Russia is expanding its military infrastructure near the border with Finland, in what NATO officials describe as the early stages of a long-term buildup, The New York Times reported Monday.
Yeah no. Even if the United States sits out on it’s dumb fat orange ass, Russia is not likely looking to pick an active fight with all of Europe when it’s disinformation warfare can disassemble Europe from the inside out, given enough time.
An active fight? Yeah, that’s not going to happen. A passive one, though? Might be an option. Carlo Masala recently published his new book If Russia wins: a scenario (No English translation yet). In it, he draws up a scenario where Russia, after defeating Ukraine, annexes a small Estonian town to test NATO’s resolve in the face of a limited Russian aggression. He bases this scenario on the German Re-occupation of the Rhineland, during which German troops had they faced any serious resistance by allied forces would have had to retreat. In the book NATO members are divided and dismiss the Estonians request for help under Article 5.
There is zero chance Russia is ever getting away with that
Is there? Given the rather reluctant support of Ukraine, which is about just enough to keep them in the fight, I’m afraid that at least some NATO members would rather give away a symbolic chunk of land than start a military confrontation. And yes, that would be the end of NATO.
But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.
They had security guaranties from the US and UK after giving up their nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.
nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The
They did and do not risk anything.
It became very clear early on, that Russia was all bark and no bite. Russia couldn’t have escalated to an all out European war if they wanted to, while their main psuh was being shredded on a highway towards Kiv. The only option to do so would have been the nuclear one but Putin wants to be Tsar, not dead.
Also even by standards of international law (as if that would account to anything anymore) supplying all sorts of weapons to Ukraine is legal. Any so called red line Moscow drew in the sand has been crossed so far and nothing has happened.
Do you really expect Putin to pull the trigger if European troops enter the battle with the clear communication that they would restore Ukraine to its borders before 2014?
I don’t disagree that they should have responded when Crimea was invaded, a decade ago, or Georgia 15 or 20 years ago.
I think Ukraine deserved protection based on those agreements, which were made with world interest at heart.
The crux of the matter is that the USA can’t be trusted to uphold any agreement with Trump at the helm. The UK is providing assistance but insufficient on their own.
Ukraine is not part of NATO, so there was not the same clear line of action and response.
Whether Russia was bark or bite is irrelevant when you send your own citizens to die in a war, protecting a different country. You need the political will and popular will to do that.
Those red lines Moscow made have incrementally dropped, without escalation outside ukrainez which sucks for Ukraine but is what the other allies would want, short of peace.
Putin is a violent demagogue and the only response is to destabilise him, which means being the war and sanctions to all Russians so that he doesn’t have the political will not support to continue.
Appeasing him by allowing Crimea to be annexed will only mean he tries again there, or somewhere else in the future.
Romania and Poland had multiple opportunities to show something when shahed drones fly and crash/explode over their territory, they chose to do nothing every time. When these nations are so afraid of even destroying drones over their own aerospace muscovytes will invade whoever they want and other nato countries will just cower and pretend that everything is fine.
Depends what you mean by NATO is no more. I can even imagine some scenarios where the end of NATO might make it less likely that they would invade. It all depends on the context.
My general point was that commentators in the west (and politicians and even the local) often treat russia as they want to see it, not how it is (i.e. based on historical fact and decades of quantitative and qualitative research on society in the current iteration of the russian empire).
Well, we might find out soon enough.
Yeah no. Even if the United States sits out on it’s dumb fat orange ass, Russia is not likely looking to pick an active fight with all of Europe when it’s disinformation warfare can disassemble Europe from the inside out, given enough time.
An active fight? Yeah, that’s not going to happen. A passive one, though? Might be an option. Carlo Masala recently published his new book If Russia wins: a scenario (No English translation yet). In it, he draws up a scenario where Russia, after defeating Ukraine, annexes a small Estonian town to test NATO’s resolve in the face of a limited Russian aggression. He bases this scenario on the German Re-occupation of the Rhineland, during which German troops had they faced any serious resistance by allied forces would have had to retreat. In the book NATO members are divided and dismiss the Estonians request for help under Article 5.
If even a cm of NATO is invaded and not acted on the alliance is worthless. For each nations safety, they must act or be defenceless going forward.
There is zero chance Russia is ever getting away with that, especially after burning all their bridges in Ukraine.
Is there? Given the rather reluctant support of Ukraine, which is about just enough to keep them in the fight, I’m afraid that at least some NATO members would rather give away a symbolic chunk of land than start a military confrontation. And yes, that would be the end of NATO.
But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.
They had security guaranties from the US and UK after giving up their nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.
They did and do not risk anything.
It became very clear early on, that Russia was all bark and no bite. Russia couldn’t have escalated to an all out European war if they wanted to, while their main psuh was being shredded on a highway towards Kiv. The only option to do so would have been the nuclear one but Putin wants to be Tsar, not dead.
Also even by standards of international law (as if that would account to anything anymore) supplying all sorts of weapons to Ukraine is legal. Any so called red line Moscow drew in the sand has been crossed so far and nothing has happened.
Do you really expect Putin to pull the trigger if European troops enter the battle with the clear communication that they would restore Ukraine to its borders before 2014?
I don’t disagree that they should have responded when Crimea was invaded, a decade ago, or Georgia 15 or 20 years ago.
I think Ukraine deserved protection based on those agreements, which were made with world interest at heart.
The crux of the matter is that the USA can’t be trusted to uphold any agreement with Trump at the helm. The UK is providing assistance but insufficient on their own.
Ukraine is not part of NATO, so there was not the same clear line of action and response.
Whether Russia was bark or bite is irrelevant when you send your own citizens to die in a war, protecting a different country. You need the political will and popular will to do that.
Those red lines Moscow made have incrementally dropped, without escalation outside ukrainez which sucks for Ukraine but is what the other allies would want, short of peace.
Putin is a violent demagogue and the only response is to destabilise him, which means being the war and sanctions to all Russians so that he doesn’t have the political will not support to continue.
Appeasing him by allowing Crimea to be annexed will only mean he tries again there, or somewhere else in the future.
Romania and Poland had multiple opportunities to show something when shahed drones fly and crash/explode over their territory, they chose to do nothing every time. When these nations are so afraid of even destroying drones over their own aerospace muscovytes will invade whoever they want and other nato countries will just cower and pretend that everything is fine.
You don’t understand russian culture and mentality. Although in your defence, this is relatively common.
How so?
They would very much be willing to conquer the Baltic nations if the opportunity shows itself. The russians are obsessed with colonizing the baltics.
The author that you referred to, does he speak russian? Estonian? Ukrainian? I am genuinely curious.
Carlo Marsala is German. Don’t know if he speaks other languages.
I very much understand that but there is no such opportunity for an all out conquest until NATO is no more.
I don’t know.
Depends what you mean by NATO is no more. I can even imagine some scenarios where the end of NATO might make it less likely that they would invade. It all depends on the context.
My general point was that commentators in the west (and politicians and even the local) often treat russia as they want to see it, not how it is (i.e. based on historical fact and decades of quantitative and qualitative research on society in the current iteration of the russian empire).
Disinformation warfare doesn’t keep a wartime economy afloat.
Neither does getting their poor struggling asses handed to them. But I don’t know if Putin is sane enough still to know that.
Actually, that does. It’s what has been happening since 3 years in Ukraine.
They aren’t being run by rational people, so they probably will attack, and most of the europe will suck it up.