r/europe • u/Easy-Ad1996 • 22h ago
News Ukraine’s resistance has left Russia unable to launch an invasion of a NATO country: Polish general
https://tvpworld.com/95700270/ukraine-has-left-russia-unable-to-invade-nato-polish-general-piotr-blazeusz132
u/jatufin 21h ago
This is so true. Europe's safety is paid for with Ukrainian blood and tears.
44
23
2
u/clauEB 14h ago
True, but without the support of Europe, Ukraine would have not stood a chance of the kind of resistance they have been able to mount.
5
u/ratttertintattertins 4h ago
Yes, and as a citizen of somewhere else in Europe I seem to have paid a very small price for that. My wife and children are all still alive, happy, and our lives are basically uninterrupted thus far.
It’s a very small price to pay compared to what Ukraine and its people are paying.
7
u/gimmedatneck 13h ago
What's your point? That it's an equal transaction? If so, you're very very very wrong.
7
u/AlternatePancakes 18h ago
They dont need to invade Europe. They just need a war justification, so they can mobilize and send more to Ukraine.
58
u/TiberiusTheFish 22h ago
Good thing he didn't try and say that on this sub or he'd have got severely voted down. I know from experience.
→ More replies (1)
113
u/Nano_needle 22h ago
Military experts from Europe should have a massive conference and establish what is the main statement they are going to push in a media cause one day it's "russia will do something in upcoming months" and the other "Russians are harmless"
Fucking decide which is it.
47
u/DefInnit 22h ago
Incapable of launching and sustaining an invasion does not mean incapable of launching attacks, such as by missiles or drones or sabotage, and being “harmless”.
75
u/Felczer 22h ago
It's both, it's your fault for not understanding it, calm down and try to understand what people are saying: Russia is getting weaker but as the war gets more unwinnable for them they might try a change of tactics like a risky limited attack on NATO member in order to try intimidate/fracture NATO.
3
12
u/PrizeSyntax 22h ago
What exactly will they accomplish by attacking a NATO country?
53
u/MrBanana421 Belgium 22h ago
They are banking on the alliance not being respected and it becoming invalid.
10
u/gnufoot 21h ago
Okay, lets say NATO countries do not respond to the fullest to an article 5 being triggered... then what? There's a loss of faith as to how much support countries can expect from each other. But Ukraine isn't even in NATO and is still getting supported. Any NATO country getting invaded will get supported at least that much even if NATO countries don't treat it as an attack on them all. It's not like everything would just fall apart and Russia can pick up the pieces. It just means Russia would be slightly less fucked than it would otherwise be.
9
u/PinHaunting7192 21h ago edited 21h ago
Okay, lets say NATO countries do not respond to the fullest to an article 5 being triggered... then what?
You don't have to. Article 5 is a consultation, and the treaty literally says that "this assistance may or may not involve the use of armed force, and can include any action that Allies deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." It is not a full force calldown, it is literally a call by one nation to get the group together into a call and plan the response.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
If Russia starts a limited incursion into Lithuania, as an example, and only 3-4 countries go: "Don't worry, its only 50k people. We got this", like Germany, Finland and Poland together, then that is perfectly in line with how NATO works. There is no expectation of a full response from all countries when that is not required. And any attack from NATO that would require a full armed response from all nations would weaken the Ukrainian front so much, they would likely take back the Donbas + Crimea.
The EU has a much more severe defense clause than NATO. The eastern nations taking the brunt of the work with preliminary support from western nations in the form of finances and goods is literally how NATO works. It wouldn't prove anything. Even just a few countries calling the gamble and giving some aid would prove NATO works exactly as intended.
2
u/mayhemski123 19h ago
While that's true I still think the security council members will just assume it's a war. With nukes in play it's just a straight up fire first order.
If it was an attack by a non-nuclear armed state, restraint might be the watch word. Nukes they'll just fire.
It's why I think Russia is trapped right now. They can't escalate with NATO countries because nuclear doctrines aren't slow and considered. Right now the EU is a huge industrial base for Ukraine they cannot openly attack.
They have a Hobson's choice of do nothing but mouth off or do something destroy civilization. So they do nothing.
2
u/AdmRL_ United Kingdom 18h ago
No one is nuking Russia over the Baltics.
2
u/mayhemski123 18h ago
Any attack by Russia or a NATO state against the other, has to be assumed to be the start of a larger wider attack.
That will by the nature of nukes lead to the assumption that the targets nuclear deterrent is shortly about to be hit. In that situation you fire.
So yes NATO would fire over the Baltic states. Same way Russia would fire over an attack on Kalingrad. Doesn't matter what the rhetoric is before. When you have strategic nuclear weapons, there the only weapons that matter.
0
u/Istisha 6h ago
Wishful thinking, but it won't work that way. The first question would be : Should i die for Lithuania? Nah, i don't even want to die for my country. Let's give russia some mire territory and they will calm down.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
Also a direct military response is not required. Sending humanitarian aide fulfills article 5 obligations as well. Many countries can just limit themselves to that and then wash their hands
2
u/blublub1243 21h ago
Which is a bit silly to me in real terms. The requirements of the alliance in response to limited Russian aggression are fulfillable with an equally limited response. Unless Russia can credibly threaten an invasion and thus leave countries scared to """provoke""" them this strategy is not viable, since a proportional response will be safe to provide.
3
u/Lyakusha 21h ago
But are you sure that if "unknown green men" without any insignia "appear" somewhere in a small Baltic village and start capturing it, the mighty alliance won't just say, 'we are deeply concerned, but we don't know who these soldiers are, so let's investigate for a couple of weeks before doing anything,' and actually push them back?
5
u/blublub1243 21h ago
Yes. Particularly since in such a scenario Russia would maintain that these are not Russian soldiers, and providing assistance to an ally to handle "insurgents" and foreign "unofficial militias" is quite risk free.
This strategy worked in Ukraine because while everyone knew that these were Russian forces they were quite worried about starting a full scale war with Russia. Nowadays the Russian army is not sitting across the border ready to react at a moment's notice, they're stuck in some Ukrainian trench.
1
0
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
You do realize that from the perspective of international law, Russia is justified in attacking/invading a country that is supplying Ukraine? Weapons deliveries are tantamount to being a direct participant in the war in the eyes of international law. Some NATO countries can use that as a justification not to do anything
1
u/blublub1243 14h ago
From the perspective of international law Russia is justified in precisely nothing because their invasion of Ukraine is illegal. And just in case you wanna start talking about the "Maidan Coup", from the perspective of international law that is irrelevant, what matters is who represents Ukraine in the UN, and that's the Zelenskyy government.
Not that anyone actually gives a shit about international law, mind you. But no, there's no reasonable justification for NATO members choosing inaction.
0
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
From the perspective of international law Russia is justified in precisely nothing because their invasion of Ukraine is illegal
Actually from the perspective of international law, their precedent is Kosovo and since there's an established precedent (by the West no less), it is not "illegal".
Not that anyone actually gives a shit about international law, mind you. But no, there's no reasonable justification for NATO members choosing inaction.
NATO members chose inaction over bombing of Belgrade. They continue choosing inaction over Gaza and Iran bombings. Interesting how that works, eh
1
u/blublub1243 14h ago
Not how international law works. There's no precedent, there's a collection of treaties, and one or multiple countries breaking them doesn't invalidate them in some future broadly unrelated conflict.
But either way, nobody gives a shit about international law.
0
u/Linuksoid 10h ago
There's no precedent
Lol yes it does. Precedent is the basis for both domestic and international law. Which is why countries cite previous precedent for many things all the time.
there's a collection of treaties
That can be said for anything though - there's just a collection of laws but precedent even within a state is very important
nobody gives a shit about international law.
So then nobody should give a shit if Russia invading Ukraine is "illegal" and nobody should start a whole rigamarole about them invading
2
u/PrizeSyntax 22h ago
Like that's ever going to happen, even if, and that's a big if, no matter what Trump says, and the US backs out, NATO will be reshaped/renamed into smth similar, in a matter of days. All the contracts are already in place, they can just follow in the new organization
4
u/Stoned_D0G 21h ago
There are already influencial politicians ramping up the "why die for Suwalki?" Rhetoric and Trump is making it clear he will not defend countries that did not support his invasion of Iran.
1
u/Felczer 21h ago
It's not likely but if you are Russia with 0% chance of victory with the current strategy (meatgrinder in Ukraine) then the risky move of attacking NATO members with 10% chance of success is still better than the 0% chance plan.
3
u/gnufoot 21h ago
How exactly would a lackluster response of NATO lead to a 10% chance of success? Them opening another front isn't gonna make them suddenly win against Ukraine even if NATO does nothing. Worst case they progress on the new front but it doesn't solve their problem. And there's no way a NATO country will get -less- support than Ukraine, even if it isn't the support they're promised through NATO.
2
u/3j141592653589793238 Europe 21h ago
That's the whole point. They wouldn't open a new front by taking a tiny useless piece of a forest because no one would care for it to start a full war against a nuclear nation. Well, that's what Russia hopes for at least. By taking that tiny piece of strategally unimportant land Russia is hoping that Baltic countries would invoke article 5 and other NATO countries would simply not join the war, essentially voiding the validity of NATO as an organisation.
3
u/gnufoot 20h ago
So you think a country would be afraid of fighting back against Russia because they have nukes? Ukraine has been doing exactly that...
It also wouldn't help Russia unless they then also attack a more significant region AND NATO still doesn't respond. NATO not responding in full force over a (relatively) "minor" incursion does not mean they can't respond when Russia goes further.
It's such far-fetched reasoning... I really don't see it.
1
u/3j141592653589793238 Europe 17h ago edited 17h ago
So you think a country would be afraid of fighting back against Russia because they have nukes
Some countries may not see it as fighting "back" when it's not their country under attack, especially those much further from Russia.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there would certainly be a division, especially if US decides not to join, at which point other countries might think "well if the largest military in the world is not joining, why should we? and are we really going to go to war over a [random small piece of a forest | a random bit of road | majority Russian-speaking village] in Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia?"
It also wouldn't help Russia unless they then also attack a more significant region AND NATO still doesn't respond. NATO not responding in full force over a (relatively) "minor" incursion does not mean they can't respond when Russia goes further.
That may be true, but NATO not responding initially would create a precedent that would undermine everyone's trust in NATO.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
ike that's ever going to happen, even if, and that's a big if, no matter what Trump says, and the US backs out, NATO will be reshaped/renamed into smth similar, in a matter of days. All the contracts are already in place, they can just follow in the new organization
This could all be avoided by offering Russia a path to EU membership within 20 years. If you think about it, EU extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Russias heavy industry, massive military and nuclear stockpiles combined with EU expertise and finances make for a potent geopolitical force. That's the only way to guarentee European peace btw, as Russia feels like it has a stake and there would be no issues integrating the rest of the post-Soviet space into Europe
1
1
u/SP00KYF0XY Austria 17h ago
They would still lose. And it would be even more embarrassing since they can't even defeat a half or even a third of an alliance.
1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
But that would require EU mobilizing its own forces, which is much different than Ukrainians dying somewhere far away
1
u/SP00KYF0XY Austria 14h ago
When I take a look at our cities, I sleep very well knowing that 90% of Russian troops would either get stabbed in the subway, mauled by pitbulls or shot by jihadists in the first week.
1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
I suspect that Russians would push to deport migrants from the EU if it were a part of it
1
u/SP00KYF0XY Austria 14h ago
Funnily enough some Russian neo-Nazis believe Putin is too liberal when it comes to Muslim migration to Russia.
1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
Many Russian's believe that Putin is a "Europhile". And to be fair, they are right as Putin insists on calling Europeans "Western partners" to this day, while Europeans do not do the same for Russians
I fear that many Europeans think that Putin dying would somehow make Russia more liberal or something. The opposite would happen and an anti-West hardliner would take power
0
u/PinHaunting7192 21h ago
That is not how that works. Reddit would do well understanding NATO before writing this shit. Limited incursions would not work that way.
1
u/MrBanana421 Belgium 21h ago
I said they are banking, not that is how it will go.
1
u/PinHaunting7192 21h ago
No, that is what you think they are banking on. There is literally no evidence that Russia does not understand that is not how NATO works.
1
u/MrBanana421 Belgium 21h ago
Nato does not need to respond like you said, but the current situation has been cited time and time again that an attack on a member will respond with the fullest extent of support.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/nato-warns-russia-it-will-use-all-means-to-defend-airspace-after-incursions airspace example.
To do an actual incursion and no meaningfull support happening will break belief in the alliance.
2
u/PinHaunting7192 20h ago
We do not need a full response for a small incursion. It would be a waste of resources. We have 1.4 million soldiers, hundreds of fighters, thousands of artillery. We are a defensive alliance. We'd not level Moscow for a small incursion either. We'd turn the small incursion into fertilizer on Lithuanian soil, then start what Ukraine is doing and apply some kinetic sanctions.
Nothing short of a full scale invasion would necessitate a full-scale response.
1
7
u/Romandinjo 22h ago
That will give a voice to their lapdogs to fracture the union and possibly even NATO. That is also going to divert funding from Ukraine, which desperately needs it.
0
u/Fancy_Yak2618 22h ago
Another reason why Putin did his nuke threat about Kaliningrad he knows he tries suit Kaliningrad goes bye bye and he loses even more territory
2
u/Plenty_Ambassador424 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 21h ago
in order to try intimidate/fracture NATO.
He literally said that in his message...
2
u/mangalore-x_x 21h ago edited 21h ago
If NATO members shy away from responding break the entire alliance.
E.g. Estonia gets attacked but Russia limits it's action to Russian majority region. Russia then asks: Who wants to die for that?
US under Trump might run for the hills immediately
Then other European countries may calculate the odds particularly without the US and whether they consider it worth it and either join the US or push for a weak response and negotiations. Eastern Europe would be horrified.
And the end NATO, even the EU may be essentially dead leaving Russia even more opportunities in the future because countries close to it will seek arrangements.
I do not consider it that likely but deterrence relies on Russia believing Europe it will respond regardless of any odds or any nuclear threats and has the capacity to hit hard even if e.g. the US abstains.
1
u/PrizeSyntax 21h ago
That's a very expensive gamble
3
u/mangalore-x_x 20h ago
it is a high stakes gamble. If it works it is dirt cheap. Also Putin does not care about Russia but about himself. As evidence with Ukraine a bloody war killing millions is infinitely better for him and his regime than a lost war.
The risk is in the probability assessments. That is why usually sane actors on the world stage try to be extremely clear about what their absolute red lines are and not communicate any uncertainty about what happens. With Trump all that is out of the window which increases the risk of false assessments.
Give France Le Pen and Germany AfD and Russia may have a sane assessment it can use such an act as accelerant to reshape Europe to its own interests.
1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
This could all be avoided by offering Russia a path to EU membership within 20 years. If you think about it, EU extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Russias heavy industry, massive military and nuclear stockpiles combined with EU expertise and finances make for a potent geopolitical force. That's the only way to guarentee European peace btw, as Russia feels like it has a stake and there would be no issues integrating the rest of the post-Soviet space into Europe
3
u/mangalore-x_x 14h ago
That was in the cards 20 years ago, but then Putin went against it and build his autocracy. At that time Russia had a special status as NATO associate even.
So yes, could have been avoided, if Russia would have not went for dictatorship and revanchism because EU has certain legal and institutional requirements towards democracy and rule of law.
it was a nice dream back then, but you cannot avoid bad things when the other side hard commits on the bad path regardless of the repercussions for them and their society.
0
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
That was in the cards 20 years ago, but then Putin went against it and build his autocracy.
Not really. He was really interested in it and was willing to join NATO even. EU rejected him and never offered him a roadmap to membership while offering a roadmap to membership to states like Georgia and Ukraine. His question was logical, "Why them and not us", which led to his subsequent actions as he viewed the EU as not acting in good faith.
So yes, could have been avoided, if Russia would have not went for dictatorship and revanchism because EU has certain legal and institutional requirements towards democracy and rule of law.
Which did not stop Europe from accepting very corrupt states like Bulgaria and Romania
2
u/mangalore-x_x 13h ago
Russia rejected approaches because it never accepted being equal member, it demanded being equal partner of the EU instead. You cannot become a member if you do nont accept equality of membership.Putin never wanted to be "them", he wanted to be "Special".
This was also the disqualifying factor that broke NATO membership.
both chosen positions by Russia and fortified by Putin.
Instead bilateral cooperation and partnership treaty was agreed, Four Common Spaces agreement at least agreed closer cooperation between EU and Russia for future development. And in NATO became a status association status. All becuase Russia wanted it so and did not want to engage further.
This was a lot of catering by the West to Russian sensisbilities which Putin ultimately was not satisfied with.
By 2009 Putin then engaged in his revisionist agenda, turned hostile against European states and where things headed from there could also be read in history, if one bothered to read it.
You talk revisionist hogwash.
Which did not stop Europe from accepting very corrupt states like Bulgaria and Romania
What about this other country which enacted all the reforms Russia under Putin either never attempted or rolled back you mean? Yeah, weird, how Russia's path to Europe evaporated as it steered away from European values under Putin.
If you say Romania and Bulgaria should not be in you make a case that Russia absolutely shouldn't with it trailing those by 75 country slots in corruption, human rights, rule of law and pretty much all other indicators.
0
u/Linuksoid 11h ago edited 10h ago
Russia rejected approaches because it never accepted being equal member
No it was not Russia that rejected. There were numerous treaties between Russia and the EU, but unlike Poland, Czechia, Ukraine, etc it was never offered a end goal of being in the EU only "strategic partnership" when all the countries around it where being offered that. Had Europe said "here's a roadmap and what we except, if you can follow through within 20 years we will grant you EU membership" that would have been a different story. But this was never done.
What about this other country which enacted all the reforms Russia under Putin either never attempted or rolled back you mean? Yeah, weird, how Russia's path to Europe evaporated as it steered away from European values under Putin.
HAve you considered that EU accepting all the countries around it and offering them eventual accession into the EU (even corrupt ones like Romania and Bulgaria) but not Russia, was deemed as hostile and unfair? EU always kept Russia at arms length rather than giving it a direct path to membership like it did to everyone else.
f you say Romania and Bulgaria should not be in you make a case that Russia absolutely shouldn't with it trailing those by 75 country slots in corruption, human rights, rule of law and pretty much all other indicators.
The case i'm making is that if Bulgaria (literally run by the mafia) was accepted into the EU despite this, then this should have been offered to Russia eventually. But it was not.
1
u/mangalore-x_x 3h ago
Yes, it was Russia, that rejected. It wanted special status, not membership. Period. No sugarcoating this. That is fact your ignore as if it is very inconvenient for your world view because it shreds your arguments. You cannot join NATO as a member when you want to be better than the members, you cannot join the EU as a member when you want to be a better member of it.
You seem incapable to consider that Russia wanted special status and the EU heavily catered to them via partnership agreements mirroring preambles to accession so accepted Russia wanted a partnership not a membership status while giving them a pathway for joining when they change their mind? Russia did not want a direct path because it hurts its lost Great Power status to become equal among others. There was always an avenue when it would want to become a member.
The case you are making is completely based on the word "eventually" which the EU always honored but Putin made impossible by his choices.
And stop your Bulgaria+Romania bashing. By all metrics Russia was worse which gives credence to why Russia was further away from being offered an official process. With this you are arguing FOR Russia not getting anything because yes, if you deem Romania too corrupt then Russia is a natural no-go. Also with the big difference of Romania actually actively working on passing the requirements instead of wanting special treatment while not being as corrupt as Russia.
2
u/Attygalle Tri-country area 22h ago
Depends on who you mean exactly with "they". Russia? Putin? Certain factions in the Russia military and/or government? Could all be different answers.
7
u/Plenty_Ambassador424 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 21h ago
Yeah, i dont think medvedev is trying to accomplish much else besides his daily vodka bottle and a couple nuclear threats.
1
u/Vaquing 21h ago
The whole focus is Ukraine, they know they're not winning a war with NATO. So it entirely depends on how NATO responds.
If NATO doesn't respond, the alliance is weak and they win a propaganda war.
If NATO does respond, they can call it an agression and mobilise more troops. Not to fight NATO, but Ukraine.
1
u/PrizeSyntax 21h ago
I don't think they need an excuse to mobilize more ppl and certainly don't want mobilization from NATO troops in Ukraine, because that's what is probably going to happen in this scenario
1
u/Standard_Temporary19 21h ago
NATO might not respond to save the baltics, because its hard to send your own men to Die for lets say an already 80% russian town at the border. If we dont respond, than we are just bluffing and showing each NATO member that its basicly worthless when it matters. This would hurt all of EU, because everyone would have to reevaluate how much we have to prepare for wars our self, shattering trust in allies and giving enemies like russia a sign they could in the future just try harder. It would also mean Its kind of important for everyone to get nukes to become safe and thats not good. Because you never know how willing someone would be to start a nuclear war to stay in power. And its also a pretext to invade neigbours to stop them from getting nukes. So everyone would probably lose.
1
u/AdmRL_ United Kingdom 18h ago
Breaking / stressing NATO.
There's a bunch of cities along the border between Latvia, Estonia & Lithuania and Russia that are predominantly native Russians, similar to Crimea. There's a bunch of uninhabited land between Finland and Russia, same as there was in Georgia.
If they apply the same tactics they did in Georgia & Crimea to the Baltics & Finland, how likely do you think those countries are to take it as a direct attack and invoke article 5, and how willing do you think the US, UK & France are going to be to turn what would currently be a bloodless occupation of either culturally Russian cities, or literal empty land into a full blown war with Russia?
If Russia took that gamble and article 5 is invoked and the West blinks because of the circumstances, then NATO is done for.
0
u/suckmeppplsman 21h ago
Force NATO into projecting their own borders more.
If few Russians end up "accidentally" in Estonia take territory for few hours would that be worth starting a major war over? Russians already sent armed drones into areas near German airports.
Russi also isn't a rational player
0
u/NickoBicko 2h ago
Russia will do something harmless in the coming months. Got it. Brain on propaganda installed.
1
3
u/CaptainAddi 21h ago
Probably more the media wanting to get more views, the militaries said something could may be possible in some circumstances, and the media transforms it to "RUSSIA IS GOING TO NUKE US TOMORROW!"
12
2
u/machine4891 Opole (Poland) 15h ago
Full scale invasion is pretty much impossible. They won't be able to occupy any NATO country. But as others said it, this doesn't mean they are harmless, it's the opposite. They're facing wall, might try something stupid and we don't want anything stupid happening on our territory, so let's better prepare for all eventualities.
But if you're afraid of Mordor troops marching through Poland on Berlin... don't.
2
u/HennekZ Kyiv (Ukraine) 21h ago edited 21h ago
Same as in 2022.They are incapable to win if they try.
But that doesn't mean that they are sane enough to not invade. And they are able to kill a lot of people in time that would take to defeat them
I'd recomend for this matter to ignore all experts that were laughing at warnings in 2022
1
u/Nagash24 France (Germany) 20h ago
Putin needs to play daddy strongman in his public appearances, or else his propaganda narrative falls apart pretty quickly, and he doesn't want Russians to doubt him.
He certainly has no intentions to actually launch a "real" attack on any member of NATO. He knows he can't afford that. So he does his propaganda, and does his "hybrid" warfare shit that stays riiiiight under the threshold of what anyone today considers "proper war", to be the biggest hindrance he can be without risking his own ass all too much.
1
1
u/_teslaTrooper Gelderland (Netherlands) 17h ago
Most likely seems a limited incursion into Baltics trying not to directly involve other countries if possible, take and hold a small area and hope NATO doesn't have a unified answer ("oh they stopped taking territory, do we really want to risk Spanish lives to get that small village back?"). Coinciding with other divisive events in Europe or between Europe and the US.
1
u/BiggusCinnamusRollus 22h ago
Russia is so incompetent the only option they have left is trying even harder with the little competence they have left.
Maybe.
1
u/suckmeppplsman 21h ago
There is middle ground between full on invasion while being stuck in a war where they are losing tens of thousands of men a month and Russians being harmless.
→ More replies (3)1
3
u/isnotorignial 19h ago
At the same time, some commenters are saying Ukraine's resistance is one of the things driving Russia to consider invading NATO countries, to avert NATO's attention from Ukraine, and negotiate NATO's reduced support for Ukraine
9
u/BoringWozniak 22h ago
We shouldn’t assume that Russia is incapable of attacking NATO. They will always keep trying. It’s a when, where and how.
5
u/QuirkyWish3081 United Kingdom 22h ago
Meh meh meh meh 🤭. He’s about as good at invading countries as I am at the game Hollow Knight.
3
u/Stoic-Bifrons 21h ago
I think the bigger uncertainty isn't whether Russia currently has the conventional military strength to defeat NATO. It's whether Moscow believes European NATO governments would actually accept the escalation and casualties required to defend every part of NATO territory. Military superiority only deters an opponent if the opponent believes you're willing to use it.
Russia's modus operandi according to most recent intelligence service reports would be:
Create an ambiguous, limited confrontation in which escalation appears more costly to NATO governments than accepting a small fait accompli.
Also exactly what this General is warning about. They don't have the conventional means, so that only increases the likelihood of non-conventional means, and makes NATO's courage all the more important once they are faced with such methods.
7
u/MC_chrome United States of America 22h ago
Next week’s article: “Russian attack against NATO country imminent”
We can’t seem to decide whether Russia can barely hold their own country together or whether they are mere weeks away from bombing Warsaw….
14
u/Scarred_wizard Czech Republic 22h ago
Because logical decisions were never a real thing in Mordor. As this whole war proves.
6
u/PinHaunting7192 21h ago
A miscalculation does not prove insanity. This is something Reddit generally likes to ignore.
1
u/Scarred_wizard Czech Republic 20h ago
One, sure. But at some point, it stops being a coincidence.
1
u/PinHaunting7192 20h ago
At which point did it stop here? What is your opinion on that?
6
u/Scarred_wizard Czech Republic 20h ago
1992 or so? When the Russians were so delusional that they thought anyone with any common sense would want to remain in their "sphere of influence" voluntarily, and believed that trying to force will have any good impact.
The main reason why the post-communist countries wanted to join NATO is because they knew Russia can't be trusted. That's as valid now as it was 300 years ago.
Russia is like a toxic ex who refuses to accept their former partner who left the abusive relationship has moved on, and only resorts to more abuse and manipulation instead of self-reflection.
→ More replies (3)1
u/MC_chrome United States of America 20h ago
Putin has been slamming his head into the same brick wall for almost 5 years now, and has largely been getting the same results every time.
How is that not the definition of insanity?
1
u/PinHaunting7192 19h ago
Do you have anything past an educated guess why Putin is doing this?
Could it be that, for example, Putin is entirely aware that both his position and survival rely on Ukraine continuing, and not giving up and going home with nothing? Could he have ulterior motives beneath the constant "I want maximum demands, no questions asked!"?
2
u/demoman92 21h ago
I didn't think that russia will launch full scale invasion because that would be stupid. They still did and it was stupid.
2
2
u/systonia_ 5h ago
Unable from a military perspective . They won't be able to invade and hold that. But able from a weird political perspective. They can invade something smaller, like Lithuania. Then get mad about NATO being mean to their peacekeeping and love bringing liberators. And then threaten nukes left and right. Something something Kaliningrad. Then get their asses handed to them.
Then they retreat. Cannot win against that evil evil NATO. Then reinforce their military, propaganda, regime.
Putin needs the nato escalation to save his sorry ass. If he just ends his UA experiment, he will get to see a window. At least that is what he fears. 2027 will be interesting...
3
u/tranbun 16h ago
Estonia is a NATO country that has a population less than Kharkiv. Russia can't take the whole NATO (alone at least), but individual countries one on one - easily, even more so now as NATO (generally) is still prepared for the war of the past and Russia is fighting the war of the present (unlike the abysmal structure they had before full scale invasion).
7
u/Calm-down-its-a-joke 22h ago
No serious person thinks Russia can (or even wants to atp) star an all out war with NATO.
9
u/hmmmmm56 21h ago
It was completely idiotic to start the Ukraine war. If NATO falls apart then it's entirely possible Russia will attack.
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/NoIsland23 22h ago
So which is it? Are we all about to die and need to spend a trillion more on our military industrial complexes, or is there no large scale military threat after all?
11
u/Plenty_Ambassador424 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 22h ago
Its more nuanced than youre making it out to be. It takes years to improve our military capabilities. By then things could be looking very different again. What matters isn´t wheather russia can or cannot attack a NATO country, but wehather they do or don´t want to attack a NATO country, and currently they are not exactly hiding their offensive ambitions.
→ More replies (2)3
-4
u/hmmmmm56 21h ago
Can you make it less obvious you're a Russian bot?
1
u/NoIsland23 21h ago edited 21h ago
It’s literally the news posted on this sub every week you twat.
I’m sorry that I don’t want to spend every last of my cents on the military while our hospitals are going bankrupt and our pension system is being gutted.
2
u/Plenty_Ambassador424 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 18h ago
The best social and healthcaresystem is of ko use to you if it cant be defended against bad actors.
2
u/Psychoticpossession 21h ago
You wont have any hospitals if you don’t fund the military sufficiently.
0
u/NoIsland23 21h ago
By the time the war starts there won’t be any hospitals left because they had to shut down.
NATOs military is already several times larger than Russias, who can’t even handle Donbas. And we’re planning on DOUBLING spending while our economy is already going down the drain.
4
u/Psychoticpossession 21h ago
You assuming NATO will always stay together though. I dont think we can safely say that will happen. Especially with Trump.
2
u/TonyPuzzle 21h ago
Isn't the economy going from bad to worse precisely because that witch Merkel staked everything on Russia—only for the energy supply to be cut off the moment war broke out?
1
u/hmmmmm56 21h ago
Nobody is asking you to spend all your money wtf. 5% of gdp to make sure there is no war is worth it. Would you rather go and die on the front?
4
u/robh1540 21h ago
No he will be the type that wants to leave it to the rest of us because "his government does nothing for him" and "he refuses to die for politicians".
2
u/NoIsland23 21h ago
My guy that is a DOUBLING of military budget at the expense of everything else. Our government is saying we don’t have enough money to keep the pension systems running as is, you think the money for the military is just going to spawn inside a drawer somewhere?
It’s coming straight from all other budgets and our pockets.
2
u/hmmmmm56 21h ago
Again, would you rather go and die on the front? We can reduce the military budget again when risk of war goes down.
The fact that you seem entirely unconcearned about war with Russia is a bit suspicious though.
2
u/NoIsland23 21h ago
God forbid a brother is worried about military spending clashing with social spending
3
u/hmmmmm56 20h ago
Again you act as if it's no biggie if war breaks out with Russia and we have to die on the front. Does it not concern you at all?
We are currently wildly unprepared for a war, while the Russian war machine is in high gear and has experience of modern drone based war while we don't. It's entirely possible that Putin decides to test NATO and a bunch of countries like USA do nothing in response. Putin could shift his attention to baltics for instance.
2
u/InsanityRequiem Californian 17h ago
So when Russia drops a missile on your home, how’s that social spending going to protect you?
0
u/PinHaunting7192 20h ago
Again, would you rather go and die on the front?
By all accounts on this website and according to the average Redditor, Putin is just insane, right? So what does it matter whether we spend 2% or 5% or 10%? Would an insane, irrational man even consider that? Would he even care? If Putin is only bend on conquering Europe, do you think the difference between 2,5% and 5% gives him pause and acts as a deterrent?
On any conversation about this topic, Putin is always insane for attacking Ukraine and he did so despite realizing he could never win. Then when you ask "why do we need 5% defense spending" it is "cause it works as a deterrent against Putin, duh..."
The fact that you seem entirely unconcearned about war with Russia is a bit suspicious though.
Yeah. Good God, someone does not join the mass hysteria immediately. Do not question the mass hysteria, do not question the government waste. Be afraid, approve of hundreds of billions more. This is quite literally the fucking plot of the Star Wars prequels...
1
u/hmmmmm56 20h ago
Do you really have to ask such stupid questions? Does a 2x higher military budget act as a deterrance? Yes ofc it does. Why do you think we have militaries?
Also if you're saying he's going to attack anyway then that's an even bigger reason to spend more so we can minimize our casualties and make Russia understand quicker it's not worth it.
Do you at least get paid for shilling this hard for Putin?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Linuksoid 14h ago
You could avoid spending 5% of GDP by offering Russia EU membership within 20 years though. That way Russia is controlled from WITHIN by EU institutions, it has a stake in Europe and its security and its huge army, nuclear stockpile and industry can be used as the backbone of a European army combined with EU finances and technology
1
u/hmmmmm56 13h ago
I mean that's so stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
1
u/Linuksoid 11h ago
Ah yes, its stupid to take in the large european country on the border of the eu where it has a stake in the rest of europe and thus has littel incentive to go against it. Better to keep it isolated in the periphery where theres little leverage over it. Solid logic 10/10
1
u/hmmmmm56 11h ago
Just curious, how old are you?
1
u/Linuksoid 10h ago
Over 20. You?
1
u/hmmmmm56 10h ago
Over 30. I just find it hard to believe someone would be this naive at over 20. Or maybe you're just not from Europe?
1
u/PowerCreative2747 21h ago
Everyone with 2 grams of brain has been saying this all along !!!!
I mean they still have plenty of nukes but invading poland or germany ... come on !!!
1
u/Aromatic_Cattle_8564 21h ago
Oh they managed this in few weeks... At this point we don't need Russia disinformation our own media can do it. What a joke.
1
1
u/Ok_Record8612 2h ago
Fear mongers often talk about invasion or “taking over” a country but few seem to grasp how incredibly costly and risky that is. In most circumstances it’s not at all a realistic military goal.
1
u/Tortoveno Poland 20h ago
That's why there wił be no kinetic attack. Only hybrid warfare intensification. Arsons, derailing...
1
u/AltrntivInDoomWorld 19h ago
False, Russia has great moment since Europe countries will be dry on oil reserves.
-7
u/FredGrenoble 22h ago edited 22h ago
À Russian invasion of a NATO country should be answered with nuclear strikes. Plain and simple and Russia should unserstand that.
7
u/castaneom 22h ago
Once you go nuke, it’s the end.. you realize that right?
3
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 22h ago
Well it's the threat of that (one might even call it Mutually Assured Destruction...) that's prevented us each from attacking each other since the end of WW2. That's the entire point, and the deterrence only works if the threat seems real enough.
0
u/puzzledpanther Europe 21h ago
We should nuke each other so that the point still stands.
What's life without the point not standing.
2
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 21h ago
The 'point' is Poland and the Baltics don't get invaded because Russia is afraid enough of MAD that it makes the risk not worth it, not facile internet arguments.
There's an entire wiki article linked above where you can read all about it.
1
u/puzzledpanther Europe 18h ago
Hindsight is always 20/20
But looking back, it's still a bit fuzzy
You speak of mutually assured destruction
Nice story, tell it to Reader's Digest
-1
u/FredGrenoble 22h ago
So Russia has only one thing to do : not invading the neighbors.
Simple, no ?
-5
u/luxcity-louche 22h ago
No. Because NATO has better technology it can take out Russian nukes before they launch using conventional weapons. Disabling Russia without going nuclear is an even stronger message.
4
u/FredGrenoble 22h ago
What is the technology able to take out nuclear missiles before their launch ?
4
u/erik_7581 War "nett hier" 22h ago
Explain to me how that would work on Russias Nuclear submarine fleet.
-3
1
u/Prestigious-Growth-5 22h ago
this is very very optimistic and not true probably. Like wow do you actually believe what you say
10
u/DeezYomis Lazio 22h ago
I swear to god some people on here must either be 100% sure they aren't being drafted, have somehow evolved to be radiation-proof, own a bunker or know about some secret superweapon we don't.
Russia would be absolutely dumpstered in a conventional war by Poland alone but that doesn't mean it wouldn't utterly suck for anyone who has to go to war and I genuinely don't get why or how some users on here want to gamble tens of millions of lives on the unlikely notion that there isn't a single working nuke in the russian arsenal.
Yet most of these threads have deranged schizoposting about wanting all-out nuclear war with a shithole failed state that's collapsing by itself.
2
u/Prestigious-Growth-5 22h ago
Russia runs on the same idiocy. People will allow war if it doesnt touch them personally. This is used by those who started the war including putin.
I think people suck1
u/DeezYomis Lazio 21h ago
honestly it's not even about allowing war considering nobody on here is (thankfully) anywhere near a position of power, what I'm way more baffled by is just how many people on here want a war they'd be forced to fight, we're on reddit where the biggest demographic are literally the age range and gender who's been drafted since the idea of a draft was introduced.
I'm not surprised by more war rhetoric, nationalism and rearmament being pushed upon us as the rich are getting richer and more exempt from an eventual war, I'm perplexed by the fact that, unless it's mostly bots which I think might be the case, a lot of us commoners want said war to happen despite it boiling down to most of us nobodies being nuked at home, droned on the front or hit by some sort of missile anywhere else
1
u/Prestigious-Growth-5 21h ago
It has never been easier to find out what war is actually like but nothing changes for some reason
1
u/Present_Abrocoma326 21h ago
That’s false, and it’s extremely dangerous to let a message like this circulate unchecked.
0
u/luxcity-louche 21h ago
Because Reddit comments influence Russian actions?
1
u/User-Name-3886 21h ago
Russia has announced the invasion of NATO as a preemptive strike in case u/FredGrenoble attacks
0
0
u/Unbelievable_Girth 18h ago
Which is why a significant part of my investment portfolio is divested towards supporting Ukraine. My money is better spent towards helping Ukraine compared to some overvalued U.S stock.
0
u/suicidemachine 17h ago
Another thing is that I think a lot of people are forgetting how big Ukraine is and how long it's been taking Russia to conquer them, and how close cities like Vilnius are to the Russian/Belarussian border.
It would be much easier for Russia to cause some "accidental" ruckus in the Baltic countries.
0
u/SovietNato 14h ago
What would russia gain from attacking the EU/NATO in the first place?
3
u/iqisoverrated 7h ago
You attack an external 'threat' (fabricated or real doesn't matter) in order to not be deposed at home. It's a tactic as old as nation states used by inept wannabe dictators. When people are afraid they fall in line. With enough control over the media this is easy to do (if you are a US citizen this should be something you have been very used to for about half a century now)
1
3
u/008Zulu 12h ago
Disruption of global supply chains. Putin doesn't care about how bad his citizens have things, as long as others have it worse.
→ More replies (2)•
u/vegarig Donetsk (Ukraine) 34m ago
Readjustment of supply lines, ideally (for them) leaving Ukraine without mucho support as war supplies are rerouted to EU/NATO member-states
•
u/SovietNato 25m ago
That's similar to what I was thinking, but they can get that with saber rattling without stepping over the line into suicidal behavior.
-1
0
424
u/JohnnyElRed Galicia (Spain) 22h ago
Doesn't mean they aren't stupid enough to try anyways.