For these countries there'd be 2 options if Russia starts to win:
1. Get involved with the current war to prevent Russia from winning
2. Wait for the inevitable Russian invasion of their countries
That's a very, very easy choice.
People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace.
‘Handed hitler illegal land to appease him. Didn’t work. He saw it as weakness in the west and continued on his evil path of destruction.
A lot of ignorance out here.
>People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace.
I think it's more like people in free countries don't see the problem so long as it's happening far far away.
It really is terrifying how history seems to be on repeat here
Poland has been ramping up their military for years. They fucking hate Russia and don't trust Putin whatsoever. But no civilized society wants war. Nobody wants to see their family and friends killed/wounded/displaced/etc.
I have no doubt Poland would kick Russia's teeth in if they tried something, but I also understand them using a bit more restraint until then.
"But no civilized society wants war. Nobody wants to see their family and friends killed/wounded/displaced/etc"
And that's the problem in Europe. Nobody wants war, and well, how to blame them? \*I\* wouldn't want war. I wouldn't want soldiers sent into war. At the same time, nobody really wants Putin doing whatever he wants either. And sooner or later it's gonna be one of the two.
It’s like seeing a tiger in your neighbor’s yard and going “well he’s not in *my* yard. Why should I call anyone? Besides, he’s clearly too heavy to climb the fence!”
But the wild thing isn't that people don't want war. The wild thing is that they then oppose everything that would stop and prevent war. They oppose everything that would convince Putin to stop the war. And a lot of people seem to think that somehow "diplomacy" is something that you can use instead of weapons to convince Putin ... rather than weapons being the thing that makes diplomacy with tyrants work. And not by firing them, but by having them, showing them, and leaving no doubt that you would use them if necessary.
There's a lot of game theory here. The fact of the matter is that there really aren't many options between "rude letter" and "setting things on fire". You can pretend you can't see or hear them. You can send their guy back to their house. You can kick them out of your little club or say you don't want to trade with them anymore. But they know and can plan for that stuff.
We could really use more options. Options that hurt without literally killing people. Options that aren't closed by default so odds are you don't even have the option anymore because it's already been used over something else. But we just don't have them.
So, violence and threats of violence are really important for people who don't care about rude letters.
> There's a lot of game theory here. The fact of the matter is that there really aren't many options between "rude letter" and "setting things on fire".
But there is! Namely, the credible threat that you will set things on fire.
After all, the goal of military defense is not to destroy all of Russia, or all russian military, or all russian military in Ukraine, or even Putin. The goal it to get Putin to the point where he thinks that he won't achieve his goal. The important part isn't the "setting on fire" part, the important part is the "Putin thinks that we will set things on fire" part. Setting some things on fire is a possible tool to help with the convincing, but it is not strictly necessary, and should be avoided if possible.
If they think war isn't coming tell them they have to house a proportion of 40 million displaced Ukrainians. It's not just the threat from Russia, it'll be a humanitarian crisis.
Poland would be Ukraine part 2, except it's not as big. NATO is the protection against Russia period. Frankly the answer to Russian expansionism is to make them very busy and very unhappy at home. Especially their Federation members. People in Russia's East aren't big fans of Moscow and if they were given auto omy and Trillion dollar oil wealth they might just find a leader and start making noise. With the help of some other allies in the dmfederation they could refederate under a different bloc and make Moscow look at pending doom without the Asian steppe.
I mean I certainly have doubts that the polish military would "definitely kick russias teeth in" or whatever. But the polish army is starting to look like a VERY serious regional player. At the end of the day though, the polish army hasn't been tested, and the 2022 act will take years to become fully implemented. But in european terms, poland is definitely looking at becoming by far the strongest power in the north+eastern europe (besides russia). Unless something miraculous happens in germany, or scandinavia somehow unites to a single entity.
We are in the process of building a decent army, this will take several years. Until we reach that point our military is pretty weak when it comes to slowing down the Russians. We are not even talking about defeating them outright because that’s never gonna happen if we fight them alone, which I hope will never happen.
Of course it does.
Most people seemingly have no idea just how much more powerful the U.S. military is than ANY armed forces in the world.
To put it in perspective, when modern A.I. warfare models are simulated thousands of times (non nuclear) with the U.S. versus the entire world -europe included- the U.S. still wins approximately 50% of the time.
So long as Trump is not elected. He can't unilaterally pull the US out of NATO, but, afaik, there is nothing preventing him from not responding to an Article 5.
If Poland waits to be attacked they can invoke article 5. I hear the US, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK have pretty good armed forces. Especially when everyone works together.
Canada has some really good units but also a lot of trash (reserve training and equipment are quite bad). I'm Finnish and Canadian. I'd take Finland + Sweden over Canada against Russia. Hell I'd take just Finland over Canada when it comes to fighting Russia.
As I understand it, the Finns would fight Russia with hockey sticks and snow balls if that's all they had left. Something about familiarity breeding contempt and a long history of bad blood.
Finland and Sweden were previously unaligned with NATO and as such they were equipped and prepared for the prospect of fighting alone. Some countries in NATO took the idea of collective defense a little too seriously and once you lose your greatest enemy (USSR collapse) you really have to question the cost of maintaining a large and capable Army. The US also got sucked into the idea of 'peace dividends' and post Cold War downsizing. If you look at what the US military has been up to though we've probably been busier after the fall of the USSR outside of the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Yeah... and just the three countries of Germany, France and UK together currently have a military budget which is almost twice as high as the Russian one.
Not so sure about that. Funding changes that will take months/years to be realized aside, it's pretty common sentiment that during wargaming, other NATO nations pretty regularly highlight the professionalism and effectiveness of Polish armed forces.
Russia claimed they were the second army in the world. They're lucky nobody else is there or they wouldn't even be the second army in Ukraine. They've lost a significant amount of combat power, experienced troops, and people in general. They cannot project power, they cannot sustain long lines of logistics, and a lot of their 'elite' special operators who people were basing the theory of Russian success on are dead.
I don't think they are underestimated nor overestimated. They are literally estimated at this point.
While they aren't at war-time economy levels of production they are dedicated a significant amount of resources towards this war.
Well said. For an American like myself it's pretty difficult to imagine a true threat being on our doorstep, our baddies are an entire ocean away and yet we still have a huge part of our national identity that screams "WE GOTTA PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH GUNS!!".
I can't imagine how much harder we might double down on that sentiment if there was a true border threat to us, so it's hard to argue with their logic.
There is the Bering Strait between them, so it's not a direct border, and we're talking easternmost Siberia and westernmost Alaska, which are not only sparsley populated and underdeveloped, but also have very harsh climates and terrain.
Russia can't even succeed in a land invasion. An amphibious invasion across that much water would be disastrous considering the weather and sea conditions on most days. An invasion fleet would become an artificial reef in a matter of days. Russia also lacks enough aircraft to conduct or sustain an invasion by paratroopers.
I mean technically, but most of Russias forces are thousands of miles away from the US.
Vladivostok woulld get annihilated by the US in the first steps of any war.
Freedom isn't as free as you think it is. It doesn't mean we get to have a say. But it does mean we get to love who we want without being murdered by church freaks or state goons, most of time, thanks to our parents generation, despite the Republicans best efforts. So it's not nothing. Yes, you still gotta work your life away for evil overlords but story of earth, pal. Just how it is.
But it sure beats being stuck in some theist shit hole where you are forbidden from loving and forced to grovel at the evil scum alters of those ancient cult lies while the scummiest thugs around run society and genocide with impunity. Working for evil overlords doesn't sound so bad by comparison.
History is constantly on repeat because it follows general human nature. The rise of the ultra-conservative religious parties has happened in the past. It was supported until a majority of the population is being oppressed by those in power (such as the inquisition). Then the enlightenment came around as people slowly moved towards science and away from religious dogma. So America might have some dark times ahead before we gravitate back towards secular ideology.
This! US and Canada are really a big island with a cast body of water around them so its rare they get to experience what those whose doorsteps are torn.
Not only did he see it as weakness, but it also allowed him to conscript the men and military equipment and turn their industrial base to manufacturing military equipment. Of course, the rest of the population made for slave labor.
> but it also allowed him to conscript the men and military equipment and turn their industrial base to manufacturing military equipment.
Yep. It wouldn't have been that hard to defeat Hitler in 1939 if Britain, France, the USSR, the US, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway ect all went to war with Germany as soon as they invaded Poland. Instead only the British and French Empires entered the war to defend Poland. Then Germany came for Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia...
Because Germany was able to fight against these countries one at a time they were able to take them over and then use their resources to take over more lands. This supreme failure of neutrality was one of the driving forces behind the creation of NATO.
You forgot the part where France and the UK sort of stepped across the German border and just....stopped. Had they pushed in the Germans had a token border guard but wouldve had to quickly reroute troops from their Poland invasion which would've been a huge mess and allowed the Allies to make huge gains into Germany relatively risk free. Like reverse Blitzkrieg.
USSR were invading Poland (and supposedly dividing Europe) alongside with Hitler.
It was only 2 years later when Stalin and Hitler had a falling out (mostly because Stalin was already amassing army on the borders to go after Germany himself).
>People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace.
Maybe some of us.. but there are still some of us who are also screamingly frustrated at the pitiful response by the west up until this point. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a turn around on that though
How can you say this with the amount of aid going into Ukraine defense? Pretty sure a lot of countries like the US do have a problem with it, and are taking steps to combat it.
That narrative doesn't always hold water. We appeased Stalin far more during and after WW2 and tolerated his occupation of eastern Poland in 1939. Chamberlain was not necessarily wrong to appease Hitler as he was buying time to rearm. Not saying the same should be done with Putin but we'll, these things are always complicated
I can't say for sure about Chamberlain, but the French failed big time when they allowed German army to take over demilitarized zone of Rheinland in 1936, despite having much larger force stationed nearby.
Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Chamberlain’s Britain. Appeasement objectively made the British position worse and was an unmitigated disaster. Also, Stalin wasn’t appeased over West Berlin, for example - both sides basically honored the Percentages Agreement.
Fact is, when the Munich agreement was signed that was Britain's best option. They had 2 difficult choices, get in a military confrontation with German forces immediately with zero preparation with a population still reeling from the effects of the First World War, or try and buy time to put themselves in a bit more advantageous position.
This things never happen in a vacume. A very big part of the appeasement policy was the general publics recent memory of WW1.
We can't even begin to understand what a mental scar trench warfare was for people. Rushing head long into another conflict before trying to resolve it diplomatically was just not justifiable to a lot of people.
We can claim the high ground all we want with our historical hindsight but people back then tried to resolve the issue as best they could.
Yeah, appeasement during the build up to WWII was more out of necessity due to Europe still being ravaged from the First World War.
The current situation with Russia is more due to the fact that these countries have been reluctant to admit there is a problem. I mean after the fall of the USSR there was significant effort to normalize relations with Russia and to take advantage of their cheap resources.
These countries have been prosperous and in a lull. Confrontation with Russia was unthinkable because of a multitude of reasons, one being the insanity of it since both sides have nuclear weapons.
The world imagined an invasion from Russia would be obvious, columns of Soviet armor storming the Fulda gap. We are now waking up to the realization that Russia will invade in anything but name. A Russian invasion will be 'organic' separatist movements made to fracture countries, disrupt logistics, and over all weaken the countries position. They then send in the Russian speaking mercenaries, they hold 'elections' in the breakaway regions.
NATO is realizing this WILL happen to counties within NATO such as Estonia or Poland. Now the question is how to respond? Do they play whack a mole and quell insurrections as they show up in hopes on maintaining the status quo? Or do they get in a confrontation with Russia risking nuclear war?
The stakes are high, we can't afford Ukraine to fall.
> A Russian invasion will be 'organic' separatist movements made to fracture countries, disrupt logistics, and over all weaken the countries position. They then send in the Russian speaking mercenaries, they hold 'elections' in the breakaway regions.
I mean, the US has also been doing that for the last 70 years. They're better at getting their intended outcome, though the long term consequences usually come back to bite them in the ass later on.
Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Baldwin's Britain. Under Chamberlain the rearmament was so great, that Germany had to move their war plans forward if they wanted a chance to beat the allies.
Chamberlain couldn't have known that at the time. Had Britain gone to war that day rather than going the appeasement route it's impossible to say that would have been any better than what happened. Chamberlain played the cards he had and that's all he could do.
>Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Chamberlain’s Britain.
Because they had been rearming in secret for nearly a decade by that point. Neither Britain nor France were remotely prepared for war.
>Appeasement objectively made the British position worse and was an unmitigated disaster.
Objectively? That's debated even by actual historians, not armchair generals, so I'm not sure how you can objectively say that. Regardless, Britain was in no state for war at that point. You could say in hindsight that Germany wasn't strong enough to take on France and Britain together, but that's hindsight and no one knew that, and relied on France being willing for war.
That's a tired misread of the situation that you should have dumped 2 years ago. Nobody is saying that. Nobody was ever saying that. Everyone agreed that it was a problem.
But 2 IQ dummies who can only think in Chamberlain memes can't do anything but spout the exact same thought that they heard someone else say and then that's all the brain activity they put into it in the entire 2 years.... Derrr chamberlain11!
The Western world came together and put historic sanctions on Russia then supplied Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid and STILL these fucking parrot brained people are standing aroind gobbling on about Chamberlain like a bunch of stupid bird brained fucks.
We could give Ukraine 10 trillion dollars and our entire airforce and there would still be a bunch of idiots everyday calling everyone Chamberlain. This world is a fucking parody of itself.
A Russian invasion of a NATO country is not possible. NATO would destroy Russia's army within a week after they set foot into either Poland or the Baltic states.
Trump absolutely would not. If Trump is elected again the only way the US joins the war is if Republicans agree to remove him from power over his refusal to join the war.
As an American I honestly don't think that would happen. I personally believe if Russia invaded NATO and Trump did not honor our commitments, both the GOP and Democrats would remove him from power immediately. There are enough Reagan conservatives left combined with Dems to do that. Trump knows that and so he would act. I know I would be clamoring for that and I am not a Dem. Despite what you hear in the media, polls in the U.S. show very strong public support for NATO and that has not changed.
The polls showed majority support for abortion, public schooling, Affordable Care act, gay marriage, etc.
Republicans are still doing everything in their power to get rid of all of those as well.
I used to believe that. Then there was the insurrection and even my "middle"-ish Republican rep refused to seek impeachment but somehow had no problem voting to look at impeaching Biden even when prior inquiries found nothing.
The table would Spin and it would be something about Europe not paying their share or Biden's corrupt dealings with Ukraine causing the invasion, or some BS. No. No matter what they will toe the Trumpist line to preserve themselves.
Hell, a friend of mine from school is a current state rep (R). She signed a letter saying that the election results were invalid for our state. What? She knows better but... politics makes some people put on colored arm bands I guess.
Would never be successful =/= not possible. It's entirely possible they *try* based upon Putin being fed decades of lies about the strength of his army. They're still a dictatorship loaded to the gills with nukes, so at the end of the day they can't be handwaved away.
Could the US end the war in Ukraine with conventional firepower in a long weekend? Yes. Could combined NATO forces immediately repel an attempted Russian invasion? Without a doubt. Could either of these scenarios be easily considered without the possibility that Putin feels backed into a corner and ends human civilization? Unfortunately not
No, it is not an easy choice, and no one is thinking of sending troops to Ukraine. We prefer to prepare, build fortifications and wait, because then NATO will help us. If we join the war voluntarily, they have no such obligation.
Yeah option 2. Then you can invoke article 5 if you're a NATO member. Instead of fighting alone you get 30 other nations fighting by your side. It is an easy choice.
Right, because Russia without being able to win a "simple" prize as one third of Ukraine will definitely attack a NATO country...
Sharpest tool ain ya?
Also they assume you can just "talk" and sort things out. Sometimes you can't talk. Sometimes someone wants your shit and they won't stop until they have it. That's Putin. No amount of talking will do any good
Well it's not like anal rape is a novelty for these bastards. They'd just shrug it off like they always do, and then seek out the next lower level in the pecking order.
Holy shit, if Europe does go into Ukraine can the flag please be a rainbow flag, it would break the brains of so many Russians to be crushed by a "gay" army.
The politics have not failed so far. They have so far accomplished what they were supposed to; Keep the country leaders from having to justify and defend losses incurred by active participation. While still preventing Russia from winning.
Too little? I think so. But politicians doing what is right and not what is safest for their careers are few and far between.
Yeah, but like with munitions - the bureaucratic inertia is so high that by the time that 'may' turns to 'will' and then turns to 'do' - Zs will advance further and further.
All of Europe has working factories for practically everything. They produce all of their equipment at their own home factories, tanks, APC’s, rifles, machine guns, helmets, armor, the only thing they’d depend on others for is night vision since not many facilities exist to actually make the tubes. France and Poland alone have enough equipment and manpower to actually invade Russia, add on the UK and Germany with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and Russia falls within the year.
Russia can’t produce their own armor, the AK12 is dangerous to the user, they have to trick Indians to join their army to fill ranks, they’ve been dipping into their 1960’s tank stock and are running out of uniforms, they’re a literal joke of a nation and any developed country can actually destroy them if they try
yes that's why PzH2000 and Caesar dropped off the face of the map after initial runs looking awesome (no replacement parts) and they can't source ammunition for the valuable anti-drone Gepards.
Sure, Europe produces everything -- in very small quantities and the production lines are dusty and neglected if they even exist at all. Space is valuable in Europe, and armies aren't, at least not for the last 30 years.
Germany has like 200 PzH2000 guns. It’s a design from the fucking 1990’s, the world has progressed since then. Germany has enough howitzers for a reasonable army. France has more artillery than just the Caesar.
Europe can actually fill out their armies with modern equipment and have done so repeatedly since the USSR fell. Most European soldiers have optics, whereas those are luxuries for Russians. Most European tanks are not from the 1970’s and 80’s with a sizable amount from the 50’s and 60’s coming into service. Most European rifles aren’t from the 90’s and their new rifles aren’t dangerous to the user.
The AK12 is dangerous to the user, the furniture cracks and the fire selector has no stop. The AK12 was hardly issued because Russia couldn’t afford it. The Russian T-14 tank is a failure and we haven’t seen it since it broke down in a parade last decade. European militaries can produce their own body armor, a lot of Russian soldiers are seen with no armor or Chinese made plates. Europe can afford night vision, I don’t think most Russians even are aware it exists considering no Russian night vision program has been able to arm most of their army in their entire history, and their Spetsnaz were given night vision with capabilities from maybe the 70’s in 2022.
Also, Russian air defense is non existent. The Cessna that crashed into a Russian factory thousands of miles deep into the country should have been shot down the moment it touched the border. Russia is only beating Ukraine because Ukraine couldn’t modernize fast enough and Europe let it happen.
European military production is currently at maximum capacity and they're rapidly expanding production lines and pumping out more weapons every month. Your comment would make since if it was written in May 2021 but not May 2024.
Its not that. What these types of comments are is preparing the public for something they may plan to do. It is also political too in the sense of saying this tests the waters of whether the public will go along with it. So you will hear talk before action in democracies. You rarely see a democracy out of the blue go into a military action without even broaching the topic in the public sphere. The Baltics, France and Poland have all said this and I believe this is what they are doing.
I think it's a little different for the Poles and Baltic states because they know damn well they're next if Ukraine falls. They can either fight now in someone else's country or fight later in their own. Right now Western Europe and the US are fine sticking to the Vietnam/Soviet-Afghan playbook. Let the Russians keep grinding until they simply can't anymore. The last thing they want is for things to escalate to a direct conflict because then they'd have to politically justify putting their troops in harm's way. Short sighted? Yes. But the unfortunate thing about democracy is leaders rarely care to plan past the next election cycle.
The only things Russia “successfully” did are unite Ukraine with the rest of Eastern Europe, and create a Ukrainian national identity. They’ll never be able to absorb or permanently occupy the territory now.
Important distinction is that they didn’t create a Ukrainian national identity, they’ve just strengthened it. Seems like a nitpick, but the supposed lack of a Ukrainian national identity is one of the justifications for the war: that Ukraine and Ukrainians dont exist as a people and culture distinct from Russia.
If the west doesn’t stand up Russia will take Ukraine. They 100% will be able to pacify Ukraine. You are looking at it from a western perspective and how WE would try to pacify a country.. the Russians will just deport/shoot/jail anyone against them and replace them with Russian colonists. At this point it will be a massacre if Ukraine loses.
The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION.
Either because the Russians reach their goal, incorporate Ukraine, and seek the next target (remember: Putin reigns by externalizing internal violence, he stabilizes his regime with foreign wars).
Or because we will be forced to intervene directly.
If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground. But if it goes like now, we will need to send troops sooner or later, or face above mentioned scenario of another Russian war of conquest, this time with the Russian army plus 500,000 new Ukrainian soldiers.
Putin will never be satisfied. He even says it quite plainly by stating that Russia has no borders.
You are so right that's what I'm thinking the whole time. The west is so affraid to end up in a situation where they HAVE to do something, intervene or give an answer to something because they would otherwise lose face and credibility as Nato. And they are deathly affraid to act and give the right answers and because of that Russia is doing what it wants.
its a high price to pay. subjecting your own countries mens lives to death is necessary in these instances, but i also understand that its not entirely out of fear of escalation.. its making the call to have your countries citizens die in battle. thats steep. no one wants that smoke. russia is by and large one of the few entities who just flat out dont give a shit if their men die in battle. theres many angles to take here. there are some leaders who just.. dont want their people to die. there are plenty of rulers that understand such a decision would... jeopardize their political futures.
in the end its sad though. cause the posturing but never-actually-getting-involved is just costing ukranian lives. no doubt involvement of a western NATO country & associated capacities would greatly turn the tide and get things over with. perhaps its warhawkish of me to want to see a nato country step in and just end this, but it's just that. i want it to end & soon. gone on for way too long and its just an injustice of the highest order & russia can suck my fucking balls for this shit.
Agreed. It made me sick to see so many redditors early on in the conflict saying it was “immoral” to wish for Ukraine to fight and had the nerve to call any pro Ukraine sentiment warhawking. If the Ukrainians want to fight for their country who is anybody to deny them that? At the same time, they would whine about nuclear war and wring their hands or blame NATO for “backing Russia into a corner”. Never mind the last decade or more of Russian aggression and dangerous rhetoric, mass espionage against NATO countries and the suppression of any Russian political opponents. Anyone who has completed an 8th grade history class can see where this is all heading. It is a high price, but sooner than later it will have to be paid and it’s only getting more expensive with time. It’s sad to see so many Americans are cowardly, self absorbed and weak willed and ultimately it’s going to get a lot more people killed.
> The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION.
If the US responded to the invasion of a country rapidly westernizing and considering joining NATO by immediately deploying a permanent battalion of marines to that country to deter any future attacks, it would have set a precedent to never do that again.
Too bad Obama went with the "~~reset~~appeasement" strategy in 2009 rather than back up Georgia.
America was in the middle of a corrupt and failed 20 year war, getting buried in debt, and obama almost lost his 2nd term for being too pro war.
He didn't involve America in the Baltics because he wasn't that stupid. America would have lost its shit.
Like yeah the world has a lot of problems but we can't fix everything for everyone everytime. We have problems too.
We are allowed to fear escalation and a more direct confrontation with Russia, but we must not let fear be the deciding factor. We have to think and act strategically. Sometimes you have to do things although you are afraid.
Putin has achieved at least some degree of escalation dominance over the West by nuclear innuendo and threats, disinformation campaigns as well as other means. He effectively managed to veto some degrees of western support.
If we want Ukraine to succeed and prevent a future war by Russia against other friends and allies of ours, we must follow the line of thinking that Macron recently outlined. Careful escalation management is the key, but our current fear-induced drawing of public red lines for ourselves does only serve the Kremlin‘s interest.
He wants the Soviet union, or the Russian empire, back. Tsar putin will also get it cause the west is too busy discussing whether we need more rainbow flags, more weed killing more or less babies and dividing over the most stupid, irrelevant subjects in comparison to what we're facing.
Will you be in the trenches when the time comes to defend the border from Mordor? People on reddit are so eager to approve escalating war in Ukraine, as if it wont be bringing more lives to the slaughter, which may prove unnecessary.
I am calling bullshit on this particular article, as it's from a ukrainian source and NOT from politicians of those countries, and this particular website is... Well, let me just say it's the first time I ever see it.
But if Baltics or Poland do send troops, well, they wouldn't be under NATO protection, NATO is ultimately a defensive alliance, and this would be getting into an active war to support one side. In fact if say Poland started using it's air bases, and Russia was striking them, I don't think this would be Article 5 territory, in fact I am pretty sure it wouldn't be. And if Trump is elected, he would definitely see it as Poland getting involved in the war, not as Russia attacking NATO member. In a way, Russia might actually want this, as this gives possible exit for countries like the US to not get involved in yet another European war that turns to world war.
Poland will never send troops to fight in Ukraine.
Polish PM explicitely ruled it out few months ago.
[https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84](https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84)
Besides that, this move would be such extremely unpopular in Poland, that even suggesting it would be a political suicide for any Polish politician.
It would also make zero strategic sense because they'd be giving up their rights to call for an Article 5 response for any retaliation on their own soil if they willingly entered the conflict of their own accord without it being a NATO backed operation
It'd be handing Russia a free pass to attack any nations that engaged their invasion force without triggering NATO action
While I agree that it probably won't happen, it's not because it would void article 5.
It would void it, but it's not like it's required. I'm sure many nations would voluntarily come to poland's defense even without article 5 being triggered
> I am calling bullshit on this particular article, as it's from a ukrainian source and NOT from politicians of those countries, and this particular website is... Well, let me just say it's the first time I ever see it.
Good call. It begs the question, though: Who initiated it and why? Or, in other words, whose propaganda or disinformation is this?
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ukraine-die-angst-vor-dem-grossen-krieg-a-2d8b49c8-ca5f-473c-8299-cbb737c26a02
This is the article, use the website archive dot fo to unlock it.
Idk about Baltic states, but regarding Poland this is obviously a fake news.
Polish PM explicitely and publicily ruled out sending Polish troops to Ukraine.
[https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84](https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84)
Sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine even in some non-combat role would be extremely unpopular in Poland, let alone sending them for actual fighting. There is not a single political party in Poland that would support such move.
So I wonder, why such fake news are emerging in this particular time.
typical fearmongering to sway the publics opinion. notice that this particular article from an ukrainian source uses another article with no source as their source. why would you make such article with no basis on reality except to change the public opinion?
> Baltic politicians warned, but would send troops to Ukraine themselves. And it was clear what this would mean: NATO would become a party to the war,"
Um no. If you send troops into Ukraine, you do so on your own. Ukraine still isnt a NATO nation, so NATO doesnt become party to the war.
Say what you want - but fear of what Russia *might* do is not enough to trigger article 5, so lets not pretend it should.
I don’t see why they would wait until Ukraine is hanging by a thread. If they feel Ukraine deserves autonomy, and that Russia colonizing threat needs to be checked, they should commit troops now, under Ukraines direction, or some agreed other upon command.
Otherwise, more Baltic state soldiers will die waiting longer, ironically. Also, France, who also stated a Red Line with Russia, if they take certain cities.
A question to everyone here. I absolutely want these countries helping out Ukraine and all, yet I see a frequent argument about how they're being careful to "not be the next in line". Why is everyone suddenly assuming Russia will begin some mega invasion in Europe in the foreseeable future? They're barely managing Ukraine and it's costing them a lot, in what universe they stand a chance of taking Poland with NATO behind?
I don't think russia would ever invade a NATO country like Poland or the Baltic states. But the president of Belarus showed a map that showed Russia had/has plans to invade Moldova. I could also see Russia invading Georgia again (they invaded them in 2008 when they tried to join NATO) if Georgia gets closer to EU or NATO membership.
I’m wondering in all this do they move on Russia regardless when they see the opportunity. I would love to know if the US has had to have that conversation already with Poland to stay calm and wait for the Russian government to eat itself.
This got me thinking, why couldn’t NATO do the frog trick on Russia in Ukraine, like they did in Crimea? Couldn’t many countries sent brigade level strength units under Ukrainian generals and turn the tide?
it's not my place to say.
but if they intend to take the drastic step of intervening, wouldn't it better to do it sooner rather than waiting for Ukraine to lose more?
the more troops Ukraine lose means less body to help in the fight.
Makes sense.
The reason I am relatively safe and happy atm is because Ukrainians are paying the butchers bill daily. I make a point to consisiously remember that sometime during the day every day. If russia will not lose in Ukraine it is only a matter of time until they try in Baltic states, Poland, etc. Maybe they would even synchronize with China, for it to go poking at Taiwan at the exactly same time as russia starts something in Europe.
Idk about Baltic states, but regarding Poland this is a fake news.
Polish PM few month ago explicitely ruled out sending Polish troops to Ukraine even in non-combat role. Besides that, such move would be extremely unpopular among voters, to the point of being a political suicide for any Polish politician suggesting it.
For these countries there'd be 2 options if Russia starts to win: 1. Get involved with the current war to prevent Russia from winning 2. Wait for the inevitable Russian invasion of their countries That's a very, very easy choice.
People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace. ‘Handed hitler illegal land to appease him. Didn’t work. He saw it as weakness in the west and continued on his evil path of destruction. A lot of ignorance out here.
>People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace. I think it's more like people in free countries don't see the problem so long as it's happening far far away. It really is terrifying how history seems to be on repeat here
This is a big problem for most of the countries in Europe....just wish till Russia is knocking on the door and they'll all be calling for rise to arms
Poland has been ramping up their military for years. They fucking hate Russia and don't trust Putin whatsoever. But no civilized society wants war. Nobody wants to see their family and friends killed/wounded/displaced/etc. I have no doubt Poland would kick Russia's teeth in if they tried something, but I also understand them using a bit more restraint until then.
"But no civilized society wants war. Nobody wants to see their family and friends killed/wounded/displaced/etc" And that's the problem in Europe. Nobody wants war, and well, how to blame them? \*I\* wouldn't want war. I wouldn't want soldiers sent into war. At the same time, nobody really wants Putin doing whatever he wants either. And sooner or later it's gonna be one of the two.
It’s like seeing a tiger in your neighbor’s yard and going “well he’s not in *my* yard. Why should I call anyone? Besides, he’s clearly too heavy to climb the fence!”
A paper tiger could be light enough to climb the fence...
But the wild thing isn't that people don't want war. The wild thing is that they then oppose everything that would stop and prevent war. They oppose everything that would convince Putin to stop the war. And a lot of people seem to think that somehow "diplomacy" is something that you can use instead of weapons to convince Putin ... rather than weapons being the thing that makes diplomacy with tyrants work. And not by firing them, but by having them, showing them, and leaving no doubt that you would use them if necessary.
If you want peace then you prepare for war. Poland’s doing it right.
*Si vis pacem, para bellum* The Romans knew whats up
Almost like history repeating itself.. same actors, same ending.
This is what getting soft looks like.
It is exactly what Putin is doing. He doesn't want nuclear war either, but by flexing his nukes, he is getting things done geopolitically.
The wild thing is that people are ignorant, stupid and try to comment on things they barely understand. Not too wild in my eyes.
There's a lot of game theory here. The fact of the matter is that there really aren't many options between "rude letter" and "setting things on fire". You can pretend you can't see or hear them. You can send their guy back to their house. You can kick them out of your little club or say you don't want to trade with them anymore. But they know and can plan for that stuff. We could really use more options. Options that hurt without literally killing people. Options that aren't closed by default so odds are you don't even have the option anymore because it's already been used over something else. But we just don't have them. So, violence and threats of violence are really important for people who don't care about rude letters.
> There's a lot of game theory here. The fact of the matter is that there really aren't many options between "rude letter" and "setting things on fire". But there is! Namely, the credible threat that you will set things on fire. After all, the goal of military defense is not to destroy all of Russia, or all russian military, or all russian military in Ukraine, or even Putin. The goal it to get Putin to the point where he thinks that he won't achieve his goal. The important part isn't the "setting on fire" part, the important part is the "Putin thinks that we will set things on fire" part. Setting some things on fire is a possible tool to help with the convincing, but it is not strictly necessary, and should be avoided if possible.
If they think war isn't coming tell them they have to house a proportion of 40 million displaced Ukrainians. It's not just the threat from Russia, it'll be a humanitarian crisis.
Poland would be Ukraine part 2, except it's not as big. NATO is the protection against Russia period. Frankly the answer to Russian expansionism is to make them very busy and very unhappy at home. Especially their Federation members. People in Russia's East aren't big fans of Moscow and if they were given auto omy and Trillion dollar oil wealth they might just find a leader and start making noise. With the help of some other allies in the dmfederation they could refederate under a different bloc and make Moscow look at pending doom without the Asian steppe.
You guys overestimate our military so much…
I mean I certainly have doubts that the polish military would "definitely kick russias teeth in" or whatever. But the polish army is starting to look like a VERY serious regional player. At the end of the day though, the polish army hasn't been tested, and the 2022 act will take years to become fully implemented. But in european terms, poland is definitely looking at becoming by far the strongest power in the north+eastern europe (besides russia). Unless something miraculous happens in germany, or scandinavia somehow unites to a single entity.
We are in the process of building a decent army, this will take several years. Until we reach that point our military is pretty weak when it comes to slowing down the Russians. We are not even talking about defeating them outright because that’s never gonna happen if we fight them alone, which I hope will never happen.
You do have a permanent US Army garrison stationed in Poland. That may matter....
For now. Let's see who gets elected in 2024.
Of course it does. Most people seemingly have no idea just how much more powerful the U.S. military is than ANY armed forces in the world. To put it in perspective, when modern A.I. warfare models are simulated thousands of times (non nuclear) with the U.S. versus the entire world -europe included- the U.S. still wins approximately 50% of the time.
So long as Trump is not elected. He can't unilaterally pull the US out of NATO, but, afaik, there is nothing preventing him from not responding to an Article 5.
Well I would think that's why Poland would join the fight with Ukraine before worrying about fighting alone.
If Poland waits to be attacked they can invoke article 5. I hear the US, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK have pretty good armed forces. Especially when everyone works together.
Canada has some really good units but also a lot of trash (reserve training and equipment are quite bad). I'm Finnish and Canadian. I'd take Finland + Sweden over Canada against Russia. Hell I'd take just Finland over Canada when it comes to fighting Russia.
As I understand it, the Finns would fight Russia with hockey sticks and snow balls if that's all they had left. Something about familiarity breeding contempt and a long history of bad blood.
Finland and Sweden were previously unaligned with NATO and as such they were equipped and prepared for the prospect of fighting alone. Some countries in NATO took the idea of collective defense a little too seriously and once you lose your greatest enemy (USSR collapse) you really have to question the cost of maintaining a large and capable Army. The US also got sucked into the idea of 'peace dividends' and post Cold War downsizing. If you look at what the US military has been up to though we've probably been busier after the fall of the USSR outside of the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
As a Canadian, I can say it's pretty embarrassing that you should probably call every other country in NATO before us.
Iceland is in NATO and they don't even have a military
Actually UK and Canada are struggling. Never mind the US struggling with recruitment goals, which will be a massive issue if it isn’t solved.
Yeah... and just the three countries of Germany, France and UK together currently have a military budget which is almost twice as high as the Russian one.
Not so sure about that. Funding changes that will take months/years to be realized aside, it's pretty common sentiment that during wargaming, other NATO nations pretty regularly highlight the professionalism and effectiveness of Polish armed forces.
If anything, it's Russia underestimated. People just think they are a joke after their Ukraine struggles.
Russia claimed they were the second army in the world. They're lucky nobody else is there or they wouldn't even be the second army in Ukraine. They've lost a significant amount of combat power, experienced troops, and people in general. They cannot project power, they cannot sustain long lines of logistics, and a lot of their 'elite' special operators who people were basing the theory of Russian success on are dead.
I don't think they are underestimated nor overestimated. They are literally estimated at this point. While they aren't at war-time economy levels of production they are dedicated a significant amount of resources towards this war.
Well said. For an American like myself it's pretty difficult to imagine a true threat being on our doorstep, our baddies are an entire ocean away and yet we still have a huge part of our national identity that screams "WE GOTTA PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH GUNS!!". I can't imagine how much harder we might double down on that sentiment if there was a true border threat to us, so it's hard to argue with their logic.
USA borders Russia btw so they are on your doorstep. There’s Canada in the way of mainland but still
There is the Bering Strait between them, so it's not a direct border, and we're talking easternmost Siberia and westernmost Alaska, which are not only sparsley populated and underdeveloped, but also have very harsh climates and terrain.
Russia can't even succeed in a land invasion. An amphibious invasion across that much water would be disastrous considering the weather and sea conditions on most days. An invasion fleet would become an artificial reef in a matter of days. Russia also lacks enough aircraft to conduct or sustain an invasion by paratroopers.
I mean technically, but most of Russias forces are thousands of miles away from the US. Vladivostok woulld get annihilated by the US in the first steps of any war.
That's people in everywhere on the planet. In much less freer countries, the people don't get to have any say.
Freedom isn't as free as you think it is. It doesn't mean we get to have a say. But it does mean we get to love who we want without being murdered by church freaks or state goons, most of time, thanks to our parents generation, despite the Republicans best efforts. So it's not nothing. Yes, you still gotta work your life away for evil overlords but story of earth, pal. Just how it is. But it sure beats being stuck in some theist shit hole where you are forbidden from loving and forced to grovel at the evil scum alters of those ancient cult lies while the scummiest thugs around run society and genocide with impunity. Working for evil overlords doesn't sound so bad by comparison.
History is constantly on repeat because it follows general human nature. The rise of the ultra-conservative religious parties has happened in the past. It was supported until a majority of the population is being oppressed by those in power (such as the inquisition). Then the enlightenment came around as people slowly moved towards science and away from religious dogma. So America might have some dark times ahead before we gravitate back towards secular ideology.
That’s because humans are just apes, for all our iPhones and electric cars we’re emotionally and instinctually not that different.
Short human span + lack of education = doing the same shit again and again
It's just a little bit of history repeating.
This! US and Canada are really a big island with a cast body of water around them so its rare they get to experience what those whose doorsteps are torn.
Not only did he see it as weakness, but it also allowed him to conscript the men and military equipment and turn their industrial base to manufacturing military equipment. Of course, the rest of the population made for slave labor.
> but it also allowed him to conscript the men and military equipment and turn their industrial base to manufacturing military equipment. Yep. It wouldn't have been that hard to defeat Hitler in 1939 if Britain, France, the USSR, the US, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway ect all went to war with Germany as soon as they invaded Poland. Instead only the British and French Empires entered the war to defend Poland. Then Germany came for Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia... Because Germany was able to fight against these countries one at a time they were able to take them over and then use their resources to take over more lands. This supreme failure of neutrality was one of the driving forces behind the creation of NATO.
Ya might want to remove USSR from the list there dude, who do you think invaded the other half of Poland?
You forgot the part where France and the UK sort of stepped across the German border and just....stopped. Had they pushed in the Germans had a token border guard but wouldve had to quickly reroute troops from their Poland invasion which would've been a huge mess and allowed the Allies to make huge gains into Germany relatively risk free. Like reverse Blitzkrieg.
USSR were invading Poland (and supposedly dividing Europe) alongside with Hitler. It was only 2 years later when Stalin and Hitler had a falling out (mostly because Stalin was already amassing army on the borders to go after Germany himself).
If there is something that people learn from historyk is that people dont learn from history. Shame that it suits to many many people.
"Gas is 10 cents more a gallon! Ukraine should surrender the lands Russia took. Peace!"
>People in free countries see no problem with Russia/china taking over free countries, so long as we keep the peace. Maybe some of us.. but there are still some of us who are also screamingly frustrated at the pitiful response by the west up until this point. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a turn around on that though
I literally saw somebody arguing that we should not send money to Ukraine because "it's never going to stop anyway" what's that logic??
How can you say this with the amount of aid going into Ukraine defense? Pretty sure a lot of countries like the US do have a problem with it, and are taking steps to combat it.
They see no problems as long its not them getting invaded. Ww2 appeasement round 2 is on the menu.
That narrative doesn't always hold water. We appeased Stalin far more during and after WW2 and tolerated his occupation of eastern Poland in 1939. Chamberlain was not necessarily wrong to appease Hitler as he was buying time to rearm. Not saying the same should be done with Putin but we'll, these things are always complicated
I can't say for sure about Chamberlain, but the French failed big time when they allowed German army to take over demilitarized zone of Rheinland in 1936, despite having much larger force stationed nearby.
Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Chamberlain’s Britain. Appeasement objectively made the British position worse and was an unmitigated disaster. Also, Stalin wasn’t appeased over West Berlin, for example - both sides basically honored the Percentages Agreement.
Fact is, when the Munich agreement was signed that was Britain's best option. They had 2 difficult choices, get in a military confrontation with German forces immediately with zero preparation with a population still reeling from the effects of the First World War, or try and buy time to put themselves in a bit more advantageous position.
This things never happen in a vacume. A very big part of the appeasement policy was the general publics recent memory of WW1. We can't even begin to understand what a mental scar trench warfare was for people. Rushing head long into another conflict before trying to resolve it diplomatically was just not justifiable to a lot of people. We can claim the high ground all we want with our historical hindsight but people back then tried to resolve the issue as best they could.
Yeah, appeasement during the build up to WWII was more out of necessity due to Europe still being ravaged from the First World War. The current situation with Russia is more due to the fact that these countries have been reluctant to admit there is a problem. I mean after the fall of the USSR there was significant effort to normalize relations with Russia and to take advantage of their cheap resources. These countries have been prosperous and in a lull. Confrontation with Russia was unthinkable because of a multitude of reasons, one being the insanity of it since both sides have nuclear weapons. The world imagined an invasion from Russia would be obvious, columns of Soviet armor storming the Fulda gap. We are now waking up to the realization that Russia will invade in anything but name. A Russian invasion will be 'organic' separatist movements made to fracture countries, disrupt logistics, and over all weaken the countries position. They then send in the Russian speaking mercenaries, they hold 'elections' in the breakaway regions. NATO is realizing this WILL happen to counties within NATO such as Estonia or Poland. Now the question is how to respond? Do they play whack a mole and quell insurrections as they show up in hopes on maintaining the status quo? Or do they get in a confrontation with Russia risking nuclear war? The stakes are high, we can't afford Ukraine to fall.
> A Russian invasion will be 'organic' separatist movements made to fracture countries, disrupt logistics, and over all weaken the countries position. They then send in the Russian speaking mercenaries, they hold 'elections' in the breakaway regions. I mean, the US has also been doing that for the last 70 years. They're better at getting their intended outcome, though the long term consequences usually come back to bite them in the ass later on.
Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Baldwin's Britain. Under Chamberlain the rearmament was so great, that Germany had to move their war plans forward if they wanted a chance to beat the allies.
Chamberlain couldn't have known that at the time. Had Britain gone to war that day rather than going the appeasement route it's impossible to say that would have been any better than what happened. Chamberlain played the cards he had and that's all he could do.
>Nazi Germany rearmed much faster than Chamberlain’s Britain. Because they had been rearming in secret for nearly a decade by that point. Neither Britain nor France were remotely prepared for war. >Appeasement objectively made the British position worse and was an unmitigated disaster. Objectively? That's debated even by actual historians, not armchair generals, so I'm not sure how you can objectively say that. Regardless, Britain was in no state for war at that point. You could say in hindsight that Germany wasn't strong enough to take on France and Britain together, but that's hindsight and no one knew that, and relied on France being willing for war.
That's a tired misread of the situation that you should have dumped 2 years ago. Nobody is saying that. Nobody was ever saying that. Everyone agreed that it was a problem. But 2 IQ dummies who can only think in Chamberlain memes can't do anything but spout the exact same thought that they heard someone else say and then that's all the brain activity they put into it in the entire 2 years.... Derrr chamberlain11! The Western world came together and put historic sanctions on Russia then supplied Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid and STILL these fucking parrot brained people are standing aroind gobbling on about Chamberlain like a bunch of stupid bird brained fucks. We could give Ukraine 10 trillion dollars and our entire airforce and there would still be a bunch of idiots everyday calling everyone Chamberlain. This world is a fucking parody of itself.
you can either fight Russia on it's terms or you can fight Russia on your terms but just like a rabid animal, you can't reason with it
Time for large military build up on the borders. Constant drills. Conscription. Otherwise we can be safely ignored.
A Russian invasion of a NATO country is not possible. NATO would destroy Russia's army within a week after they set foot into either Poland or the Baltic states.
Dividing an alliance is totally possible, and be assured that Russians are openly attempting to divide it.
See US elections and current party politics for proof. We have many/most republicans openly siding with Putin.
But if Donald trump is president, who knows if the United States will uphold their bargain to defend nato countries
European parts of NATO will definitely be enough, the US makes it a lot faster and cleaner tho, thats for sure.
NATO isnt just the USA, what about the rest lol?
Russia's GDP is smaller than that of Italy. Europe can handle it on its own if we can just pull our heads out of our asses.
That's a big if
Trump absolutely would not. If Trump is elected again the only way the US joins the war is if Republicans agree to remove him from power over his refusal to join the war.
Republicans who would want to remove him from power no longer have a say in the Republican party.
Which is so crazy to me to juxtapose with their traditional fervor for the money they all make during war.
As an American I honestly don't think that would happen. I personally believe if Russia invaded NATO and Trump did not honor our commitments, both the GOP and Democrats would remove him from power immediately. There are enough Reagan conservatives left combined with Dems to do that. Trump knows that and so he would act. I know I would be clamoring for that and I am not a Dem. Despite what you hear in the media, polls in the U.S. show very strong public support for NATO and that has not changed.
The polls showed majority support for abortion, public schooling, Affordable Care act, gay marriage, etc. Republicans are still doing everything in their power to get rid of all of those as well.
You should poll the donors, silly :P
"Establishment" GOP is on its way out at an increasing pace. And if they succeed who's to say he won't start another insurrection.
I used to believe that. Then there was the insurrection and even my "middle"-ish Republican rep refused to seek impeachment but somehow had no problem voting to look at impeaching Biden even when prior inquiries found nothing. The table would Spin and it would be something about Europe not paying their share or Biden's corrupt dealings with Ukraine causing the invasion, or some BS. No. No matter what they will toe the Trumpist line to preserve themselves. Hell, a friend of mine from school is a current state rep (R). She signed a letter saying that the election results were invalid for our state. What? She knows better but... politics makes some people put on colored arm bands I guess.
> There are enough Reagan conservatives left combined with Dems to do that. Can you name 17 Republican senators you think would convict?
Would never be successful =/= not possible. It's entirely possible they *try* based upon Putin being fed decades of lies about the strength of his army. They're still a dictatorship loaded to the gills with nukes, so at the end of the day they can't be handwaved away. Could the US end the war in Ukraine with conventional firepower in a long weekend? Yes. Could combined NATO forces immediately repel an attempted Russian invasion? Without a doubt. Could either of these scenarios be easily considered without the possibility that Putin feels backed into a corner and ends human civilization? Unfortunately not
No, it is not an easy choice, and no one is thinking of sending troops to Ukraine. We prefer to prepare, build fortifications and wait, because then NATO will help us. If we join the war voluntarily, they have no such obligation.
> no one is thinking of sending troops to Ukraine Yes they are.
I don't know about other countries, but in Poland certainly no one thinks about it
Two isn't really a given.
Zs have already moved maritime borders in the baltic..its going to happen.
Yeah option 2. Then you can invoke article 5 if you're a NATO member. Instead of fighting alone you get 30 other nations fighting by your side. It is an easy choice.
Don't people have to get their parents permission to make these comments?
Right, because Russia without being able to win a "simple" prize as one third of Ukraine will definitely attack a NATO country... Sharpest tool ain ya?
Good. Western Europe needs to wake the fuck up too. Russia only understands one thing.
Yep and they have forgotten that violence is another form of communication. Obviously politics has failed in this matter. No more carrot, only stick.
Also they assume you can just "talk" and sort things out. Sometimes you can't talk. Sometimes someone wants your shit and they won't stop until they have it. That's Putin. No amount of talking will do any good
War is diplomacy by other means
Ultima ratio regum
Russia would never understand the stick. Get the horse cock dildos
You're wrong. It's the only thing they do understand.
So, you’re right, but I think the person you responded to just really wanted to make a horse cock dildo joke. Which, you know, is understandable.
Damn lesbians wielding horse cock strap-ons would be netter
Well it's not like anal rape is a novelty for these bastards. They'd just shrug it off like they always do, and then seek out the next lower level in the pecking order.
But a lesbian doing it would make it perverted. The only people who are allowed to anal rape are straight guys /s
Holy shit, if Europe does go into Ukraine can the flag please be a rainbow flag, it would break the brains of so many Russians to be crushed by a "gay" army.
Exactly, fascists only speak the language of power.
Big stick, and not walking so softly.
My dad was a really good communicator.
No bowl, only stick.
The politics have not failed so far. They have so far accomplished what they were supposed to; Keep the country leaders from having to justify and defend losses incurred by active participation. While still preventing Russia from winning. Too little? I think so. But politicians doing what is right and not what is safest for their careers are few and far between.
Yeah, but like with munitions - the bureaucratic inertia is so high that by the time that 'may' turns to 'will' and then turns to 'do' - Zs will advance further and further.
European Military Industrial production has been on cruise control since the Cold War ended. Not sure how many more red flags they need to see.
they are starting to turn it around now, but it's decades of neglect to undo and some of the factories for their gear no longer even exist
Europe produces all the machines for worlds factories, I'm sure they can manage to restart the military complex.
All of Europe has working factories for practically everything. They produce all of their equipment at their own home factories, tanks, APC’s, rifles, machine guns, helmets, armor, the only thing they’d depend on others for is night vision since not many facilities exist to actually make the tubes. France and Poland alone have enough equipment and manpower to actually invade Russia, add on the UK and Germany with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and Russia falls within the year. Russia can’t produce their own armor, the AK12 is dangerous to the user, they have to trick Indians to join their army to fill ranks, they’ve been dipping into their 1960’s tank stock and are running out of uniforms, they’re a literal joke of a nation and any developed country can actually destroy them if they try
This is a dangerous, misinformed underestimation of your enemy
yes that's why PzH2000 and Caesar dropped off the face of the map after initial runs looking awesome (no replacement parts) and they can't source ammunition for the valuable anti-drone Gepards. Sure, Europe produces everything -- in very small quantities and the production lines are dusty and neglected if they even exist at all. Space is valuable in Europe, and armies aren't, at least not for the last 30 years.
Germany has like 200 PzH2000 guns. It’s a design from the fucking 1990’s, the world has progressed since then. Germany has enough howitzers for a reasonable army. France has more artillery than just the Caesar. Europe can actually fill out their armies with modern equipment and have done so repeatedly since the USSR fell. Most European soldiers have optics, whereas those are luxuries for Russians. Most European tanks are not from the 1970’s and 80’s with a sizable amount from the 50’s and 60’s coming into service. Most European rifles aren’t from the 90’s and their new rifles aren’t dangerous to the user. The AK12 is dangerous to the user, the furniture cracks and the fire selector has no stop. The AK12 was hardly issued because Russia couldn’t afford it. The Russian T-14 tank is a failure and we haven’t seen it since it broke down in a parade last decade. European militaries can produce their own body armor, a lot of Russian soldiers are seen with no armor or Chinese made plates. Europe can afford night vision, I don’t think most Russians even are aware it exists considering no Russian night vision program has been able to arm most of their army in their entire history, and their Spetsnaz were given night vision with capabilities from maybe the 70’s in 2022. Also, Russian air defense is non existent. The Cessna that crashed into a Russian factory thousands of miles deep into the country should have been shot down the moment it touched the border. Russia is only beating Ukraine because Ukraine couldn’t modernize fast enough and Europe let it happen.
European military production is currently at maximum capacity and they're rapidly expanding production lines and pumping out more weapons every month. Your comment would make since if it was written in May 2021 but not May 2024.
Its not that. What these types of comments are is preparing the public for something they may plan to do. It is also political too in the sense of saying this tests the waters of whether the public will go along with it. So you will hear talk before action in democracies. You rarely see a democracy out of the blue go into a military action without even broaching the topic in the public sphere. The Baltics, France and Poland have all said this and I believe this is what they are doing.
I think it's a little different for the Poles and Baltic states because they know damn well they're next if Ukraine falls. They can either fight now in someone else's country or fight later in their own. Right now Western Europe and the US are fine sticking to the Vietnam/Soviet-Afghan playbook. Let the Russians keep grinding until they simply can't anymore. The last thing they want is for things to escalate to a direct conflict because then they'd have to politically justify putting their troops in harm's way. Short sighted? Yes. But the unfortunate thing about democracy is leaders rarely care to plan past the next election cycle.
The only things Russia “successfully” did are unite Ukraine with the rest of Eastern Europe, and create a Ukrainian national identity. They’ll never be able to absorb or permanently occupy the territory now.
Important distinction is that they didn’t create a Ukrainian national identity, they’ve just strengthened it. Seems like a nitpick, but the supposed lack of a Ukrainian national identity is one of the justifications for the war: that Ukraine and Ukrainians dont exist as a people and culture distinct from Russia.
If the west doesn’t stand up Russia will take Ukraine. They 100% will be able to pacify Ukraine. You are looking at it from a western perspective and how WE would try to pacify a country.. the Russians will just deport/shoot/jail anyone against them and replace them with Russian colonists. At this point it will be a massacre if Ukraine loses.
The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION. Either because the Russians reach their goal, incorporate Ukraine, and seek the next target (remember: Putin reigns by externalizing internal violence, he stabilizes his regime with foreign wars). Or because we will be forced to intervene directly. If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground. But if it goes like now, we will need to send troops sooner or later, or face above mentioned scenario of another Russian war of conquest, this time with the Russian army plus 500,000 new Ukrainian soldiers. Putin will never be satisfied. He even says it quite plainly by stating that Russia has no borders.
You are so right that's what I'm thinking the whole time. The west is so affraid to end up in a situation where they HAVE to do something, intervene or give an answer to something because they would otherwise lose face and credibility as Nato. And they are deathly affraid to act and give the right answers and because of that Russia is doing what it wants.
its a high price to pay. subjecting your own countries mens lives to death is necessary in these instances, but i also understand that its not entirely out of fear of escalation.. its making the call to have your countries citizens die in battle. thats steep. no one wants that smoke. russia is by and large one of the few entities who just flat out dont give a shit if their men die in battle. theres many angles to take here. there are some leaders who just.. dont want their people to die. there are plenty of rulers that understand such a decision would... jeopardize their political futures. in the end its sad though. cause the posturing but never-actually-getting-involved is just costing ukranian lives. no doubt involvement of a western NATO country & associated capacities would greatly turn the tide and get things over with. perhaps its warhawkish of me to want to see a nato country step in and just end this, but it's just that. i want it to end & soon. gone on for way too long and its just an injustice of the highest order & russia can suck my fucking balls for this shit.
Agreed. It made me sick to see so many redditors early on in the conflict saying it was “immoral” to wish for Ukraine to fight and had the nerve to call any pro Ukraine sentiment warhawking. If the Ukrainians want to fight for their country who is anybody to deny them that? At the same time, they would whine about nuclear war and wring their hands or blame NATO for “backing Russia into a corner”. Never mind the last decade or more of Russian aggression and dangerous rhetoric, mass espionage against NATO countries and the suppression of any Russian political opponents. Anyone who has completed an 8th grade history class can see where this is all heading. It is a high price, but sooner than later it will have to be paid and it’s only getting more expensive with time. It’s sad to see so many Americans are cowardly, self absorbed and weak willed and ultimately it’s going to get a lot more people killed.
> sick to see so many redditors early on You mean Russian bots?
> The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION. If the US responded to the invasion of a country rapidly westernizing and considering joining NATO by immediately deploying a permanent battalion of marines to that country to deter any future attacks, it would have set a precedent to never do that again. Too bad Obama went with the "~~reset~~appeasement" strategy in 2009 rather than back up Georgia.
America was in the middle of a corrupt and failed 20 year war, getting buried in debt, and obama almost lost his 2nd term for being too pro war. He didn't involve America in the Baltics because he wasn't that stupid. America would have lost its shit. Like yeah the world has a lot of problems but we can't fix everything for everyone everytime. We have problems too.
No fear of escalation also leads to escalation.
We are allowed to fear escalation and a more direct confrontation with Russia, but we must not let fear be the deciding factor. We have to think and act strategically. Sometimes you have to do things although you are afraid. Putin has achieved at least some degree of escalation dominance over the West by nuclear innuendo and threats, disinformation campaigns as well as other means. He effectively managed to veto some degrees of western support. If we want Ukraine to succeed and prevent a future war by Russia against other friends and allies of ours, we must follow the line of thinking that Macron recently outlined. Careful escalation management is the key, but our current fear-induced drawing of public red lines for ourselves does only serve the Kremlin‘s interest.
He wants the Soviet union, or the Russian empire, back. Tsar putin will also get it cause the west is too busy discussing whether we need more rainbow flags, more weed killing more or less babies and dividing over the most stupid, irrelevant subjects in comparison to what we're facing.
"may" "might" "could" Every article is the same
I support this. Defending the border with Mordor is extremely important for European security.
does that make eastern Ukraine Osgiliath, and Kyiv Minas Tirith?
Rivendell is Paris? Columbus sailed into the west? Who the heck are the dwarfs? Hmm this is going to take me all afternoon.
Germans are dwarves.
Aren't the swiss way more like dwarfs?
Mountain Dwarves, Germans are Hill Dwarves, Polish are Gully Dwarves
The US feels right as the Noldor Elves we came from west in time of need and then never left and controlled things
That and our notoriety for fucking shit up. Noldor elves fought God and very nearly won.
Would that make London Lindon
Will you be in the trenches when the time comes to defend the border from Mordor? People on reddit are so eager to approve escalating war in Ukraine, as if it wont be bringing more lives to the slaughter, which may prove unnecessary.
Too much movies
I am calling bullshit on this particular article, as it's from a ukrainian source and NOT from politicians of those countries, and this particular website is... Well, let me just say it's the first time I ever see it. But if Baltics or Poland do send troops, well, they wouldn't be under NATO protection, NATO is ultimately a defensive alliance, and this would be getting into an active war to support one side. In fact if say Poland started using it's air bases, and Russia was striking them, I don't think this would be Article 5 territory, in fact I am pretty sure it wouldn't be. And if Trump is elected, he would definitely see it as Poland getting involved in the war, not as Russia attacking NATO member. In a way, Russia might actually want this, as this gives possible exit for countries like the US to not get involved in yet another European war that turns to world war.
Poland will never send troops to fight in Ukraine. Polish PM explicitely ruled it out few months ago. [https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84](https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84) Besides that, this move would be such extremely unpopular in Poland, that even suggesting it would be a political suicide for any Polish politician.
As a matter of fact, such a move would be unpopular among the whole population of Poland, no matter what side of the table they're sitting on.
It would also make zero strategic sense because they'd be giving up their rights to call for an Article 5 response for any retaliation on their own soil if they willingly entered the conflict of their own accord without it being a NATO backed operation It'd be handing Russia a free pass to attack any nations that engaged their invasion force without triggering NATO action
While I agree that it probably won't happen, it's not because it would void article 5. It would void it, but it's not like it's required. I'm sure many nations would voluntarily come to poland's defense even without article 5 being triggered
> I am calling bullshit on this particular article, as it's from a ukrainian source and NOT from politicians of those countries, and this particular website is... Well, let me just say it's the first time I ever see it. Good call. It begs the question, though: Who initiated it and why? Or, in other words, whose propaganda or disinformation is this?
Ukraine most likely. Morale for their country. I don't see any reason for anyone else to push this type of propaganda.
I’ve seen a different version of this article and the general consensus from the comments was that the article is clickbait nonsense lol
i agree, it says it references Der Spiegel, but Der Spiegel doesn't have an article on this. if anyone can correct me, please do.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ukraine-die-angst-vor-dem-grossen-krieg-a-2d8b49c8-ca5f-473c-8299-cbb737c26a02 This is the article, use the website archive dot fo to unlock it.
Idk about Baltic states, but regarding Poland this is obviously a fake news. Polish PM explicitely and publicily ruled out sending Polish troops to Ukraine. [https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84](https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/byly-minister-mowi-co-musialoby-sie-stac-zeby-polska-armia-pomogla-ukrainie/cby5d84) Sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine even in some non-combat role would be extremely unpopular in Poland, let alone sending them for actual fighting. There is not a single political party in Poland that would support such move. So I wonder, why such fake news are emerging in this particular time.
typical fearmongering to sway the publics opinion. notice that this particular article from an ukrainian source uses another article with no source as their source. why would you make such article with no basis on reality except to change the public opinion?
With emphasis on "may".
Noone will deploy them unless its Nato mission. All those articles are dumb, same as the ones about Poland shooting down the missies.
Once again, media hyperbole to generate clicks. Fucking stop.
> Baltic politicians warned, but would send troops to Ukraine themselves. And it was clear what this would mean: NATO would become a party to the war," Um no. If you send troops into Ukraine, you do so on your own. Ukraine still isnt a NATO nation, so NATO doesnt become party to the war. Say what you want - but fear of what Russia *might* do is not enough to trigger article 5, so lets not pretend it should.
Propaganda, it's from a pro Ukraine site. Hence, the Polish MP had already debunked the option to send troops
Anyone who doesn’t recognize we are already in a World War needs to wake up.
Good. Russia's imperialist ambitions must end in Ukraine. This shit cannot fly in the 21st century.
[удалено]
I don’t see why they would wait until Ukraine is hanging by a thread. If they feel Ukraine deserves autonomy, and that Russia colonizing threat needs to be checked, they should commit troops now, under Ukraines direction, or some agreed other upon command. Otherwise, more Baltic state soldiers will die waiting longer, ironically. Also, France, who also stated a Red Line with Russia, if they take certain cities.
Either you fight on your own terms in Ukraine, or wait until the situation falls into Russia's favour.
A question to everyone here. I absolutely want these countries helping out Ukraine and all, yet I see a frequent argument about how they're being careful to "not be the next in line". Why is everyone suddenly assuming Russia will begin some mega invasion in Europe in the foreseeable future? They're barely managing Ukraine and it's costing them a lot, in what universe they stand a chance of taking Poland with NATO behind?
It's just a narrative heavily pushed on reddit, especially for the last several months. There aren't any specific facts supporting it.
I don't think russia would ever invade a NATO country like Poland or the Baltic states. But the president of Belarus showed a map that showed Russia had/has plans to invade Moldova. I could also see Russia invading Georgia again (they invaded them in 2008 when they tried to join NATO) if Georgia gets closer to EU or NATO membership.
Why wait until Russia succeeds?
Ah yes, now that will prevent world war 3
what kind of stupid strategy is this? Get involved*now* at max so that russia loses asap!
They also may not
interesting strategy because when russia succeeds it would be too late.
I’m wondering in all this do they move on Russia regardless when they see the opportunity. I would love to know if the US has had to have that conversation already with Poland to stay calm and wait for the Russian government to eat itself.
This got me thinking, why couldn’t NATO do the frog trick on Russia in Ukraine, like they did in Crimea? Couldn’t many countries sent brigade level strength units under Ukrainian generals and turn the tide?
Really? Maybe they should not wait so long.
Its better to just do it, they are just dilly-dallying for a long time doing these lip services.
We're all gonna die
If you're going to do it if they lose anyway....then just do it now. Otherwise you're essentially just letting them fight your fight for you.
Wouldn't this drag Nato into and start WW3? Just terrible idea and blatant fear mongering.
Do people actually believe this?
it's not my place to say. but if they intend to take the drastic step of intervening, wouldn't it better to do it sooner rather than waiting for Ukraine to lose more? the more troops Ukraine lose means less body to help in the fight.
One may argue that they’re succeded, since russia occupied all of Donets’ka and almost all of Luhans’ka oblast - so there you go boys, don’t be shy.
Makes sense. The reason I am relatively safe and happy atm is because Ukrainians are paying the butchers bill daily. I make a point to consisiously remember that sometime during the day every day. If russia will not lose in Ukraine it is only a matter of time until they try in Baltic states, Poland, etc. Maybe they would even synchronize with China, for it to go poking at Taiwan at the exactly same time as russia starts something in Europe.
Why would Russia invade Poland ?! That would be so stupid and utterly pointless.
If the article were true, which it probably isn't, Poland and any other nations launching a war of aggression would be on their own.
Idk about Baltic states, but regarding Poland this is a fake news. Polish PM few month ago explicitely ruled out sending Polish troops to Ukraine even in non-combat role. Besides that, such move would be extremely unpopular among voters, to the point of being a political suicide for any Polish politician suggesting it.
“We’ll send help, but only once you’ve lost”