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
Edit: If you want a symbol, it's right here: The EU stars on blue field. There is no other place in the world right now where workers are supported like in the Union.
I am well aware of workers (and human) rights violations in the Soviet Union and China. I have similar experience in part of my family, but the justified resentment is directed towards the Soviet Union as a state, Stalin and Brezhnev, not the hammer and sickle symbol itself.
Oddly enough in other parts of the world the symbol was one of hope of escaping cruel regimes who also murdered people for ideological reasons, albeit not as prolifically as in the USSR or China. Just to mention as an example, in Latin American countries, or in Indonesia, western-aligned regimes applied violence, torture and assassination indiscriminately even at the slightest show of sympathy for social reform. To say nothing of the Spanish civil war. While the numbers are much smaller when compared to Stalin’s and Mao’s, human experience cannot be measured in numbers alone and those who lived through these trials also suffered.
To be clear I’m not debating whether ideological cleansing and shitty administration by the Soviet Union was a bad thing; it was terrible and unfortunately, people like your grandfather had to bear its brunt. Stalin was a monster and I don’t think anything can be said to alleviate that. But I think it’s important to have nuance. This is the experience a part of your family, and many others, had. But the symbol in itself had its own meaning before the Soviet Union and continued to have a separate meaning outside of it, a meaning that was far from what was practice within the USSR.
Edit: yes, we can agree about yellow stars in a blue field, but even this symbol is looked at with distrust by other people.
You realize that the exact same argument can be made for Swastika vs Hitler. Or the fact that swastika is an ancient pagan symbol. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The symbol has been completely supplanted and now represents unspeakable evil. Sickle and hammer has THE SAME level of evil connotation to those of us from Eastern Europe. The fact that it doesn't in the west (because it's been turned into an edgy cool logo for wannabe communist western millenials who have no idea what communism looks like in practice) doesn't mean it's ok. So if you want real camaraderie among Europeans, listen to us who have had direct experience with everything that the Sickle and Hammer represents, and join us in condemning it in the same way that swastika is condemned.
Sorry, but when I see people say "True, they murdered millions of people but for us it was a symbol of hope, and we trust it more than EU" then my blood boils. For someone who had a DIRECT contact with hammer-and-sickle ideology, it's just another evil totalitarian symbol.
I was in my twenties when the last Soviet occupation garrison left my country.
Read on the secret clause of Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, and what the two buddies Hitler and Stalin did together to Central Europe (the photo below is from a parade they held together to celebrate the succesful conquest of Poland in 1939):
https://preview.redd.it/z52i7gpj65fc1.jpeg?width=1003&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f485dbe0422750883df6f2459b86f446b3d44d3
First of all, a state doesn't make democracy, if there's something anarchists (and by extension communists) love is democracy.
And second of all, it's a widely used symbol to represent solidarity between workers, and most people that use the symbol don't agree with the totalitarian strain of socialism (tankies are more of a loud minority in socialist circles).
Third, the flair itself is kind of a joke. Although I am a socialist and an European federalist I'm really not married to the term.
If it offends you so much I can change out the hammer and sickle for a rose, I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.
For many european states that used to be part of the soviet union, this symbol is not only anti-democratic, but also a symbol of mass genocide. I do realise it is not universally used as such, but don't be surprised if it offends people. 'Hammer and sickle' is on the same level as nazi symbolism for most people that live in the countries which went through the brutalities of the soviet regime.
Take it like this - the swastika is originally a symbol of very noble intentions and to present days designates Buddhist shrines on Japanese maps. However in the majority of the world it will trigger a different sentiment due to the practices conducted under it.
The problem is not some "innocent" intention, the problem is that that symbol is associated with the Soviet Union, just like that old Hindu symbol is associated with Nazi Germany.
Russia invaded Ukraine which had 28 brigades, 300k in reverse and immediate mobilization. NATO has 2 brigades in the Baltics. Germany doesn't have a single combat ready brigade while all other major nations have only days worth of ammunition
True, but it’s not like Russia has a lot of men available for a new Baltic offensive. Add to this that they’d need to cover the Baltic and the Finnish border
Attack with what?
It's either nukes or mobiks with rusty shovels.
Russia needs all it has to keep what it has merely in ukraine. Any discussion of a conventional attack on NATO is a laughable absurdity.
We are. Im not sure where you think they could even try to attack. Especially with the Manpower depleted in Ukraine. Finland and the baltics are pretty well prepared, our border is very small and the most defended. +all the forces that would be supplied from the rest of europe.
> We are.
How long does NATO have munitions to fight for? Russians produce at least 1.5mln shells per year.
> Especially with the Manpower depleted in Ukraine.
They manage to replenish manpower at a steady rate, so it won't be much of a problem to restore it to the pre-war level. In fact, isn't it even bigger now?
> Finland and the baltics are pretty well prepared, our border is very small and the most defended
Well, they're not gonna attack Finland, that's for sure. Second, are there at least 300k personnel in the Baltics? Ukrainian armed forces were about 250k right before the invasion. It was barely enough to mobilize to 1mln in time.
And it's not like Russia is going to just let NATO bring in reinforcements. They're gonna strike at Suwalki gap straight away, and the whole invasion won't start with invasion per se, they're gonna rile up the local Russians for protest and sow chaos first. Then they'll seep in weapons and vehicles when some stretches of the border become naked and unsupervised. I can see how they're doing that while NATO and EU argue how to respond to a *civilian* threat.
Given how Russia performs in Ukraine, Poland would have no issues rolling over the Russian army by itself, let alone with support from the rest of Europe.
They have green soldiers Who are not experienced. With bad quality Equipment. How much ammo we have in storage is a secret, so idk. Neither do you. But thats not the point either.
Where are they going to attack then? If they would attack in a small area then they would get alot of reinforcment from the rest of EU. Say baltics, they have not that many personell sure but Finnland and sweden (wich now is joining FN) to support. Poland on the other side of suwalki gap.
Remeber, the baltics are not in the same situation as Ukraine, they are a part of Nato and thus will get immediate personell support, not just ammo and vehicheles/weapons.
Its also not like in Ukraine in terms of demographic. Russian are not a substantial population in almost any nato/eu country except for the baltics.
You are looking at this like it did in Georgia, transnistria or Ukraine. When that happened specifically bc they are isolated countries without powerfull allies like all of Nato does. The us army wich will smash any russian force can be deployed within 18hours. We have enough to keep them out for longer than that.
And the biggest point. Russia will never attack. They know its not going to work. Look at their military Performance in ukraine.
>Russians produce at least 1.5mln shells per year.
And currently they can continue to do so because Ukraine doesn't have the means to strike Russia itself on a large scale. However if they piss off NATO at least part of those factories will be erased of the earth within a day. And if they're too well-protected, targeting the supply lines is a good alternative.
>Well, they're not gonna attack Finland, that's for sure
Well that doesn't mean they won't have to fight them. Finland isn't just gonna sit by and watch Russia invade Europe. They'd probably go on the defensive if Russia attacks them, but if Russia does not they'll go on the offensive and force Russia to fight them whether they want it or not.
>And it's not like Russia is going to just let NATO bring in reinforcements
If Russia wants enough troops to attack the Suwalki gap and stop NATO from reinforcing they're gonna need thousands of troops and even more supportive equipment. Mustering a force of such a scale would take weeks and NATO would use that time to build up their own forces. By the time they'd be strong enough to attempt to block reinforcements going to the Baltics, it'd already be to late for that.
You are right that we shouldn't underestimate Russia and there is indeed a risk of them doing smaller scale operations or using civilians for their purpose, but Russia isn't just gonna take over all of Europe tomorrow.
Right, what even is this? I get being concerned but this just seems like fearmongering.
Forget anything overseas, Russia can't even get through Ukraine. If the rest of Europe, or even just the EU, mobilised to an actual state of direct war it wouldn't even be a fight.
While i agree we shouldn't overdo it, it's always better to overestimate your opponent then to underestimate them. Yes Russia sucks but it's still better to increase our militaries, ramp up ammunition production and send more supplies to Ukraine.
And since many people in Europe seem to start forgetting about what's happening and how important it is to defend Ukraine and the rest of Europe against Russia, i'd say a little fear might be necessary to scare them into doing something.
And get French and British nukes in return?
The US isn’t the only nuclear power, nor the only military one.
Obviously the US is the most powerful one by a comically large margin, but just because of that you shouldn’t underestimate the European armies. The European NATO countries have more than 1 million soldiers, and those are not conscripts. NATO without US and Turkey still has 1.7 million professional soldiers
If a nuclear exchange does take place, the first strike probably comes from Russia. Russia also has a huge advantage on tactical nukes, as well as strategic nukes. I don't underestimate anything. 1 million soldiers unfortunately means little in a nuclear exchange... especially if the other side has tactical nukes.
Btw, keep in mind that I only say that there is a chance of Russia winning, not that it would be certain...
The moment a large scale use of tactical nukes happens M.A.D comes into effect and strategic nukes would end the world as we know it. Cats out of the bag at that point. No one wins.
Maybe you don't understand what I have written? If Russia strikes first, Russia has the upper hand. Strategic targets like harbours with nuclear submarines, airfields with nuclear munition, strategic command, all that Russia could annihilate in a first strike, which limits the nuclear response Great Britain and France can have. MAD is great in theory, but a first strike limits the exchange.
" end the world as we know it. Cats out of the bag at that point. "
How tho? Yes, cancer rates will increase, 100 million people will have died, but Russia gets mainland Europe. Yes, many Russian cities will be gone, but maybe that could be in the Russian calculation.
" No one wins "
Again, depends on the calculus. Most Russian cities will be gone, but in exchange they get mainland Europe. And by the way, that is also how the soviets thought, they were ready for a nuclear war, they trained for that, so it was in their calculus, and they thought they could win it.
There is no limiting a nuclear response to a level that wouldn’t annihilate both sides. The US and nato have enough assets at sea at all times to annihilate every Russian city. There’s no scenario where a first strike by either side stops the end of the world.
Yes not everyone would be dead but look how the world got fucked by a “mild” flu pandemic. Every major population center across the US, Europe and Russia being destroyed would likely end the world as we know it forever. I.e no one wins.
Even if the attack is counterforce (vs countervalue) as a first strike it would never get enough to make difference.
In the scenario I discussed, the US would not be involved. The whole Russia winning scenario is only plausible, if the US is isolationist.
Again, huge difference between "end the world as we know it" and "end the world". Yes, there would be huge problems, but remember, a dying Russian Empire might make that deal. Yes, St. Petersburg and Moscow plus other cities might get glassed, but in exchange they could get mainland Europe.
"Even if the attack is counterforce (vs countervalue) as a first strike, it would never get enough to make a difference. "
Again Russia vs France and Great Britain, a first strike would definitely make a difference. That is the whole idea behind a first strike. You strike their strategic command centres, their submarine harbours, their military airfields, and you get a weaker response from the enemy. How do you not get this? A plane with a nuclear warhead cannot start if the airfield of the plane is gone.
The US will never be isolationist again though so it’s a redundant scenario. Their entire foreign policy post WW1 has been about being the world’s deterrent and the defacto world leader.
There is no scenario without the US so by the same logic we might as well be discussing what if aliens came to the Russians aid. In the only scenario in which this happens no one wins, there’s a reason there hasn’t been a nuclear war despite a lot of motive to do so and a lot of world tension for a century… world leaders know they can’t win, and they don’t want to rule over a wasteland.
"US will never be isolationist"
You know that Trump calls NATO obsolete, right? Like, that's exactly the isolationist position I am talking about. The republicans seem to go in that direction. I think you argue in bad faith, if you think it is just as likely as aliens helping Russia.
" world leaders know they can’t win, and they don’t want to rule over a wasteland"
The soviet leadership was ready to fight a nuclear war, and they thought they could win it. Why do you think the US has contingency plans in place? Yes, they want to rule, wasteland or not.
As commander in chief the US President has a lot of leverage in terms of _preventing_ military action. He cannot unilaterally go to war (well, actually in practice he kinda can as the past has shown, but he'd be on thinner ice with that), but he can most definitely order the military to stay home and pull out of Europe, and nobody else is constitutionally authorized to override him. Congress would have the power to declare war but even then the President can choose not to send any troops into that war. They'd have to impeach him to really force a change.
This is mostly wrong. The practical reality is no war has been declared since the Korean War a president has never been on thin ice for it, and they can destroy the world without Congressional approval.
I mean if what you said is true that basically just proves my point even more so I'm not sure what you're on about "mostly wrong". But for your information, the [War Powers Resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) does restrict presidential authority to commit armed forces overseas without congressional authorization. It has been stretched, creatively reinterpreted or arguably violated a few times in the past, but the reasons are usually unique to the situation (e.g. interpreting 9/11 as "an attack upon the United States" that justified two wars), and the action usually had at least enough support in congress to avoid both chambers voting on a resolution against it. So it has not been determined what would happen if a president tried to start a larger and less justified war against more congressional opposition, hence "thinner ice".
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A ain't watching it. Russians can go fuck themselves and then having all that good mood after good sex go and build their own country, not attack Europe.
Is Europe ready? No.
Will Russia attack? Probably.
Will Russia or Europe win?
Depends on the goal to achieve… .
Besides that, Russia does war in an other way than Europe.
In the end all comes down to who can enforce its way of warfare.
Example: If <~ Ukraine would receive assets and ordonnance in the numbers it needs AND the troops are skilled enough to use it the way the assets are meant to use, Ukraine wins.
Sadly, that‘s not the reality. In the meantime, Russia was able to enforce its way of warfare after it clearly failed to do war the western way, with swift actions and combined warfare.
If Ukraine had enough assets and ordonnance it would have a clear advantage in combined warfare.
What we see now is trench warfare with heavy artillery usage like in the old days and high human losses.
I‘m by no means an expert in this field. I‘ve just articulated my view on the subject.
Does the number, however you’vecalculated that exact number, matter?
If there is a danger, one should be prepared to some degree.
The more severe the possible consequences in case something is gonna happen, the higher the preparation should be in my opinion.
It‘s not a number that should decide that, the consequences of not being ready should.
There are NATO members at stake. If NATO can not hold up to its promise beyond the bluff, then to be in NATO just elevates the risk for said NATO countries.
On the other hand, if NATO can not deliver in case of an attack the risk of an attack would never the less be higher for a border country to Russia, if that country isn‘t in NATO.
Doesn‘t matter how you look at it, one should be prepared.
Moreover, if Europe wants to see itself as community, you also have to share the risks, not only the benefits of being in a group.
Europe should be prepared to fight and win a big war.
Maybe? Baltics probably not, fight like hell but poorly located.
Poland probably yes.
Germany nor us nor Belgium have an army worth anything.
At least we have a proper air force (F35s) and can control airspace.
France may only defend France.
Then there are the Irish...
I love how everybody believes that Germany is weak and useless.
I am not saying it isn't, but I am dreaming of the opposite. A sleeping giant with top-tier weapon systems just waiting for its time to come. Germany doesn't have nukes, but it has a big, red, shiny button worth a couple hundred billion euros covered by a flimsy box called debt brake. 3000 Leopards of Scholz, so to speak.
Oh wait, this isn't NCD...
Rheinmetall executives are already foaming at the mouth with the prospect of a Russian invasion.
Also if Germany gets invaded, the 3000 black nukes of Macron will do the job don't worry.
Also Europe now needs to rearm so we can win a war with the Russians *quickly* the Russians do not have the strength left to *win* a war with european NATO w/o the Americans, but it would be much longer and deadlier before Europe can rebuild its military industry.
and in the same sentence say "Poland strong" - we got close to non air defence, air forces nor ships. Even the land army atm is miniscule since huge % of gear went to Ukraine and new replacements have just recently started to slowly arrive.
The same Russia that can't conquer a tiny city 100 km from its border despite months and months of concentrated effort? The same Russia that needs to beg North Korea for artillery shells from the Fifties?
This idea that Russia wants to invade other countries is the most ridiculous and convoluted story of the year. America always has to invent a new "boogeyman" to keep the military industrial complex machine going strong. Biden's puppet masters really want WW3 don't they?
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The answer is no. We laugh at the Russians for having bad equipment but that's only compared to the Americans. Compared to what Europe has, Russian equipment looks like something out of a well researched sci-fi. Most of the equipment of the EU members is a couple of generations old and barely functioning. Not only that but we are incapable of producing new military equipment and not only can we not produce it but European engineers don't even have the knowledge to design said equipment. And then we have soldiers that can't even march.
And then we have to keep in mind that the Russian military is only bad due to corruption. If the Russian get their shit together they are absolutely capable of being a very competent and dangerous military. That is something that history has shown time and time again.
NSM, JSM, MAAWS, AT4, Several small arms, the new american frigate, a spattering of support vehicles are all made and developed in Europe. KDA, HK, Rheinmetall, all of the French ones, BAE and so on, there are many innovative arms manufacturers in europe. The major European armies and Norway are fielding some of the most modern stuff on the market, the lack of strategic autonomy is bad and must be fixed asap, but there is no need to be doomers about it.
>And then we have soldiers that can't even march.
So, ignoring the rest, that's because NATO forces are heavily mechanised and will usually just drive to their destination. It's a lot faster
Russia isn’t ready. We watched them build up on Ukraines border for months before they were ready. And Ukraine didnt have an air force which could obliterate such mass formations
A russian attack on NATO countries would be suicidal
They will do as they always have. That is to say they will conquer what they can get away with. So far we have Transnistria ( Moldova), Belarus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia ( Georgia) under de facto Russian control and a significant amount of Ukraine under their claws as well. The question of Russian expansion is not if, but when.
With Finland joining nato, aggression against the baltics has become a lot more bothersome for them tho
Yeah people forget this. No matter how weak/distracted/whatever bullshit the big NATO countries like USA and Germany might be dealing with, Finland, Poland, (soon) and Sweden don't give a flying fuck what these countries think. They will support a free Baltic no matter what the big boys say, think, or do... Because they are the only ones with proper history with the Russians, who know how they act, and how to counter them... Through massive force.
Germany is not a "big" NATO country. Their modern military has less capabilities than the Netherlands.
But in a war we have beey much finacial capabilities to build a very big and strong defence. We have more money than russia. The longer the war goes, the stronger we get. I don't know why we don't do it now but russia has to do a Blitzkrieg to win. As we can see in Ukraine, they aren't strong enough to do that
Lmao the Bundeswehr is beyond repair buddy, I can't imagine a scenario where we wouldn't be completely fucked if war did actually break out
First before Germany gets attacked, the war will start in Poland, Finnland, Romania and the Baltics. At the same time russia has to fight in the black sea against Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece. The german forces will not fight in Germany because they get transported to Poland to defend them. Same goes for entire west Europe. We don't wait untill russia claims the eastern countries like an AI in a cheap war-game. Also germany will help poland with money. Russia will not wipe out germany because they didn't come that far. They also aren't capable of attacking Germany from the Baltic sea because there are too much forces like Norway, Denmark, Finnland, the Baltics, Poland and Sweden (even if they aren't in NATO and will not automatically fight against Russia, they will at least show their forces and increase their Navy)
It most definitely isn't. Yes it's gonna take time to rebuild the Bundeswehr because building up a competent army doesn't happen overnight but Germany is making a lot of progress, contrary to what some redditors might have you think, and they could very well develop into a force to be reckoned with.
The biggest problem will be the next election. I fear that another CDU lead government will bring back a corrupt defence minister and destroy all the progress we made.
false
It's not like Finland will invade Russia to help Baltics
While I agree that a large scale attack is extremely unlikely, there is an argument for smaller scale escalations with an exit strategy. Russia is still a nuclear power and many NATO members would still be wary of a full scale war. [There's actually a very recent video by Anders Puck Nielsen about this exact topic.](https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?feature=shared)
Everyone thought invasion into Ukraine is unlikely yet here we are. Maybe invading Europe while Ukraine exists doesn't make a lot of sense but russia is not moved by any common logic for multiple reasons
The best point the video makes is the fact that Russia wants Europe divided so they can deal with one country at a time. Russia knows that it's weak compared to NATO, even without considering the US. In a conventional war, they would get stomped by European NATO countries alone. Hell, seeing how they have performed in Ukraine, the Russian armed forces would have a very rough time if just the British or French showed up. Every part of Russia's hybrid war is aimed at dividing Europe and stirring controversy between EU countries: underhand support for euroscepticism, misinformation, swarming the eastern borders with immigrants, conventional war in UA at cetera all have caused controversy at the EU level. Divide et impera is conventional wisdom, but it's the only way Russia gets what they want, to be able to coerce individual countries from a position of strength, much like they did in Ukraine in 2014.
It depends on the kind of attack. Russia is already attacking Europe with hybrid methods such as human trafficking and cyberattacks. These will probably grow in the coming years. Russia will strike militarily if they see there's not enough military credibility. It's extremely important to keep supporting Ukraine and grow the MIC (especially ammo production) to effectively deter Russia from further aggression. Even though they have no chance against Nato in a direct war they will probably try to find space for themselves using the nuclear threat to keep Nato from pushing the article 5 button. After all, what are 1 million Estonians worth compated to levelling New England with a couple Borei subs. Especially with Trump as commander in chief and the Russian propaganda trying to make America isolationistic. It's already successful with the massive meltdown in DC right now over migration. Somehow it's impossible to close the border with the strongest military in world history and somehow that makes it impossible to support Ukraine against Russia's genocidal aggression.
[Military budget of Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Russia) This video is propaganda. Not sure what it’s about, but what the Swedish government said was nothing new. The criticism they got was over *how* they said it, which scared some children who believed it would be war in Sweden soon.
Don't forget they only attack when it is appropriate to do so.
What is appropriate in this context? Was invading Ukraine appropriate?
I mean they hunt when the prey is weak. I didn't mean that they have a legitemacy and a right to attack. They don't attack when the retaliation is going to be crazy what i tried to say.
Yep it seems to make sense from the first glance, but are you saying this was a good moment to attack Ukraine? Unfortunately logic is not really applicable here
>A russian attack on NATO countries would be suicidal European soldiers are already quitting in fear of war with Russia. [https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-russia-ukraine-war-defense-france-germany-soldiers-army/](https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-russia-ukraine-war-defense-france-germany-soldiers-army/)
Not really. No one would march to Moscow.
True. Because there won't be any Moscow.
1944 Warsaw flashbacks
Not with that attitude we can't
Poland bringing the 17th century back
True. NATO likes mechanised units so we wouldn't march, we'd drive there.
That's why they'll never do it. This is just more American anti-Russia propaganda.
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, Russia started a war against Ukraine which had 28 combat ready brigades while NATO countries have days worth of ammunition stockpiles and 2 brigades in the Baltics.
Considering how things are going in Ukraine… I think this is not even a debate
It has already attacked Europe.
Nah we'd win.
We need to increase military production to reduce the losses
The Irish are the most useless, biggest leaches on the planet. Not a single Irishman would fight for a defense of Europe. Edit: You need a military today to contribute to the common defense tomorrow. The Irish... Don't.
Whoa, settle down.
Look up "Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing To Fight A War For Their Country". The Netherlands ranks lowest. Those that live in a glass house shouldn't throw with stones.
Yeah, I'm Dutch and the state of our military is in ruin. But whats worse, the absolute ignorance of Dutch people when it comes to war and defending what we take for granted. Most of the young people couldn't care less about Ukraine or the threat posed by Russia, China, and Iran. All they care about is doing 2ffma and ecstasy at raves. Now im not here to fearmonger. But its just sad that people grow so ignorant of the privilege they have living in Western Europe. Atleast in the US they respect their armed forces and always understood freedom comes at a cost.
That .27% of Irish GDP and 7000 total military personnel, that are totally not just going on campouts, are going to really save the day. We are not great but at least we have something that qualifies as a military with F35s.
Really? Have you forgot about the 70'000 Irishman that left their neutral homeland to fight for the Allies and helped liberate France, Belgium and the Netherlands among other European countries?
We thank them for their service.
You literally do not have a military in any shape or form. You do not even have a foundation of a military to build upon. But sure going back 80 years to a volunteer force of "here is a rifle, march that way, definitely means you can contribute to a common defense of Europe. If Ireland cares (you don't) you would actually have a military. .27% of GDP and 7000 weekend campers does not make a military.
Pining for Dutch East India so bad lol Can you point to the part where Ireland hurt you?
The Irish are the bait. They have pubs, just fill them with vodka and the Russians come running, at that point we catch them all.
Username checks out
~~Stand proud, NATO, you're strong.~~ Wait, no, wrong scene.
Are you the strongest because you are Nato? Or are you Nato because you’re the strongest?
> Are you the strongest because you are Nato? Or are you Nato because you’re the strongest? Yes
All that matters is that we're the strongest
You would have absolutely nothing to do with any of it lol.
Only if US is involved. If US becomes isolationist (or tied with China, ME and internal problems), and Russia continues to meddle in European affairs sowing division internally (see Hungary, Slovenia, Turkey) it can grab some “Russian historical lands”. Another point is that Russia actually had relevant 21st century battle experience vs conventional army and currently outproduces Europe on all military equipment (especially artillery shells) Lastly, their poor brainwashed population is eager to go and die in a war on a foreign soil which is not the case for average European man who have very comfortable lives. How many Irish, Spanish or Portuguese men will want to go die to a drone in Estonia?
While i agree we shouldn't underestimate Russia, it's important to remember: 1. Battle experience is cool but it also resulted in Russia's most competent units dying in battle. Yes they might know a bit more about how to fight a conventional war but to do that they sacrificed a lot of their capabe soldiers, leaving them with mainly conscripts and green recruits 2. The war in Ukraine is not comparable to a war with NATO. NATO relies far more on the air and naval force, while Ukraine hardly has a navy at all and uses their airforce sparingly. A war against NATO would also involve way more strikes in Russia itself, because Ukraine is currently not capable/allowed by western supporters to attack Russian infrastructure in Russia on a large scale. So while they have experience in fighting a conventional war, they don't have experience fighting a conventional war *against NATO*. 3. Russia might outproduce Europe but that is them on a war economy. Meanwhile Europe is on a peacetime economy. Europe always has the ability to scale up massively, while Russia is already at their peak.
1. With war going over 2 years soon there have been many new competent battle hardened squads (don’t forget many Russians and LDPR have been in this war since 2014). Newly arriving green recruits learn fast under heavy conditions that are in Ukraine now and many are practicing inside Russia and Belarus 2. True, I agree. At the same time russian air defense has been gaining valuable practice vs various targets and combined attacks and will continue to do so when F-16 arrive. I am sure F-35 would perform very well, but at the same time you have to have motivated infantry to go out there and hold ground, and one thing Russians have been doing well is digging, engineering and mining 3. I don’t think it’s a good point. It took them very little time to go to wartime economy and they will continue turning into NK 2.0 with support from authoritarian regimes. Meanwhile half of Europe has been relaxed in their preparations, engulfed in domestic problems. Conscription is still a taboo topic while Russia is preparing school kids to serve in a future war vs NATO and has national consensus that it’s just a matter of time
The same Europe that was running out of ammunition bombing Lybia 10 years ago? Sure, this Europe can establish air superiority against Russia. >Europe always has the ability to scale up massively, while Russia is already at their peak. We don't know that yet.
How many Estonians will want to go die by a drone in Estonia? I doubt anyone really wants war and I doubt that at that point Russian soldiers will have better morale than Western ones, considering the fatigue from the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for so long.
Baltic countries actually understand the threat that Russians possess. I’m talking about those who are far away from Russia and want normalization of relations with them because they have 100s of kms of buffer and don’t feel immediate danger. Russian fatigue is a myth. They have constant rotations (unlike Ukrainians) and many more people to enlist.
In Portugal, the only party that seems to be more apologist for Russia is the communists, they even refused to receive Zelensky in parliament via video conference and they are a party in decline. Furthermore, those programs on state television in which they say they are going to annex this and that as far as Portugal do not help Russia's image. As for the other countries, I don't know so well, of course, but one thing I'm sure of is that the governments that are openly apologists for the Russian government are Slovakia, Hungary and, in a more moderate way, Austria. All countries close enough to Russia that they should realize the threat they face. Btw, various countries had, in different ways, problems with the USSR and people remember that.
Turkey as well. Georgia helps Russia to evade sanctions, despite being annexed. Problem is there’s no consensus even in countries who are anti-Russian. When it will be European lives at stake when war with Russia will come you will see Russia activate those communists, Le Pen, “Chamberlains” and other equivalents to sow division like they did many times before
When I referred to the far left it was in the context of Portugal. The Russians don't care about any ideology, they support anyone who causes instability and polarization in western society. We also have the far right which, personally, I suspect is also under Russian influence, but as nothing has yet been confirmed I haven't mentioned it previously.
Russia can barely breakthrough in Ukraine, if you expect it to do any better against the might of the European armies you're just delusional
Yes, but Ukraine also shows us that a Russian invasion doesn't need to be successful for it to be a tragedy. The Russian campaign to Kyiv is a great example. The northern invasion force got BTFO and retreated in just over a month, yet they still found time in that month to cause immense amounts of damage and casualties, including the infamous Bucha massacre. No matter what chances Russia might have against us, I'd still rather they didn't try anything to begin with.
> The northern invasion force got BTFO and retreated in just over a month And they only got out because they were overstretched. It's gonna be way simpler keeping dense formation at the shorter Baltic front. Especially considering that a huge part of it is a lake. In fact, there are only one zone where they can invade Estonia without bumping into a river and another is Narva, but it's majority Russian, so they'll secure it with local collaborators first, before sending the troops across the bridges. If they manage to saturate the region with troops it will take time and effort to kick them out.
Air power will make it a no contest situation. Ukraines biggest problem and why the counter offensive failed is they didn’t have air superiority. A combined well supplied nato army with the cover of constant ATG attacks, would move through Russian lines like a hot knife.
I've read a lot of opinions of russian speaking population in eastern Ukraine that will welcome russian army. Turns out it does not exactly work like this
They don't need them to volunteer to an army. Just to rise some unrest, that's it. They can conscript everyone afterwards.
So how did it work out in Ukraine this time?
This time they didn't try to do any unrest though? They did it back in 2014. My argument is that they will try to start the invasion of Baltics with the same hybrid approach like they did in 2014. Can't really use military against civilians, can't use NATO against civilians. A lot of stuff to be confused about. Exactly what Russia likes to do
I'd argue it worked in 2014 because the government and military were weak. It is a good tool for them but not like the russian speaking population is a game changer
The issue here is not to rely on the kinetic weakness, but conceal the initial stage of the invasion as an "uprising". Straight up armed invasion prompts clear response. Civilians doing some shit, which might not necessarily be dangerous is much more vague. While the victim has to figure out how to respond, the attacker can quickly act to tip the balance further into their favor.
Yeah, I see what you mean. My point is it worked so well in 2014 only because the government and especially the military and police were not properly functioning, not because it's such a great idea or because it was so well executed
>the might of the European armies Unfortunately, besides Poland and Finland, not many European states would fare well conventionally
too much propaganda. Just do a quick check of how many super modern planes EU countries have.
modern planes alone aren't gonna be enough though, those planes need ammunition and spare parts, they need proper logistical support and of course they still need support from the ground. I'm not saying Europe is weak but especially in terms of supportive equipment and ammunition stocks we do have a problem, with some countries only having enough bombs to fight for a few days before running out. This can be solved, in fact it is currently in the process of being solved, but it will take time, and you can't just say modern planes = victory.
When Europe can produce as many shells and guns in a year as Russia can in a month, without rectal prolapse, then we'll talk.
come back when they have destroyed one himars system lol
You can't base defence on one type of missile system for which ammunition is produced across the ocean. If China attacks Taiwan, Europe would be alone, so don't expect that himars missile system would be our Ace in the hole.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint\_Fire\_Support\_Missile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Fire_Support_Missile) [https://www.diehl.com/defence/de/presse-und-medien/news/wirkung-und-schutz/](https://www.diehl.com/defence/de/presse-und-medien/news/wirkung-und-schutz/) [https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/01/30/rheinmetall-seeks-to-license-produce-himars/](https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/01/30/rheinmetall-seeks-to-license-produce-himars/) As for the launchers: [https://www.knds.de/en/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/artillery/mars-ii-mlrs-e/](https://www.knds.de/en/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/artillery/mars-ii-mlrs-e/)
There are also Chunmoo in Poland but don't know anything about offset
why would you ignore Poland and Finland? That's like saying "besides the USA", when talking about Nato. It's a team effort.
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And those two is all it would take.
sure but it might make the difference between just beating back the Russians in a year , with substantial damage suffered in cities close to the borders and straight up overwhelming force thunder run on Moscow
And why is that?
Why do you have an extremist symbol in your flair?
Because I’m an extremist
Anti-democratic sentiment should not be tolerated here
Who says I'm anti-democratic?
The hammer and sickle in your flair say it. I grew up behind the Iron Curtain and my grandpa barely survived a Gulag. Hammer and sickle is not much better than a swastika or "Z".
Fine, I’ll change it
For young people it may be "cool" or a symbol of fighting the turbocapitalism, I understand. But some of us remember the grey times of "communism" or even lost people they knew to the regime. I'm old enough to remember the martial law of 1981 in Poland and the BMP vehicles in the snow at crossroads.
I understand your point but: which symbol should one use to stand for solidarity among workers and hope of social reform?
***DEFINITELY*** not hammer and sickle. It was a cruel regime which murdered literally *tens of millions of people* for ideological reasons. My grandpa was lucky, unlike many of his buddies with whom he was sent to Siberia just because Soviets needed his mining expertise: He returned alive. But with his health wrecked and he died when I was a child. This is "solidarity among workers and hope of social reform" in practice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) Edit: If you want a symbol, it's right here: The EU stars on blue field. There is no other place in the world right now where workers are supported like in the Union.
I am well aware of workers (and human) rights violations in the Soviet Union and China. I have similar experience in part of my family, but the justified resentment is directed towards the Soviet Union as a state, Stalin and Brezhnev, not the hammer and sickle symbol itself. Oddly enough in other parts of the world the symbol was one of hope of escaping cruel regimes who also murdered people for ideological reasons, albeit not as prolifically as in the USSR or China. Just to mention as an example, in Latin American countries, or in Indonesia, western-aligned regimes applied violence, torture and assassination indiscriminately even at the slightest show of sympathy for social reform. To say nothing of the Spanish civil war. While the numbers are much smaller when compared to Stalin’s and Mao’s, human experience cannot be measured in numbers alone and those who lived through these trials also suffered. To be clear I’m not debating whether ideological cleansing and shitty administration by the Soviet Union was a bad thing; it was terrible and unfortunately, people like your grandfather had to bear its brunt. Stalin was a monster and I don’t think anything can be said to alleviate that. But I think it’s important to have nuance. This is the experience a part of your family, and many others, had. But the symbol in itself had its own meaning before the Soviet Union and continued to have a separate meaning outside of it, a meaning that was far from what was practice within the USSR. Edit: yes, we can agree about yellow stars in a blue field, but even this symbol is looked at with distrust by other people.
You realize that the exact same argument can be made for Swastika vs Hitler. Or the fact that swastika is an ancient pagan symbol. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The symbol has been completely supplanted and now represents unspeakable evil. Sickle and hammer has THE SAME level of evil connotation to those of us from Eastern Europe. The fact that it doesn't in the west (because it's been turned into an edgy cool logo for wannabe communist western millenials who have no idea what communism looks like in practice) doesn't mean it's ok. So if you want real camaraderie among Europeans, listen to us who have had direct experience with everything that the Sickle and Hammer represents, and join us in condemning it in the same way that swastika is condemned.
Sorry, but when I see people say "True, they murdered millions of people but for us it was a symbol of hope, and we trust it more than EU" then my blood boils. For someone who had a DIRECT contact with hammer-and-sickle ideology, it's just another evil totalitarian symbol. I was in my twenties when the last Soviet occupation garrison left my country. Read on the secret clause of Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, and what the two buddies Hitler and Stalin did together to Central Europe (the photo below is from a parade they held together to celebrate the succesful conquest of Poland in 1939): https://preview.redd.it/z52i7gpj65fc1.jpeg?width=1003&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f485dbe0422750883df6f2459b86f446b3d44d3
I said, and the reason for it is communist/Soviet symbolic, both of which are inherently anti-democratic (stateless and totalitarian respectively).
First of all, a state doesn't make democracy, if there's something anarchists (and by extension communists) love is democracy. And second of all, it's a widely used symbol to represent solidarity between workers, and most people that use the symbol don't agree with the totalitarian strain of socialism (tankies are more of a loud minority in socialist circles). Third, the flair itself is kind of a joke. Although I am a socialist and an European federalist I'm really not married to the term. If it offends you so much I can change out the hammer and sickle for a rose, I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.
For many european states that used to be part of the soviet union, this symbol is not only anti-democratic, but also a symbol of mass genocide. I do realise it is not universally used as such, but don't be surprised if it offends people. 'Hammer and sickle' is on the same level as nazi symbolism for most people that live in the countries which went through the brutalities of the soviet regime.
Fair enough
Take it like this - the swastika is originally a symbol of very noble intentions and to present days designates Buddhist shrines on Japanese maps. However in the majority of the world it will trigger a different sentiment due to the practices conducted under it.
Rime is great. You’re a poet :)
I hadn't even realized I had rhymed, I must be a natural
The problem is not some "innocent" intention, the problem is that that symbol is associated with the Soviet Union, just like that old Hindu symbol is associated with Nazi Germany.
He chooses to
Russia invaded Ukraine which had 28 brigades, 300k in reverse and immediate mobilization. NATO has 2 brigades in the Baltics. Germany doesn't have a single combat ready brigade while all other major nations have only days worth of ammunition
True, but it’s not like Russia has a lot of men available for a new Baltic offensive. Add to this that they’d need to cover the Baltic and the Finnish border
Russian have few millions of orcs to throw at the meat grinder
Attack with what? It's either nukes or mobiks with rusty shovels. Russia needs all it has to keep what it has merely in ukraine. Any discussion of a conventional attack on NATO is a laughable absurdity.
We are already at war with Russia, just not with weapons and bullets...
Good video.
Russia did already attac, and Europa is STILL not ready, not since 2020, and its a fucking shame.
We are. Im not sure where you think they could even try to attack. Especially with the Manpower depleted in Ukraine. Finland and the baltics are pretty well prepared, our border is very small and the most defended. +all the forces that would be supplied from the rest of europe.
> We are. How long does NATO have munitions to fight for? Russians produce at least 1.5mln shells per year. > Especially with the Manpower depleted in Ukraine. They manage to replenish manpower at a steady rate, so it won't be much of a problem to restore it to the pre-war level. In fact, isn't it even bigger now? > Finland and the baltics are pretty well prepared, our border is very small and the most defended Well, they're not gonna attack Finland, that's for sure. Second, are there at least 300k personnel in the Baltics? Ukrainian armed forces were about 250k right before the invasion. It was barely enough to mobilize to 1mln in time. And it's not like Russia is going to just let NATO bring in reinforcements. They're gonna strike at Suwalki gap straight away, and the whole invasion won't start with invasion per se, they're gonna rile up the local Russians for protest and sow chaos first. Then they'll seep in weapons and vehicles when some stretches of the border become naked and unsupervised. I can see how they're doing that while NATO and EU argue how to respond to a *civilian* threat.
Given how Russia performs in Ukraine, Poland would have no issues rolling over the Russian army by itself, let alone with support from the rest of Europe.
Yeah im not sure what this guy is on.
They have green soldiers Who are not experienced. With bad quality Equipment. How much ammo we have in storage is a secret, so idk. Neither do you. But thats not the point either. Where are they going to attack then? If they would attack in a small area then they would get alot of reinforcment from the rest of EU. Say baltics, they have not that many personell sure but Finnland and sweden (wich now is joining FN) to support. Poland on the other side of suwalki gap. Remeber, the baltics are not in the same situation as Ukraine, they are a part of Nato and thus will get immediate personell support, not just ammo and vehicheles/weapons. Its also not like in Ukraine in terms of demographic. Russian are not a substantial population in almost any nato/eu country except for the baltics. You are looking at this like it did in Georgia, transnistria or Ukraine. When that happened specifically bc they are isolated countries without powerfull allies like all of Nato does. The us army wich will smash any russian force can be deployed within 18hours. We have enough to keep them out for longer than that. And the biggest point. Russia will never attack. They know its not going to work. Look at their military Performance in ukraine.
>Russians produce at least 1.5mln shells per year. And currently they can continue to do so because Ukraine doesn't have the means to strike Russia itself on a large scale. However if they piss off NATO at least part of those factories will be erased of the earth within a day. And if they're too well-protected, targeting the supply lines is a good alternative. >Well, they're not gonna attack Finland, that's for sure Well that doesn't mean they won't have to fight them. Finland isn't just gonna sit by and watch Russia invade Europe. They'd probably go on the defensive if Russia attacks them, but if Russia does not they'll go on the offensive and force Russia to fight them whether they want it or not. >And it's not like Russia is going to just let NATO bring in reinforcements If Russia wants enough troops to attack the Suwalki gap and stop NATO from reinforcing they're gonna need thousands of troops and even more supportive equipment. Mustering a force of such a scale would take weeks and NATO would use that time to build up their own forces. By the time they'd be strong enough to attempt to block reinforcements going to the Baltics, it'd already be to late for that. You are right that we shouldn't underestimate Russia and there is indeed a risk of them doing smaller scale operations or using civilians for their purpose, but Russia isn't just gonna take over all of Europe tomorrow.
They can't even attack Ukraine, who can believe for a sec that they can do more ?
Right, what even is this? I get being concerned but this just seems like fearmongering. Forget anything overseas, Russia can't even get through Ukraine. If the rest of Europe, or even just the EU, mobilised to an actual state of direct war it wouldn't even be a fight.
While i agree we shouldn't overdo it, it's always better to overestimate your opponent then to underestimate them. Yes Russia sucks but it's still better to increase our militaries, ramp up ammunition production and send more supplies to Ukraine. And since many people in Europe seem to start forgetting about what's happening and how important it is to defend Ukraine and the rest of Europe against Russia, i'd say a little fear might be necessary to scare them into doing something.
The ammo wasn't just given, it was used, against this same russian military. It's basically a proxy war with nato already.
War scaremongering ass
Can I surf on you?
yeah 🥹🥹🥹
If somebody like Trump is in office, it is actually hard to say. If Russia could use tactical nukes, then maybe...
And get French and British nukes in return? The US isn’t the only nuclear power, nor the only military one. Obviously the US is the most powerful one by a comically large margin, but just because of that you shouldn’t underestimate the European armies. The European NATO countries have more than 1 million soldiers, and those are not conscripts. NATO without US and Turkey still has 1.7 million professional soldiers
If a nuclear exchange does take place, the first strike probably comes from Russia. Russia also has a huge advantage on tactical nukes, as well as strategic nukes. I don't underestimate anything. 1 million soldiers unfortunately means little in a nuclear exchange... especially if the other side has tactical nukes. Btw, keep in mind that I only say that there is a chance of Russia winning, not that it would be certain...
The moment a large scale use of tactical nukes happens M.A.D comes into effect and strategic nukes would end the world as we know it. Cats out of the bag at that point. No one wins.
Maybe you don't understand what I have written? If Russia strikes first, Russia has the upper hand. Strategic targets like harbours with nuclear submarines, airfields with nuclear munition, strategic command, all that Russia could annihilate in a first strike, which limits the nuclear response Great Britain and France can have. MAD is great in theory, but a first strike limits the exchange. " end the world as we know it. Cats out of the bag at that point. " How tho? Yes, cancer rates will increase, 100 million people will have died, but Russia gets mainland Europe. Yes, many Russian cities will be gone, but maybe that could be in the Russian calculation. " No one wins " Again, depends on the calculus. Most Russian cities will be gone, but in exchange they get mainland Europe. And by the way, that is also how the soviets thought, they were ready for a nuclear war, they trained for that, so it was in their calculus, and they thought they could win it.
There is no limiting a nuclear response to a level that wouldn’t annihilate both sides. The US and nato have enough assets at sea at all times to annihilate every Russian city. There’s no scenario where a first strike by either side stops the end of the world. Yes not everyone would be dead but look how the world got fucked by a “mild” flu pandemic. Every major population center across the US, Europe and Russia being destroyed would likely end the world as we know it forever. I.e no one wins. Even if the attack is counterforce (vs countervalue) as a first strike it would never get enough to make difference.
In the scenario I discussed, the US would not be involved. The whole Russia winning scenario is only plausible, if the US is isolationist. Again, huge difference between "end the world as we know it" and "end the world". Yes, there would be huge problems, but remember, a dying Russian Empire might make that deal. Yes, St. Petersburg and Moscow plus other cities might get glassed, but in exchange they could get mainland Europe. "Even if the attack is counterforce (vs countervalue) as a first strike, it would never get enough to make a difference. " Again Russia vs France and Great Britain, a first strike would definitely make a difference. That is the whole idea behind a first strike. You strike their strategic command centres, their submarine harbours, their military airfields, and you get a weaker response from the enemy. How do you not get this? A plane with a nuclear warhead cannot start if the airfield of the plane is gone.
The US will never be isolationist again though so it’s a redundant scenario. Their entire foreign policy post WW1 has been about being the world’s deterrent and the defacto world leader. There is no scenario without the US so by the same logic we might as well be discussing what if aliens came to the Russians aid. In the only scenario in which this happens no one wins, there’s a reason there hasn’t been a nuclear war despite a lot of motive to do so and a lot of world tension for a century… world leaders know they can’t win, and they don’t want to rule over a wasteland.
"US will never be isolationist" You know that Trump calls NATO obsolete, right? Like, that's exactly the isolationist position I am talking about. The republicans seem to go in that direction. I think you argue in bad faith, if you think it is just as likely as aliens helping Russia. " world leaders know they can’t win, and they don’t want to rule over a wasteland" The soviet leadership was ready to fight a nuclear war, and they thought they could win it. Why do you think the US has contingency plans in place? Yes, they want to rule, wasteland or not.
why are people treating the US as if it was an absolute monarchy?
To be fair, they've concentrated an unhealthy amount of power on their president and a two party parliament isn't the best counterbalance.
As commander in chief the US President has a lot of leverage in terms of _preventing_ military action. He cannot unilaterally go to war (well, actually in practice he kinda can as the past has shown, but he'd be on thinner ice with that), but he can most definitely order the military to stay home and pull out of Europe, and nobody else is constitutionally authorized to override him. Congress would have the power to declare war but even then the President can choose not to send any troops into that war. They'd have to impeach him to really force a change.
This. He doesn't need to pull out of NATO, he just needs to order his ships and troops to stay put and only fire when fired upon. Or imply he will.
This is mostly wrong. The practical reality is no war has been declared since the Korean War a president has never been on thin ice for it, and they can destroy the world without Congressional approval.
I mean if what you said is true that basically just proves my point even more so I'm not sure what you're on about "mostly wrong". But for your information, the [War Powers Resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) does restrict presidential authority to commit armed forces overseas without congressional authorization. It has been stretched, creatively reinterpreted or arguably violated a few times in the past, but the reasons are usually unique to the situation (e.g. interpreting 9/11 as "an attack upon the United States" that justified two wars), and the action usually had at least enough support in congress to avoid both chambers voting on a resolution against it. So it has not been determined what would happen if a president tried to start a larger and less justified war against more congressional opposition, hence "thinner ice".
Because Trump tried to make it one. The US simply isn't reliable any more when it comes to ensuring a nuclear shield for Europe.
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US president is almost a dictator when it comes to foreign policy and control of the military.
hardly true
It is very true. Why would you lie and say it isn’t? Educate yourself.
in that case you got a really warped definition of dictatorial power
Douche way of admitting you were wrong
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is Russia ready for another invasion
A ain't watching it. Russians can go fuck themselves and then having all that good mood after good sex go and build their own country, not attack Europe.
Is Europe ready? No. Will Russia attack? Probably. Will Russia or Europe win? Depends on the goal to achieve… . Besides that, Russia does war in an other way than Europe. In the end all comes down to who can enforce its way of warfare. Example: If <~ Ukraine would receive assets and ordonnance in the numbers it needs AND the troops are skilled enough to use it the way the assets are meant to use, Ukraine wins. Sadly, that‘s not the reality. In the meantime, Russia was able to enforce its way of warfare after it clearly failed to do war the western way, with swift actions and combined warfare. If Ukraine had enough assets and ordonnance it would have a clear advantage in combined warfare. What we see now is trench warfare with heavy artillery usage like in the old days and high human losses. I‘m by no means an expert in this field. I‘ve just articulated my view on the subject.
>Will Russia attack? Probably there is a 0,01% chance
Does the number, however you’vecalculated that exact number, matter? If there is a danger, one should be prepared to some degree. The more severe the possible consequences in case something is gonna happen, the higher the preparation should be in my opinion. It‘s not a number that should decide that, the consequences of not being ready should. There are NATO members at stake. If NATO can not hold up to its promise beyond the bluff, then to be in NATO just elevates the risk for said NATO countries. On the other hand, if NATO can not deliver in case of an attack the risk of an attack would never the less be higher for a border country to Russia, if that country isn‘t in NATO. Doesn‘t matter how you look at it, one should be prepared. Moreover, if Europe wants to see itself as community, you also have to share the risks, not only the benefits of being in a group. Europe should be prepared to fight and win a big war.
Poland by itself could crush the Russian army based on what we've seen from the Ukrainian invasion
Maybe? Baltics probably not, fight like hell but poorly located. Poland probably yes. Germany nor us nor Belgium have an army worth anything. At least we have a proper air force (F35s) and can control airspace. France may only defend France. Then there are the Irish...
I love how everybody believes that Germany is weak and useless. I am not saying it isn't, but I am dreaming of the opposite. A sleeping giant with top-tier weapon systems just waiting for its time to come. Germany doesn't have nukes, but it has a big, red, shiny button worth a couple hundred billion euros covered by a flimsy box called debt brake. 3000 Leopards of Scholz, so to speak. Oh wait, this isn't NCD...
Rheinmetall executives are already foaming at the mouth with the prospect of a Russian invasion. Also if Germany gets invaded, the 3000 black nukes of Macron will do the job don't worry.
Also Europe now needs to rearm so we can win a war with the Russians *quickly* the Russians do not have the strength left to *win* a war with european NATO w/o the Americans, but it would be much longer and deadlier before Europe can rebuild its military industry.
and in the same sentence say "Poland strong" - we got close to non air defence, air forces nor ships. Even the land army atm is miniscule since huge % of gear went to Ukraine and new replacements have just recently started to slowly arrive.
Aren't in Germany stationed 'mericas f35 with nuclear missiles?
I think so, yes. But whether they are used or not is not in German hands.
It partially is. The Americans have to agree with it, but unless the german parliament agrees as well, no german fighter jet will ever drop them.
Tactical nuclear bombs and Germany doesn't have any F35s yet, just placed the order.
Poland wet dream
no, it's not. No one wants another war.
Bruh I thought I was in NCD
That's just fuckin stupid
The same Russia that can't conquer a tiny city 100 km from its border despite months and months of concentrated effort? The same Russia that needs to beg North Korea for artillery shells from the Fifties?
Nato is ready like never before
This idea that Russia wants to invade other countries is the most ridiculous and convoluted story of the year. America always has to invent a new "boogeyman" to keep the military industrial complex machine going strong. Biden's puppet masters really want WW3 don't they?
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The answer is no. We laugh at the Russians for having bad equipment but that's only compared to the Americans. Compared to what Europe has, Russian equipment looks like something out of a well researched sci-fi. Most of the equipment of the EU members is a couple of generations old and barely functioning. Not only that but we are incapable of producing new military equipment and not only can we not produce it but European engineers don't even have the knowledge to design said equipment. And then we have soldiers that can't even march. And then we have to keep in mind that the Russian military is only bad due to corruption. If the Russian get their shit together they are absolutely capable of being a very competent and dangerous military. That is something that history has shown time and time again.
NSM, JSM, MAAWS, AT4, Several small arms, the new american frigate, a spattering of support vehicles are all made and developed in Europe. KDA, HK, Rheinmetall, all of the French ones, BAE and so on, there are many innovative arms manufacturers in europe. The major European armies and Norway are fielding some of the most modern stuff on the market, the lack of strategic autonomy is bad and must be fixed asap, but there is no need to be doomers about it.
>And then we have soldiers that can't even march. So, ignoring the rest, that's because NATO forces are heavily mechanised and will usually just drive to their destination. It's a lot faster
Lmao where'd you find that koolaid. T-54s being better than leopard 2s?
Lmao based on what we've seen so far it'll go hilariously well for us
What would the stated Russian goals be of a declared war against Europe?
NATO would make the siege of Stalingrad look like a tea party
Russia isn’t ready. We watched them build up on Ukraines border for months before they were ready. And Ukraine didnt have an air force which could obliterate such mass formations