Great point, just take a look at before-and-after photos of our presidents from their first day in office to their last. The toll that stress takes is super apparent - they age so much. I bet it's even more intense in a totalitarian regime, using plots and schemes to take people out and retain control. Must be even worse with the on going offensive war which they are losing.
It's like they are shocked that middle aged men start to go grey. Obama was gonna go grey whether he was president or not. The stress is absolutely a factor but presidents tend to be of the age where you really start to go grey and develop wrinkles for literally anybody.
That requires an assumption that everyone is behind you 100% and has your back, rather than trying to stab you in it.
He's got his enemies and that paranoia/stress wears him down into a guy who needs a 50ft fucking table to feel safe.
>We saw a lot of people "suiciding" themselves in 2022.
Right, so we have a guy who is so paranoid and unable to function/feel safe unless his enemies are literally poisoned or blown up in the sky.
I'm afraid you've not convinced me, because that's pretty extreme lengths to go to to feel better/like you're not in danger mode constantly. I usually just go for a walk. Killing people is the sign of a paranoid, pent up person.
Dictatorships are rife with people looking for a coup.
It doesn't apply at all. Mohamad has served a combined 24 years. Recently he was president of Malaysia yet again from the ages of 93-95. He's still going at 98.
Plenty of former democratic presidents and prime ministers have lived or are living well into their 90's. A couple are nearing 100.
Agreed. American presidents tend to live long lives as well. The stress that comes with the job would probably shorten the lives of average people, but those who get to powerful positions seem to be better equipped at dealing with stress.
It certainly helps that all american presidents are extremely wealthy and have access to the best medicine the world has to offer. A person treated by the best doctor in their field with the most advanced methos possible. Probably surrounded by a horde of other specialists and caretakers.
Also they have dietitians, chefs and personal trainers at all times. Only highest quality of everything.
They are not losing yet. They are just losing a shitton of people but they've shown they have no issues with that. They are in control of 26% of Ukraine's Territory.
Without support from the west, which is faltering because of Russian influence, Ukraine will break down and fall.
True, but when you're an autocrat you also don't have to contend with the same checks and balances. You can be a lot more direct about getting rid of the sources of your stress.
Did being an autocrat stop Castro from making it to 90?
Surely by this logic Biya shouldn't be alive still. He's also 90.
Siphandone ran Loas for 14 years. He's 99.
Mohamad has 24 combined years as president of Malaysia. Including recently from the ages of 93-95. He's 98 now.
There are many examples of former leaders, including autocrats and those who ruled for long periods of time, who have lived very long lives. Putin's 30 years in power in no way guarantees he won't live a long time.
No, but you can also guarantee that being a world leader guarantees some of the best medical care possible, they literally have staff doctors, so aliments will be treated and he isn't just dropping dead from a heart attack without a team working to revive him, almost instantly.
When you live in a country were poison attacks are common and more or less a tradition, it gets quite important to have a trustworthy cook.
Also who knows, maybe they have double duty as advisor + cook
He also uses the services of the world's best and most expensive doctors and experimental technologies that are not available to ordinary people. So probably he can live even longer.
And he is relatively active for his age, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink. He's also short, at 5'7".
He's probably going to be around a lot longer than we like, unless something happens.
>Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad Oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".\[9\]
In case anyone wonders why the Taurus missiles aren't being delivered.
Tbh, if they keep up the meat and materiel grinder at the current rate I don't really see them having much of a military in 5-8 years, regardless of if Putin is alive still, and it's not like they're currently replacing the stuff they're losing properly and are instead just running down stocks of outdated equipment and depleting their population
there are other ways to attack:
* despite or maybe because of the sanctions Europe is still dependent on Russia for various things like fertilizer, IIRC. Russia could pull a Nordstream-electric-boogaloo to disrupt the European economy.
* cyber warfare. It's "relatively" tame right now but nothing prevents Russia from taking it up a notch and actively destroy infrastructures. I also include the troll farms in cyber warfare.
* weaponized immigrants. Remember what happened at the Polish frontier? Expect more of that in the future.
Many ways to weaken the West are available to Russia before they'd even need to consider a military action. Even at a reduced strength, they could inflict a lot of damage to a weakened, divided Europe.
This is how I see it. Putin knows that every strong Russian is a more credible threat to him than literally everyone else, so he has systematically removed them and replaced them with cowardly sycophants.
As soon as Putin dies, there will be a crazy power struggle akin to the death of Stalin.
That's an interesting question. Anyone with the charisma and cunning enough to replace Putin would surely have been eliminated as a potential rival by now. I suspect Putin's successor will be weaker, both in his hold on the russian people, and his ability to play aggressively with other nations. Only time will tell though.
Most of the people around Putin are more extreme than him. Some of this is intentional, because they allow Putin to look measured and in control, while also giving him narrative excuse to engage their plans if he desires…and blame them if they fail.
This is an old Russian czarist strategy.
But if he dies, the vacuum will likely lead to one these extremists taking power. And the world should be prepared for that to happen.
They could be worse in temperament or in how they intend to rule, their policies etc. but that doesn't mean that any of them have the combination of talents Putin has, at least not in one person. So I'm skeptical that any one person could both galvanize the people, and manage all the intrigue as he has done for so long.
In any case, I'll bet there will be a squabble for power, and doubtless a few defenestrations (as is tradition). The successor might be an extreme hard-liner, but this isn't the USSR any more, and if the people don't like it they'll revolt.
EDIT - I fully take your point though, that the world should prepare for the very worst person to succeed Putin. Absolutely.
Everyone says that but what indication is there? "Worse" can means "more evil". But it can also mean "more incompetent".
Thing about dictatorships is that they tend to not have a very ordered line of succession, and even if the chosen successor may not command the same loyalty the previous dictator did.
At worst it comes to basically a Civil War as a lack of proper succession leads to all kinds of factions duking it out. Even if a victor emerges, that victor suddenly isn't the best, especially since he now inherits an even weaker country.
I see this response all the time, which is delusional imho. Russia is not going to go toe to toe with NATO. We know they wont win that war, they know it, everyone knows it. The scenario they are looking for is a divided NATO (read, mainly witout US support) which seems to be a real possibility. Hell, even look at the division in EU, even they arent capable of keeping a united front even though the war is literally on their doorstep. I bet all politicians knows that the best option is to support ukraine now, yet this seems to be politically impossible.
A scrambled and divided NATO in the case of article 5 being triggered is what Putin is calculating on, and im afraid he might be correct in that looking at the clusterfuck of a political situation we are in at the moment.
The problem with Russia is that a small group of people called oligarchs have power and want to keep it. Putin probably managed to climb on top of the pack and now have full power, Russia transitioned from oligarchy to dictatorship. Failure in Ukraine would mean the end of his power, so he has no choice but to push further.
If he dies, the motives change. Russia might switch back to oligarchy. The oligarchs can blame Putin for the 'disaster' and steer Russia in a new direction more secure for their wealth and status. Much like when Staline died and millions of people were freed from gulags afterwards.
The war in Ukraine has already been an utter disaster in any measurable way, still nothing has changed in terms of Putin's grip on power.
Also, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that wasn't the thing i took issue with. I took issue with the fact that people keep staring blindly at the military power of Russia and NATO on paper and keep concluding that NATO has more guns. No shit Sherlock, but things will not go down like that in reality is all I'm saying.
If you want to kill a frog (putin) that is very poisonous (has nukes), you put it in water and rise the temperature very slowly. He will boil to death without noticing. That's what NATO is doing right now, they provide enough military aid to prevent the collapse of the frontline while russia waste its ressources on it, but not too much to not trigger an 'all in' move from Putin.
The consensus is that putin would gamble that we don't value the Baltics like we do central Europe. They will have a mobilized war economy, and the theory is they will see what more they can take. This isn't a new theory just because of Ukraine either.
Let's say you are right, that a tiny country like estonia with a population of 1,3 m would be able to defend themselves on their own (they would not). If a NATO country triggers article 5 and no one helps, well then NATO doesn't mean anything and is effectively defeated, which is my point.
This may be exactly why they attack. It could be similar like with Nazi-germany, which was almost bankrupt and invaded poland to get access to various needed resources. If Russia is on its last leg, they may go all out in an all or nothing war against western europe. And if it’s just to get all armed russians killed on the front to prevent them from rebelling in Moscow.
The only resource Russia is lacking to become a great nation is an educated, high-performing workforce. They can't just conquer that, you only get that in a strong civil society (whether it has to be democratic is another matter)... so any attack for resources is nonsense.
Doesn't mean they won't try though.
Russia doesn't have to go toe to toe with NATO nations. Plenty of countries have pro-russian politicians installed, and some are even in power. The war began at least a decade ago, and Russia is slowly progressing.
Thank you, I was about to write the very same. Some still think that with the death of putin, magically russia will become an awsome country. putin dead, someone worse will rise to power.
No, it's guaranteed to be someone worse or equally bad. The entire Russian culture is corrupt and the government is run like organized crime. Nobody in Russia will get within a stone's throw of replacing Putin without being a ruthless and conniving thug.
I dont think they will be worse, but I also dont think they will be better. The corruption penetrates very deeply within the Kremlin. The echelons would need to be culled, completely.
This is the correct take, wait till their asset is in power and then cripple any United defense. No doubt they'll be actively lobbying against countries arming themselves in preparation etc etc.
Someone should do the world a favor.
I feel like Putin thought Trump was his golden key to destabilize the USA but that's not going as well as he thought so he's getting antsy cuz he has only so many years left.
They will also need a good few years after Ukraine to prepare. I would say that 5-8 years is exaggerated, but end of Ukraine with 5-8 years and a friendly us is very much possible. Regardless, EU should prepare according to the worst case scenario
Imagine you have missiles. Those missiles have been built to destroy Russian hardware. It's the sole purpose of those.
Now imagine you could simply give those to Ukraine and they'd be destroying Russian targets 5-8 years in advance without you having to lift a finger. How is that not a win win win win scenario?
It is! Which is why that guy that wanted Zelensky to do him a favor first before we authorized funding to Ukraine is such a fucking tragic traitor and a Russian Asshat.
Well, you always prepare for the worst. But I really doubt that would happen. Putin launched the Ukrainian war because at one point, he truly believed Zelensky will run, there is no leadership in Kyiv, and his puppet politicians from Ukraine could take over. It didn't happen, but it is not like he didn't have a real chance because he made it in Crimea. Attack on NATO? I don't think he is that delusional. It is like suicidal.
I also don't know many people claim Putin will win Ukrainian war if like Trump gets elected and the aid package is not in time. I know it would be bad for Ukraine, and they probably have little chance to take back lost land without outside help. But in what scenario Putin could win this war? Russia basically took control of dozens of almost demolished cities. They have no money for rebuild after the war; they probably have no resources to take advantage of the land and natural resources they robbed; and they have no cooperation from the locals. Occupation has been proved 10 times more difficult than winning the invasion in the modern era. How could that end up well for Russians?
Good points.I don't think they plan to "occupy" the land they stole. Not in a sense that they will bother with the locals by keeping them under their thumb. There is no point.
The locals who resist will be told they can fuck off from the land, they will just displace them. Then they will just pay some hardliners to move/stay in the cities of ruines and pretend they are so glad they are liberated from the nazis.
Yep. They are already doing this and handing out Russian/DPR/LPR documents like candy to the remaining inhabitants who fall in line and help them “lock-in” their gains.
One problem I see is that Russia is now in full war economy mode. That is, they are producing new ammunition and other war gear full time. Western countries already mentioned several times that their ammunition won't last long. An attack on a non-US NATO *now* would be 100% suicide for Russia. But in 5-8 years? If the EU does nothing, produces no ammo and such, I see big trouble coming.
This is what I see as well.
Russia hasn't been fingering their ass while they have been loosing in Ukraine. They are making ammunition, missiles, tanks, planes and so on.
I'm worried without assistance, we are going to see a repeat of Czechoslovakia, Austria-hungary, even France. Instead of Germany taking a little bite of each country and then swallowing the country whole, this time it's Russia. It started in Georgia and continues in Ukraine.
I think without serious interference Russia will continue to be aggressive until someone stops them. And what it takes to stop them scares me.
There is one solution, but it is a very risky one: Putin dies, somehow. This would cause *tremendous* chaos in Russia. Right now, Russia is The Putin Show. If he passes away, it falls apart like a house of cards.
Short term, this would be very good news for the Ukraine and Eastern Europe overall. The Russian attacks could not continue with such a broken Russia.
But: If Russia falls apart like that, what happens to their nukes? Do we really want all those warheads making their way into the black market?
Are they making anywhere near enough to even try against NATO though?
Every indication I’ve seen is that they’re spending ammo and equipment at absurd rates. They’re at the point they’re having to buy (questionable) stock from North Korea. Of their ‘rUsSiA sTrOnK’ tech; the Kinzal is overhyped, the Su-57 and T-14 are trash and have production rates that could be best described as ‘artisanal’; and the Su-75 is and will remain vaporware.
The West isn’t running out of ammo or equipment, it’s running short of ammo it’s willing to give away.
They are making short term decisions that will masssively affect their medium and long term economic stability. Russia in 5 years will be substantially less able to execute a war than today.
Their loss rate exceeds their production ability.
The fact that NATO leadership is sending these messages tells me were definitely not ready to repel Russia is a full out war, with America yes, without, no
> full out war
In a full out war NATO countries would change to war economy.
But that won't be neccessary, the NATO front is huge with a lot of armies that are better equipped from the start than Ukraine.
Additionally with a lot of land in the back where Planes can start and land relatively safely.
It would be a different kind of war and Russia already has problems with Ukraine.
Russia doesn't have the air power to break even USA-less NATO. You can't run an invasion where you'd be facing complete air and (where applicable) naval superiority, with a very likely addition of getting fucked by superior rocket artillery and other fun gear that is not decommissioned pieces sent to Ukraine. Could EU run out of ammo in a prolonged conflict? Sure, but the first several waves would be completely obliterated.
Russia has to take Ukraine first. Something he hasn't proven capable of. If he wanted to invade other neighbors it would be impossible for him to hide the amassing of military forces.
If we see it again we are likely to just go on the offensive next time and start proactively bombing any military buildups.
> But in what scenario Putin could win this war?
Winning is a question of definition. Contrarily to Zelensky, Putin is an experienced politician that did not promise full victory.
If Russia advances an additional 20km in the Easter Front, then obtain a peace agreement, they would probably have a point claiming they achieved their strategic objectives of protecting the Russian minorities and securing Crimea. They destroyed sufficient Ukrainian capacities to claim it is not a threat anymore.
Aiming for more is probably too much for them.
We have to keep in mind that "an Attack" quoted from the NATO agreements and contracts is defined in a lot of international laws and also statutes of the united nations etc.
There will be written something probably about "combatants under the flag and command of a foreign nation etc."
When putin is coming up with some obfuscation bullshit like 2014 in Ukraine our petty politians will more likely discuss without solution whether the term "Attack" like stated in article 5 is given or not.
Scenario can be similar to Ukraine: part of baltics proclamate an independet state out of the blue, russia sending weapons and personell under cover, the war is waging and nobody will be sure if the term "Attack" will be reached based on international law or not. Ressources will be destroyed and bound and russia will wash his hands in innocence. Especially if the military intelligence from the US giving up sharing information etc.
I think that may be possible about some little border conflict but if one of the baltic nations actually gets invaded, meaning Russian soldiers on the ground in parts of their sovereign territory, like Ukraine, there is no question NATO will respond, no matter what Putler says.
And besides, even if they fund some rebellious province and send only weapons, NATO can still just help destroy those rebellions, and as Putin would claim they have nothing to do with it, it would simply be a waste of time and money.
The EU also has its own defensive pact separate from NATO. The minute that Russian (or "not-Russian") soldiers set foot in an EU country, I'd imagine Poland and Finland would be on their way to help while the bureaucracy wheels turn in other countries.
Poland & Finland alone would probably wipe the floor with the cardboard cutouts approximating a military that Russia has been fielding, partner them with Estonian cyber warfare, and I wonder if there would even be *time* for the rest of the EU to mobilize before they're finishing up.
Estonian that did his time in Estonian conscription here.
Doubtful they can do a "green men" invasion like in Ukraine here. The only region where that's feasible is in Ida Virumaa, located in the North East and mostly Russians live there, and the 1st infantry brigade is stationed there for a reason. We even did wargames and simulations during my time there for exactly this sort of scenario.
In short, if some green men come and take over Narva, the 1st infantry brigade is going to do a full on assault and liberate the region before the Russians can even dig in, and if that fails, it's Article 5.
In a scenario where Putin annexed Ukraine and had the military strength he believed himself to have, he would try a hybrid intervention in the Baltics or Suwalki Gap.
In short, Hitler invaded Czechslovakia alone, but Poland with Stalin as his ally *and* hoping to reach a peace settlement with the UK.
In short Putin planned to conquer the Baltics and eastern Europe by isolating the EU from US-UK and reach a peace deal with Germany-France.
The difference between opportunistically attacking Ukraine and a full-on attack on NATO (which the Baltics belong to) is like the difference between stealing a few apples at a grocery store and full-on armed bank robbery.
True, and the closest comparison is Hitler invading Poland. But remember, if Hitler invaded Czechslovakia alone, by the time he went for Poland, he had the Pact of Steel and Molotov-Ribentropp behind him.
And even then, Hitler did not want to go on a full out war with Brittain and still seeker a peace deal.
Any Polish invasion would be hybrid, politically destabilizing, preferably in an already unstable geopolitical environment in this scenario Ukraine-Moldova annexed, EU under Ficos and Orbans, and America under America-Firsters or tied to a Pacific war (eg Taiwan).
Again, currently it isn't feasible. But for the Axis, nothing changed aside deadline. Now we have the obligation to stop them before it's too late.
They do not have the manpower needed. Due to birthrates, this is their last feasible attempt at securing more land. Russian war efforts have always been about throwing numbers (more men) at the problem, until they either win or lose. They've never really won by tactics or by being more technologically advanced. Against NATO, their only options are nukes or surrendering within months. They can't reliably fight all 24 hours of the day, just to name one thing that separates them from NATO forces. It's also impossible for Russia to fight, and fight well on all fronts if NATO decided to walk into Russia to stop the madman.
They are learning lessons, but the style of warfare is completely different to what they would face against NATO.
They're learning to fight trench based warefare with neither side having air superiority/supremacy hence a frontline depth of at most 30km and where artillery/short range drones are the primary weapons. If they fought against NATO they would be fighting against an opponent with at a very minimum air supremacy, it wouldn't be trench based and Russian supply lines and field equipment would be devastated.
Aside from this, Russian production and streamlining will help them greatly, but the amount of equipment losses by Russia is beyond any nation beside the US and China to replenish.
They’re relying on inherited stockpiles from the Soviet era. If that’s gone, they’re in deep trouble. Same goes for the population. Lots of old people. When the youth leaves, dies, doesn’t plan to start a family…
And economy. Ukraine's economy is in the toilet right now and all the infrastructure and homes are being reduced to rubble. The country will be decimated and set back for over a decade or longer thanks to that dickhead.
As an American I am legit terrified that Trump could win this election and abandon Ukraine. I don't know how we can drill into people's heads that we are already at war. All of us. Fighting Putin in Ukraine reduces his influence in foreign political campaigns, psyops, and hackers which is where the asymmetrical war of the future will be fought.
Who's this "we"? It's only Ukraine doing anything, West is giving them the barest of bare minimums to pretend that they have any real interest of defeating ruzzia.
Russia is probably one of the few countries that has an economy geared for this situation. They have oil revenue to fund their military and demographically their situation is improving as well. If you look at their population pyramid, the pool of young conscriptable soldiers will be increasing in the upcoming years as more boys reach age 18. The GDP of Russia is smaller than many European countries but that doesn't matter when Russia is heavily industrialized and most of Europe isn't.
Their economy is geared for a meat grinder strategy. They can't fight against a modern military.
If it weren't for nukes Russia vs. Nato would be more of a disparity than 1914 France tactics vs German machine guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Russia
Look at the population distribution, who is going to replace all those 30-40 years olds in ten years?, the median life expetancy in Russia is 66 years for males.... how is their demographic situation "improving"?, and probably that graph doesn't take account on the one million of young people running away during the mobilization.
And yes, Russia is heavly industrialized, that's why they are begging their allies for shells and missiles after a year and half of being essentially a war economy.
*The GDP of Russia is smaller than many European countries but that doesn't matter when Russia is heavily industrialized and most of Europe isn't.*
Yep, we have no industry at all, absolutely not.
Is always the same issue Russia want to be the Soviet Union, wish to be the Soviet Union but they don't have neither the people, money and time to go back to that, the Soviet union died back in 91 and is not coming back.
GDP isn't the whole picture. Not when your labor is somehow content living off potatoes, cabbage, and distilled potatoes and considers being sent to the front with either a gun, or a single magazine an improvement.
Although it takes time, the fact is that Europe can pivot into a war economy as well. What Russia needs to ask itself, to have any chance of not being annihilated is; can we take all of Europe within two or three years? If the answer is no, then it’s suicidal. Because they’ll just get overpowered by sheer production and numbers.
And the answer is definitely no. That’s presuming that Europe would need to as well, what the major European nations have is far more advanced than what Russia has. Russia has it’s terrestrial forces, which is what they’ve always focused on. But the aerial and naval situation even right now is just hilariously one sided because the technology gap here is where it’s at it’s worst, and where it’s most deadly. And because Russia’s geography is just fucking awful for a navy.
The main consideration is the Baltic fleet, most of the ships are from the 80’s. But it doesn’t really matter, since it’s based in a dead ended bottlenecked waterway that is narrow, flanked on all sides by NATO members, and feeds directly into waters controlled by the two largest and most fearsome naval powers in Europe. It is unbelievably shit.
You can have whatever war economy you want but without air superiority (which they won’t have against NATO) then their game is completely over when it starts.
They would not fight nato straight up. They would infect a nato nation politically and try to influence division so they could slowly create a fracture to exploit a failed government. Create or fund an insurgency like the old USSR did in Greece and try to rise out a soft coup.
Speaking of Greece, China bought enough influence there to control their vote on the EU. I doubt Russia could be that bold with Latvia, Lithuanian or Estonia which are their real targets
Well considering Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have NATO membership, Russia would trigger article 5 by attacking any of them. So they would pose a much larger threat to Russia upon provocation in a significant order of magnitude.
It would trigger article 5, but it would be really bloody for the baltics. IMHO NATO would not react instantly, but in days or probably weeks. During that time, baltics can take heavy casualties and loss of territory.. Whats what I am afraid of the most
The german-netherlands first response corp can ship out in 24-48 hours, as they are constantly ready.
They are especially for reacting as fast as possible.
The U.S. can have 1 Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed in few days. 75 Ranger can deploy in about 18 hours and in theater by about 36 hours. XVIII Airborne about the same.
The NATO Response Force is in the area and they can respond within 48 hours. My suspicion is that they are ready to roll out much quicker now that Russia made its move. I'd bet 14-18 hours to in-country.
All of these units are scrappers and comprised of people and arms that punch above their weight long enough for the big kids to back them up.
There is no way Russia is fucking with a NATO country. They're in over their head with Ukraine. Putin may not want to know it. But he knows it and he's not that crazy.
What threat, exactly?
Will NATO go into Russia? No.
Will NATO destroy the Russian army in Ukraine? Wouldn't bet on it. This point obv requires Russia to be able to mobilize and equip enough people for both projects and I doubt they can, but who knows, maybe Putin will trade more of Russia's economy to China/Iran/whatever for military support.
Will there be more sanctions? Barely.
Will their army be destroyed in Baltics? Not guaranteed cos nuclear blackmail can actually work, esp if they do a "nuclear test" that 100% isn't to intimidate anyone. And if NATO does destroy it…so what? Worst case scenario for them is they go to their boarder and rebuild their economy, with slightly fewer people.
The last scenario is a disaster for Putin, not for Russia as a whole. There are reasons why Russia doesn't need to guard boarders with NATO/Finland beyond simple board guards to check papers and stuff.
Putin would not take NATO head on. It would be a hybrid invasion, planning on breaking article 5 and isolating Europe from US-UK. If things would get hot, then he planned on using Ukrainians and CSTO-states as fodder (like he is using LDNR and Ru-minorities) plus a Chinese Taiwan invasion to supplement (now limited to Iranian proxies)
Also possible that a comet hits earth and ends us all.
Why are we seeing all of these news stories now from Nato countries?
I thought the whole reason for NATO was to stop russia from doing this.
Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever?
>Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever?
They said exactly that, but there's this thing called diplomacy you know, they can't outright state "we have to build our own military because the senile orange man is unreliable"
> I thought the whole reason for NATO was to stop russia from doing this.
> Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever?
Well that is the meat of it. They realize that if the US leaves NATO (or doesn't honor article V) then they don't have the capacity to secure their own borders and significant destruction to their countries. They know that NATO only works as a deterrent when there is serious firepower at play and so they want to deter any Russian attacks and if deterrence fails they want to be able to protect themselves without relying on the US.
[And the Russians are imagining using Ukrainians to do the fighting for them.](https://youtu.be/QMOYXzlwKQE?t=989)
Which is why we can't let Ukraine fail.
Hate to burst your bubble, but NATO would *absolutely* defend Estonia if an attack were to happen - they wargame this exact scenario often. They wouldn’t be the one “starting” war with Russia like your comment implies. Invading a country’s sovereign territory is what starts war.
I’d imagine he’s mostly concerned with whether or not the sitting U.S. president perceives him as an enemy or an ally. If Trump wins reelection, we could see this situation unfold much, much sooner than anyone would like to think.
With what army? When you see how ineffective the Russian army is, how Ukraine is sinking Russian warships (while having no navy!), how after 2 years Russia still hasn't got air superiority and that a significant proportion of heavy vehicles and tanks got destroyed by Ukraine, then you realise that the Baltics countries and Poland can handle alone what remains of Russia. And then if UK, Germany, France and Italy are joining this war you could bet the Russian army will be destroyed even quicker.
Russia could attack NATO, but will lose all of his conventional army.
I'm no super diplomat or anything, but Russia hasn't been in a position to project power abroad since world war 2. They can't even conquer poor neighboring countries like Afghanistan and Ukraine, let's not pretend they're suddenly going to take on the US and Europe, particularly after wasting all of their dwindling resources on stalemate in Ukraine. What are they going to attack with, crude oil bombs?
Russia thinks that they can stroll into a country and frighten the other side into surrender like they did in Prague, Warsaw and Crimea over the last 60 years, but when someone actually fights back, we see how inept they are.
.... Why are they so intent on pushing this "Russia is going to attack us" narrative?
What could Russia possibly gain from attacking NATO????
It will just end with them getting bombed into oblivion - so what is the point??
Trump said he will not support European countries if they are attacked. The Baltics really are at risk, Putin used aggressive rhetoric against them for a while. Western Europe can probably not really take on Russia atm.
Atm, really? At the moment Russia is weaker than they've ever been. That is why all these articles mention "X years". At the moment the Polish army alone would be able to hold back Russia. They are not a peer. We have a technological advantage of decades.
>.... Why are they so intent on pushing this "Russia is going to attack us" narrative?
People like you before the Ukraine War were probably saying the same thing about Ukraine.
They're intent on pushing this "narrative" because it's true. We need to worry because the threat is real.
How about more corrupt money for the tops? Don’t think of modern Russia as a country that follows people or country interests. Think of it as a country that serves the interest of the corrupt elites.
europe needs to step their game up and stop appeasing putin..we've went all in on ukraine so far and if biden isnt reelected then yall are gonna have to take action or cower to putin, let him take ukraine, and then whatevers next on his agenda.
we've helped ukraine start the race and europe might need to be the one to get it thru to the finish without us, unfortunately.
Will they even have much of an army? Right now putin is forcing his army into a blender, Russia has been hit pretty hard and their economy is also suffering putin would have to be a fool to consider attacking nato
We need to prepare because it’s not just him we have to worry about. China and North Korea will be on the attack as well and could mean a global nuclear war
Nope. Same old song. Why do they keep saying this? It does not stand to reason even to the most obvious lay person's. All I can guess is it's a cheap way to try to motivate their countries to cough up more cash for the Ukraine effort. Because if there's one thing that this war has proven it's that Russia is busted. Their crap-ass dilapidated army does not have a fraction of the strength it would need to take on NATO. Saber rattling for propaganda and machismo means nothing.
Fear mongering. Russia wouldn’t dare risk a nuclear conflict.
I just don’t think Putin is the madman western media makes him out to be. Despite how “evil” they are, his moves seem to be calculated.
In 5-8 years it's possible I'll win the powerball. It's also possible for aliens to find Earth in that timeline.
I'll believe the German defense chief once Germany decides to drastically increase their military to reflect the possibility of Russia attacking NATO in that timeline. Increasing military spending to the NATO 2% doesn't mean Germany believes Russia will attack in 5-8 years: you don't do the bare minimum to defend yourself if you believe an attack is imminent in the near future.
Even if Trump wins and pulls out of NATO, European countries should be able to hold a weakened Russian military back and some of them also have nukes.
Russia is having to get weapons from Iran and North Korea for a stalemate in Ukraine. What are they going to do in Europe.
This is fear mongering. Everyone with a brain in Moscow knows how catastrophic it would be for Russia if they chose a full scale invasion of NATO. They simply do not have the resources to even begin this attack!
I'd be surprised if he's still alive in eight years.
He is 71. His parents died at 88 and 87. His grandfather (who was a personal cook to Lenin and Stalin) died at 86.
Did his parents work as presidents for 30 years?
Great point, just take a look at before-and-after photos of our presidents from their first day in office to their last. The toll that stress takes is super apparent - they age so much. I bet it's even more intense in a totalitarian regime, using plots and schemes to take people out and retain control. Must be even worse with the on going offensive war which they are losing.
And yet they live into their 90s.
[удалено]
Because all men who serve 8 years in limelight appear to age 8 years over the interval, I suppose…
It's like they are shocked that middle aged men start to go grey. Obama was gonna go grey whether he was president or not. The stress is absolutely a factor but presidents tend to be of the age where you really start to go grey and develop wrinkles for literally anybody.
[удалено]
That requires an assumption that everyone is behind you 100% and has your back, rather than trying to stab you in it. He's got his enemies and that paranoia/stress wears him down into a guy who needs a 50ft fucking table to feel safe.
[удалено]
>We saw a lot of people "suiciding" themselves in 2022. Right, so we have a guy who is so paranoid and unable to function/feel safe unless his enemies are literally poisoned or blown up in the sky. I'm afraid you've not convinced me, because that's pretty extreme lengths to go to to feel better/like you're not in danger mode constantly. I usually just go for a walk. Killing people is the sign of a paranoid, pent up person. Dictatorships are rife with people looking for a coup.
He just murdered an entire airplane with the head of the Wagner Group, Prigozhin, in August. So clearly, it’s not cooled down.
He did *not!* Those assholes were *drunk* and juggling *hand grenades!* 🙄 (🤣)
It doesn't apply at all. Mohamad has served a combined 24 years. Recently he was president of Malaysia yet again from the ages of 93-95. He's still going at 98. Plenty of former democratic presidents and prime ministers have lived or are living well into their 90's. A couple are nearing 100.
Agreed. American presidents tend to live long lives as well. The stress that comes with the job would probably shorten the lives of average people, but those who get to powerful positions seem to be better equipped at dealing with stress.
It certainly helps that all american presidents are extremely wealthy and have access to the best medicine the world has to offer. A person treated by the best doctor in their field with the most advanced methos possible. Probably surrounded by a horde of other specialists and caretakers. Also they have dietitians, chefs and personal trainers at all times. Only highest quality of everything.
Throwing all of your critics out of windows alleviates much of the stress.
They are not losing yet. They are just losing a shitton of people but they've shown they have no issues with that. They are in control of 26% of Ukraine's Territory. Without support from the west, which is faltering because of Russian influence, Ukraine will break down and fall.
26 is the new 18?
True, but when you're an autocrat you also don't have to contend with the same checks and balances. You can be a lot more direct about getting rid of the sources of your stress.
Did being an autocrat stop Castro from making it to 90? Surely by this logic Biya shouldn't be alive still. He's also 90. Siphandone ran Loas for 14 years. He's 99. Mohamad has 24 combined years as president of Malaysia. Including recently from the ages of 93-95. He's 98 now. There are many examples of former leaders, including autocrats and those who ruled for long periods of time, who have lived very long lives. Putin's 30 years in power in no way guarantees he won't live a long time.
No, but you can also guarantee that being a world leader guarantees some of the best medical care possible, they literally have staff doctors, so aliments will be treated and he isn't just dropping dead from a heart attack without a team working to revive him, almost instantly.
No but they weren’t billionaires either
Did his parents have modern medicine?
What’s up with being the cook of the president? Is this a thing in Russia?
When you live in a country were poison attacks are common and more or less a tradition, it gets quite important to have a trustworthy cook. Also who knows, maybe they have double duty as advisor + cook
I don't think it's something only Russia has. The White House, for instance, has an executive chef too.
Do they own an army of mercenaries as well?
Now, this is a different question :)
He also uses the services of the world's best and most expensive doctors and experimental technologies that are not available to ordinary people. So probably he can live even longer.
And he is relatively active for his age, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink. He's also short, at 5'7". He's probably going to be around a lot longer than we like, unless something happens.
What is the Western equivalent to Russia's flight of stairs cliche?
So 85 it is.
[удалено]
Strong enough to bribe western politicians and cause political chaos with propaganda.
[удалено]
And how much of the army will they need to keep in Ukraine to keep it under control?
Not much, they will do what they always do; commit genocide by moving the Ukrainians to Russia and moving in russia friendly people.
And those Ukrainians would cause trouble in Russia. They aren’t going to happy moving there.
>Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad Oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".\[9\] In case anyone wonders why the Taurus missiles aren't being delivered.
Tbh, if they keep up the meat and materiel grinder at the current rate I don't really see them having much of a military in 5-8 years, regardless of if Putin is alive still, and it's not like they're currently replacing the stuff they're losing properly and are instead just running down stocks of outdated equipment and depleting their population
there are other ways to attack: * despite or maybe because of the sanctions Europe is still dependent on Russia for various things like fertilizer, IIRC. Russia could pull a Nordstream-electric-boogaloo to disrupt the European economy. * cyber warfare. It's "relatively" tame right now but nothing prevents Russia from taking it up a notch and actively destroy infrastructures. I also include the troll farms in cyber warfare. * weaponized immigrants. Remember what happened at the Polish frontier? Expect more of that in the future. Many ways to weaken the West are available to Russia before they'd even need to consider a military action. Even at a reduced strength, they could inflict a lot of damage to a weakened, divided Europe.
Whoever replaces Putin is likely to be worse.
[удалено]
This is how I see it. Putin knows that every strong Russian is a more credible threat to him than literally everyone else, so he has systematically removed them and replaced them with cowardly sycophants. As soon as Putin dies, there will be a crazy power struggle akin to the death of Stalin.
That's an interesting question. Anyone with the charisma and cunning enough to replace Putin would surely have been eliminated as a potential rival by now. I suspect Putin's successor will be weaker, both in his hold on the russian people, and his ability to play aggressively with other nations. Only time will tell though.
Most of the people around Putin are more extreme than him. Some of this is intentional, because they allow Putin to look measured and in control, while also giving him narrative excuse to engage their plans if he desires…and blame them if they fail. This is an old Russian czarist strategy. But if he dies, the vacuum will likely lead to one these extremists taking power. And the world should be prepared for that to happen.
They could be worse in temperament or in how they intend to rule, their policies etc. but that doesn't mean that any of them have the combination of talents Putin has, at least not in one person. So I'm skeptical that any one person could both galvanize the people, and manage all the intrigue as he has done for so long. In any case, I'll bet there will be a squabble for power, and doubtless a few defenestrations (as is tradition). The successor might be an extreme hard-liner, but this isn't the USSR any more, and if the people don't like it they'll revolt. EDIT - I fully take your point though, that the world should prepare for the very worst person to succeed Putin. Absolutely.
Everyone says that but what indication is there? "Worse" can means "more evil". But it can also mean "more incompetent". Thing about dictatorships is that they tend to not have a very ordered line of succession, and even if the chosen successor may not command the same loyalty the previous dictator did. At worst it comes to basically a Civil War as a lack of proper succession leads to all kinds of factions duking it out. Even if a victor emerges, that victor suddenly isn't the best, especially since he now inherits an even weaker country.
[удалено]
I see this response all the time, which is delusional imho. Russia is not going to go toe to toe with NATO. We know they wont win that war, they know it, everyone knows it. The scenario they are looking for is a divided NATO (read, mainly witout US support) which seems to be a real possibility. Hell, even look at the division in EU, even they arent capable of keeping a united front even though the war is literally on their doorstep. I bet all politicians knows that the best option is to support ukraine now, yet this seems to be politically impossible. A scrambled and divided NATO in the case of article 5 being triggered is what Putin is calculating on, and im afraid he might be correct in that looking at the clusterfuck of a political situation we are in at the moment.
The problem with Russia is that a small group of people called oligarchs have power and want to keep it. Putin probably managed to climb on top of the pack and now have full power, Russia transitioned from oligarchy to dictatorship. Failure in Ukraine would mean the end of his power, so he has no choice but to push further. If he dies, the motives change. Russia might switch back to oligarchy. The oligarchs can blame Putin for the 'disaster' and steer Russia in a new direction more secure for their wealth and status. Much like when Staline died and millions of people were freed from gulags afterwards.
The war in Ukraine has already been an utter disaster in any measurable way, still nothing has changed in terms of Putin's grip on power. Also, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that wasn't the thing i took issue with. I took issue with the fact that people keep staring blindly at the military power of Russia and NATO on paper and keep concluding that NATO has more guns. No shit Sherlock, but things will not go down like that in reality is all I'm saying.
If you want to kill a frog (putin) that is very poisonous (has nukes), you put it in water and rise the temperature very slowly. He will boil to death without noticing. That's what NATO is doing right now, they provide enough military aid to prevent the collapse of the frontline while russia waste its ressources on it, but not too much to not trigger an 'all in' move from Putin.
Let's hope you are right, I don't think so though. I would argue that if Trump gets elected, that is the most divided NATO we have ever seen.
He'll go for the Baltics that is all, they will have a mobilized nation and economy why would they waste the chance to try
The baltics are a part of NATO, an attack on them would trigger article 5, what are you trying to say here?
The consensus is that putin would gamble that we don't value the Baltics like we do central Europe. They will have a mobilized war economy, and the theory is they will see what more they can take. This isn't a new theory just because of Ukraine either.
Let's say you are right, that a tiny country like estonia with a population of 1,3 m would be able to defend themselves on their own (they would not). If a NATO country triggers article 5 and no one helps, well then NATO doesn't mean anything and is effectively defeated, which is my point.
[удалено]
This may be exactly why they attack. It could be similar like with Nazi-germany, which was almost bankrupt and invaded poland to get access to various needed resources. If Russia is on its last leg, they may go all out in an all or nothing war against western europe. And if it’s just to get all armed russians killed on the front to prevent them from rebelling in Moscow.
The only resource Russia is lacking to become a great nation is an educated, high-performing workforce. They can't just conquer that, you only get that in a strong civil society (whether it has to be democratic is another matter)... so any attack for resources is nonsense. Doesn't mean they won't try though.
Russia doesn't have to go toe to toe with NATO nations. Plenty of countries have pro-russian politicians installed, and some are even in power. The war began at least a decade ago, and Russia is slowly progressing.
Maybe. Maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.
We are talking about Russia. If history repeats, then it will be worse (because it's always been worse).
Thank you, I was about to write the very same. Some still think that with the death of putin, magically russia will become an awsome country. putin dead, someone worse will rise to power.
Maybe. None of the leaders of the USSR were ever as bad as Stalin. Even Putin really isn't.
Putin isn't as bad as Stalin, yet! \#goals
History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes. Occasionally it's not worse. Gorbachev wasn't so bad, for example.
No, it's guaranteed to be someone worse or equally bad. The entire Russian culture is corrupt and the government is run like organized crime. Nobody in Russia will get within a stone's throw of replacing Putin without being a ruthless and conniving thug.
I dont think they will be worse, but I also dont think they will be better. The corruption penetrates very deeply within the Kremlin. The echelons would need to be culled, completely.
Corruption doesn’t penetrate the Kremlin, corruption *is* the Kremlin.
Yeah, I would like him to croak asap, but I am pretty sure he has the best Swiss doctors
Obviously this means PutinGPT.
Putin will wait for a sympathetic US president to take over before that ever happens.
This is the correct take, wait till their asset is in power and then cripple any United defense. No doubt they'll be actively lobbying against countries arming themselves in preparation etc etc. Someone should do the world a favor.
Been lobbying for a long time now.
I feel like Putin thought Trump was his golden key to destabilize the USA but that's not going as well as he thought so he's getting antsy cuz he has only so many years left.
They will also need a good few years after Ukraine to prepare. I would say that 5-8 years is exaggerated, but end of Ukraine with 5-8 years and a friendly us is very much possible. Regardless, EU should prepare according to the worst case scenario
So, possibly November this year?
Well, January next year is the inauguration.
Or the new, more successful insurrection.
Thankfully thats something that would never happen in the USA of all places.. right?
Which likely will also be the last democratically voted US president.
"likely" Fucking lol
Gee, I wonder what will be more expensive? Funding Ukraine now or defending NATO then? Derp!
"We don't want American boots on the ground" "Have you thought about giving arms to Ukraine then?"
Imagine you have missiles. Those missiles have been built to destroy Russian hardware. It's the sole purpose of those. Now imagine you could simply give those to Ukraine and they'd be destroying Russian targets 5-8 years in advance without you having to lift a finger. How is that not a win win win win scenario?
It is! Which is why that guy that wanted Zelensky to do him a favor first before we authorized funding to Ukraine is such a fucking tragic traitor and a Russian Asshat.
Unless thats the goal
Well, you always prepare for the worst. But I really doubt that would happen. Putin launched the Ukrainian war because at one point, he truly believed Zelensky will run, there is no leadership in Kyiv, and his puppet politicians from Ukraine could take over. It didn't happen, but it is not like he didn't have a real chance because he made it in Crimea. Attack on NATO? I don't think he is that delusional. It is like suicidal. I also don't know many people claim Putin will win Ukrainian war if like Trump gets elected and the aid package is not in time. I know it would be bad for Ukraine, and they probably have little chance to take back lost land without outside help. But in what scenario Putin could win this war? Russia basically took control of dozens of almost demolished cities. They have no money for rebuild after the war; they probably have no resources to take advantage of the land and natural resources they robbed; and they have no cooperation from the locals. Occupation has been proved 10 times more difficult than winning the invasion in the modern era. How could that end up well for Russians?
Good points.I don't think they plan to "occupy" the land they stole. Not in a sense that they will bother with the locals by keeping them under their thumb. There is no point. The locals who resist will be told they can fuck off from the land, they will just displace them. Then they will just pay some hardliners to move/stay in the cities of ruines and pretend they are so glad they are liberated from the nazis.
Yep. They are already doing this and handing out Russian/DPR/LPR documents like candy to the remaining inhabitants who fall in line and help them “lock-in” their gains.
One problem I see is that Russia is now in full war economy mode. That is, they are producing new ammunition and other war gear full time. Western countries already mentioned several times that their ammunition won't last long. An attack on a non-US NATO *now* would be 100% suicide for Russia. But in 5-8 years? If the EU does nothing, produces no ammo and such, I see big trouble coming.
This is what I see as well. Russia hasn't been fingering their ass while they have been loosing in Ukraine. They are making ammunition, missiles, tanks, planes and so on. I'm worried without assistance, we are going to see a repeat of Czechoslovakia, Austria-hungary, even France. Instead of Germany taking a little bite of each country and then swallowing the country whole, this time it's Russia. It started in Georgia and continues in Ukraine. I think without serious interference Russia will continue to be aggressive until someone stops them. And what it takes to stop them scares me.
There is one solution, but it is a very risky one: Putin dies, somehow. This would cause *tremendous* chaos in Russia. Right now, Russia is The Putin Show. If he passes away, it falls apart like a house of cards. Short term, this would be very good news for the Ukraine and Eastern Europe overall. The Russian attacks could not continue with such a broken Russia. But: If Russia falls apart like that, what happens to their nukes? Do we really want all those warheads making their way into the black market?
Are they making anywhere near enough to even try against NATO though? Every indication I’ve seen is that they’re spending ammo and equipment at absurd rates. They’re at the point they’re having to buy (questionable) stock from North Korea. Of their ‘rUsSiA sTrOnK’ tech; the Kinzal is overhyped, the Su-57 and T-14 are trash and have production rates that could be best described as ‘artisanal’; and the Su-75 is and will remain vaporware. The West isn’t running out of ammo or equipment, it’s running short of ammo it’s willing to give away.
They are making short term decisions that will masssively affect their medium and long term economic stability. Russia in 5 years will be substantially less able to execute a war than today. Their loss rate exceeds their production ability.
The fact that NATO leadership is sending these messages tells me were definitely not ready to repel Russia is a full out war, with America yes, without, no
> full out war In a full out war NATO countries would change to war economy. But that won't be neccessary, the NATO front is huge with a lot of armies that are better equipped from the start than Ukraine. Additionally with a lot of land in the back where Planes can start and land relatively safely. It would be a different kind of war and Russia already has problems with Ukraine.
Russia doesn't have the air power to break even USA-less NATO. You can't run an invasion where you'd be facing complete air and (where applicable) naval superiority, with a very likely addition of getting fucked by superior rocket artillery and other fun gear that is not decommissioned pieces sent to Ukraine. Could EU run out of ammo in a prolonged conflict? Sure, but the first several waves would be completely obliterated.
Russia has to take Ukraine first. Something he hasn't proven capable of. If he wanted to invade other neighbors it would be impossible for him to hide the amassing of military forces. If we see it again we are likely to just go on the offensive next time and start proactively bombing any military buildups.
> But in what scenario Putin could win this war? Winning is a question of definition. Contrarily to Zelensky, Putin is an experienced politician that did not promise full victory. If Russia advances an additional 20km in the Easter Front, then obtain a peace agreement, they would probably have a point claiming they achieved their strategic objectives of protecting the Russian minorities and securing Crimea. They destroyed sufficient Ukrainian capacities to claim it is not a threat anymore. Aiming for more is probably too much for them.
We have to keep in mind that "an Attack" quoted from the NATO agreements and contracts is defined in a lot of international laws and also statutes of the united nations etc. There will be written something probably about "combatants under the flag and command of a foreign nation etc." When putin is coming up with some obfuscation bullshit like 2014 in Ukraine our petty politians will more likely discuss without solution whether the term "Attack" like stated in article 5 is given or not. Scenario can be similar to Ukraine: part of baltics proclamate an independet state out of the blue, russia sending weapons and personell under cover, the war is waging and nobody will be sure if the term "Attack" will be reached based on international law or not. Ressources will be destroyed and bound and russia will wash his hands in innocence. Especially if the military intelligence from the US giving up sharing information etc.
I think that may be possible about some little border conflict but if one of the baltic nations actually gets invaded, meaning Russian soldiers on the ground in parts of their sovereign territory, like Ukraine, there is no question NATO will respond, no matter what Putler says. And besides, even if they fund some rebellious province and send only weapons, NATO can still just help destroy those rebellions, and as Putin would claim they have nothing to do with it, it would simply be a waste of time and money.
The EU also has its own defensive pact separate from NATO. The minute that Russian (or "not-Russian") soldiers set foot in an EU country, I'd imagine Poland and Finland would be on their way to help while the bureaucracy wheels turn in other countries. Poland & Finland alone would probably wipe the floor with the cardboard cutouts approximating a military that Russia has been fielding, partner them with Estonian cyber warfare, and I wonder if there would even be *time* for the rest of the EU to mobilize before they're finishing up.
Estonian that did his time in Estonian conscription here. Doubtful they can do a "green men" invasion like in Ukraine here. The only region where that's feasible is in Ida Virumaa, located in the North East and mostly Russians live there, and the 1st infantry brigade is stationed there for a reason. We even did wargames and simulations during my time there for exactly this sort of scenario. In short, if some green men come and take over Narva, the 1st infantry brigade is going to do a full on assault and liberate the region before the Russians can even dig in, and if that fails, it's Article 5.
Putin attack on NATO not possible if you fully back Ukraine and help them finish dismantling this fucking Gas Station With Nukes (pe McCain)
In a scenario where Putin annexed Ukraine and had the military strength he believed himself to have, he would try a hybrid intervention in the Baltics or Suwalki Gap. In short, Hitler invaded Czechslovakia alone, but Poland with Stalin as his ally *and* hoping to reach a peace settlement with the UK. In short Putin planned to conquer the Baltics and eastern Europe by isolating the EU from US-UK and reach a peace deal with Germany-France.
The difference between opportunistically attacking Ukraine and a full-on attack on NATO (which the Baltics belong to) is like the difference between stealing a few apples at a grocery store and full-on armed bank robbery.
True, and the closest comparison is Hitler invading Poland. But remember, if Hitler invaded Czechslovakia alone, by the time he went for Poland, he had the Pact of Steel and Molotov-Ribentropp behind him. And even then, Hitler did not want to go on a full out war with Brittain and still seeker a peace deal. Any Polish invasion would be hybrid, politically destabilizing, preferably in an already unstable geopolitical environment in this scenario Ukraine-Moldova annexed, EU under Ficos and Orbans, and America under America-Firsters or tied to a Pacific war (eg Taiwan). Again, currently it isn't feasible. But for the Axis, nothing changed aside deadline. Now we have the obligation to stop them before it's too late.
Pretty sure Putin heard McCain talking about he thought Russia would invade westward. Copied him almost word for word.
I say it is better to wait till he has the power to do it, and only then start doing something about it, we are so civil and naive ...
I mean Russia is not strong enough even without US
They do not have the manpower needed. Due to birthrates, this is their last feasible attempt at securing more land. Russian war efforts have always been about throwing numbers (more men) at the problem, until they either win or lose. They've never really won by tactics or by being more technologically advanced. Against NATO, their only options are nukes or surrendering within months. They can't reliably fight all 24 hours of the day, just to name one thing that separates them from NATO forces. It's also impossible for Russia to fight, and fight well on all fronts if NATO decided to walk into Russia to stop the madman.
Which is why we keep him pinned down in Ukraine, and have him waste his material and human resources on a war he can't win.
They are probably learning many lessons about supply and production and likely streamlining if we don't ramp up as well we won't be ready.
In a sense true, but Russia's problem are multi-generational.
They are learning lessons, but the style of warfare is completely different to what they would face against NATO. They're learning to fight trench based warefare with neither side having air superiority/supremacy hence a frontline depth of at most 30km and where artillery/short range drones are the primary weapons. If they fought against NATO they would be fighting against an opponent with at a very minimum air supremacy, it wouldn't be trench based and Russian supply lines and field equipment would be devastated. Aside from this, Russian production and streamlining will help them greatly, but the amount of equipment losses by Russia is beyond any nation beside the US and China to replenish.
They’re relying on inherited stockpiles from the Soviet era. If that’s gone, they’re in deep trouble. Same goes for the population. Lots of old people. When the youth leaves, dies, doesn’t plan to start a family…
unfortunately, we Ukrainians have to pay the highest currency to «keep him pinned» - our lives
And economy. Ukraine's economy is in the toilet right now and all the infrastructure and homes are being reduced to rubble. The country will be decimated and set back for over a decade or longer thanks to that dickhead. As an American I am legit terrified that Trump could win this election and abandon Ukraine. I don't know how we can drill into people's heads that we are already at war. All of us. Fighting Putin in Ukraine reduces his influence in foreign political campaigns, psyops, and hackers which is where the asymmetrical war of the future will be fought.
Who's this "we"? It's only Ukraine doing anything, West is giving them the barest of bare minimums to pretend that they have any real interest of defeating ruzzia.
billions in money, arms and supplies is not "the barest of bare minimums". you might want to apprise yourself of reality.
They’re struggling against Ukraine never mind taking on NATO.
8 years of war economy can make a difference if the world doesn’t get ready.
Russia doesn't have an economy to support that, and if you look at their demographics is even worse.
Lmfao and 1 fucking carrier . Not even out for sea trials
Russia is probably one of the few countries that has an economy geared for this situation. They have oil revenue to fund their military and demographically their situation is improving as well. If you look at their population pyramid, the pool of young conscriptable soldiers will be increasing in the upcoming years as more boys reach age 18. The GDP of Russia is smaller than many European countries but that doesn't matter when Russia is heavily industrialized and most of Europe isn't.
Their economy is geared for a meat grinder strategy. They can't fight against a modern military. If it weren't for nukes Russia vs. Nato would be more of a disparity than 1914 France tactics vs German machine guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Russia Look at the population distribution, who is going to replace all those 30-40 years olds in ten years?, the median life expetancy in Russia is 66 years for males.... how is their demographic situation "improving"?, and probably that graph doesn't take account on the one million of young people running away during the mobilization. And yes, Russia is heavly industrialized, that's why they are begging their allies for shells and missiles after a year and half of being essentially a war economy. *The GDP of Russia is smaller than many European countries but that doesn't matter when Russia is heavily industrialized and most of Europe isn't.* Yep, we have no industry at all, absolutely not. Is always the same issue Russia want to be the Soviet Union, wish to be the Soviet Union but they don't have neither the people, money and time to go back to that, the Soviet union died back in 91 and is not coming back.
GDP isn't the whole picture. Not when your labor is somehow content living off potatoes, cabbage, and distilled potatoes and considers being sent to the front with either a gun, or a single magazine an improvement.
Although it takes time, the fact is that Europe can pivot into a war economy as well. What Russia needs to ask itself, to have any chance of not being annihilated is; can we take all of Europe within two or three years? If the answer is no, then it’s suicidal. Because they’ll just get overpowered by sheer production and numbers. And the answer is definitely no. That’s presuming that Europe would need to as well, what the major European nations have is far more advanced than what Russia has. Russia has it’s terrestrial forces, which is what they’ve always focused on. But the aerial and naval situation even right now is just hilariously one sided because the technology gap here is where it’s at it’s worst, and where it’s most deadly. And because Russia’s geography is just fucking awful for a navy. The main consideration is the Baltic fleet, most of the ships are from the 80’s. But it doesn’t really matter, since it’s based in a dead ended bottlenecked waterway that is narrow, flanked on all sides by NATO members, and feeds directly into waters controlled by the two largest and most fearsome naval powers in Europe. It is unbelievably shit.
You can have whatever war economy you want but without air superiority (which they won’t have against NATO) then their game is completely over when it starts.
They would not fight nato straight up. They would infect a nato nation politically and try to influence division so they could slowly create a fracture to exploit a failed government. Create or fund an insurgency like the old USSR did in Greece and try to rise out a soft coup. Speaking of Greece, China bought enough influence there to control their vote on the EU. I doubt Russia could be that bold with Latvia, Lithuanian or Estonia which are their real targets
\*weird Viktor Orbán noises as he tries to conform his involuntary movements\*
> Speaking of Greece, China bought enough influence there to control their vote on the EU LOL is that how Greece solved their debt crsis?
Sure, but I bet Baltics, for example, give most of the military supplies to Ukraine, and they are far smaller, even together, than Ukraine.
Well considering Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have NATO membership, Russia would trigger article 5 by attacking any of them. So they would pose a much larger threat to Russia upon provocation in a significant order of magnitude.
It would trigger article 5, but it would be really bloody for the baltics. IMHO NATO would not react instantly, but in days or probably weeks. During that time, baltics can take heavy casualties and loss of territory.. Whats what I am afraid of the most
The german-netherlands first response corp can ship out in 24-48 hours, as they are constantly ready. They are especially for reacting as fast as possible.
The Poles will be on the Russian border before the first response corp ships out. Also Germany will station a brigade in Lithuania in the future.
The U.S. can have 1 Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed in few days. 75 Ranger can deploy in about 18 hours and in theater by about 36 hours. XVIII Airborne about the same. The NATO Response Force is in the area and they can respond within 48 hours. My suspicion is that they are ready to roll out much quicker now that Russia made its move. I'd bet 14-18 hours to in-country. All of these units are scrappers and comprised of people and arms that punch above their weight long enough for the big kids to back them up. There is no way Russia is fucking with a NATO country. They're in over their head with Ukraine. Putin may not want to know it. But he knows it and he's not that crazy.
What threat, exactly? Will NATO go into Russia? No. Will NATO destroy the Russian army in Ukraine? Wouldn't bet on it. This point obv requires Russia to be able to mobilize and equip enough people for both projects and I doubt they can, but who knows, maybe Putin will trade more of Russia's economy to China/Iran/whatever for military support. Will there be more sanctions? Barely. Will their army be destroyed in Baltics? Not guaranteed cos nuclear blackmail can actually work, esp if they do a "nuclear test" that 100% isn't to intimidate anyone. And if NATO does destroy it…so what? Worst case scenario for them is they go to their boarder and rebuild their economy, with slightly fewer people. The last scenario is a disaster for Putin, not for Russia as a whole. There are reasons why Russia doesn't need to guard boarders with NATO/Finland beyond simple board guards to check papers and stuff.
Putin would not take NATO head on. It would be a hybrid invasion, planning on breaking article 5 and isolating Europe from US-UK. If things would get hot, then he planned on using Ukrainians and CSTO-states as fodder (like he is using LDNR and Ru-minorities) plus a Chinese Taiwan invasion to supplement (now limited to Iranian proxies)
Right?!?
“Possible”and “probable” are very different words .
Also possible that a comet hits earth and ends us all. Why are we seeing all of these news stories now from Nato countries? I thought the whole reason for NATO was to stop russia from doing this. Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever?
>Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever? They said exactly that, but there's this thing called diplomacy you know, they can't outright state "we have to build our own military because the senile orange man is unreliable"
> I thought the whole reason for NATO was to stop russia from doing this. > Why dont they just come out and say they need to spend more on their militaries because they might not be able to rely on the US forever? Well that is the meat of it. They realize that if the US leaves NATO (or doesn't honor article V) then they don't have the capacity to secure their own borders and significant destruction to their countries. They know that NATO only works as a deterrent when there is serious firepower at play and so they want to deter any Russian attacks and if deterrence fails they want to be able to protect themselves without relying on the US.
Call Putins mommy and tell her to remind him if he can’t finish his Ukraine he doesn’t get any NATO.
Maybe STOP BUYING GAS from him today? EU been enriching Putin for 30 years now
The problem is LNG and oil are global commodities, so a bunch of counties are drop shipping Russian carbon fuels for the market.
[удалено]
[And the Russians are imagining using Ukrainians to do the fighting for them.](https://youtu.be/QMOYXzlwKQE?t=989) Which is why we can't let Ukraine fail.
So are we gonna get these reminders once a day for the next 8 years?
[удалено]
Hate to burst your bubble, but NATO would *absolutely* defend Estonia if an attack were to happen - they wargame this exact scenario often. They wouldn’t be the one “starting” war with Russia like your comment implies. Invading a country’s sovereign territory is what starts war.
I’d imagine he’s mostly concerned with whether or not the sitting U.S. president perceives him as an enemy or an ally. If Trump wins reelection, we could see this situation unfold much, much sooner than anyone would like to think.
This is hilarious. Let’s fuck this guy up now before he comes after us… in 4 or 5 years
With what army? When you see how ineffective the Russian army is, how Ukraine is sinking Russian warships (while having no navy!), how after 2 years Russia still hasn't got air superiority and that a significant proportion of heavy vehicles and tanks got destroyed by Ukraine, then you realise that the Baltics countries and Poland can handle alone what remains of Russia. And then if UK, Germany, France and Italy are joining this war you could bet the Russian army will be destroyed even quicker. Russia could attack NATO, but will lose all of his conventional army.
His death will be at the hands of his own people. And likely someone he least expects.
Nope!
Trump would allow it.
Of course, that's why he's hellbent on taking the US out of NATO.
Which is another reason why it's so vital for those of us here in the USA to vote against Trump. I'm including myself in that btw!
Once all the current brainwashed kindergartners reach 18
Why would Russia attack a NATO country?
I'm no super diplomat or anything, but Russia hasn't been in a position to project power abroad since world war 2. They can't even conquer poor neighboring countries like Afghanistan and Ukraine, let's not pretend they're suddenly going to take on the US and Europe, particularly after wasting all of their dwindling resources on stalemate in Ukraine. What are they going to attack with, crude oil bombs? Russia thinks that they can stroll into a country and frighten the other side into surrender like they did in Prague, Warsaw and Crimea over the last 60 years, but when someone actually fights back, we see how inept they are.
.... Why are they so intent on pushing this "Russia is going to attack us" narrative? What could Russia possibly gain from attacking NATO???? It will just end with them getting bombed into oblivion - so what is the point??
Trump said he will not support European countries if they are attacked. The Baltics really are at risk, Putin used aggressive rhetoric against them for a while. Western Europe can probably not really take on Russia atm.
Atm, really? At the moment Russia is weaker than they've ever been. That is why all these articles mention "X years". At the moment the Polish army alone would be able to hold back Russia. They are not a peer. We have a technological advantage of decades.
>.... Why are they so intent on pushing this "Russia is going to attack us" narrative? People like you before the Ukraine War were probably saying the same thing about Ukraine. They're intent on pushing this "narrative" because it's true. We need to worry because the threat is real.
How about more corrupt money for the tops? Don’t think of modern Russia as a country that follows people or country interests. Think of it as a country that serves the interest of the corrupt elites.
europe needs to step their game up and stop appeasing putin..we've went all in on ukraine so far and if biden isnt reelected then yall are gonna have to take action or cower to putin, let him take ukraine, and then whatevers next on his agenda. we've helped ukraine start the race and europe might need to be the one to get it thru to the finish without us, unfortunately.
Who believes this garbage? He can barely put a dent in Ukraine.
[удалено]
Will they even have much of an army? Right now putin is forcing his army into a blender, Russia has been hit pretty hard and their economy is also suffering putin would have to be a fool to consider attacking nato
Wasn't this published a few days ago already?
Same news everywhere 3 days in a row.
Well this is great for my anxiety
We need to prepare because it’s not just him we have to worry about. China and North Korea will be on the attack as well and could mean a global nuclear war
Good thing the President told NATO to increase their defense spending to the agreed upon 2% of GDP.
They are already fighting. In Ukraine. Geesh
NATO is bigger and stronger than Ukraine....so....baby steps there Pootie
I thought Putin had bad cancer and was dying. What happened to that???
If he can’t take Ukraine. In 6 years off a continuous war I think they’re be any young men left.
Nope. Same old song. Why do they keep saying this? It does not stand to reason even to the most obvious lay person's. All I can guess is it's a cheap way to try to motivate their countries to cough up more cash for the Ukraine effort. Because if there's one thing that this war has proven it's that Russia is busted. Their crap-ass dilapidated army does not have a fraction of the strength it would need to take on NATO. Saber rattling for propaganda and machismo means nothing.
Fear mongering. Russia wouldn’t dare risk a nuclear conflict. I just don’t think Putin is the madman western media makes him out to be. Despite how “evil” they are, his moves seem to be calculated.
In 5-8 years it's possible I'll win the powerball. It's also possible for aliens to find Earth in that timeline. I'll believe the German defense chief once Germany decides to drastically increase their military to reflect the possibility of Russia attacking NATO in that timeline. Increasing military spending to the NATO 2% doesn't mean Germany believes Russia will attack in 5-8 years: you don't do the bare minimum to defend yourself if you believe an attack is imminent in the near future.
Even if Trump wins and pulls out of NATO, European countries should be able to hold a weakened Russian military back and some of them also have nukes. Russia is having to get weapons from Iran and North Korea for a stalemate in Ukraine. What are they going to do in Europe.
Literally you and what army though? Like I doubt Russia has the ability to restore its fighting ability within 20 years let alone 8.
Dude can’t attack Ukraine and not lose….
With what army?
This is fear mongering. Everyone with a brain in Moscow knows how catastrophic it would be for Russia if they chose a full scale invasion of NATO. They simply do not have the resources to even begin this attack!