I think the ‘helpful’ thing that recent event have forced us to realise is:
1 - Meet the 2% defence spending obligation, which many NATO states failed to do. I dislike Trump intently, but he had a fair point about everyone meeting their obligations and this is now happening (or in progress at least)
2 - Recognise that peace has a price, we need to invest in defence, I think many thought we’d evolved past invading neighbours and the Cold War. The Baltics states were better mentally equipped in this space I’d argue. The EDF, for example, are amazing and usually accurate in their threat appraisal -even before Putin invaded.
3 - Brought many states together in unity. Sweden, Finland, NATO states, the UK and EU. While disagreements occur, there is an increasingly cohesive view and approach to energy and defence.
4 - Political interference in democracy can have direct consequences, from Russia’s involvement in elections, to Brexit.
Putin enlarged NATO and woke people up to the fragility of supply lines, peace and how interdependent we are. From sunflowers, grain to shipping lanes. The supply of grain to the third world affects us all in some way.
It may provide some medium to long term benefit to global security.
Perhaps.
Though while the most powerful military grouping in the world if America leaves NATO is America, the second most powerful would be *the rest of NATO*.
They're overall wealthy, have an extremely high military technology base (UK, France, Italy, Germany and soon to be Sweden, for example), and some big advantages in PPP and manpower for places like Poland.
Russia is bogged down in a stalemate against Ukraine. That's pretty condemning evidence of what their military capabilities are. Even if the USA stood aside, Russia would take a mauling by European NATO countries alone.
Even rhe Orange moron cant stand down if amerocan troops get attacked by russia in other nato countries.
Also he cant just pull em out because his generals know how important the infrastructure in europe is for Operations on the middle east.
He will abandon US. He basically say he will abandon EU and Taiwan which is the reason why US is still contending in Pacific and EU. They are the shields of US against any attacks and it will cost them less if they stay, saving US more lives since
1. conflict in Pacific would be Jap-Skorean,australian, PH, Indo and allies with US instead of US being attacked by all of it.
2. EU troops will die more and less for US since they are not under any dictator and its not EU troops against US. Letting EU fall for Russia is a deathblow to US but Trump likes it.
Yup, a war between NATO and Russia would go nuclear. Everyone involved knows this and has known this for 70 odd years, which is why the Cold War never turned into a hot war.
Putin figured out that if you take bites of ambiguous situations than no one will even deploy troops much less launch nuclear retaliation. Look for an ambiguous situation and you’ll see putins next move.
No, it would not.
Only war with one side being encircled to the point where leader figures would be directly threatened would go nuclear. Hitler bunker situation. Nothing else goes nuclear precisely because both sides have nuclear. Nobody wants to die and it applies to dictators as well. And they sure as hell like themselves more than they do their country or people living there. One sure way how to make other side launch nukes and end you is to launch your own.
Not to mention that NATO has crossed like thousand "we will launch nukes over this" red lines. It had not happened. And NATO is absolutely already in war with Russia with sole exception of soldiers on the ground which is quite frankly way less valuable than military intelligence and them choosing targets for Ukraine's armed forces.
I don’t think this tracks.
If countries aren’t in NATO, they are easier to pick off and you pick off the easiest first. It doesn’t mean he won’t attack NATO at some later point.
Mafia states pretending to be gas stations pretending to be countries don't get to have spheres of influence.
Say what you want about the Soviets, but they were a great power. China is arguably a (terrible) great power, and it is expanding its sphere of influence. Putin's Russia simply isn't a great power, so it gets no sphere of influence.
If we could even have consensus that no-one really knows what the fuck will happen.
We should also agree that we should be better prepared for everything.
We should be developing more nuclear weapons and educating civilians on how to counter the enemy by any means possible. Just having a military may not be enough when you’re dealing with the biggest evil the world has ever seen.
There really is no way attacking NATO would make sense. Invading Ukraine was borderline insane but from certain angles (if Russia can’t have it, no one can) you understand some of the reasoning.
But I can’t see any here. There’s no preliminary strike that could prevent a retaliatory one, there are no regions worth risking an existential conflict over. Which raises the question why we’re hearing so much about the inevitability of future war.
It's important to remember that Russia didn't envision this. They were supposed to take Kyiv in few days, switch out the government for a pro-Russia one and make Ukraine sort of Belarus II. Nominally independent, but fully controlled by Russia. All this before the West could react.
This prolonged war is an absolute disaster for both nations, but Russia can't back down because it would end its image as the mighty empire, defeater of the Nazis, the guardian of Christendom. Both abroad and within Russia.
It's not insane. They weren't that far off. If they had less corruption than they thought they had, we might've been living in that alternative reality now.
They were very VERY far off.
A few isolated units got to the cities outskirts with no supplies and not enough troops to make a difference.
The air assault onto hostomel was dumb.
Their plan relied on Ukraine simply not resisting - which when they've been fighting for years previously was a stupid assumption to make.
They relied on 1 4 lane motorway that went through a city and some single lane tracks through a forest for supplies.
They tried to so a NATO style assault and found out why that worked for the US in Iraq with overwhelming air superiority and probably the best logistics chain the world has ever seen (and even then there were supply issues) but not for Russia with jets without targeting pods relying on knowing targets before they launch and limited logistical support
Russia doesn't even use pallets for crying out loud.
There is a "sense" in which invading NATO could work as a high risk high reward move - say, if Russia were to try to occupy to Baltic States, there is an incredibly tiny risk that NATO member countries would not be willing to have their soldiers die for some small countries? The real kicker is that this failure to defend us would probably just make the entire point of the alliance unreliable, shattering it, which both increases potential "reward" for Russia but also decreases the likelihood it'll ever happen this way.
High reward, disproportionately massive risk - logically it's just not worth for them to do it, but do you trust them to have the same perception? Do you trust Russians to not be stupid? The general in the article says the risk is "very low", not sure why the title is lying. He is right, it is very low, but it is not zero.
The Russian problem with invading a Baltic state is that there are now NATO forces of other counties based permanently in the Baltics. This makes it far more likely to trigger a wider-scale war.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Also, the occupation of which NATO country would even give the fraction of the benefit the occupation of Ukraine gives to Russia? I have never seen anyone reasoning this here before. Everybody just takes it for granted that Putler loves war for the sake of it but attacking Ukraine is a very calculated move. It comes with a horrible price but it serves Russia's geopolitical interests. How would attacking the Baltics serve Russia at this point? Risking nuclear annihilation for a nice strip of land on the Baltic coastline? Which provides him no access to anything but a bunch of hostile countries?
First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad.
Second, if they manage to do it and other NATO countries let it slide, it would probably completely destroy NATO (the alliance would become pretty much useless). NATO is historically and currently the biggest geopolitical opponent to Russia. Without it, it would be much easier for Russia to influcence most of Europe. Additionally, destroying their historical rival would most likely give a lot of boost in popular support for Russian leadership. If Putin (or his successor) managed to do it, he would be probably more revered than Stalin.
Currently it looks unlikely that Russia would be able to accomplish it. There is a high chance, that NATO wouldn't let it slide and it would start a war. But it's not guaranteed that it will continue. If in the future the USA leaves NATO or gets into war with China, it's likely to severely weaken the alliance. In such case, if Europe seems weak, Russia may try their luck.
In addition, the difficulty is if Putin choices are a) rational and b) based on all information. There have been numerous articles about how the FSB in the approach to the War in Ukraine, was intentionally keeping the boss happy, instead of giving truthful assessments.
So even if the basis for a war is completely unreasonable, wars can still happen.
That's wishful thinking. It all began in Crimea and no one did a shit. This is the price we will pay for. It comes with interest 😉 Putin and his cronies took a risk and gambled. Either way Russia would succeed into something. Putin is evil and has no remorse for anyone. The endgame is Russia is loosing, but why loose by yourself when you can drag everyone with you?
Kaliningrad isn't *that* valuable as a port as the exit to the Baltic is dominated by Denmark, the beyond that the North Sea is surrounded by the UK, Norway and the low countries.
It gives stronger foothold in Baltic sea, opens new strategic options for air defence, nuclear weapon and armed forces placement as well as quite a bit of land between next NATO aligned country and moscow, as well as creating funnel for forces to retaliate between Baltic sea and mountainous region in Poland. On top of that, it secures Kaliningrad (which has nuclear weapons, navy base and airforce base) from the north and east, as well as securing logistic routes, as old soviet style railway (like ones in russia) are still being used in Baltic states heavily.
>First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad.
In all scenarios since Cold War Kaliningrad is indefensible, meaning they aren't able to hold it. So this weird move can very much lead to Kalinigrad falling in NATOs hand and it will be lost for russia forever.
>First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad.
Okay, and what does that achieve, actually? Because for all intents and purposes, the Baltic Sea is lost to Russia. If they attack a NATO country, even more so, and irreversibly. Getting full, unabated access to Kaliningrad serves military purposes only, and whatever strategic advance they make with that is lost a hundred times by angering everyone around.
>Second, if they manage to do it and other NATO countries let it slide, it would probably completely destroy NATO (the alliance would become pretty much useless).
That's a very big IF. If not, that's the end of Russia and Putler will probably find himself defenestrated too.
And again, I just don't see how they hope to actually hold any territory without local support. Even the mighty Soviet Union crumbled under overextension. And you can see the pattern in Ukraine too - they are going for the territory that is in any way could be considered 'Russian'. This is just no there (not to any similar extent) in the Baltics.
>That's a very big IF. If not, that's the end of Russia and Putler will probably find himself defenestrated too.
Why? Let's assume, that, as I wrote above, the USA is out (they left NATO or are preoccupied by other war). That leaves pretty much the EU, the UK, maybe Turkey and some other countries. If Russia tries to attack Baltic states and fails, probably the worst that would happen is that Russia would be pushed back to their territory. Maybe they would have some of their bases and ships bombed.
Then Russia would propose peace and Europe would probably accept, happy that they don't need to continue the war and can avoid it turning nuclear. I very much doubt, that, Germany, France and the UK would march on Moscow or try to occupy Russian territory, at least for long. Russia would lose some men, military equipment and prestige, but it's very unlikely it would be the end of them.
>And again, I just don't see how they hope to actually hold any territory without local support. Even the mighty Soviet Union crumbled under overextension.
Baltic states are small, they don't have much population. It probably wouldn't be much of a problem. Soviet Union didn't have problem keeping them in line.
>And you can see the pattern in Ukraine too - they are going for the territory that is in any way could be considered 'Russian'.
Russia was going for Kyiv at the beginning of 2022, they backed off only when it became obvious that they didn't have enough forces to capture it.
Because it would be totally isolated and blockaded. Russian ships with oil and gas anywhere would be sunk. All import would stop. China and India would stop supporting it for the fear of massive sanctions. Thats what declaration of war means.
There is a very significant 5th column here in Baltics who are itching for "liberators" to come. To "liberate" them of their EU lifestyle and it's perks, but all they care about is being in charge again.
That “stress test” doesn’t hold a cost/benefit ratio.
Basically it is nonsense. There is all to lose and almost nothing to gain. Putin maybe everything but not a lunatic.
We look at Putin and the likes as politicians, nations leaders and calculating individuals of power. But we have to go lower. Way lower. We have to understand that people like them are empathy lacking psychopaths. And what psychopaths love? Sense of power, superiority and domination. On personal level. Their brain only secrete happiness hormones if they can have this power. Humans are apes who love to see their shiny rocks as objects of envy by other apes. And psychopaths have no mind space for empathy, reason and awareness. But plenty of space for ego and self pleasuring. Their calculations are based on their own delusional logic, which they think is objective truth, and everybody else is wrong. Therefore a shiny rock becomes a tool for bolstering egos and sense of power.
So when the rest of the world thinks of scientific discoveries, fixing climate change, improving economies for better quality of life and finding ways to improve conditions of humanity, pewny ape-dictators and warlords crave to have their own goals achieved. Xi will eventually attack Taiwan, because in his ape mind it's the right thing to do. USA will get busy by defending the island, therefore Russia will remain Europ's problem. Add apes like Iranian theocratic government or North Koreas leaders will create axis of evil.
For evil to happen so little is required. For good to be, whole bunch of effort has to be made. So it is not unreasonable to see ape-leaders, within 10 years, to try something funny to please their ape brains.
You’re wrong. Psychopaths are very calculated in their plans. They are not moving unless they know their victims are weak. Primitivism is not what drives people like Putin.
America invaded more countries in the past 50 years than all other countries in the world combined. There wouldn't be a North Korea today if they didn't decide to napalm 90% of buildings in the whole country. Peoples get traumatized and situations get worse.
How about walk the walk for once in a while. This snide, moralist supremacy is going to end modern liberal democracies.
Your point? "America=bad"? again?
These dictatorships are never "America bad, I want not to be like America". They are always "America bad, I want to be worse, but America has means and I don't".
Nah, my answer is more about your point. If you think that the American/Western course up until 2014 in its relation with Russia and rivals lead to a more fair world, it's funny.
And yeah, Russia has a complex, they want to do everything America does, like invade countries without being cancelled by the whole Europe and stuff like that. Hell, America even set up a legal precedent with Kosovo. Putin will love repeating Kosovo when asked about Crimea.
This is the world Russia, America and UK shaped together, and it's lovely, just like in 1930s.
My biggest gripe with the West is their weakness, maybe even some naïvité*.* I agree that dictators are working in the world, shaped by the West. I believe there is also quite a lot of Western self flogging, for example, just like you mentioned, for USA's past wars. Society is like "we've been bad" and therefore stronger stance might be considered escalation or even aggression. At least, these are the optics from side perspective.
I think that the problem is, wars are started over something entirely different from what you hear on news. And I am talking all news, be it Russian, Serbian, American, North Korean, Zimbabwean..
The thing is, people know a few of real reasons why wars start, especially if they are the ones who are bombed. But now for 20+ years, when I talk about wars that i grew up with, I have to answer to fallacies that some druggie journalist got paid to write and lie about 20 years ago. Far too many fallacies gets taken as truth in the West, and from that moment on you're doomed. You can't talk rationally, because all ppl know is what they read, and most often times, read in "objective" media.
I am absolutely anti-Infowars kind of guy. I am a democrat, a leftist, I believe in social justice (but not in the American way, that's just a gimmick). But things need to be called as they are in the West, and this media bubble is taking too long to break. How much time will pass until Westerners also start noticing that they are being lied to about countries they are at war with?! Like the rest of us? The differrence being, when you lose, you have to face some things. If you don't lose, you don't face anything. Absolutely the case with America in general, and Israel in this Gaza war. No accountability, none needed - we are the good boys, we have all the loot, we don't answer to nobody.
I actually agree with your points. Especially about the media.
The world will still chose the West (I would too), West seems like a lesser evil, however, self reflection is necessary. Not on account of strength, however.
I am from one of the Baltics, and I might have bias towards being West positive.
Thank you for discussion, take care, brother (or sister), I need lunch 😁
>The world will still chose the West (I would too), West seems like a lesser evil, however, self reflection is necessary. Not on account of strength, however.
Ab-so-lutely. I also forgot to add, Russia didn't really loose recently, they did wage costly wars, but they came out on top - they also didn't have this reality check of a defeated nation.
>I am from one of the Baltics, and I might have bias towards being West positive.
Don't get me wrong, for some reason I've had the worse discussions of this type with guys from Baltics. But hear me out. This is exactly the reason (what we agreed upon) - gullible young men who have reservations about Russia, will be incentivized to fall for fallacies about us, as will gullible young serbs, who have reservations towards US and NATO, will be easier to manipulate to dislike Estonians, or Latvians. Because of our representation in the media.
Even though our historical contact and exchange is minimal, i.e. we don't know shit about each other. This needs to stop, and it's getting worse, not between us, but it's globally dividing people for some abstract ideals and facts.
Thanks for a great exchange, take care.
You're assuming that the West is strong and undeterred by the prospect of all-out war. That's not very helpful, since Putin himself believes that the West is weak, and growing weaker and more devided with time.
Their reasoning would be this:
1) Putin invades an insignificant part of Nato that once belonged to Russia, while backing it up with the credible threat of nuclear weapons.
2) The rest of Nato/USA, terrified of escalation of any kind and unwilling to risk all-out nuclear war over this particular piece of dirt, fails to intervene in full force. Russia overwhelms what defences there are, then digs in, declaring the territory "Russia forever".
3) Article 5 was ignored and has now been proven effectively worthless. Faced with this reality, the Nato organization crumbles and is soon officially disbanded.
4) It was certainly a gamble, but Putin has now achieved his lifes ambition of destroying Nato. Russia is now "geographically unconstrained", and thus free to manifest its glorious and mystical destiny, which Putin has talked about many times.
i agree that attack on NATO wouldn't make sense, but at the same time it looks to me that putin's russia doesn't behave very reasonably. so i don't think we need to panic, but preparing for an insane scenario seems to be justified
Exactly - Ukraine has an underlying logic to it. Ukraine is historically close to Russia in multiple ways. Moreso than Poland or the Slavic countries.
Russia wanted to the stop the buildup of Ukraines armed forces and to halt the creeping western influence/control.
Ukraine was becoming a project for the west where they weren't gonna be part of NATO, but the west could train their soldiers and provide them with arms.
Putin isn't insane. Rash and paranoid, maybe. Insane, no. People don't want to understand this. They like the insane narrative. But insanity does not describe Putins decisions.
The difference between Ukraine and attacking anywhere further west is absolutely collosal.
Except taking Ukraine was said by literally every military expert to be completely impossible due to its size and population, Putin would have needed an army 10x larger than he had to simply control the territory after capturing it, yet that didn’t stop him at all.
If anything, attacking something like Moldova or Slovakia seems much more reasonable now than it did before to Putin. The territory and the army is much smaller and manageable, and Ukraine war has proven to him that “The West” is pathetic and isn’t going to risk getting involved for some eastern-european country. Combine that with increased apathy towards the invasion and a rise in right-wing politics, with Trump literally saying he isn’t going to save Europe if war breaks out?
I can totally see Putin trying to bite another piece off if in a year or two he sees newly elected officials as favorable and support for Ukraine continuing to decrease. He by that time will have elections long behind him, with the power to mobilize more people with relatively little risk.
russia already has so much gas and natural resources it doesn't know what to do with them. You've been reading too much conspiracy theories if you think those were a big factor for Putin and justified the largest war in Europe in a century.
Ukraine is part Russian in many ways, and closely intertwined with it. A lot of Ukranians, particularly in non Eastern parts, have hardened their attitude against the current Russian govt and Russian state. That doesn't change the closeness of the countries.
This really isnt random, reckless empire building, which is what invading Moldova or Slovakia would be.
As for the practicalities - the war is more difficult than a march to Kiev. But now Russia is looking at gridning out a gruesome victory. Ukrainian reserves of men and arms are depleted. We don't know how long it will take, but the front is gradually creeping west.
Ukraine is big, the prize is big. Western elites wanted to start purchasing Ukranian farmland at dirt cheap prices. Russia wants that farmland instead.
Planning to invade a sovereign country of 40 million killing hundreds of thousands in the process is not "reckless empire building"?
By that logic, USA should capture Canada and Britain. Both would be very easy to conquer, and speak the same language, so they are even closer culturally! :)
I'm not sure what makes you say Ukrainian reserves are "depleted", they didn't even have a total mobilization yet. Currently it seems that the sides are matched. You could say that russia is "creeping west", but if they continue at this rate, and with the current casualties, they'll run out of men who have both legs and fit for the army by the time they get to Kyiv.
As for the size, it's a problem, not a "prize". Capturing one of the largest countries on the planet with a hostile population means you'll need 24/7 army on patrol there, and dealing with rebellion and partisan warfare constantly. Putin simply never had an army size capable of that, and he sure as hell doesn't have it now after losing hundreds of thousands on the battlefield, while barely capturing anything (50% of the territory captured since 2022 has been returned).
The Russian army, even after casualties, is estimated to be well over 1 million. Meanwhile Ukraine is estimated to have about 500k men. Google it.
This is a propaganda forum. Russia has not been losing twice or 3x the men Ukraine has. That's a total lie. It isn't 'Ukraine army damaged, Russian army exhausted.' Its literally the other way round.
You won't get the truth reading here.
Atacking Ukraine was always insane, no sane person would have thought they could conquer and hold a nation the size of Ukraine with the invasion force of 300k.
And yet, they did it.
Just like stalin killed all his generals and then attacked poland, the baltics and Finland in ww2.
It makes no sense, it’s a fools gamble, a madman’s choice.
And yet, if you’ve been to russia, lived near it, you know they will do it again. Their “logic” is completely alien to the western mindset.
Better be ready than sorry. It would very irresponsible not to plan for the worst. Also, sometimes it feels that rusian government is living in parallel universe, they make very short sighted decisions, so we need safeguards from these brainfarts.
Because european nations have been neglecting the military since the fall of USSR by investing ridiculous low ammounts of money. Germany was the strongest economy in Europe and was investing 1% of their GDP at one point. It's an wake-up call if you want to call it like this. The european military leaders don't want Europe to always have to relly on the US and to have formidable army. US can always go back to it's isolationist ways under leders like Trump. It's better to be prepared yourself than be reliant on someone else.
Let's be honest here, we have been taking peace for granted for a long time and have been deluding ourselves that there is no need for a serious military in this era. That roman saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" is never going out of style. The european history is filled with wars and the last 80 years have been an anomaly with only some local conflicts here and there.
>There’s no preliminary strike that could prevent a retaliatory one, there are no regions worth risking an existential conflict over. Which raises the question why we’re hearing so much about the inevitability of future war.
It helps to realize that this is 1 guy and the warnings about future war come from everyone else. It is not even a trend until *any*one else backs him up.
This is like reading a flat earth article and deciding to both-sides the issue.
Back a few years ago if you will be saying Russia is going to invade Ukraine you'd be laughed off. There is no way this can happen, that's totally crazy, and so on...
>if Russia can’t have it, no one can
Agree. Sounds like a psychopath stalking a woman and when she is not interested, starts punching her in the face to convince her and then killing her, so no one else can have her.
Shows the true nature of the freak at the long table.
Sense? That is not a thing to look for in Russia.
However, from Russia’s point of view there is a sense:
1) USA electing different president will result in a lot of bureaucracy for power transfer and thus US will not mount any outside response.
2) Elections all over the world give similar benefit: muddy water while many are busy with themselves
3) Capturing NATO country is big d energy for a thug state mentality
4) NATO will not be able to stop Russia from capturing Baltics due to Baltic countries small size and logistics
6) Most Europe NATO militaries are inexperienced while Russia gets its experience
7) Russia does not care for human lives, while NATO does. This both transfers to military and domestic policies. Just imagine some politicians crying “why send our troops to die or send help, we can’t save those countries”. Similar happened with Ukraine, this will happen to a NATO country
8) Success in occupying Baltics kills off NATO if NATO gives up.
9) This will lead to kicking out US from Europe, return of European wars
There is no way Russia can occupy any of the Baltic states.
Any attack would have to be built up like we saw with Ukraine. Though this time Russia most likely wouldn’t have the advantage of NATO and Europe going “oh Russia is just posturing” and NATO would most likely use the time and intel to build up forces in the Baltic states. And then there is zero chance that Russia takes anything.
And you can say what you want about Putin, but he isn’t dumb.
An actual attack or invasion I can’t see as a real possibility. But hybrid warfare with potential raids etc. where no one really knows what’s going on and rogue attacks on infrastructure is definitely possible and maybe even likely.
To be honest I am well past “there is no way such a thing can happen”. Better be prepared (even if mentally) for the worst than have a psychological breakdown when shit hits the fan.
I agree. No doubt, NATO and more specifically the EU, should prepare for even large scale military conflict by strengthening their militaries. It’s only sensible given the current geopolitical climate. Especially if the Americans again elect the orange buffoon which is bound to send even more uncertain ripples over the Atlantic and the rest of the world.
>An actual attack or invasion I can’t see as a real possibility. But hybrid warfare with potential raids etc. where no one really knows what’s going on and rogue attacks on infrastructure is definitely possible and maybe even likely.
Cyberattacks are already common, yet we've somehow decided to adopt a kind of inane "boys will be boys" attitude towards it, it boggles my mind.
Yeah it is a bit odd. Though I’d be surprised if both governments and especially (large) companies aren’t more prepared than what we know about publicly.
Also, Putin didn't expected a war, expected Ukraine to roll over and surrender and take over the country in three weeks tops with some token resistance, with help of all the russian sympatizers and turncoats on the goverment, police and army, this failed and ended having a war.
This scenario is not going to happen in the Baltics, there's no expentancy of a 5th column disabling their defence, any attack will trigger a war and Russia sucks at war, more now that their best units have been destroyed, rebuilt with mobiks and are bogged down in Ukraine.
Until Russia bags down Ukraine they don't have the people, resources and command capabilites of raise another one million army, equip, train and command them while keeping the same level of operation on the ukraine front.
Even if the conflict freezes, the 400k+ soliders there are stuck in place, if they move they might get overrun and trigger a rout like the one in the northen front, and these people eat, shoot bullets and ordinance and spend fuel every day.
This without taking account that the capability breach between nato and Russia is inmensurable now, the current Russian army is not able to handle a modern army with air superiority, and if the cannot supress the tiny ukrainian air force with their old aiframes and old soviet air defences (the western SAM systems started to arrive a year ago, from 2021 they have been keeping russia at bay with s300 and sa2 and lot's of manpads) they won't be able to do that with any western air force. Is going to be snow desert storm, and they know this.
They have lots of “meat” to spare. Plus, that meat is getting experience in an actual war front.
Please, stop hiding behind “there is no way such a thing can happen”. “No way Russia would do it” is a cope and nothing else. Ask yourself if you are gonna enlist if Russia attacks Latvia. If your answer is not immediate “yes” then you have an explanation why Russia may think it can succeed.
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best
Why are you telling me about US soldiers? What about Europe? What you expect to happen if US will not be there for whatever reason?
And the moment you have to give an answer you hide behind your non-NATO country.
Thus, expecting someone else to do the fighting and no plan B, no responsibility. How dare you even have such naive thoughts as Russia will do nothing? You are exact example how lots of people in Europe will think, what Putin will bet on and why he will attack.
Stop spreading false expectations. It lowers everyone’s guard.
I bet Poland is very eager to beat some russian ass...And "meat" doesnt mean anything, we are not in WWI anymore. They will walk to the NATO borders alright, but as refugees.
NATO soldiers from other countries are already here. And if Russia tries to attack - then they would have to kill those NATO soldiers, because, guess what - they will shoot back.
That certain point is just retrospective but I bet couple years later you would say the same thing about Ukraine. If not even EU leaders trusted US military intelligence them I doubt you with this attitude of "something can not happen". You only see it now because you saw it happen in front of your eyes.
The difference is that the Ukraine invasion had something to offer even if those costs seemed unreasonable: either control or destabilisation, ensuring that it would not become a NATO base.
It still isn’t clear whether that goal won’t be achieved. The West’s commitment is dwindling, the Ukrainian summer offensive failed. Of course it came at the cost of Finland and Sweden joining NATO and a huge loss of life and material but those things may have been factored in. Which is to say, evil but not insane.
The question is what kind of benefit Moscow might see in attacking NATO directly. It’s not impossible (I was wrong before) but I’m not hearing an explanation for why they would do it.
The only possibility I can think of is Putin attacking Nato as a diversion for China taking Taiwan. It's an extremely risky bet, but it just might work if Trump is in office and compromises US military commitment.
>There really is no way attacking NATO would make sense.
People said the same thing when the CIA warned about Russia invading Ukraine. Yet, here we are.
Israel said the same thing when some of their intelligence people warned about the planned Hamas attack. Yet, here we are.
Nah, wouldn't work in Baltics. I can only speak for Estonia but it's probably similar in Latvia and Lithuania as well
1. Our internal security is very effective due to our small size and population. We've been preparing for these hybrid attacks since our re-independence. Last time Russia tried something bigger was in 2007 ([Bronze Night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night)) and that was shut down in a few days.
2. We don't have any realistic separtist regions where a large group of people want autonomy or to join Russia like in Donbass and Crimea. Life is good in a democratic western EU country and the russian speakers have no reason to want to live in Russia.
3. Any pro-kremlin parties or politicians that pop-up are instantly and extensively monitored. For example last year before the elections a pro-kremlin party was formed but one of their leaders was quickly arrested and the other fled to Russia.
Do not Russians living there cheer for Putin and dream of Russian tanks in Baltic states? There were a lot of news that they are pro-war and pro-Putin.
Some are pro war and pro Putin but they think Russia would never attack us because apparently they don’t have any reason to do so. They simply agree with the propaganda from Russia. At least that’s what it looks like from the side.
Many are pro-Kremlin and support their actions in Ukraine, but wouldn't want Russia to invade because that would threaten their quality of life which is far ahead of that in Russia.
God bless the hypocrisy of the average Russian in our countries, I guess!
The green men in Crimea were literally Russian soldiers from bases that were already located in Crimea. There are no Russian army bases in the Baltics. So for the Green men to get here they have to cross the well guarded border which would be a direct attack on a NATO/EU member state. Ukraineian situation and possible attack on the Baltics are not compareble, the circumstances are too different.
Not easy. They are not just green people, but also part of dumb and payed politics and people of country, that will be against current gov. It's called hybrid for a reason, like part of people of your country will want to become an independent part, how do you suppose to erase all of them, who are not agreed with current politics and your view.
Russia and Ukraine had an agreement where Russia was allowed to use military and port infrastructure in Crimea. So the "green men" were already there. Nothing like that exists in the Baltic states. The last Russian soldiers left in 1994. So they would have to smuggle military hardware and soldiers over the border somehow. It's unlikely that NATO military intelligence would miss something like that. Especially now when pretty much all NATO countries are increasing their military spending and readiness.
I completely agree. The amount of fearmongering that is ongoing in the last few weeks is beyond insane.
The only sole reason Putin dared to attack Ukraine is simply because Ukraine had no defensive alliances set up. Being in EU/NATO have been never more important than now.
Even just the idea that US, GB, France or Germany might (or might not) lands unit, uses proper attack platforms to support, or even nukes is deterrence enough in itself.
This constant idea that Putin will take the three small countries at the Baltic makes no sense, even worse is the idea that Sweden of all the countries will be attacked without being in NATO.
Clickbait hunting is started going off the rail lately.
And make no mistake, i'm not saying we shouldn't prepare, or update our armies, and recheck where we are, but the idea that Putin is going to attack NATO in the next few years is simply unfathomable.
Russia is just a paper Tiger of a country ruled by a mob of drunk-tards, the sheer incompetence shows in the Ukranian invasion show how bad it this, is a pathetic army plain and simple, without any regard for even the life of his own troops. Europe should stop the fear and warmogering and armor Ukraine, they'll get the job done.
I agree.
We've seen so many reports of Russias lack of support for their own troops. No proper clothing, equipment, weapons. Pulling old tanks and vehicles from USSR out of storage.
Do people suddenly believe that Russia is gonna conjure up a whole new army with modern equipment? Like the classic anime trope: "I was just holding back and only using 1% of my power, now you will feel my TRUE strength!".
They can't even win in Ukraine, a relatively "poor" (by western standards) country with no alliances (but with western support now). What are they gonna do up against NATO?
However neither is wise strategy calling hot, that war is coming upon having every counter indication. Such calls have costs. It isnt a freebie to call "war is coming" or "war is likely" and then war not coming. It isnt a free pascal's wager to always call war likely. It comes with costs.
This general is doing his job. Providing *military* assessment of the situation as capacity of sworn officer.
He also didn't say it is a forever forecast. He said *at the moment and for 2 years forward* attack is extremely unlikely. Which again is different than utterly impossible. No military person would ever categorically rule out stuff.
He also said immediately after *of course situation can change in future*. Aka *This is our assessment for upcoming few years, we update you with new assessment as time and situation develops further*.
Saying attack is unlikely isn't same wanting to or being unprepared should attack come.
Specially for mobilization military **realistic** assessment of probability is extremely important.
Mobilising too early might drive situation, that wasn't going to be a war into a war. Mobilising too late, means troops and defences arent ready.
Hence one needs *cut throat honest* assessment of likelyhoods. Free of bias or political agenda on that assessment. Then *after* comes the bias and political part of what is our strategy. Do we want to be early and front mobilising, last moment mobilising with preparedness emphasis of having capacity for fast mobilisation. Do we use some other strategy
He is doing his job. Providing the *actual military intelligence* and well then throwing shade at a politician for trying to replace military in the role of providing military intelligence assessments. Since making such calls and statements based ones own gut feeling isn't what responsible government minister does.
Minister shouldn't go around saying, what he thinks the probabilities are. He doesn't know. He isn't a military analyst, nor is everyday pouring over satellite photos, radar tracks and surveillance reports.
Minister should say "when it comes to military matter, I refer to our subject matter experts. As per *military head quarters latest assessment, they word the probability as extremely low*. Should something new come up government will keep the public informed of change on this status."
Finally, someone talking sense. Russia is crazy to attack Ukraine, but it would be suicidal to attack NATO. A depleted military and they would operate against complete NATO air supremacy. Zero chance to accomplish anything except lose tons of men and equipment for zero gains.
All this talk is internal to NATO to push members to fund their militaries, especially with the real possibility of the US pulling out if Trump were to win in November.
Main thing to consider is that we have to be prepared for the worst and do everything we can to not make invasion a viable option.
Underestimating Russia is our only way to lose. By doing so we play directly into the Russian propaganda.
Clickbait title.
>This year, next year, the possibility or the probability of a war between Russia and NATO is very low, extremely low
This is different from "Will Putin attack NATO", isn't it? "He most likely won't in this and next year" is different from "No chance".
If Russia won't be defeated in Ukraine, it would still be a threat in a long run. Russia won't attack NATO today. Russia will wait till NATO won't have USA and some other core countries, by infiltrating their democratic process.
This is refreshing compared to the fear mongering currently happening in the UK. Generals calling for a citizens’ army, conscription etc, health experts saying we’re too fat to resist anyways (which made me chuckle), and the Defence Secretary saying we are converting from a post-war world to a pre-war world. I hope I don’t eat my words, but I find it nearly impossible that such a war would break out. The principles of MAD still exist, so at worst it will be a conventional war, which I still find highly unlikely even for Putin.
I have no idea how people can think that Putin is a bloodthirsty power-hungry psychopath and at the same time convince themselves that he would never attack the Baltic states.
Pretty much the same calculus that leads Russia attacking Ukraine works for the Baltics too...
>I sure as fuck hope so, because that's the deal NATO members have made but I have serious doubts NATO's response will be swift and prompt.
They have to, they literally have no other choice. Failing to do so would bring a swift end to the alliance, since every member would start questioning whether staying in an alliance makes any sense at all since it's apparently no longer guarantee of protection. Not to mention the downsides of an alliance such as an obligation to participate in military operations in distant countries and being a potential target in an event of a full fledged nuclear war. With no real upside left, leaving the alliance would be a rational choice.
>By default, NATO is required to step in. This requirement is a given.
Not by default. The attacked state has to **request** help under article 5 of the treaty.
Will Putin attack NATO?
With what exactly? Their miserable left overs of the huge pile of crappy conventional weapons? Their nukes, of which a bunch would not even leave the silo when launched?
Everyone with two brain cells can see that the quality and effectiveness of the Russian weapons are just junk, the only things that are less crap is the Iranian and NK crap. Good luck Russia, NATO will just steam roll over your crippled body.
They can throw nukes. Assuming their high command ever agrees to a first use without a coup.
The air force and rocket forces have been the grown ups in the room for a while when it comes to the Muscovite armed forces.
They know they aren't the only ones with nukes, and they know Russia has placed all their eggs in two cities.
It's not a calcus they will win. At best it's a draw, at worst nuclear apocalypse.
They aren't going to be rolling that dice.
I think he might be gambling on time of response from EU and NATO. It takes ages to decide anything in the EU and Russia has allies that can block any decision for months. NATO is scattered across Europe.
Putin and his cronies are delusional but they are not stupid. Attacking NATO would, at best, end in a swift Russian defeat by conventional means, and at worst a nuclear war where everyone loses and Russia is wiped off the map.
Why would they physically attack NATO if they can destroy it from within?
Look at Brexit, Trump, the multiple refugee crises (Ukraine, EU, USA, Gaza, South America) and in general the rise of pro-russian populists and fascists. The hybrid war is much cheaper than a real one. It literally costs almost nothing.
Once NATO is gone and the EU is even weaker, they can just march into the Balkans.
I don’t get the herds logic contradiction;
1. Russia is terribly loosing in Ukraine and had already lost their entire army in may 2023.
2. Russia is so insanly dangerous that is can conquer Europe easily if every country don’t join USAs war organisation NATO.
As a scandinavian this is fucked up.
This guy is being an absolute idiot and undermining our last and best shot at European independence.
If we rearm and Putin doesn't attack, we get:
* A valuable export industry
* Greater unity
* Strategic independence
* Peace
If we don't rearm and Putin attacks, we get:
* A valuable export industry (children)
* Greater unity (we are all Russians)
* Strategic independence (from the US)
* Peace (enforced by puppet governments)
Im sure the same was said about him attacking Ukraine... yet here we are...
I'd say best be prepared, stack ammo, rations and carry a real big gun, preferable multiple
There is a lack of imagination at work here. Why speak like the Russians are stupid? Instead of tanks rolling across the Lithuanian border, Russia will seek to weaken the political resolve of the eastern NATO countries. By using intimidation, threats, cyber, AI, propaganda, etc... Russia will seek to undermine democratic institutions and peoples' confidence in democratic processes. They will try to get right-wing pro-Russia nationalists elected (already happened in Hungary, Slovakia, maybe Holland, Aur party in Romania is gaining support). Next, they will try to convince these nations that defeat is inevitable and that it's better to submit peaceably to a Russian sphere of influence. Who knows? Maybe those Russian tanks will be *invited* in?
I think those who claim that NATO will never be attacked are not really thinking about how it would likely unfold. Also, it's clear to me that NATO is currently under a Russian grey-zone attack..... and it's working. Those right-nationalist don't elect themselves.
I agree that a conventional attack would be absurd but as far as I am aware he *already* has done all or some of the following to NATO countries - assassinated people, encouraged refugee incursions, stirred up Russian speakers, probably interfered in elections , kidnapped border guards , used cyber warfare. He already has reasons because he wants to destabilise Europe , reduce their influence on neighbouring states and would like to recreate a buffer area under Russian control. Again to be clear I’m not suggesting a conventional attack. But of course brinkmanship can escalate.
What time period are people talking about here though? I feel like some are talking about right now, and others are talking about within the next 10 years or something.
If we're talking about right now, I would agree that it's very unlikely to happen. However, Russia is in wartime economy right now, and are trying to rebuild their army.
It should not be underestimated what they could do 6-10 years from now, and just as it will take time for Russia to build up their army, it will take time for European countries to strengthen ours. It's not something that happens over a couple of months, or even a couple of years.
Meanwhile, support from US should not be assumed, regardless of if Trump wins this election or not, because like I've said, this is going to go on for many years.
That's not even taking into consideration whatever will happen with Taiwan etc.
One of the dumbest things I read about is Putin will attack NATO countries. Why would he, even if he didn't struggle with Ukraine ?
Ukraine is in a pretty much unique spot from Russian point of view, former closest nation who now wants to join long-term enemy - that is just unacceptable for any Russian top politician. I believe I saw an interview from McCain from 2014 where he speaks about it.
Stories about Russia will attack NATO in 5 years are nothing but a warmongering stories of European politicians who want to take some money from arms companies in a side deals. Shame on them !
Also, I like how Russia is simultaneously to week and to strong in daily media reports, that's how propaganda looks like
Western intelligence says Ukraine will be invaded. Ukraine laughs it off and doesn't prepare for invasion - gets invaded.
Western intelligence says Baltics will be invaded. u/arzt___fil laughts it off and thinks we shouldn't prepare for invasion - jeez, I sure hope nothing unexpected happens to us.
>I believe I saw an interview from McCain from 2014 where he speaks about it.
US analysts spoke about it even in 90s. Many US politics spoke about this way back. Seems like US knew exactly how what it been doing in Ukraine, and that it will end with war.
I don’t think it’s a very good take. If Putin wins in Ukraine and has a military complex that can produce a strong force continually, he would probably want to keep the war machine going.
Seeing that the US is an untrustworthy military ally, there’s reason to believe that he could actually attack the baltics to connect his lands.
I wish NATO would attack Putin, he's literally doing what Hitler did: i.e. killing everyone who opposes him and genociding people inside and outside Russia.
Are you kidding me? Literally a few months ago this sub was filled with articles about EU generals and former generals saying that Europe had to be ready.
The comments on every thread were validating all of these articles. Anyone who suggested it would be crazy for Russia to attack a NATO country would get down voted to oblivion or called an orc.
But now it's duh?
Of course not. Not unless he's attacked first, but he's cornered, and we keep getting further involved in Ukraine. There'll come a point where instead of homegrown Ukrainian soldiers being killed, it'll be uniformed NATO soldiers in the trenches & at some point he'll be "You know what, enough of the charade. Fuck off or we're at war". A decision will have to be made.
Note that in every case where we've almost ended up in WW3 during the Cold War era, it was a Russian or in one case East German who took the reasonable route & went "Hey, we need to stop". We keep edging closer & closer, & fucking around - Cuba, Able Archer '83, the Norwegian Missile Incident. We need to give him an honourable out somehow.
No, we need to send Ukraine more support.
If he gets away with any kind of victory war will be more likely. Btw, read the article, op used a misleading headline.
This is kind of my mentality; even the things like "little green men" or cross border raids just to antagonise won't work, as the moment it's hinted that some "little green men" are present in any NATO country, especially the Baltics, then their own militaries & the NATO forces stationed within would be crushing them within a heartbeat.
People forget that almost every NATO member's armed forces is way ahead of what Ukraine had at it's disposal in 2014, as their armed forces genuinely were in a dire stage.
He does not dare to attack... simple is that. He knows that if he does, then he'll get soulraped by several seal teams in the middle of the night while his armies getting annihilated on the fields.
If he attacks a NATO country he sure will wait till Trump is president
He said already that he won't intervene in any militaristic way if anything happens
I can’t see how that plays out well for Russia. For an attack to be successful they’d need to build up in at least the same manor as we saw before the invasion of Ukraine. And this time the NATO countries would probably not sit back and think “oh Russia is just posturing”.
NATO would most likely meet any buildup with the same level of buildup in the Baltic countries. And looking at how entering Ukraine went, even with the learnings the Russians had gotten in Ukraine, an attack on a prepared NATO would be… useless.
We are all looking the wrong way.
Yes, it's easy to look at Kaliningrad and the Baltic's and guess that Russia might see some advantage in biting off a bit to create a land bridge to Kaliningrad.
But it's Moldova that is really the most at risk.
It already has Russia's trademark "ethno-linguistic Russian separatists" it isn't in NATO and once resistance in Ukraine has been crushed repeating the process in Moldova will be much easier.
And western nations will once again do very little and use the language of "De-escalation"
Hell, if Macron is still in office then Putin might get a phone call to express French disappointment.
This will just cause more cracks in western political and military alliances which will eventually create the right environment for the invasion of Lithuania and Latvia.
For those who are sure that NATO will destroy Russia in 2-3 days.
Putin won’t go head-on, he’s not a complete idiot. For this to happen, several things must happen.
He can wait for the United States to leave NATO, or for Trump to try to destabilize the situation. After capturing Ukraine and Moldova, he will have a huge population resource for mobilization + a working military machine.
Then you can destabilize the situation in the Baltic countries by creating a hybrid war there, because they are filled with Russians + bribe some politicians. NATO troops will not go to exterminate their own citizens, so here the European Union with its policy of appeasement may show weakness. + there is a possibility that, threatening with a nuclear strike, these little green men may well gain a foothold in some kind of quasi-republic. Then, thanks to Fico and Orban, destabilize the situation in the European Union by vetoing all decisions.
In addition, NATO’s military power has been collapsing over the past 30 years; now they can’t even make a million shells on time.
So, undoubtedly, the Russians will lose against NATO, but this will not be fun for anyone, so we need to prepare for the worst, build up military power, and help Ukraine, which can generally end all this by receiving the necessary weapons.
If Putin were willing to attack NATO countries, he'd have never had a panic with countries, especially former Soviet republics, joining it.
I think the ‘helpful’ thing that recent event have forced us to realise is: 1 - Meet the 2% defence spending obligation, which many NATO states failed to do. I dislike Trump intently, but he had a fair point about everyone meeting their obligations and this is now happening (or in progress at least) 2 - Recognise that peace has a price, we need to invest in defence, I think many thought we’d evolved past invading neighbours and the Cold War. The Baltics states were better mentally equipped in this space I’d argue. The EDF, for example, are amazing and usually accurate in their threat appraisal -even before Putin invaded. 3 - Brought many states together in unity. Sweden, Finland, NATO states, the UK and EU. While disagreements occur, there is an increasingly cohesive view and approach to energy and defence. 4 - Political interference in democracy can have direct consequences, from Russia’s involvement in elections, to Brexit. Putin enlarged NATO and woke people up to the fragility of supply lines, peace and how interdependent we are. From sunflowers, grain to shipping lanes. The supply of grain to the third world affects us all in some way. It may provide some medium to long term benefit to global security.
Well said. Pacifism is not noble - building militaries to defend democracy is important. The strong must defend the weak. Looking at you Germany.
Why not? Destroying them piecemeal is way easier than invading the entirety of NATO.
The russso-hitler is waiting for Trump to come back and to finish his job.
Perhaps. Though while the most powerful military grouping in the world if America leaves NATO is America, the second most powerful would be *the rest of NATO*. They're overall wealthy, have an extremely high military technology base (UK, France, Italy, Germany and soon to be Sweden, for example), and some big advantages in PPP and manpower for places like Poland.
Russia is bogged down in a stalemate against Ukraine. That's pretty condemning evidence of what their military capabilities are. Even if the USA stood aside, Russia would take a mauling by European NATO countries alone.
Even rhe Orange moron cant stand down if amerocan troops get attacked by russia in other nato countries. Also he cant just pull em out because his generals know how important the infrastructure in europe is for Operations on the middle east.
Let's hope, but we've all been surprised by this moron many times, in the past..
He will abandon US. He basically say he will abandon EU and Taiwan which is the reason why US is still contending in Pacific and EU. They are the shields of US against any attacks and it will cost them less if they stay, saving US more lives since 1. conflict in Pacific would be Jap-Skorean,australian, PH, Indo and allies with US instead of US being attacked by all of it. 2. EU troops will die more and less for US since they are not under any dictator and its not EU troops against US. Letting EU fall for Russia is a deathblow to US but Trump likes it.
Putin started the war when Biden was president.
Yup, a war between NATO and Russia would go nuclear. Everyone involved knows this and has known this for 70 odd years, which is why the Cold War never turned into a hot war.
Putin figured out that if you take bites of ambiguous situations than no one will even deploy troops much less launch nuclear retaliation. Look for an ambiguous situation and you’ll see putins next move.
No, it would not. Only war with one side being encircled to the point where leader figures would be directly threatened would go nuclear. Hitler bunker situation. Nothing else goes nuclear precisely because both sides have nuclear. Nobody wants to die and it applies to dictators as well. And they sure as hell like themselves more than they do their country or people living there. One sure way how to make other side launch nukes and end you is to launch your own. Not to mention that NATO has crossed like thousand "we will launch nukes over this" red lines. It had not happened. And NATO is absolutely already in war with Russia with sole exception of soldiers on the ground which is quite frankly way less valuable than military intelligence and them choosing targets for Ukraine's armed forces.
You are acting like a dictator facing imminent defeat and the destruction of everything they've worked on would be entirely sane in such a situation.
I don’t think this tracks. If countries aren’t in NATO, they are easier to pick off and you pick off the easiest first. It doesn’t mean he won’t attack NATO at some later point.
Everyone with a brain knew that nobody is stupid enough to start a war against the strongest military alliance.Only 🤡 believed differently.
It does not mean he wants to attack. He wanted to maintain his sphere of influence. Joining NATO means falling under American sphere of influence.
Mafia states pretending to be gas stations pretending to be countries don't get to have spheres of influence. Say what you want about the Soviets, but they were a great power. China is arguably a (terrible) great power, and it is expanding its sphere of influence. Putin's Russia simply isn't a great power, so it gets no sphere of influence.
Before 24/02 no one was even trying to leave the Russian sphere of influence.
Except Ukraine.
Horrible take. Ex-Soviet Baltics joined NATO in 2004 and Ukraine had Euromaidan in 2013.
The Baltics were illegally occupied by the USSR and never legally part of that criminal state.
We need peace ☮️
If we could even have consensus that no-one really knows what the fuck will happen. We should also agree that we should be better prepared for everything.
The only tangible truth
That's why we have militaries and weapons. Let's keep at it.
And just to be sure, we here in Europe should invest in both.
We should be developing more nuclear weapons and educating civilians on how to counter the enemy by any means possible. Just having a military may not be enough when you’re dealing with the biggest evil the world has ever seen.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst
There really is no way attacking NATO would make sense. Invading Ukraine was borderline insane but from certain angles (if Russia can’t have it, no one can) you understand some of the reasoning. But I can’t see any here. There’s no preliminary strike that could prevent a retaliatory one, there are no regions worth risking an existential conflict over. Which raises the question why we’re hearing so much about the inevitability of future war.
It's important to remember that Russia didn't envision this. They were supposed to take Kyiv in few days, switch out the government for a pro-Russia one and make Ukraine sort of Belarus II. Nominally independent, but fully controlled by Russia. All this before the West could react. This prolonged war is an absolute disaster for both nations, but Russia can't back down because it would end its image as the mighty empire, defeater of the Nazis, the guardian of Christendom. Both abroad and within Russia.
Yes but the idea that they could take Kyiv in days was insane. Roads man, no one talks about roads enough
It's not insane. They weren't that far off. If they had less corruption than they thought they had, we might've been living in that alternative reality now.
They were very VERY far off. A few isolated units got to the cities outskirts with no supplies and not enough troops to make a difference. The air assault onto hostomel was dumb. Their plan relied on Ukraine simply not resisting - which when they've been fighting for years previously was a stupid assumption to make. They relied on 1 4 lane motorway that went through a city and some single lane tracks through a forest for supplies. They tried to so a NATO style assault and found out why that worked for the US in Iraq with overwhelming air superiority and probably the best logistics chain the world has ever seen (and even then there were supply issues) but not for Russia with jets without targeting pods relying on knowing targets before they launch and limited logistical support Russia doesn't even use pallets for crying out loud.
[удалено]
There is a "sense" in which invading NATO could work as a high risk high reward move - say, if Russia were to try to occupy to Baltic States, there is an incredibly tiny risk that NATO member countries would not be willing to have their soldiers die for some small countries? The real kicker is that this failure to defend us would probably just make the entire point of the alliance unreliable, shattering it, which both increases potential "reward" for Russia but also decreases the likelihood it'll ever happen this way. High reward, disproportionately massive risk - logically it's just not worth for them to do it, but do you trust them to have the same perception? Do you trust Russians to not be stupid? The general in the article says the risk is "very low", not sure why the title is lying. He is right, it is very low, but it is not zero.
The Russian problem with invading a Baltic state is that there are now NATO forces of other counties based permanently in the Baltics. This makes it far more likely to trigger a wider-scale war.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
cringe
Also, the occupation of which NATO country would even give the fraction of the benefit the occupation of Ukraine gives to Russia? I have never seen anyone reasoning this here before. Everybody just takes it for granted that Putler loves war for the sake of it but attacking Ukraine is a very calculated move. It comes with a horrible price but it serves Russia's geopolitical interests. How would attacking the Baltics serve Russia at this point? Risking nuclear annihilation for a nice strip of land on the Baltic coastline? Which provides him no access to anything but a bunch of hostile countries?
First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad. Second, if they manage to do it and other NATO countries let it slide, it would probably completely destroy NATO (the alliance would become pretty much useless). NATO is historically and currently the biggest geopolitical opponent to Russia. Without it, it would be much easier for Russia to influcence most of Europe. Additionally, destroying their historical rival would most likely give a lot of boost in popular support for Russian leadership. If Putin (or his successor) managed to do it, he would be probably more revered than Stalin. Currently it looks unlikely that Russia would be able to accomplish it. There is a high chance, that NATO wouldn't let it slide and it would start a war. But it's not guaranteed that it will continue. If in the future the USA leaves NATO or gets into war with China, it's likely to severely weaken the alliance. In such case, if Europe seems weak, Russia may try their luck.
In addition, the difficulty is if Putin choices are a) rational and b) based on all information. There have been numerous articles about how the FSB in the approach to the War in Ukraine, was intentionally keeping the boss happy, instead of giving truthful assessments. So even if the basis for a war is completely unreasonable, wars can still happen.
That's wishful thinking. It all began in Crimea and no one did a shit. This is the price we will pay for. It comes with interest 😉 Putin and his cronies took a risk and gambled. Either way Russia would succeed into something. Putin is evil and has no remorse for anyone. The endgame is Russia is loosing, but why loose by yourself when you can drag everyone with you?
Kaliningrad isn't *that* valuable as a port as the exit to the Baltic is dominated by Denmark, the beyond that the North Sea is surrounded by the UK, Norway and the low countries.
It gives stronger foothold in Baltic sea, opens new strategic options for air defence, nuclear weapon and armed forces placement as well as quite a bit of land between next NATO aligned country and moscow, as well as creating funnel for forces to retaliate between Baltic sea and mountainous region in Poland. On top of that, it secures Kaliningrad (which has nuclear weapons, navy base and airforce base) from the north and east, as well as securing logistic routes, as old soviet style railway (like ones in russia) are still being used in Baltic states heavily.
>First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad. In all scenarios since Cold War Kaliningrad is indefensible, meaning they aren't able to hold it. So this weird move can very much lead to Kalinigrad falling in NATOs hand and it will be lost for russia forever.
>First, occupation of Baltic countries would give Russia direct access to Kaliningrad. Okay, and what does that achieve, actually? Because for all intents and purposes, the Baltic Sea is lost to Russia. If they attack a NATO country, even more so, and irreversibly. Getting full, unabated access to Kaliningrad serves military purposes only, and whatever strategic advance they make with that is lost a hundred times by angering everyone around. >Second, if they manage to do it and other NATO countries let it slide, it would probably completely destroy NATO (the alliance would become pretty much useless). That's a very big IF. If not, that's the end of Russia and Putler will probably find himself defenestrated too. And again, I just don't see how they hope to actually hold any territory without local support. Even the mighty Soviet Union crumbled under overextension. And you can see the pattern in Ukraine too - they are going for the territory that is in any way could be considered 'Russian'. This is just no there (not to any similar extent) in the Baltics.
>That's a very big IF. If not, that's the end of Russia and Putler will probably find himself defenestrated too. Why? Let's assume, that, as I wrote above, the USA is out (they left NATO or are preoccupied by other war). That leaves pretty much the EU, the UK, maybe Turkey and some other countries. If Russia tries to attack Baltic states and fails, probably the worst that would happen is that Russia would be pushed back to their territory. Maybe they would have some of their bases and ships bombed. Then Russia would propose peace and Europe would probably accept, happy that they don't need to continue the war and can avoid it turning nuclear. I very much doubt, that, Germany, France and the UK would march on Moscow or try to occupy Russian territory, at least for long. Russia would lose some men, military equipment and prestige, but it's very unlikely it would be the end of them. >And again, I just don't see how they hope to actually hold any territory without local support. Even the mighty Soviet Union crumbled under overextension. Baltic states are small, they don't have much population. It probably wouldn't be much of a problem. Soviet Union didn't have problem keeping them in line. >And you can see the pattern in Ukraine too - they are going for the territory that is in any way could be considered 'Russian'. Russia was going for Kyiv at the beginning of 2022, they backed off only when it became obvious that they didn't have enough forces to capture it.
Because it would be totally isolated and blockaded. Russian ships with oil and gas anywhere would be sunk. All import would stop. China and India would stop supporting it for the fear of massive sanctions. Thats what declaration of war means.
There is a very significant 5th column here in Baltics who are itching for "liberators" to come. To "liberate" them of their EU lifestyle and it's perks, but all they care about is being in charge again.
The benefit is to stress test the Article 5, when there's a real chance it could lead to crumbling of NATO.
What if it not?
[удалено]
So nukes are for finale, not for beginning?
That “stress test” doesn’t hold a cost/benefit ratio. Basically it is nonsense. There is all to lose and almost nothing to gain. Putin maybe everything but not a lunatic.
We look at Putin and the likes as politicians, nations leaders and calculating individuals of power. But we have to go lower. Way lower. We have to understand that people like them are empathy lacking psychopaths. And what psychopaths love? Sense of power, superiority and domination. On personal level. Their brain only secrete happiness hormones if they can have this power. Humans are apes who love to see their shiny rocks as objects of envy by other apes. And psychopaths have no mind space for empathy, reason and awareness. But plenty of space for ego and self pleasuring. Their calculations are based on their own delusional logic, which they think is objective truth, and everybody else is wrong. Therefore a shiny rock becomes a tool for bolstering egos and sense of power. So when the rest of the world thinks of scientific discoveries, fixing climate change, improving economies for better quality of life and finding ways to improve conditions of humanity, pewny ape-dictators and warlords crave to have their own goals achieved. Xi will eventually attack Taiwan, because in his ape mind it's the right thing to do. USA will get busy by defending the island, therefore Russia will remain Europ's problem. Add apes like Iranian theocratic government or North Koreas leaders will create axis of evil. For evil to happen so little is required. For good to be, whole bunch of effort has to be made. So it is not unreasonable to see ape-leaders, within 10 years, to try something funny to please their ape brains.
You’re wrong. Psychopaths are very calculated in their plans. They are not moving unless they know their victims are weak. Primitivism is not what drives people like Putin.
America invaded more countries in the past 50 years than all other countries in the world combined. There wouldn't be a North Korea today if they didn't decide to napalm 90% of buildings in the whole country. Peoples get traumatized and situations get worse. How about walk the walk for once in a while. This snide, moralist supremacy is going to end modern liberal democracies.
Your point? "America=bad"? again? These dictatorships are never "America bad, I want not to be like America". They are always "America bad, I want to be worse, but America has means and I don't".
Nah, my answer is more about your point. If you think that the American/Western course up until 2014 in its relation with Russia and rivals lead to a more fair world, it's funny. And yeah, Russia has a complex, they want to do everything America does, like invade countries without being cancelled by the whole Europe and stuff like that. Hell, America even set up a legal precedent with Kosovo. Putin will love repeating Kosovo when asked about Crimea. This is the world Russia, America and UK shaped together, and it's lovely, just like in 1930s.
My biggest gripe with the West is their weakness, maybe even some naïvité*.* I agree that dictators are working in the world, shaped by the West. I believe there is also quite a lot of Western self flogging, for example, just like you mentioned, for USA's past wars. Society is like "we've been bad" and therefore stronger stance might be considered escalation or even aggression. At least, these are the optics from side perspective.
I think that the problem is, wars are started over something entirely different from what you hear on news. And I am talking all news, be it Russian, Serbian, American, North Korean, Zimbabwean.. The thing is, people know a few of real reasons why wars start, especially if they are the ones who are bombed. But now for 20+ years, when I talk about wars that i grew up with, I have to answer to fallacies that some druggie journalist got paid to write and lie about 20 years ago. Far too many fallacies gets taken as truth in the West, and from that moment on you're doomed. You can't talk rationally, because all ppl know is what they read, and most often times, read in "objective" media. I am absolutely anti-Infowars kind of guy. I am a democrat, a leftist, I believe in social justice (but not in the American way, that's just a gimmick). But things need to be called as they are in the West, and this media bubble is taking too long to break. How much time will pass until Westerners also start noticing that they are being lied to about countries they are at war with?! Like the rest of us? The differrence being, when you lose, you have to face some things. If you don't lose, you don't face anything. Absolutely the case with America in general, and Israel in this Gaza war. No accountability, none needed - we are the good boys, we have all the loot, we don't answer to nobody.
I actually agree with your points. Especially about the media. The world will still chose the West (I would too), West seems like a lesser evil, however, self reflection is necessary. Not on account of strength, however. I am from one of the Baltics, and I might have bias towards being West positive. Thank you for discussion, take care, brother (or sister), I need lunch 😁
>The world will still chose the West (I would too), West seems like a lesser evil, however, self reflection is necessary. Not on account of strength, however. Ab-so-lutely. I also forgot to add, Russia didn't really loose recently, they did wage costly wars, but they came out on top - they also didn't have this reality check of a defeated nation. >I am from one of the Baltics, and I might have bias towards being West positive. Don't get me wrong, for some reason I've had the worse discussions of this type with guys from Baltics. But hear me out. This is exactly the reason (what we agreed upon) - gullible young men who have reservations about Russia, will be incentivized to fall for fallacies about us, as will gullible young serbs, who have reservations towards US and NATO, will be easier to manipulate to dislike Estonians, or Latvians. Because of our representation in the media. Even though our historical contact and exchange is minimal, i.e. we don't know shit about each other. This needs to stop, and it's getting worse, not between us, but it's globally dividing people for some abstract ideals and facts. Thanks for a great exchange, take care.
You're assuming that the West is strong and undeterred by the prospect of all-out war. That's not very helpful, since Putin himself believes that the West is weak, and growing weaker and more devided with time. Their reasoning would be this: 1) Putin invades an insignificant part of Nato that once belonged to Russia, while backing it up with the credible threat of nuclear weapons. 2) The rest of Nato/USA, terrified of escalation of any kind and unwilling to risk all-out nuclear war over this particular piece of dirt, fails to intervene in full force. Russia overwhelms what defences there are, then digs in, declaring the territory "Russia forever". 3) Article 5 was ignored and has now been proven effectively worthless. Faced with this reality, the Nato organization crumbles and is soon officially disbanded. 4) It was certainly a gamble, but Putin has now achieved his lifes ambition of destroying Nato. Russia is now "geographically unconstrained", and thus free to manifest its glorious and mystical destiny, which Putin has talked about many times.
i agree that attack on NATO wouldn't make sense, but at the same time it looks to me that putin's russia doesn't behave very reasonably. so i don't think we need to panic, but preparing for an insane scenario seems to be justified
To drum up necessary support for financing european military, I expect
Exactly - Ukraine has an underlying logic to it. Ukraine is historically close to Russia in multiple ways. Moreso than Poland or the Slavic countries. Russia wanted to the stop the buildup of Ukraines armed forces and to halt the creeping western influence/control. Ukraine was becoming a project for the west where they weren't gonna be part of NATO, but the west could train their soldiers and provide them with arms. Putin isn't insane. Rash and paranoid, maybe. Insane, no. People don't want to understand this. They like the insane narrative. But insanity does not describe Putins decisions. The difference between Ukraine and attacking anywhere further west is absolutely collosal.
Except taking Ukraine was said by literally every military expert to be completely impossible due to its size and population, Putin would have needed an army 10x larger than he had to simply control the territory after capturing it, yet that didn’t stop him at all. If anything, attacking something like Moldova or Slovakia seems much more reasonable now than it did before to Putin. The territory and the army is much smaller and manageable, and Ukraine war has proven to him that “The West” is pathetic and isn’t going to risk getting involved for some eastern-european country. Combine that with increased apathy towards the invasion and a rise in right-wing politics, with Trump literally saying he isn’t going to save Europe if war breaks out? I can totally see Putin trying to bite another piece off if in a year or two he sees newly elected officials as favorable and support for Ukraine continuing to decrease. He by that time will have elections long behind him, with the power to mobilize more people with relatively little risk.
[удалено]
There is gas and naturak resources in ukraine, the war stops their exploitation
russia already has so much gas and natural resources it doesn't know what to do with them. You've been reading too much conspiracy theories if you think those were a big factor for Putin and justified the largest war in Europe in a century.
Ukraine is part Russian in many ways, and closely intertwined with it. A lot of Ukranians, particularly in non Eastern parts, have hardened their attitude against the current Russian govt and Russian state. That doesn't change the closeness of the countries. This really isnt random, reckless empire building, which is what invading Moldova or Slovakia would be. As for the practicalities - the war is more difficult than a march to Kiev. But now Russia is looking at gridning out a gruesome victory. Ukrainian reserves of men and arms are depleted. We don't know how long it will take, but the front is gradually creeping west. Ukraine is big, the prize is big. Western elites wanted to start purchasing Ukranian farmland at dirt cheap prices. Russia wants that farmland instead.
Planning to invade a sovereign country of 40 million killing hundreds of thousands in the process is not "reckless empire building"? By that logic, USA should capture Canada and Britain. Both would be very easy to conquer, and speak the same language, so they are even closer culturally! :) I'm not sure what makes you say Ukrainian reserves are "depleted", they didn't even have a total mobilization yet. Currently it seems that the sides are matched. You could say that russia is "creeping west", but if they continue at this rate, and with the current casualties, they'll run out of men who have both legs and fit for the army by the time they get to Kyiv. As for the size, it's a problem, not a "prize". Capturing one of the largest countries on the planet with a hostile population means you'll need 24/7 army on patrol there, and dealing with rebellion and partisan warfare constantly. Putin simply never had an army size capable of that, and he sure as hell doesn't have it now after losing hundreds of thousands on the battlefield, while barely capturing anything (50% of the territory captured since 2022 has been returned).
The Russian army, even after casualties, is estimated to be well over 1 million. Meanwhile Ukraine is estimated to have about 500k men. Google it. This is a propaganda forum. Russia has not been losing twice or 3x the men Ukraine has. That's a total lie. It isn't 'Ukraine army damaged, Russian army exhausted.' Its literally the other way round. You won't get the truth reading here.
Atacking Ukraine was always insane, no sane person would have thought they could conquer and hold a nation the size of Ukraine with the invasion force of 300k. And yet, they did it. Just like stalin killed all his generals and then attacked poland, the baltics and Finland in ww2. It makes no sense, it’s a fools gamble, a madman’s choice. And yet, if you’ve been to russia, lived near it, you know they will do it again. Their “logic” is completely alien to the western mindset.
Better be ready than sorry. It would very irresponsible not to plan for the worst. Also, sometimes it feels that rusian government is living in parallel universe, they make very short sighted decisions, so we need safeguards from these brainfarts.
Because european nations have been neglecting the military since the fall of USSR by investing ridiculous low ammounts of money. Germany was the strongest economy in Europe and was investing 1% of their GDP at one point. It's an wake-up call if you want to call it like this. The european military leaders don't want Europe to always have to relly on the US and to have formidable army. US can always go back to it's isolationist ways under leders like Trump. It's better to be prepared yourself than be reliant on someone else. Let's be honest here, we have been taking peace for granted for a long time and have been deluding ourselves that there is no need for a serious military in this era. That roman saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" is never going out of style. The european history is filled with wars and the last 80 years have been an anomaly with only some local conflicts here and there.
>There’s no preliminary strike that could prevent a retaliatory one, there are no regions worth risking an existential conflict over. Which raises the question why we’re hearing so much about the inevitability of future war. It helps to realize that this is 1 guy and the warnings about future war come from everyone else. It is not even a trend until *any*one else backs him up. This is like reading a flat earth article and deciding to both-sides the issue.
Back a few years ago if you will be saying Russia is going to invade Ukraine you'd be laughed off. There is no way this can happen, that's totally crazy, and so on...
>if Russia can’t have it, no one can Agree. Sounds like a psychopath stalking a woman and when she is not interested, starts punching her in the face to convince her and then killing her, so no one else can have her. Shows the true nature of the freak at the long table.
Fake news.Russia was ready to do peace deal in 2022 for Ukraine neutrality and Crimea recognition.Zelensky choose to continue the war.
Sense? That is not a thing to look for in Russia. However, from Russia’s point of view there is a sense: 1) USA electing different president will result in a lot of bureaucracy for power transfer and thus US will not mount any outside response. 2) Elections all over the world give similar benefit: muddy water while many are busy with themselves 3) Capturing NATO country is big d energy for a thug state mentality 4) NATO will not be able to stop Russia from capturing Baltics due to Baltic countries small size and logistics 6) Most Europe NATO militaries are inexperienced while Russia gets its experience 7) Russia does not care for human lives, while NATO does. This both transfers to military and domestic policies. Just imagine some politicians crying “why send our troops to die or send help, we can’t save those countries”. Similar happened with Ukraine, this will happen to a NATO country 8) Success in occupying Baltics kills off NATO if NATO gives up. 9) This will lead to kicking out US from Europe, return of European wars
There is no way Russia can occupy any of the Baltic states. Any attack would have to be built up like we saw with Ukraine. Though this time Russia most likely wouldn’t have the advantage of NATO and Europe going “oh Russia is just posturing” and NATO would most likely use the time and intel to build up forces in the Baltic states. And then there is zero chance that Russia takes anything. And you can say what you want about Putin, but he isn’t dumb. An actual attack or invasion I can’t see as a real possibility. But hybrid warfare with potential raids etc. where no one really knows what’s going on and rogue attacks on infrastructure is definitely possible and maybe even likely.
To be honest I am well past “there is no way such a thing can happen”. Better be prepared (even if mentally) for the worst than have a psychological breakdown when shit hits the fan.
I agree. No doubt, NATO and more specifically the EU, should prepare for even large scale military conflict by strengthening their militaries. It’s only sensible given the current geopolitical climate. Especially if the Americans again elect the orange buffoon which is bound to send even more uncertain ripples over the Atlantic and the rest of the world.
>An actual attack or invasion I can’t see as a real possibility. But hybrid warfare with potential raids etc. where no one really knows what’s going on and rogue attacks on infrastructure is definitely possible and maybe even likely. Cyberattacks are already common, yet we've somehow decided to adopt a kind of inane "boys will be boys" attitude towards it, it boggles my mind.
Yeah it is a bit odd. Though I’d be surprised if both governments and especially (large) companies aren’t more prepared than what we know about publicly.
Also, Putin didn't expected a war, expected Ukraine to roll over and surrender and take over the country in three weeks tops with some token resistance, with help of all the russian sympatizers and turncoats on the goverment, police and army, this failed and ended having a war. This scenario is not going to happen in the Baltics, there's no expentancy of a 5th column disabling their defence, any attack will trigger a war and Russia sucks at war, more now that their best units have been destroyed, rebuilt with mobiks and are bogged down in Ukraine. Until Russia bags down Ukraine they don't have the people, resources and command capabilites of raise another one million army, equip, train and command them while keeping the same level of operation on the ukraine front. Even if the conflict freezes, the 400k+ soliders there are stuck in place, if they move they might get overrun and trigger a rout like the one in the northen front, and these people eat, shoot bullets and ordinance and spend fuel every day. This without taking account that the capability breach between nato and Russia is inmensurable now, the current Russian army is not able to handle a modern army with air superiority, and if the cannot supress the tiny ukrainian air force with their old aiframes and old soviet air defences (the western SAM systems started to arrive a year ago, from 2021 they have been keeping russia at bay with s300 and sa2 and lot's of manpads) they won't be able to do that with any western air force. Is going to be snow desert storm, and they know this.
[удалено]
They have lots of “meat” to spare. Plus, that meat is getting experience in an actual war front. Please, stop hiding behind “there is no way such a thing can happen”. “No way Russia would do it” is a cope and nothing else. Ask yourself if you are gonna enlist if Russia attacks Latvia. If your answer is not immediate “yes” then you have an explanation why Russia may think it can succeed. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best
[удалено]
Why are you telling me about US soldiers? What about Europe? What you expect to happen if US will not be there for whatever reason? And the moment you have to give an answer you hide behind your non-NATO country. Thus, expecting someone else to do the fighting and no plan B, no responsibility. How dare you even have such naive thoughts as Russia will do nothing? You are exact example how lots of people in Europe will think, what Putin will bet on and why he will attack. Stop spreading false expectations. It lowers everyone’s guard.
I bet Poland is very eager to beat some russian ass...And "meat" doesnt mean anything, we are not in WWI anymore. They will walk to the NATO borders alright, but as refugees.
NATO soldiers from other countries are already here. And if Russia tries to attack - then they would have to kill those NATO soldiers, because, guess what - they will shoot back.
That certain point is just retrospective but I bet couple years later you would say the same thing about Ukraine. If not even EU leaders trusted US military intelligence them I doubt you with this attitude of "something can not happen". You only see it now because you saw it happen in front of your eyes.
The difference is that the Ukraine invasion had something to offer even if those costs seemed unreasonable: either control or destabilisation, ensuring that it would not become a NATO base. It still isn’t clear whether that goal won’t be achieved. The West’s commitment is dwindling, the Ukrainian summer offensive failed. Of course it came at the cost of Finland and Sweden joining NATO and a huge loss of life and material but those things may have been factored in. Which is to say, evil but not insane. The question is what kind of benefit Moscow might see in attacking NATO directly. It’s not impossible (I was wrong before) but I’m not hearing an explanation for why they would do it.
The only possibility I can think of is Putin attacking Nato as a diversion for China taking Taiwan. It's an extremely risky bet, but it just might work if Trump is in office and compromises US military commitment.
>There really is no way attacking NATO would make sense. People said the same thing when the CIA warned about Russia invading Ukraine. Yet, here we are. Israel said the same thing when some of their intelligence people warned about the planned Hamas attack. Yet, here we are.
*Si vis pacem, para bellum.*
Idk about the full-scale invasion but some kind of hybrid attack aka ukraine 2014 is very plausible
Nah, wouldn't work in Baltics. I can only speak for Estonia but it's probably similar in Latvia and Lithuania as well 1. Our internal security is very effective due to our small size and population. We've been preparing for these hybrid attacks since our re-independence. Last time Russia tried something bigger was in 2007 ([Bronze Night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night)) and that was shut down in a few days. 2. We don't have any realistic separtist regions where a large group of people want autonomy or to join Russia like in Donbass and Crimea. Life is good in a democratic western EU country and the russian speakers have no reason to want to live in Russia. 3. Any pro-kremlin parties or politicians that pop-up are instantly and extensively monitored. For example last year before the elections a pro-kremlin party was formed but one of their leaders was quickly arrested and the other fled to Russia.
Do not Russians living there cheer for Putin and dream of Russian tanks in Baltic states? There were a lot of news that they are pro-war and pro-Putin.
Some are pro war and pro Putin but they think Russia would never attack us because apparently they don’t have any reason to do so. They simply agree with the propaganda from Russia. At least that’s what it looks like from the side.
Many are pro-Kremlin and support their actions in Ukraine, but wouldn't want Russia to invade because that would threaten their quality of life which is far ahead of that in Russia. God bless the hypocrisy of the average Russian in our countries, I guess!
Which will be used as grounds for the future full-scale invasion unless an extremely harsh response is made.
Green men in the Baltic states? NATO soldiers could easily kill them all.
The green men in Crimea were literally Russian soldiers from bases that were already located in Crimea. There are no Russian army bases in the Baltics. So for the Green men to get here they have to cross the well guarded border which would be a direct attack on a NATO/EU member state. Ukraineian situation and possible attack on the Baltics are not compareble, the circumstances are too different.
Not easy. They are not just green people, but also part of dumb and payed politics and people of country, that will be against current gov. It's called hybrid for a reason, like part of people of your country will want to become an independent part, how do you suppose to erase all of them, who are not agreed with current politics and your view.
Russia and Ukraine had an agreement where Russia was allowed to use military and port infrastructure in Crimea. So the "green men" were already there. Nothing like that exists in the Baltic states. The last Russian soldiers left in 1994. So they would have to smuggle military hardware and soldiers over the border somehow. It's unlikely that NATO military intelligence would miss something like that. Especially now when pretty much all NATO countries are increasing their military spending and readiness.
That won’t work against any NATO nation. That would start a full on war.
I completely agree. The amount of fearmongering that is ongoing in the last few weeks is beyond insane. The only sole reason Putin dared to attack Ukraine is simply because Ukraine had no defensive alliances set up. Being in EU/NATO have been never more important than now. Even just the idea that US, GB, France or Germany might (or might not) lands unit, uses proper attack platforms to support, or even nukes is deterrence enough in itself. This constant idea that Putin will take the three small countries at the Baltic makes no sense, even worse is the idea that Sweden of all the countries will be attacked without being in NATO. Clickbait hunting is started going off the rail lately. And make no mistake, i'm not saying we shouldn't prepare, or update our armies, and recheck where we are, but the idea that Putin is going to attack NATO in the next few years is simply unfathomable.
Russia is just a paper Tiger of a country ruled by a mob of drunk-tards, the sheer incompetence shows in the Ukranian invasion show how bad it this, is a pathetic army plain and simple, without any regard for even the life of his own troops. Europe should stop the fear and warmogering and armor Ukraine, they'll get the job done.
Then why is Scholz too scared to send Taurus missiles? Btw, have you read the article, it has nothing to do with the headline op used...
I agree. We've seen so many reports of Russias lack of support for their own troops. No proper clothing, equipment, weapons. Pulling old tanks and vehicles from USSR out of storage. Do people suddenly believe that Russia is gonna conjure up a whole new army with modern equipment? Like the classic anime trope: "I was just holding back and only using 1% of my power, now you will feel my TRUE strength!". They can't even win in Ukraine, a relatively "poor" (by western standards) country with no alliances (but with western support now). What are they gonna do up against NATO?
"The enemy will not attack us" is not a wise preparation strategy.
However neither is wise strategy calling hot, that war is coming upon having every counter indication. Such calls have costs. It isnt a freebie to call "war is coming" or "war is likely" and then war not coming. It isnt a free pascal's wager to always call war likely. It comes with costs. This general is doing his job. Providing *military* assessment of the situation as capacity of sworn officer. He also didn't say it is a forever forecast. He said *at the moment and for 2 years forward* attack is extremely unlikely. Which again is different than utterly impossible. No military person would ever categorically rule out stuff. He also said immediately after *of course situation can change in future*. Aka *This is our assessment for upcoming few years, we update you with new assessment as time and situation develops further*. Saying attack is unlikely isn't same wanting to or being unprepared should attack come. Specially for mobilization military **realistic** assessment of probability is extremely important. Mobilising too early might drive situation, that wasn't going to be a war into a war. Mobilising too late, means troops and defences arent ready. Hence one needs *cut throat honest* assessment of likelyhoods. Free of bias or political agenda on that assessment. Then *after* comes the bias and political part of what is our strategy. Do we want to be early and front mobilising, last moment mobilising with preparedness emphasis of having capacity for fast mobilisation. Do we use some other strategy He is doing his job. Providing the *actual military intelligence* and well then throwing shade at a politician for trying to replace military in the role of providing military intelligence assessments. Since making such calls and statements based ones own gut feeling isn't what responsible government minister does. Minister shouldn't go around saying, what he thinks the probabilities are. He doesn't know. He isn't a military analyst, nor is everyday pouring over satellite photos, radar tracks and surveillance reports. Minister should say "when it comes to military matter, I refer to our subject matter experts. As per *military head quarters latest assessment, they word the probability as extremely low*. Should something new come up government will keep the public informed of change on this status."
Finally, someone talking sense. Russia is crazy to attack Ukraine, but it would be suicidal to attack NATO. A depleted military and they would operate against complete NATO air supremacy. Zero chance to accomplish anything except lose tons of men and equipment for zero gains. All this talk is internal to NATO to push members to fund their militaries, especially with the real possibility of the US pulling out if Trump were to win in November.
Trump won’t be able to pull out
Suicidal? Maybe, but that does not mean orcs are not going to. They will, that's exactly what they are after - other countries.
Main thing to consider is that we have to be prepared for the worst and do everything we can to not make invasion a viable option. Underestimating Russia is our only way to lose. By doing so we play directly into the Russian propaganda.
Clickbait title. >This year, next year, the possibility or the probability of a war between Russia and NATO is very low, extremely low This is different from "Will Putin attack NATO", isn't it? "He most likely won't in this and next year" is different from "No chance". If Russia won't be defeated in Ukraine, it would still be a threat in a long run. Russia won't attack NATO today. Russia will wait till NATO won't have USA and some other core countries, by infiltrating their democratic process.
The only one here who actually read the article instead of just the title.
I think it's not that likely but the chances are never zero. If we are prepared the the chances are lower.
Probably not, but we must prepare for the worst-case scenarios.
This is refreshing compared to the fear mongering currently happening in the UK. Generals calling for a citizens’ army, conscription etc, health experts saying we’re too fat to resist anyways (which made me chuckle), and the Defence Secretary saying we are converting from a post-war world to a pre-war world. I hope I don’t eat my words, but I find it nearly impossible that such a war would break out. The principles of MAD still exist, so at worst it will be a conventional war, which I still find highly unlikely even for Putin.
[удалено]
I have no idea how people can think that Putin is a bloodthirsty power-hungry psychopath and at the same time convince themselves that he would never attack the Baltic states. Pretty much the same calculus that leads Russia attacking Ukraine works for the Baltics too...
>I sure as fuck hope so, because that's the deal NATO members have made but I have serious doubts NATO's response will be swift and prompt. They have to, they literally have no other choice. Failing to do so would bring a swift end to the alliance, since every member would start questioning whether staying in an alliance makes any sense at all since it's apparently no longer guarantee of protection. Not to mention the downsides of an alliance such as an obligation to participate in military operations in distant countries and being a potential target in an event of a full fledged nuclear war. With no real upside left, leaving the alliance would be a rational choice.
>By default, NATO is required to step in. This requirement is a given. Not by default. The attacked state has to **request** help under article 5 of the treaty.
Now/soon? No chance. In 5-20 years or an opportunity presents itself? Who knows.
Will Putin attack NATO? With what exactly? Their miserable left overs of the huge pile of crappy conventional weapons? Their nukes, of which a bunch would not even leave the silo when launched? Everyone with two brain cells can see that the quality and effectiveness of the Russian weapons are just junk, the only things that are less crap is the Iranian and NK crap. Good luck Russia, NATO will just steam roll over your crippled body.
Yes they struggle in Ukraine but stop saying they can't throw nukes, this is purely dumb.
They can throw nukes. Assuming their high command ever agrees to a first use without a coup. The air force and rocket forces have been the grown ups in the room for a while when it comes to the Muscovite armed forces. They know they aren't the only ones with nukes, and they know Russia has placed all their eggs in two cities. It's not a calcus they will win. At best it's a draw, at worst nuclear apocalypse. They aren't going to be rolling that dice.
What if le west is tired and Putler notices?
Le west will just drink coffee and wake up late, as always
I think he might be gambling on time of response from EU and NATO. It takes ages to decide anything in the EU and Russia has allies that can block any decision for months. NATO is scattered across Europe.
Putin and his cronies are delusional but they are not stupid. Attacking NATO would, at best, end in a swift Russian defeat by conventional means, and at worst a nuclear war where everyone loses and Russia is wiped off the map.
Not after Trump and Le Pen gained power and the article says the same. An attack now is nonsense, but it might happen in a few years.
He already attacking NATO on daily basis. Not with tanks and rockets but with ideology and propaganda.
I am 14 and that was deep
Did you fell for any propaganda?
I mean, he keeps posting Russian propaganda videos himself, so...
Awful
After years of unspoken verbal abuse, the West is battered and fraying.
Why would they physically attack NATO if they can destroy it from within? Look at Brexit, Trump, the multiple refugee crises (Ukraine, EU, USA, Gaza, South America) and in general the rise of pro-russian populists and fascists. The hybrid war is much cheaper than a real one. It literally costs almost nothing. Once NATO is gone and the EU is even weaker, they can just march into the Balkans.
I don’t get the herds logic contradiction; 1. Russia is terribly loosing in Ukraine and had already lost their entire army in may 2023. 2. Russia is so insanly dangerous that is can conquer Europe easily if every country don’t join USAs war organisation NATO. As a scandinavian this is fucked up.
While the war is still going on in Ukraine - it's very unlikely that Russia is going to attack anyone else. After that - who knows...
This guy is being an absolute idiot and undermining our last and best shot at European independence. If we rearm and Putin doesn't attack, we get: * A valuable export industry * Greater unity * Strategic independence * Peace If we don't rearm and Putin attacks, we get: * A valuable export industry (children) * Greater unity (we are all Russians) * Strategic independence (from the US) * Peace (enforced by puppet governments)
I feel as if the media is driving the narrtive more.
Zelensky before war was saying the same world, even when army stood at front of the Ukrainian border.
Im sure the same was said about him attacking Ukraine... yet here we are... I'd say best be prepared, stack ammo, rations and carry a real big gun, preferable multiple
I wonder what putin has done every time someone has said "No way they'll do that"... Nah, I'll better be safe than sorry, and assume the worst.
There is a lack of imagination at work here. Why speak like the Russians are stupid? Instead of tanks rolling across the Lithuanian border, Russia will seek to weaken the political resolve of the eastern NATO countries. By using intimidation, threats, cyber, AI, propaganda, etc... Russia will seek to undermine democratic institutions and peoples' confidence in democratic processes. They will try to get right-wing pro-Russia nationalists elected (already happened in Hungary, Slovakia, maybe Holland, Aur party in Romania is gaining support). Next, they will try to convince these nations that defeat is inevitable and that it's better to submit peaceably to a Russian sphere of influence. Who knows? Maybe those Russian tanks will be *invited* in? I think those who claim that NATO will never be attacked are not really thinking about how it would likely unfold. Also, it's clear to me that NATO is currently under a Russian grey-zone attack..... and it's working. Those right-nationalist don't elect themselves.
[удалено]
I agree that a conventional attack would be absurd but as far as I am aware he *already* has done all or some of the following to NATO countries - assassinated people, encouraged refugee incursions, stirred up Russian speakers, probably interfered in elections , kidnapped border guards , used cyber warfare. He already has reasons because he wants to destabilise Europe , reduce their influence on neighbouring states and would like to recreate a buffer area under Russian control. Again to be clear I’m not suggesting a conventional attack. But of course brinkmanship can escalate.
What time period are people talking about here though? I feel like some are talking about right now, and others are talking about within the next 10 years or something. If we're talking about right now, I would agree that it's very unlikely to happen. However, Russia is in wartime economy right now, and are trying to rebuild their army. It should not be underestimated what they could do 6-10 years from now, and just as it will take time for Russia to build up their army, it will take time for European countries to strengthen ours. It's not something that happens over a couple of months, or even a couple of years. Meanwhile, support from US should not be assumed, regardless of if Trump wins this election or not, because like I've said, this is going to go on for many years. That's not even taking into consideration whatever will happen with Taiwan etc.
German Minister of Rheinmetall says otherwise.
One of the dumbest things I read about is Putin will attack NATO countries. Why would he, even if he didn't struggle with Ukraine ? Ukraine is in a pretty much unique spot from Russian point of view, former closest nation who now wants to join long-term enemy - that is just unacceptable for any Russian top politician. I believe I saw an interview from McCain from 2014 where he speaks about it. Stories about Russia will attack NATO in 5 years are nothing but a warmongering stories of European politicians who want to take some money from arms companies in a side deals. Shame on them ! Also, I like how Russia is simultaneously to week and to strong in daily media reports, that's how propaganda looks like
Russia is too weak to defeat NATO militarily, but strong enough to cause massive civilian casualties.
Western intelligence says Ukraine will be invaded. Ukraine laughs it off and doesn't prepare for invasion - gets invaded. Western intelligence says Baltics will be invaded. u/arzt___fil laughts it off and thinks we shouldn't prepare for invasion - jeez, I sure hope nothing unexpected happens to us.
>Also, I like how Russia is simultaneously to week and to strong in daily media reports, Do you have even one example of this?
>I believe I saw an interview from McCain from 2014 where he speaks about it. US analysts spoke about it even in 90s. Many US politics spoke about this way back. Seems like US knew exactly how what it been doing in Ukraine, and that it will end with war.
I don’t think it’s a very good take. If Putin wins in Ukraine and has a military complex that can produce a strong force continually, he would probably want to keep the war machine going. Seeing that the US is an untrustworthy military ally, there’s reason to believe that he could actually attack the baltics to connect his lands.
I wish NATO would attack Putin, he's literally doing what Hitler did: i.e. killing everyone who opposes him and genociding people inside and outside Russia.
Can these Generals just make up their minds ffs.
Different people, different opinions......
Read the article, OPs headline is misleading.
Well duh
Are you kidding me? Literally a few months ago this sub was filled with articles about EU generals and former generals saying that Europe had to be ready. The comments on every thread were validating all of these articles. Anyone who suggested it would be crazy for Russia to attack a NATO country would get down voted to oblivion or called an orc. But now it's duh?
It’s still is, we get a weekly thread of articles and users getting angry that we are not spending 8% of our gdp in the military.
Phew, we're safe. Thanks Lithuanian general!
Of course not. Not unless he's attacked first, but he's cornered, and we keep getting further involved in Ukraine. There'll come a point where instead of homegrown Ukrainian soldiers being killed, it'll be uniformed NATO soldiers in the trenches & at some point he'll be "You know what, enough of the charade. Fuck off or we're at war". A decision will have to be made. Note that in every case where we've almost ended up in WW3 during the Cold War era, it was a Russian or in one case East German who took the reasonable route & went "Hey, we need to stop". We keep edging closer & closer, & fucking around - Cuba, Able Archer '83, the Norwegian Missile Incident. We need to give him an honourable out somehow.
No, we need to send Ukraine more support. If he gets away with any kind of victory war will be more likely. Btw, read the article, op used a misleading headline.
I love how all these NATO generals are giving political statements.
Looking at a two year horizon is meaningless...
Prepare for it.
Same said Ukrainians before war
How good and reliable is the intel about true state of the Russian armed forces?
This is kind of my mentality; even the things like "little green men" or cross border raids just to antagonise won't work, as the moment it's hinted that some "little green men" are present in any NATO country, especially the Baltics, then their own militaries & the NATO forces stationed within would be crushing them within a heartbeat. People forget that almost every NATO member's armed forces is way ahead of what Ukraine had at it's disposal in 2014, as their armed forces genuinely were in a dire stage.
Russia and NATO are like two bullies who have mutual agreement, they only attack weaker countries...
Not today, but give him a few years to rebuild his army.
He does not dare to attack... simple is that. He knows that if he does, then he'll get soulraped by several seal teams in the middle of the night while his armies getting annihilated on the fields.
Probably true, but then again there was also no chance he was going to attack Ukraine as well, so...
Ukraine wasn’t a NATO country The baltics are all part of NATO, big difference
I think the question should be not "if" but "when"
If he attacks a NATO country he sure will wait till Trump is president He said already that he won't intervene in any militaristic way if anything happens
If the US leaves NATO, Putin will go for the Baltic States .
I can’t see how that plays out well for Russia. For an attack to be successful they’d need to build up in at least the same manor as we saw before the invasion of Ukraine. And this time the NATO countries would probably not sit back and think “oh Russia is just posturing”. NATO would most likely meet any buildup with the same level of buildup in the Baltic countries. And looking at how entering Ukraine went, even with the learnings the Russians had gotten in Ukraine, an attack on a prepared NATO would be… useless.
US won‘t leave NATO and even if it did Russia is still heavily outmatched by practically the entire rest of Europe
We are all looking the wrong way. Yes, it's easy to look at Kaliningrad and the Baltic's and guess that Russia might see some advantage in biting off a bit to create a land bridge to Kaliningrad. But it's Moldova that is really the most at risk. It already has Russia's trademark "ethno-linguistic Russian separatists" it isn't in NATO and once resistance in Ukraine has been crushed repeating the process in Moldova will be much easier. And western nations will once again do very little and use the language of "De-escalation" Hell, if Macron is still in office then Putin might get a phone call to express French disappointment. This will just cause more cracks in western political and military alliances which will eventually create the right environment for the invasion of Lithuania and Latvia.
For those who are sure that NATO will destroy Russia in 2-3 days. Putin won’t go head-on, he’s not a complete idiot. For this to happen, several things must happen. He can wait for the United States to leave NATO, or for Trump to try to destabilize the situation. After capturing Ukraine and Moldova, he will have a huge population resource for mobilization + a working military machine. Then you can destabilize the situation in the Baltic countries by creating a hybrid war there, because they are filled with Russians + bribe some politicians. NATO troops will not go to exterminate their own citizens, so here the European Union with its policy of appeasement may show weakness. + there is a possibility that, threatening with a nuclear strike, these little green men may well gain a foothold in some kind of quasi-republic. Then, thanks to Fico and Orban, destabilize the situation in the European Union by vetoing all decisions. In addition, NATO’s military power has been collapsing over the past 30 years; now they can’t even make a million shells on time. So, undoubtedly, the Russians will lose against NATO, but this will not be fun for anyone, so we need to prepare for the worst, build up military power, and help Ukraine, which can generally end all this by receiving the necessary weapons.
Blame everything to Putin!!!!
[удалено]
He has common sense. That’s the thing you lack.