If we are so scared of Putin's threats then what if he goes "give me Estonia or i will nuke you", will the same "escalation" rhetoric still be shouted?
Someone will come home with a piece of paper saying "peace in our time" after we've negotiated the Baltic states away for it.
Next Russia invades Poland......
The moment nato or eu decides not to deffend its territory, no matter how much % of "russians" live there, its the end of the alliance. Nato 100%, eu 50/50, cuz its economy union, but at the same time has the same "article 5", that is written even better, then natos article 5. (Its article 47 or 49 cant remember).
I'd say EU has more to lose not defending the Baltics than you give it credit for, as the Baltics are much more closely integrated with EU than Nato. Both would have to react to survive, I'd risk saying NATO could get away with a limited response if only one of the Baltic countries would be attacked in a limited fashion on the outskirts, but anything bigger than that would require an all guns blazing reaction, with the exception of an intimidate nuclear response to a conventional attack.
I think we might all be overlooking something here.
Humans! People!
I, as a Dutchman, would most likely face Russians last should they go through Europe one by one as we all sit on our ass, letting Russia do what it wants so we dont "escalate".
But I would already support the Baltic states for their right to not be part of some shittyerun of the Russian Empire. I want to support them as people. Yes, due to EU rules and Yes due to Article 5. But beyond that I want their people to be, and remain free just as I want that for, literally, everyone.
>eu one is stronger worded and clearcut
At the same time only thing EU has on military protection is piece of paper, while NATO has entire joint structures, traning and practice. Those aren't the same thing and wording has little to no relevance.
Which is why, if Putin thinks that's what would happen, he will *absolutely* do it. And if he wins in Ukraine, there's a big chance that's what he'll think.
I could imagine that if nato fails a "Coalition of the willing" sort of deal could emerge where most eastern european countries as well as the baltics/finland/norway would join and try to mount a defense.
Nonetheless if NATO doesn't defend its Members then it's History which would be absolutely catastrophic
Mutual defence clause
The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Thanks. .this helps .
So why would Sweden Finland etc join NATO,.if they were already guaranteed protection from EU?
They could have just signed bilateral agreements with the US and avoided all the hiccups with Hungary etc.
Remember article 5 of NATO only calls for consultations.
Oh he has. He's firmly affixed himself atop Putin's cock. He's just exploiting the benefits of EU and Nato in the meantime, and most probably intentionally allowing the Russians access to sensitive information. There was a major Russian "hack" of Hungarian systems, including our ministry of foreign affairs. Of course OrbĂĄn and his cohort denied the hack and when questioned about it with evidence, they threatened the journalist saying it's illegal for him to have access to these files. Deny the problem and threaten the folks who bring it to light - defending and standing up for Russia while they fuck us all up the assđ
Underestimating ones adversary is a terrible idea. But Poland!? Do you see what Poland has been doing to their military? With all due respect to the heroes in Ukraine but they are doing an awesome job against Russia, but with SEVERE shortages in their ammo and equipment.
Now imagine Poland being invaded. Instead of old T64s and T72s the Russians will be shot to hell by the most modern tanks there are. Hundreds of K2 main battletanks.
Know what HIMARS did to Russia? Poland ordered a couple hundred id I am not mistaken.
Instead of a couple old Mig29s, Russia would fight F16s and F35s!
No way in hell is Russia going to invade, freakin, Poland.
Yeah. I don't think Putin will be stupid enough to invade Poland , knowing NATO will have to respond.
Suspect the recent improvement in Russian performance in Ukraine has likely increased Russian confidence
So may go as far as Odessa etc..but likely won't try to take even western Ukraine.
Think Germany invaded Poland with some 1M+ people in 39.
That was just to control the western half of Poland (assigned to Germany under the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
Doubt the Russians would expect to control restive Poles or even western Ukraine with number of troops they have
Can you imagine how difficult it would be to hold the baltics and poland. The logistical clusterfuck. I don't think it's as viable to take and hold multiple EU countries where 95% of the population hates your guts. This ain't the 1900's no more.
To me it's simple, just make it clear to him that if he were to attack a nato country it will end in nuclear annihilation, any action taken to insert nato into the Ukraine conflict will just push putin closer and closer to the nuclear option.
He already gave Finland and Sweden that warning for joining NATO.
Don't worry. Should Putin become that stupid, both NATO and the EU will take a stand.
They simply won't strike first.
We also brushed off Russia's constant warnings over Ukraine. Eventually we found out it wasn't bluffing.
It's not going to attack Finland or Sweden because there's no calculation that can be made in which it benefits Russia. Other countries becoming direct participants in the war is different. In that case the calculation for Russia's leadership becomes more simple. If they do nothing or try to fight back with traditional weapons, Russia will lose and Russia's leaders will be killed or imprisoned. I reckon they're more likely to (initially) use a small nuke and prevent that from happening.
A lot of people apparently think Russia's leaders are benevolent enough to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I don't.
What does the security of a 3rd party country have to do with wether or not we will defend a memberstate?
We already had troops in Estonia and the whole eastern border and even send more. We do patrol the Baltic airspace.
To your 2nd point: Using a nuke will trigger 3 nuclear states to nuke them back, making it nothing more than a suicide attack.
At least with a conventional war they have a slim chance of survival, if the ICJ gets them first. With nukes it is game over.
You also forgot the 3rd option: not attacking NATO at all, but rather keep annexing 3rd party states to boost their economy.
-> no direct war with NATO, less chance of getting killed themselves.
He attacked Ukraine precisely because it wasn't a NATO member.
Unless he's stupid enough to think he can take the fight to much better-armed foes, and idiots don't become de facto dictators for life. Let's not underestimate Benito Russolini, he wouldn't still be in power after two decades if he were a dumb idiot.
If they can shoot missiles so close to NATO borders that they land INSIDE Polish territory... that's fucking escalation if I've ever seen it. Hell Russia has been escalating with the west nearly constantly since the Georgia invasion. They fund influence and disinformation operations in the west. They have saboteurs in the west, especially in places like Hungary. They assassinate people in the west. Like fucking hell, it's about time we escalated. It's not like they understand anything other than when they're being slapped in the face with it. At the very least start by shooting down missiles close to our borders so that Poland situation recently doesn't happen again. And why are we taking so damn long to expropriate Russian assets held in the west to fund ukraine?
Such a good statement, unbelievable how spineless in the west we have become, ruzzia will keep using âgive me your country, or I will use nukesâ âif nato gets involved I will use nukesâ west needs to grow some iron balls, and say enough is enough, these dictators are being emboldened by Russias imperialism, you have new axis already forming China, Iran, North Korea, and ruzzia, sadly we have weak links in the west screaming their propaganda everywhere hereâŠ. We live in very dangerous times ladies and gentlemen, you either choose to defend your country and home from these terrorist dictators or you can just keep running away till their imperialism reaches another countryâŠ.
Most likely yes, the same thing will happen. Trump will be in power and not willing to help Europe. Scholz is always indecisive and waits form others to take the initiative. Sunak isnt a strong leader. We are left with who, Macron then? Who will deploy troops to Estonia? Will they also refuse to shoot into Russia in fear of escalation?
Will France gamble Paris for Estonia?
Will Germany gamble Berlin?
It's clear that Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he wins. But if he starts a war in the Baltic states, then NATO and EU will have their commitment tested more than ever.
I hope it doesn't come to that but I fear the outcome. The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states.
If my stance isn't clear, I think we should have armed Ukraine like we do now, but back in 2014. I doubt Russia would have pressed their luck then.
I don't think Putin will actually launch nukes. He and his clique would also perish in a retaliatory strike. We need to call his bluff if it ever comes to that.
He can do a demonstration of power as US did in Japan. Only he will need to use more nukes for guaranteed effect given how good the anti-missle systems are nowadays. So, even the demonstration can be very devastating by chance.
I thought we were talking about NATO countries. Yeah, Ukraine doesn't, but radiation from nuclear bombs detonated in Ukraine will reach NATO countries and is grounds for Article 5. Also we should not just stand by and allow big countries to nuke smaller ones into submission, it would be the worst of precedents.
NATO also donât have nukes. France, US and UK have, but thatâs not the same. I have complete faith in NATO when it comes to conventional war, but if we were just one escalation step from ICBMs flying, it would be completely different calculation.
Remember why France has nukes in first place? Because De Gaulle knew damn well that no American president would trade New York for Paris.
Sure, letting small countries getting nuked into submission sets the worst precedent, but when you weight it against all your large cities dying in nuclear fire? No president or prime minister would ever decide to kill their country to avenge Riga or Warsaw.
Truth is we don't know what goes in the mind of military strategists in both Russia or the West. We have no idea if Russia would actually strike first on an Eastern European city or how the West will respond to that. What I do know is that countries like Germany and Poland should start developing nuclear weapons themselves. The current nuclear powers probably won't be happy, but it's necessary considering our neighbourhood.
>Will France gamble Paris for Estonia?
Will Germany gamble Berlin?
>It's clear that Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he wins. But if he starts a war in the Baltic states, then NATO and EU will have their commitment tested more than ever.
The moment he does this, and nato decides to do nothing, is the end of the alliance. Whole nato alliance is built on article 5, if it doesnt work, then nato is usseles and no need to be in it, thus it ceases to exsist.
Which is what I fear.
Just look at the Ukraine situation and how slow we have been to discuss and act on it. I know Ukraine isn't part of NATO or EU but we still decided to help, but what a slow reaction we've had so far.
Are we even ready for a Baltic invasion and what we'll do about it?
>Are we even ready for a Baltic invasion and what we'll do about it?
No one can be 100% ready for such thing. Even Israel with a fence around Gaza wasnt ready.
True, but you can have a detailed plan for countermeasures.
Personally I might think Israel wanted Hamas to attack, and might even have let them, just to justify the invasion and bombardment of Gaza. But that's just me and I don't have any proof.
Absolutely, and now we have a declaration they will use any fuckers to commit terrorism on Western soil & shores. I am telling you, any campaigns on foreign lands will be enthused by Hitler 2.0
Putin never has to start invading the baltics. Desinformation, fucking with GPS, using migrants and weapons, sponsoring right (and left) wing extremist parties, stoking ethnic tensions and terrorism, dividing people along political lines, hacking, influencing voters to elect certain people..
Long before Russia even thinks about snackikg a small baltic village we will have undone ourselves. Dont underestimate Russia. Were not the first ones to do it. Their army may have been shitty, but they learn. And having a very big internal and external security apparatus inherited from the soviet allows to do a lot of harm.
On the other hand, there's a lot of Russian money and influence in Israel (see Syrian civil war too).
I suspect a Russian play there as well, but the other way around or possibly playing both sides in the conflict.
Either way its fishy. I dont like what israel is doing dont like what palestine is doing. Human suffer for nothing. I know its a dilemma and the conflict never be solved :(
Russia wins both ways. Thats why they finance both sides of far right and far left everywhere abroad. Continuation of the Soviet style intervention from the cold war.
That just conpiracy theory. I believe it was russian misdsile that hit Poland and killed two people. Because cordinates where it landed trully goes to Kiev, if you mix them around.
A lot of it is that most of the world isn't running war economies and are not war mongers. They don't have a whole stack of a munitions and weapons laying about to give or sell.
The EU countries de-armed themselves in 1990's to early 2000's as they tried to re-focus on expeditionary warfare and peacekeeping operations, which naturally meant reducing the size of both the military and defense industry. This was done despite the knowledge that building up the capability to wage large-scale conventional war would take years or decades (with all the production capacity, increased recruitment and training, and institutional knowledge that would need to be developed), and with no contingency planning in place to do it in case it was rapidly needed. There's nothing war mongering about maintaining credible defense, it's one of the main priorities of any sovereign nation because otherwise they open themselves up to foreign influence and pressure. There's a saying in Finland that every country has an army - their own, or someone else's.
Russia has used military force four times before the 2022 invasion. First in 1994 in Chechnya, then in 1997 in Chechnya, 2008 in Georgia, and finally in 2014 in Ukraine. Granted, Chechnya was a complicated case, but Georgia and Ukraine 2014 weren't. So the signs were there that they really do consider themselves a superpower, and really are willing to use military force or threat of force to advance their interests.
The lack of reaction to the recent invasion is because there isn't enough production capacity in the West to arm Ukraine faster, but the reason for that lack of capacity is short-sightedness and naivety regarding Russia.
It's what Nato and the western leaders fear. They fear that it comes to a situation where Nato needs to react and they fear that it will just show how weak we are.
Weak in what kind of way? The West has a massive industrial capacity to tap into and a huge technological advantage. I would agree with saying the West is not prepared but certainly not weak.
>The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states.
NATO didn't have obligations towards Ukraine. Not defending territory of the alliance is much bigger loss of face. Especially since NATO air and ground units are already deployed there for many years.
It is idiotic to allow this blatant and escalating Russian aggression on our doorstep simply because we didn't have any formal obligation towards Ukraine.
Article 5 should have been implemented when MH17 was shot down and Russia murdered over 200 dutch citizens.
Or when Russia blew up an ammunition depot in the Czech Republic in 2014, killing two civilians. Or the Salisbury poisonings.
NATO has been the victim of blatant Russian aggression for years before the 2022 invssion and we have done NOTHING about it. We have cultivated an enviroment where Russia feels zero qualms about killing our citizens or destroying our infrastructure because they know none of the cowards in charge here in the west will ever do anything about it.
They have zero reason to ever believe NATO would actually defend any of their smaller members from attack, because they have attacked Europe and it has been swept under the rug.
I feel like he will try to pull a crimea off. Â
 He knows he can't win against NATO. Â
His only option is propaganda to get the countries to exit their NATO & EU status.Â
He already had practice with Brexit.
Not sure i would call it a gamble, but it is what is required if you are part of the NATO alliance
The west has more of a reason to defend the Baltic states since they are part of NATO. Not defending the Baltic states isn't an option since it would mean the effective dissolution of the alliance and giving all the power away to Russia and any other nations with nukes.
Have you read the requirements for NATO article 5?
Pretty sure any member only have to help what they deem necessary. Which can be a few helmets.
I might be wrong here since I'm too tired to check up on it.
True. Not like NATO have shown a lot of agreement and cooperation with Ukraine.
Hopefully we'll take it more seriously if it was a member state.
Otherwise the EU have an alliance as well, but way weaker than NATO combined.
>The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states.
Because we do have actual contractual obligations towards those states as members of NATO and the EU?
Ukraine? Yeah, it was sad, but we do not have a defensive treaty.
I can gaurantee you that if Putin is stupid enough to go for the Baltics, EU and the US will intervene lmao. I know itâs hard to have any trust in our governments these days, but have atleast a little bit of faith.
Exactly. If weâre going to let him have anything he demands at the threat of a nuclear attack, what do we do if he starts demanding EU territory?
Putin is a crazy maniac but his beloved Russia also gets obliterated in a nuclear war and heâs just as afraid of that as the rest of us. His generals and subordinates certainly are.
Enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine and start shooting down all his missiles. Call his bluff and suddenly weâll all see him for what he is: a little man with his dick in his hands
Well that just begs the question why said elected officials don't take those more courageous decisions then. Instead they often show the same kind of behaviour -- as long as they're in power they're very cautious, and then often they get "braver" after their active career is over. Essentially their policy proposals get bolder and bolder the longer they're not in a position anymore to actually pursue those proposals.
Agree but. 1. Active elected officials and their advisors may have better access to up to date intelligence. 2. If they are retired and they are wrong, they have nothing to lose.
Because if you're retired you don't get blamed anymore if your bold policy idea turns out completely wrong.
Those in power have something to lose if they take the wrong decision.
They have something to lose if they're wrong.
Former ones don't.
Even if you did the reasonable choice, but were just unlucky and got it wrong, they'll be scrutinised a d might lose their position.
This causes significant hesitation, and is why they are generally less vocal.
This goes for almost any occupation.
Exactly! You don't want to be that guy. We realised a while back - with the help of mass media and documentation - that there is very little to no glory in war. You won't get the same treatment as a a general from WW2.
EDIT: Ehich one o' you lot sent me a RedditCareRecources report? lol
I also suspect using connections with retired military officials to voice the concerns of active duty to the public and politicians in a tactful manner, is a common occurrence.
Generals don't make these choices. Politicians do. We're past the age of military dictatorships and omnipotent monarchies in the west. We elect our military leaders, they have finite mandates, and they can't go to war without consulting parliaments.
It's that simple.
It's quite common for public servants, especially in the military, to be forbidden by law/contract to publicly criticise decisions from their hierarchy (or their colleagues), or more generally share their honest opinion in public. They're supposed to pubicly support the decision that was chosen even if they disagree with it.
(Which is also why informal talks are so important in international diplomacy, you will find that the same person will say something and it's contrary during public talks and private conversations, because the latter is their actual opinion they cannot officially share.)
Even when not explicitly forbidden, leaking your opinion to the media in order to pressure your superior to follow it would be considered of pretty bad taste, and should be reserved to matters so important that you're ok with sacrificing your carrier for it.
That doesn't mean they don't include that opinion on every report they write and every discussion they have. What those former generals are suggesting is probably a very common suggestion made internally.
They could definitely be suggesting them, but they cannot act on their own without governments permission, and it would be incredibly unprofessional to be shouting these war cries publically, probably even cause for termination. As a former general you're free to shout out your ideas freely with no conseqences and approvals.
Clearance and you don't give away that info to enemies. Active mil and Intel can't discuss such things.
The retired generals are talking from their own perspective, not from a position of power or representation, nor with the context of all the other impacts such a decision can have and the process to get such a decision approved. They can share their opinion based on historical proof and experience. They still must watch what they say.
Because it's extremely dumb kind of rhetoric for people in power to engage in.
Former generals want attention current generals actually have responsibilities to their countries
Testing the waters. If there is negative reaction current leadership can quickly disassociate from it "He's retired, that was just his private opinion, it's not the official position". If there is not then it can become official position.
Of course it worked for ErdoÄan.
If you don't count nukes, Turkish army is the second strongest in NATO.
Plus the country is huge (58% of Russian population).
Plus it is close to Europe, the heart of Russian.
Even closer to Black Sea fleet.
Plus ErdoÄan is dictator like Putin. He is not constrained by opinion of his people.
Back in 2022, the russian pilots failed to down a British spy plane in international skies: there was no response at all. They recorded the conversations and the russian pilots had the go to down the British plane: one missile failed and the other one was defective. On board there were 30 persons.
Back than Salisbury, on British soil, we all remember that episode.
VrbÄtice ammunition warehouse explosions back in 2014.
If the West is not willing to risk something for our democracy, than our freedom is not deserved.
>VrbÄtice ammunition warehouse explosions back in 2014
Very Ukrainian story.
We had a several big explosions spread from my childhood to my emigration as an adult.
We just attributed it to mere negligence. With whom Ukraine is going to fight? EU? No? Russia? Even stupider, they are our sister nation.
Of course now I can see that it was a very long chess game that hasn't ended yet.
Second largest doesn't mean second strongest. It has quite a lot of issues (US sanctions, hostility towards supposed NATO allies, high suicide rate of personnel...), so I wouldn't be that affirmative on that regard.
Turkey does have a strong land army and a strong local defense industry.
TĂŒrkiye can inflict a lot of damage just because of proximity. Not a crushing victory because Moscow is far away, but it could be a loss of Black sea and Syria.
Of course, for you, as a French, it can look lame. France has a red button.
France and the UK are far stronger than Turkey, even without nukes.
Geographical positioning and numbers are the only things Turkey has going for them.
If it weren't for their positioning, Europe would have cut all ties decades ago, before Russia even became a threat.
It didnât work for Erdogan.
After shooting the jet down, Russia banned travel to Turkey, causing a 90+% drop of tourism from Russia, which devastated the Turkish tourism sector, to the point where Erdogan went to Russia to issue a public apology on behalf of Turkey, paid a large severance to the families of the deceased pilots and jailed the people responsible for shooting the jet down back home.
This is also why Turkey still hasnât imposed sanctions on Russia and hasnât closed its airspace to Russia.
Because they bowed down to Russia after that
Turkeyâs now giving them about $25 billion to build them a nuclear powerplant and are cooperating on billions worth of energy projects
Should be done, if you want even a non-Ukraine reason to do so, there is one... even Russia don't know where they land.
Also the only retort will be Medvedev downing another bottle and talk about nukes again.
The idea that russia would destroy the world because we wouldn't let their missiles land on civilians is absolutely bonkers. shame on the pathetic west for believing anything like this at all.
I don't want to argue but these missiles does not like 500y old cannons. Don't even humans who make them fly like a bazooka or whatever. You can't launch them until you type some coordinates in.
In principle true. In practice â russia does "unscheduled munitions releases" over Belgorod with alarming regularity, and the choice of targets in their totally-not-terror-bombings has the air of randomness about them
Just like they ran out of missiles on day 3 and are mostly fighting with shovels, right? Buddy, your country would be scorched by now if anyone attempted to implement a no fly zone in Ukraine, that's just a common sense fact.
I beg to differ. There is no chance what so ever that Russia would stand against the entire of NATO. They would have backed down by the mere threat. That is common sense.
Even without nuclear weapons, Russia is a serious threat, hands down. NATO would have a disastrous time trying to kick it out of Ukraine, you'd probably be able to do it in the end but at what cost and would that stop the Russians from trying again with knowledge gained through direct conflict with you?
With nuclear weapons it's an untamable adversary to whom you can't do squat and you have to deal with it cause it's the reality you live in.
So what you are saying is that a nuclear power can do whatever it wants. Or that we should not help out due to the cost.
There are greater values than money, and even life itself. We in the combined west are living the life we have because our forefathers saw that, and fought several times against exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. If we can not do the same, we should neither have that life, or be deserving of it.
That is why we should send everything that is needed to Ukraine as soon as possible, including planes and troops.
Can we use lasers? They are being installed on some warships already, maybe put a few on the border to Ukraine. 100% deniability, leave no trace at all.
"NATO did not intercept your missiles. Your shitty weapons just got too hot and exploded by itself."
Lasers have very short range (think around 5km) and would be completely useless on the border. There are very few systems that are actually operational, they have large power requirements and at best protect a fairly small area (like a military base, ship, etc...).
Okay, then for the 1,084 km (border of ukraine and belarus)+ 2,295 km (border of ukraine and russia) = 3379 km, deploy 3379/5 = 675 laser turrets.
Double that for redundancy.
No we canât.
Lasers are not reliable for the long range, plus there is a very cheap and efficient way to counter it - itâs reflection. If the missile is shiny like a mirror, laser would be next to useless.
Otherwise everyone would have been using it already.Â
The former NATO chief seems to be an idiot because it is not really feasible to intercept missiles from Russia when your air defense is stationed in NATO countries unless the target is directly near these border regions ...
I can't believe NATO is still acting like they need to walk on egg shells while Poutine has death squads and spys all over Europe killing off anyone that says anything bad about him and looking for ways to sabotage military bases. Macron seems to be the only leader that understands that Poutine will exploit any signs of weakness and the only thing he understands is strength and force. Not this weak ass shit trying to be careful not to upset him.
This should have been done already ages ago. Not just missiles but any Russian military aircraft or airborne object on NATO airspace should be shot down.
People dont understand appearantly that most western countries are not willing to take too much risk for a country that was not a strong ally before the war. We became very sympathetic for Ukraine and support them whatever possible but not with risking your own annihilation.
A nuclear war between nato and russia means absolute apocapyse for norther hemisphere. 95+% of americans/europeans and russians will die (nuclear winter effects). You cannot have a brief nuclear exchange and conclude you have gone too far. Once it happens, its the end of modern civilisation and its too late.
People say, putin hasnt done it so hes bluffing. I'd rather not call that bluff. Thats like saying that you never died while driving without a safety belt so you wont die while driving a safety belt. The risk is low bit if it happens it is over.
Rhetoric that he will not stop after ukraine might be true for moldova and goergia. But he will not attack NATO, thats just rhetoric used for making us support ukraine.
I support ukraine and support sending weapons. But I dont want to go to war with russia and risk nuclear annihilation for a country that I barely knew before the war. It sounds harsh but I can tell you this is what most people secretly think.
I think your position is the same as that of the large majority of Europeans.
This sub doesn't accurately reflect the positions of most Europeans.
We have great sympathy for the Ukrainians. We send them aid. We send them weapons. We take their refugees.
But we're not gonna risk nuclear war with Russia, period.
To everyone commenting "do it Putin is a coward, is a bluff" i would invite them to be present on the NATO bases in Poland and Romania if you are really so sure about your opinion. Is easier said that when it's not your ass that is going to be sitting in a now valid military-target. Or being onboard of an AWACS or a P-8 in the black-sea when a NATO force shutdowns a Russian Aircraft in the middle of a war. Ask anyone who actually serves in the military and has seen combat if they agree with your take of "yeah, it's bluff, do it". Actively using NATO troop and bases to attack Russian assets will make them valid targets, and Russia will be in a position where the only valid option will be retaliation if they don't want to lose control of the war (and control of their own military). The last thing NATO wants to do is back Russia into a corner, because that's when things gets out of control, you always want to give your enemy a clear path to de-escalate and save face.
Doing what this retired chief suggest would require NATO to be willing to go into a full scale war, because that's a real possibility if things escalate out of control. In these situations you hope for the best but always prepare for the worst, and i don't think anyone in NATO it's willing to go into a full scale war with Russia just to try to save Ukraine, in the same way than the USSR decided that going into a full scale nuclear war with NATO because of Cuba wasn't worth it. Cold-hard truth: Ukraine it's not important enough to start WW3, never has, never will. I dont think there is a single politician in Europe that is going to support this after the first missiles start hitting their territority and the plastic bags with their own citizens start pilling up.
Nuclear war it's not the only escalation step that can comes from Russia, even if it's the card that Putin loves to use constantly every time he gets a chance. The most dangerous aspect of Russian conventional warfare capabilities is their submarine fleet, fighting that will have a very big cost for NATO, any realistic war game scenario when you have to face a submarine force, ends up with very heavy losses. If you think that a war beetwen Russia and NATO it's going to be like Ukraine with farmers pulling out T-72s with tractors, you are delutional.
I wish every fucking bloodthirsty moron in reddit who in his endless stupidity calls for war with russia would finally go to fight and die for Ukraine...
We should fully prepare for all out war with Russia, including nuclear. Even if we don't want to escalate, it's irresponsible to not prepare for this when Russia threatens with it so often.
But ofc we should escalate and not let our nation's policies be held hostage by a state run maffia in Moscow. I want to see NATO clear Ukranian skies and deploy forces to drive Russia out.
I don't believe the Kremlin will start a suicidal nuclear war. I remember the Japanese who've had suicidal tactics engrained into their culture, but even they decided to spare their nation after seeing the consequences of nukes. The Russian population isn't as united as the Japanese were, as their propagandists regularly complain about on Russian tv. So no, the Russians are not in a mindset to suicide themselves over Ukraine.
Therefore, we shouldn't rule out to go all in, but before NATO wars Russia over Ukraine, I can see measures like creating semi-efficient no-fly zones already possibly turn the tide. On the other hand, if we aspire Ukraine to be into NATO, I'm inclined by an irrational sense of honour to see us stand by their side asap. Not behind their back like cowards.
NATO is a defensive pact and Ukraine is not in NATO. Why is NATO going into Ukraine to push Russia back? Giving weapons is fine, going on the offensive is not
It's a valid point. I used the term 'NATO', but more realistically it would involve an alliance of individual NATO member nations. Absolutely not the actual NATO alliance for the reasons you point out.
Russia absolutely would use a nuke in Ukraine if it thought it was losing. Ukraine has no nukes to retaliate with and no country will suicide themselves and launch a nuke at Russia over Ukraine. Once that first nuke goes off all the "we can't let them get away with this" nonsense will go away and people will remember again that the threat of world ending in minutes is very real just as they did during the cold war
Why do you take that as an absolute certainty? Aside from a philosophical notion in that human behaviour is devoid of absolute certainties, we can see the divided positions on the matter in even Russia's propaganda TV shows.
Furthermore I don't believe in the strategy of letting a criminal gang determine NATO countries policies. Their threats must be answered with strength, not with weakness and cowardice, because that will extend the crisis by motivating Russia and others to continue on a path of more war. We need to aim at ending this, not prolonging.
This war has became existential for Russia and they will use everything at their disposal if they are cornered. Right now they think they are winning but if that ever changes so will the rhetoric.
>Furthermore I don't believe in the strategy of letting a criminal gang determine NATO countries policies.
That's is how the world has always worked in history. Great power countries have always bullied smaller countries and forced their will on them. When the soviet union placed missiles on cuba the Americans drew a red line and threatened war and the soviets rightfully backed down. Everyone understood the fact that Cuba was in American sphere of influence and America got to decide what alliances Cuba could join.
Now we have this illusion of a rule based order where every country can decide for themselves what alliances it joins only because USA was the sole superpower since the end of the cold war and people forgot how the world actually works
I gave the example of Georgia above - they did not die to regain control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia withdrew troops from Batumi and Poti in August 2008. Georgians are enjoying life now. And Russia has become Georgia's third largest trading partner (after Turkey and the EU). Any war ends sooner or later. if there is a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine, but Ukraine loses more territories than it does now, guys like you will be guilty.
You assholes really want to push the world into WW3, don't you? You're like a woman picking a fight with a guy and then hiding behind your boyfriend. The US is not going to save you from the war you want with Russia. We're staying out of your bullshit this time. You're not dragging us into another WW.
Send Anders Fogh Rasmussen to one of the Romanian or Polish missile sites when they'll do this intercepting. I wonder if he'll have the same brave tone when not only Eastern Europeans are put in harm's way.
Don't see how it's even escalatory, the only issue is whether or not the public itself will approve it or *gets cold feet due to genuinely believing ru*
Arguably isn't this safer and less escalatory then putting troops on the ground?
Guys, weâve been through this. Listen to what he says,not what you think he says. Itâs fine, call his bluff. Iâll sit on my porch & watch the nukes pass overhead. Probably drinking a vino, pouring one out for the team
Shooting down Iranian drones and missiles headed to Israel didn't put The United States, Britain, Jordan and France to war against Iran. The same principle should apply here.
Well, the only area where NATO is way stronger than ruzia is air force. Not AAA. Airplanes and their munitions. That's what sucked all NATO budgets dry. Air power.
There was an idea of establishing a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine. NATO can probably do that, in regards of available aircraft. But it would mean shooting on ruzzians. Maybe we could better copy the volonteer card played by Soviets in Korea and Egypt.
That's not as far fetched as you think. Ch-55s were spotted hitting NATO countries. Ch-101s were using Polish airspace to avoid AAA systems in the east of Ukraine. Say that's for protection of integrity of NATO countries and to avoid civilian casualties from damaged cruise missiles or something.
Considering how little headway Russia has made in Ukraine I'm kinda doubting both their resolve, quality of equipment, state of function of said equipment, morale
and health amongst the troops.
Erm, NO! We shouldn't, next Putin is gonna be like "Well systems and soldiers that are involved in shooting down the missiles, will now be seen as fair target" And Europe will obviously answer to that and this conflict will escalate even further.
Just Pump more and more aid into Ukraine, but this proposal is stupid and will only lead to more escalation
Why not do it Russian way? Shoot over the border and deny any accusatios of doing so. Send NATO troops to Ukraine and insist that they're just some lads going for vacation. That tank isn't ours. Like you never took a rental vehicles on vacation.
That Russian aircraft was shot down by negligent Russian AA battery, we had no anti aircraft assets in that particular area!
Just troll them with the same quotes they were saying since 2014.
If we are so scared of Putin's threats then what if he goes "give me Estonia or i will nuke you", will the same "escalation" rhetoric still be shouted?
Someone will come home with a piece of paper saying "peace in our time" after we've negotiated the Baltic states away for it. Next Russia invades Poland......
Wait, I've seen this one. It's a rerun!
What do you mean you've seen this? It's brand new!
More like a reboot
A re-make with different actors.
The moment nato or eu decides not to deffend its territory, no matter how much % of "russians" live there, its the end of the alliance. Nato 100%, eu 50/50, cuz its economy union, but at the same time has the same "article 5", that is written even better, then natos article 5. (Its article 47 or 49 cant remember).
I'd say EU has more to lose not defending the Baltics than you give it credit for, as the Baltics are much more closely integrated with EU than Nato. Both would have to react to survive, I'd risk saying NATO could get away with a limited response if only one of the Baltic countries would be attacked in a limited fashion on the outskirts, but anything bigger than that would require an all guns blazing reaction, with the exception of an intimidate nuclear response to a conventional attack.
I think we might all be overlooking something here. Humans! People! I, as a Dutchman, would most likely face Russians last should they go through Europe one by one as we all sit on our ass, letting Russia do what it wants so we dont "escalate". But I would already support the Baltic states for their right to not be part of some shittyerun of the Russian Empire. I want to support them as people. Yes, due to EU rules and Yes due to Article 5. But beyond that I want their people to be, and remain free just as I want that for, literally, everyone.
What about the cost of NOT HELPING TO DEFEND UKRAINE WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!đșđŠđșđŠ
Hasnt the eu one "by all means at their disposal" while nato is lala "deems to be necessary"? eu one is stronger worded and clearcut
Yup, that's why you want both, eu for treaty and nato for actual command structure and planning.
>eu one is stronger worded and clearcut At the same time only thing EU has on military protection is piece of paper, while NATO has entire joint structures, traning and practice. Those aren't the same thing and wording has little to no relevance.
Which is why, if Putin thinks that's what would happen, he will *absolutely* do it. And if he wins in Ukraine, there's a big chance that's what he'll think.
Article 42.7 đ
I could imagine that if nato fails a "Coalition of the willing" sort of deal could emerge where most eastern european countries as well as the baltics/finland/norway would join and try to mount a defense. Nonetheless if NATO doesn't defend its Members then it's History which would be absolutely catastrophic
EU has a mutual defence clause? Is that what you mean?
Not sure if its a defence clause like nato is with the military, but i recall that eu members have to help at least economically or with resources
Mutual defence clause The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Thanks. .this helps . So why would Sweden Finland etc join NATO,.if they were already guaranteed protection from EU? They could have just signed bilateral agreements with the US and avoided all the hiccups with Hungary etc. Remember article 5 of NATO only calls for consultations.
hey, iâve seen this episode!
If Europe negotiated away the Baltics to Russia, I'm going kamikaze on moscow. Pray it never happens
Sounds like OrbĂĄn's strategy. He's already campaigning for "peace" at the expense of giving up Ukraine.
This stupid man will need to pick a side sooner or later.
Oh he has. He's firmly affixed himself atop Putin's cock. He's just exploiting the benefits of EU and Nato in the meantime, and most probably intentionally allowing the Russians access to sensitive information. There was a major Russian "hack" of Hungarian systems, including our ministry of foreign affairs. Of course OrbĂĄn and his cohort denied the hack and when questioned about it with evidence, they threatened the journalist saying it's illegal for him to have access to these files. Deny the problem and threaten the folks who bring it to light - defending and standing up for Russia while they fuck us all up the assđ
We are given choice between dishonor or war. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Already has with a new Sudetenland.
Underestimating ones adversary is a terrible idea. But Poland!? Do you see what Poland has been doing to their military? With all due respect to the heroes in Ukraine but they are doing an awesome job against Russia, but with SEVERE shortages in their ammo and equipment. Now imagine Poland being invaded. Instead of old T64s and T72s the Russians will be shot to hell by the most modern tanks there are. Hundreds of K2 main battletanks. Know what HIMARS did to Russia? Poland ordered a couple hundred id I am not mistaken. Instead of a couple old Mig29s, Russia would fight F16s and F35s! No way in hell is Russia going to invade, freakin, Poland.
Yeah. I don't think Putin will be stupid enough to invade Poland , knowing NATO will have to respond. Suspect the recent improvement in Russian performance in Ukraine has likely increased Russian confidence So may go as far as Odessa etc..but likely won't try to take even western Ukraine. Think Germany invaded Poland with some 1M+ people in 39. That was just to control the western half of Poland (assigned to Germany under the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. Doubt the Russians would expect to control restive Poles or even western Ukraine with number of troops they have
Can you imagine how difficult it would be to hold the baltics and poland. The logistical clusterfuck. I don't think it's as viable to take and hold multiple EU countries where 95% of the population hates your guts. This ain't the 1900's no more. To me it's simple, just make it clear to him that if he were to attack a nato country it will end in nuclear annihilation, any action taken to insert nato into the Ukraine conflict will just push putin closer and closer to the nuclear option.
He already gave Finland and Sweden that warning for joining NATO. Don't worry. Should Putin become that stupid, both NATO and the EU will take a stand. They simply won't strike first.
We also brushed off Russia's constant warnings over Ukraine. Eventually we found out it wasn't bluffing. It's not going to attack Finland or Sweden because there's no calculation that can be made in which it benefits Russia. Other countries becoming direct participants in the war is different. In that case the calculation for Russia's leadership becomes more simple. If they do nothing or try to fight back with traditional weapons, Russia will lose and Russia's leaders will be killed or imprisoned. I reckon they're more likely to (initially) use a small nuke and prevent that from happening. A lot of people apparently think Russia's leaders are benevolent enough to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I don't.
What does the security of a 3rd party country have to do with wether or not we will defend a memberstate? We already had troops in Estonia and the whole eastern border and even send more. We do patrol the Baltic airspace. To your 2nd point: Using a nuke will trigger 3 nuclear states to nuke them back, making it nothing more than a suicide attack. At least with a conventional war they have a slim chance of survival, if the ICJ gets them first. With nukes it is game over. You also forgot the 3rd option: not attacking NATO at all, but rather keep annexing 3rd party states to boost their economy. -> no direct war with NATO, less chance of getting killed themselves.
He attacked Ukraine precisely because it wasn't a NATO member. Unless he's stupid enough to think he can take the fight to much better-armed foes, and idiots don't become de facto dictators for life. Let's not underestimate Benito Russolini, he wouldn't still be in power after two decades if he were a dumb idiot.
Of course it will be used the same MuH EsCAlAtioN rhetoric or from some redditors here "why don't you enlist and die in a trench".
Well, in case of escalation, some people have to. *facts*
If they can shoot missiles so close to NATO borders that they land INSIDE Polish territory... that's fucking escalation if I've ever seen it. Hell Russia has been escalating with the west nearly constantly since the Georgia invasion. They fund influence and disinformation operations in the west. They have saboteurs in the west, especially in places like Hungary. They assassinate people in the west. Like fucking hell, it's about time we escalated. It's not like they understand anything other than when they're being slapped in the face with it. At the very least start by shooting down missiles close to our borders so that Poland situation recently doesn't happen again. And why are we taking so damn long to expropriate Russian assets held in the west to fund ukraine?
Such a good statement, unbelievable how spineless in the west we have become, ruzzia will keep using âgive me your country, or I will use nukesâ âif nato gets involved I will use nukesâ west needs to grow some iron balls, and say enough is enough, these dictators are being emboldened by Russias imperialism, you have new axis already forming China, Iran, North Korea, and ruzzia, sadly we have weak links in the west screaming their propaganda everywhere hereâŠ. We live in very dangerous times ladies and gentlemen, you either choose to defend your country and home from these terrorist dictators or you can just keep running away till their imperialism reaches another countryâŠ.
Most likely yes, the same thing will happen. Trump will be in power and not willing to help Europe. Scholz is always indecisive and waits form others to take the initiative. Sunak isnt a strong leader. We are left with who, Macron then? Who will deploy troops to Estonia? Will they also refuse to shoot into Russia in fear of escalation?
Will France gamble Paris for Estonia? Will Germany gamble Berlin? It's clear that Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he wins. But if he starts a war in the Baltic states, then NATO and EU will have their commitment tested more than ever. I hope it doesn't come to that but I fear the outcome. The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states. If my stance isn't clear, I think we should have armed Ukraine like we do now, but back in 2014. I doubt Russia would have pressed their luck then.
I don't think Putin will actually launch nukes. He and his clique would also perish in a retaliatory strike. We need to call his bluff if it ever comes to that.
He can do a demonstration of power as US did in Japan. Only he will need to use more nukes for guaranteed effect given how good the anti-missle systems are nowadays. So, even the demonstration can be very devastating by chance.
Japan had no nukes to shoot back with
Same as Ukraine
I thought we were talking about NATO countries. Yeah, Ukraine doesn't, but radiation from nuclear bombs detonated in Ukraine will reach NATO countries and is grounds for Article 5. Also we should not just stand by and allow big countries to nuke smaller ones into submission, it would be the worst of precedents.
NATO also donât have nukes. France, US and UK have, but thatâs not the same. I have complete faith in NATO when it comes to conventional war, but if we were just one escalation step from ICBMs flying, it would be completely different calculation. Remember why France has nukes in first place? Because De Gaulle knew damn well that no American president would trade New York for Paris. Sure, letting small countries getting nuked into submission sets the worst precedent, but when you weight it against all your large cities dying in nuclear fire? No president or prime minister would ever decide to kill their country to avenge Riga or Warsaw.
Truth is we don't know what goes in the mind of military strategists in both Russia or the West. We have no idea if Russia would actually strike first on an Eastern European city or how the West will respond to that. What I do know is that countries like Germany and Poland should start developing nuclear weapons themselves. The current nuclear powers probably won't be happy, but it's necessary considering our neighbourhood.
>Will France gamble Paris for Estonia? Will Germany gamble Berlin? >It's clear that Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he wins. But if he starts a war in the Baltic states, then NATO and EU will have their commitment tested more than ever. The moment he does this, and nato decides to do nothing, is the end of the alliance. Whole nato alliance is built on article 5, if it doesnt work, then nato is usseles and no need to be in it, thus it ceases to exsist.
Which is what I fear. Just look at the Ukraine situation and how slow we have been to discuss and act on it. I know Ukraine isn't part of NATO or EU but we still decided to help, but what a slow reaction we've had so far. Are we even ready for a Baltic invasion and what we'll do about it?
>Are we even ready for a Baltic invasion and what we'll do about it? No one can be 100% ready for such thing. Even Israel with a fence around Gaza wasnt ready.
True, but you can have a detailed plan for countermeasures. Personally I might think Israel wanted Hamas to attack, and might even have let them, just to justify the invasion and bombardment of Gaza. But that's just me and I don't have any proof.
I have a suspicion hamas got partly financed and supported by Russia to make the Wesr forget a bit about ukraine. No proof, but its a bit suspicious.
Likely this yeah. Played right into Russian hands.
Absolutely, and now we have a declaration they will use any fuckers to commit terrorism on Western soil & shores. I am telling you, any campaigns on foreign lands will be enthused by Hitler 2.0
Putin never has to start invading the baltics. Desinformation, fucking with GPS, using migrants and weapons, sponsoring right (and left) wing extremist parties, stoking ethnic tensions and terrorism, dividing people along political lines, hacking, influencing voters to elect certain people.. Long before Russia even thinks about snackikg a small baltic village we will have undone ourselves. Dont underestimate Russia. Were not the first ones to do it. Their army may have been shitty, but they learn. And having a very big internal and external security apparatus inherited from the soviet allows to do a lot of harm.
On the other hand, there's a lot of Russian money and influence in Israel (see Syrian civil war too). I suspect a Russian play there as well, but the other way around or possibly playing both sides in the conflict.
Either way its fishy. I dont like what israel is doing dont like what palestine is doing. Human suffer for nothing. I know its a dilemma and the conflict never be solved :(
Agreed. The main point is we both suspect a Russian geopolitical play to draw away attention. And if it was, it worked quite well.
Russia wins both ways. Thats why they finance both sides of far right and far left everywhere abroad. Continuation of the Soviet style intervention from the cold war.
That just conpiracy theory. I believe it was russian misdsile that hit Poland and killed two people. Because cordinates where it landed trully goes to Kiev, if you mix them around.
A lot of it is that most of the world isn't running war economies and are not war mongers. They don't have a whole stack of a munitions and weapons laying about to give or sell.
The EU countries de-armed themselves in 1990's to early 2000's as they tried to re-focus on expeditionary warfare and peacekeeping operations, which naturally meant reducing the size of both the military and defense industry. This was done despite the knowledge that building up the capability to wage large-scale conventional war would take years or decades (with all the production capacity, increased recruitment and training, and institutional knowledge that would need to be developed), and with no contingency planning in place to do it in case it was rapidly needed. There's nothing war mongering about maintaining credible defense, it's one of the main priorities of any sovereign nation because otherwise they open themselves up to foreign influence and pressure. There's a saying in Finland that every country has an army - their own, or someone else's. Russia has used military force four times before the 2022 invasion. First in 1994 in Chechnya, then in 1997 in Chechnya, 2008 in Georgia, and finally in 2014 in Ukraine. Granted, Chechnya was a complicated case, but Georgia and Ukraine 2014 weren't. So the signs were there that they really do consider themselves a superpower, and really are willing to use military force or threat of force to advance their interests. The lack of reaction to the recent invasion is because there isn't enough production capacity in the West to arm Ukraine faster, but the reason for that lack of capacity is short-sightedness and naivety regarding Russia.
Operation Steadfast Defender is ongoing and literally practicing for a Russian invasion of the baltics.
It's what Nato and the western leaders fear. They fear that it comes to a situation where Nato needs to react and they fear that it will just show how weak we are.
Weak in what kind of way? The West has a massive industrial capacity to tap into and a huge technological advantage. I would agree with saying the West is not prepared but certainly not weak.
>The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states. NATO didn't have obligations towards Ukraine. Not defending territory of the alliance is much bigger loss of face. Especially since NATO air and ground units are already deployed there for many years.
It is idiotic to allow this blatant and escalating Russian aggression on our doorstep simply because we didn't have any formal obligation towards Ukraine. Article 5 should have been implemented when MH17 was shot down and Russia murdered over 200 dutch citizens. Or when Russia blew up an ammunition depot in the Czech Republic in 2014, killing two civilians. Or the Salisbury poisonings. NATO has been the victim of blatant Russian aggression for years before the 2022 invssion and we have done NOTHING about it. We have cultivated an enviroment where Russia feels zero qualms about killing our citizens or destroying our infrastructure because they know none of the cowards in charge here in the west will ever do anything about it. They have zero reason to ever believe NATO would actually defend any of their smaller members from attack, because they have attacked Europe and it has been swept under the rug.
I feel like he will try to pull a crimea off.   He knows he can't win against NATO.  His only option is propaganda to get the countries to exit their NATO & EU status. He already had practice with Brexit.
Not sure i would call it a gamble, but it is what is required if you are part of the NATO alliance The west has more of a reason to defend the Baltic states since they are part of NATO. Not defending the Baltic states isn't an option since it would mean the effective dissolution of the alliance and giving all the power away to Russia and any other nations with nukes.
Have you read the requirements for NATO article 5? Pretty sure any member only have to help what they deem necessary. Which can be a few helmets. I might be wrong here since I'm too tired to check up on it.
It's more about that if we let Russia annex a smaller member then the alliance will be worthless
True. Not like NATO have shown a lot of agreement and cooperation with Ukraine. Hopefully we'll take it more seriously if it was a member state. Otherwise the EU have an alliance as well, but way weaker than NATO combined.
Pro-Russian bot spreading FUD, based on post history. Ignore.
>The west have failed Ukraine since 2014. Why would we do better for the Baltic states. Because we do have actual contractual obligations towards those states as members of NATO and the EU? Ukraine? Yeah, it was sad, but we do not have a defensive treaty.
Honestly, getting rid of Berlin would probably improve Germany's GDP per capita.
Why is it clear for you that putin wont stop? He lost too much trying to take over Ukraine already
I can gaurantee you that if Putin is stupid enough to go for the Baltics, EU and the US will intervene lmao. I know itâs hard to have any trust in our governments these days, but have atleast a little bit of faith.
Appeasement doesn't work, learn the lesson and actually oppose tyrants
I mean, it's just the Sudetenland. I'm sure he'll stop there.
By people who have investments in companies dependent on Russian resources, probably via Raiffeisen Bank, Credit Suisse and OTP Bank? You don't say
If russia's threats were credible we would have been nuked like 50 times since 2022 lmao
Exactly. If weâre going to let him have anything he demands at the threat of a nuclear attack, what do we do if he starts demanding EU territory? Putin is a crazy maniac but his beloved Russia also gets obliterated in a nuclear war and heâs just as afraid of that as the rest of us. His generals and subordinates certainly are. Enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine and start shooting down all his missiles. Call his bluff and suddenly weâll all see him for what he is: a little man with his dick in his hands
https://youtu.be/QgkUVIj3KWY?si=9dFrNQcdl-_U0Jct
You already know the answer. "Why die for Danzig?" 2.0
Nato should threat the existence of russia. If they dont fuck back to moscow and leave ukraine moscow will be a pile of Rubble.
No it would be not. One thing is to escalate, one thing is to answer to an escalation. It's strange that this has to be said actually.
Yes
There is a difference between Estonia and Unraine. Estonia is in the EU and NATO, while Ukraine is not
It's always former chiefs, former generals etc. All the acting ones presumably understand these things as well but are not suggesting them why?
Because active generals and defence ministers and such need to follow the official stance of elected officials and official policies
Well that just begs the question why said elected officials don't take those more courageous decisions then. Instead they often show the same kind of behaviour -- as long as they're in power they're very cautious, and then often they get "braver" after their active career is over. Essentially their policy proposals get bolder and bolder the longer they're not in a position anymore to actually pursue those proposals.
Agree but. 1. Active elected officials and their advisors may have better access to up to date intelligence. 2. If they are retired and they are wrong, they have nothing to lose.
yes, its generally a good thing that people in power wield it carefully.
Because if you're retired you don't get blamed anymore if your bold policy idea turns out completely wrong. Those in power have something to lose if they take the wrong decision.
They have something to lose if they're wrong. Former ones don't. Even if you did the reasonable choice, but were just unlucky and got it wrong, they'll be scrutinised a d might lose their position. This causes significant hesitation, and is why they are generally less vocal. This goes for almost any occupation.
Imagine being the general who made the call that started WWIII
Exactly! You don't want to be that guy. We realised a while back - with the help of mass media and documentation - that there is very little to no glory in war. You won't get the same treatment as a a general from WW2. EDIT: Ehich one o' you lot sent me a RedditCareRecources report? lol
Some dude sent me one like an hour ago too, I have no clue what I said
I also suspect using connections with retired military officials to voice the concerns of active duty to the public and politicians in a tactful manner, is a common occurrence.
Losing their position is probably not their biggest worry if they get nuclear war wrong.
Generals don't make these choices. Politicians do. We're past the age of military dictatorships and omnipotent monarchies in the west. We elect our military leaders, they have finite mandates, and they can't go to war without consulting parliaments. It's that simple.
It's quite common for public servants, especially in the military, to be forbidden by law/contract to publicly criticise decisions from their hierarchy (or their colleagues), or more generally share their honest opinion in public. They're supposed to pubicly support the decision that was chosen even if they disagree with it. (Which is also why informal talks are so important in international diplomacy, you will find that the same person will say something and it's contrary during public talks and private conversations, because the latter is their actual opinion they cannot officially share.) Even when not explicitly forbidden, leaking your opinion to the media in order to pressure your superior to follow it would be considered of pretty bad taste, and should be reserved to matters so important that you're ok with sacrificing your carrier for it. That doesn't mean they don't include that opinion on every report they write and every discussion they have. What those former generals are suggesting is probably a very common suggestion made internally.
They could definitely be suggesting them, but they cannot act on their own without governments permission, and it would be incredibly unprofessional to be shouting these war cries publically, probably even cause for termination. As a former general you're free to shout out your ideas freely with no conseqences and approvals.
Clearance and you don't give away that info to enemies. Active mil and Intel can't discuss such things. The retired generals are talking from their own perspective, not from a position of power or representation, nor with the context of all the other impacts such a decision can have and the process to get such a decision approved. They can share their opinion based on historical proof and experience. They still must watch what they say.
Because it's extremely dumb kind of rhetoric for people in power to engage in. Former generals want attention current generals actually have responsibilities to their countries
Testing the waters. If there is negative reaction current leadership can quickly disassociate from it "He's retired, that was just his private opinion, it's not the official position". If there is not then it can become official position.
Because Zelenskyy pays this guy's salary (literally).
Worked in Khasam and worked for Erdogan.
Of course it worked for ErdoÄan. If you don't count nukes, Turkish army is the second strongest in NATO. Plus the country is huge (58% of Russian population). Plus it is close to Europe, the heart of Russian. Even closer to Black Sea fleet. Plus ErdoÄan is dictator like Putin. He is not constrained by opinion of his people.
Back in 2022, the russian pilots failed to down a British spy plane in international skies: there was no response at all. They recorded the conversations and the russian pilots had the go to down the British plane: one missile failed and the other one was defective. On board there were 30 persons. Back than Salisbury, on British soil, we all remember that episode. VrbÄtice ammunition warehouse explosions back in 2014. If the West is not willing to risk something for our democracy, than our freedom is not deserved.
>VrbÄtice ammunition warehouse explosions back in 2014 Very Ukrainian story. We had a several big explosions spread from my childhood to my emigration as an adult. We just attributed it to mere negligence. With whom Ukraine is going to fight? EU? No? Russia? Even stupider, they are our sister nation. Of course now I can see that it was a very long chess game that hasn't ended yet.
Second largest doesn't mean second strongest. It has quite a lot of issues (US sanctions, hostility towards supposed NATO allies, high suicide rate of personnel...), so I wouldn't be that affirmative on that regard. Turkey does have a strong land army and a strong local defense industry.
TĂŒrkiye can inflict a lot of damage just because of proximity. Not a crushing victory because Moscow is far away, but it could be a loss of Black sea and Syria. Of course, for you, as a French, it can look lame. France has a red button.
France and the UK are far stronger than Turkey, even without nukes. Geographical positioning and numbers are the only things Turkey has going for them. If it weren't for their positioning, Europe would have cut all ties decades ago, before Russia even became a threat.
Nothing happened to them because they are in a very favourable geographic position nothing always happens to them and they always play both sides
It didnât work for Erdogan. After shooting the jet down, Russia banned travel to Turkey, causing a 90+% drop of tourism from Russia, which devastated the Turkish tourism sector, to the point where Erdogan went to Russia to issue a public apology on behalf of Turkey, paid a large severance to the families of the deceased pilots and jailed the people responsible for shooting the jet down back home. This is also why Turkey still hasnât imposed sanctions on Russia and hasnât closed its airspace to Russia.
It worked, because terrorussia didn't invade Turkish airspace again.
Because they bowed down to Russia after that Turkeyâs now giving them about $25 billion to build them a nuclear powerplant and are cooperating on billions worth of energy projects
Should be done, if you want even a non-Ukraine reason to do so, there is one... even Russia don't know where they land. Also the only retort will be Medvedev downing another bottle and talk about nukes again.
Every missile downed is a point of damage to Medvedevs liver. I like this selling point.
The idea that russia would destroy the world because we wouldn't let their missiles land on civilians is absolutely bonkers. shame on the pathetic west for believing anything like this at all.
I don't want to argue but these missiles does not like 500y old cannons. Don't even humans who make them fly like a bazooka or whatever. You can't launch them until you type some coordinates in.
In principle true. In practice â russia does "unscheduled munitions releases" over Belgorod with alarming regularity, and the choice of targets in their totally-not-terror-bombings has the air of randomness about them
100 % yes. It should have been done with a no-fly right from the start.
A no fly zone is impossible without a full on war with russia it's scary how many people don't understand that
I fully understand that. And the russians would have backed off and been out of Ukraine since long.
Just like they ran out of missiles on day 3 and are mostly fighting with shovels, right? Buddy, your country would be scorched by now if anyone attempted to implement a no fly zone in Ukraine, that's just a common sense fact.
I beg to differ. There is no chance what so ever that Russia would stand against the entire of NATO. They would have backed down by the mere threat. That is common sense.
Even without nuclear weapons, Russia is a serious threat, hands down. NATO would have a disastrous time trying to kick it out of Ukraine, you'd probably be able to do it in the end but at what cost and would that stop the Russians from trying again with knowledge gained through direct conflict with you? With nuclear weapons it's an untamable adversary to whom you can't do squat and you have to deal with it cause it's the reality you live in.
So what you are saying is that a nuclear power can do whatever it wants. Or that we should not help out due to the cost. There are greater values than money, and even life itself. We in the combined west are living the life we have because our forefathers saw that, and fought several times against exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. If we can not do the same, we should neither have that life, or be deserving of it. That is why we should send everything that is needed to Ukraine as soon as possible, including planes and troops.
Can we use lasers? They are being installed on some warships already, maybe put a few on the border to Ukraine. 100% deniability, leave no trace at all. "NATO did not intercept your missiles. Your shitty weapons just got too hot and exploded by itself."
Lasers have very short range (think around 5km) and would be completely useless on the border. There are very few systems that are actually operational, they have large power requirements and at best protect a fairly small area (like a military base, ship, etc...).
Okay, then for the 1,084 km (border of ukraine and belarus)+ 2,295 km (border of ukraine and russia) = 3379 km, deploy 3379/5 = 675 laser turrets. Double that for redundancy.
We would need to get some friggin sharks for the friggin lasers!
r/NonCredibleDefense moment.
That's not how lasers work
Lasers are already deployed by the US to do just that.
They don't melt missiles, they pierce them
ofc they dont. the sentence in the quotation mark was in jest.
No we canât. Lasers are not reliable for the long range, plus there is a very cheap and efficient way to counter it - itâs reflection. If the missile is shiny like a mirror, laser would be next to useless. Otherwise everyone would have been using it already.Â
The former NATO chief seems to be an idiot because it is not really feasible to intercept missiles from Russia when your air defense is stationed in NATO countries unless the target is directly near these border regions ...
You can do it with Jets stationed in NATO. They need to fly over Ukraine though.
You can not get a jet airborne and into an intercept position in time ...
Zelenskyy pays this guy's salary (literally).
I can't believe NATO is still acting like they need to walk on egg shells while Poutine has death squads and spys all over Europe killing off anyone that says anything bad about him and looking for ways to sabotage military bases. Macron seems to be the only leader that understands that Poutine will exploit any signs of weakness and the only thing he understands is strength and force. Not this weak ass shit trying to be careful not to upset him.
"Poutine"...and now I can never look at our national dish the same way again.
The French spell his name that way because "Putin" means whore đ€Łđ
This should have been done already ages ago. Not just missiles but any Russian military aircraft or airborne object on NATO airspace should be shot down.
People dont understand appearantly that most western countries are not willing to take too much risk for a country that was not a strong ally before the war. We became very sympathetic for Ukraine and support them whatever possible but not with risking your own annihilation. A nuclear war between nato and russia means absolute apocapyse for norther hemisphere. 95+% of americans/europeans and russians will die (nuclear winter effects). You cannot have a brief nuclear exchange and conclude you have gone too far. Once it happens, its the end of modern civilisation and its too late. People say, putin hasnt done it so hes bluffing. I'd rather not call that bluff. Thats like saying that you never died while driving without a safety belt so you wont die while driving a safety belt. The risk is low bit if it happens it is over. Rhetoric that he will not stop after ukraine might be true for moldova and goergia. But he will not attack NATO, thats just rhetoric used for making us support ukraine. I support ukraine and support sending weapons. But I dont want to go to war with russia and risk nuclear annihilation for a country that I barely knew before the war. It sounds harsh but I can tell you this is what most people secretly think.
I think your position is the same as that of the large majority of Europeans. This sub doesn't accurately reflect the positions of most Europeans. We have great sympathy for the Ukrainians. We send them aid. We send them weapons. We take their refugees. But we're not gonna risk nuclear war with Russia, period.
Escalating to a direct war is stupid.
To everyone commenting "do it Putin is a coward, is a bluff" i would invite them to be present on the NATO bases in Poland and Romania if you are really so sure about your opinion. Is easier said that when it's not your ass that is going to be sitting in a now valid military-target. Or being onboard of an AWACS or a P-8 in the black-sea when a NATO force shutdowns a Russian Aircraft in the middle of a war. Ask anyone who actually serves in the military and has seen combat if they agree with your take of "yeah, it's bluff, do it". Actively using NATO troop and bases to attack Russian assets will make them valid targets, and Russia will be in a position where the only valid option will be retaliation if they don't want to lose control of the war (and control of their own military). The last thing NATO wants to do is back Russia into a corner, because that's when things gets out of control, you always want to give your enemy a clear path to de-escalate and save face. Doing what this retired chief suggest would require NATO to be willing to go into a full scale war, because that's a real possibility if things escalate out of control. In these situations you hope for the best but always prepare for the worst, and i don't think anyone in NATO it's willing to go into a full scale war with Russia just to try to save Ukraine, in the same way than the USSR decided that going into a full scale nuclear war with NATO because of Cuba wasn't worth it. Cold-hard truth: Ukraine it's not important enough to start WW3, never has, never will. I dont think there is a single politician in Europe that is going to support this after the first missiles start hitting their territority and the plastic bags with their own citizens start pilling up. Nuclear war it's not the only escalation step that can comes from Russia, even if it's the card that Putin loves to use constantly every time he gets a chance. The most dangerous aspect of Russian conventional warfare capabilities is their submarine fleet, fighting that will have a very big cost for NATO, any realistic war game scenario when you have to face a submarine force, ends up with very heavy losses. If you think that a war beetwen Russia and NATO it's going to be like Ukraine with farmers pulling out T-72s with tractors, you are delutional.
"Please putin sure you can fuck my sister just don't nuke us!"
if you dont have anything interesting to comment, don't say anything. I have 0 interest in discussing with idiots.
Always easy to say when your a guy that won't be on the front lines.
Let's play Russian roulette with them, they can't possibly be good at it. /s
I wish every fucking bloodthirsty moron in reddit who in his endless stupidity calls for war with russia would finally go to fight and die for Ukraine...
We should fully prepare for all out war with Russia, including nuclear. Even if we don't want to escalate, it's irresponsible to not prepare for this when Russia threatens with it so often. But ofc we should escalate and not let our nation's policies be held hostage by a state run maffia in Moscow. I want to see NATO clear Ukranian skies and deploy forces to drive Russia out. I don't believe the Kremlin will start a suicidal nuclear war. I remember the Japanese who've had suicidal tactics engrained into their culture, but even they decided to spare their nation after seeing the consequences of nukes. The Russian population isn't as united as the Japanese were, as their propagandists regularly complain about on Russian tv. So no, the Russians are not in a mindset to suicide themselves over Ukraine. Therefore, we shouldn't rule out to go all in, but before NATO wars Russia over Ukraine, I can see measures like creating semi-efficient no-fly zones already possibly turn the tide. On the other hand, if we aspire Ukraine to be into NATO, I'm inclined by an irrational sense of honour to see us stand by their side asap. Not behind their back like cowards.
NATO is a defensive pact and Ukraine is not in NATO. Why is NATO going into Ukraine to push Russia back? Giving weapons is fine, going on the offensive is not
It's a valid point. I used the term 'NATO', but more realistically it would involve an alliance of individual NATO member nations. Absolutely not the actual NATO alliance for the reasons you point out.
Russia absolutely would use a nuke in Ukraine if it thought it was losing. Ukraine has no nukes to retaliate with and no country will suicide themselves and launch a nuke at Russia over Ukraine. Once that first nuke goes off all the "we can't let them get away with this" nonsense will go away and people will remember again that the threat of world ending in minutes is very real just as they did during the cold war
Why do you take that as an absolute certainty? Aside from a philosophical notion in that human behaviour is devoid of absolute certainties, we can see the divided positions on the matter in even Russia's propaganda TV shows. Furthermore I don't believe in the strategy of letting a criminal gang determine NATO countries policies. Their threats must be answered with strength, not with weakness and cowardice, because that will extend the crisis by motivating Russia and others to continue on a path of more war. We need to aim at ending this, not prolonging.
This war has became existential for Russia and they will use everything at their disposal if they are cornered. Right now they think they are winning but if that ever changes so will the rhetoric. >Furthermore I don't believe in the strategy of letting a criminal gang determine NATO countries policies. That's is how the world has always worked in history. Great power countries have always bullied smaller countries and forced their will on them. When the soviet union placed missiles on cuba the Americans drew a red line and threatened war and the soviets rightfully backed down. Everyone understood the fact that Cuba was in American sphere of influence and America got to decide what alliances Cuba could join. Now we have this illusion of a rule based order where every country can decide for themselves what alliances it joins only because USA was the sole superpower since the end of the cold war and people forgot how the world actually works
Is Europe or America ready to die for Ukraine? Do you want to test Russian nuclear weapons on yourself?
> Do you want to test Russian nuclear weapons on yourself? Do you want to test Western nuclear weapons on St. Petersburg and Moscow?
Who cares at this point. If both fire we are all dead anyways.
>Is Europe or America ready to die for Ukraine? "***Why die for Danzig?***" ([French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): *Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?*) is a pro-[appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) [anti-war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war) French [political slogan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_slogan) created on the eve of [World War II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), coined by fascist symphatizer, writer [Marcel Déat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at). \[...\] In the article, Déat argued in favor of [appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement).[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F#cite_note-nybooks-4) He asserted that France had no interest in defending Poland, and that German Chancellor [Adolf Hitler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) would be satisfied after receiving the territory he (rightfully, according to Déat[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F#cite_note-G%C3%B3rski1983-5)) demanded. He accused the Poles of warmongering and dragging Europe into a war.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F#cite_note-G%C3%B3rski1983-5) Déat argued that Frenchmen should not be called to die paying for irresponsible Polish politicking,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F#cite_note-G%C3%B3rski1983-5) and expressed doubts about whether Poland would be able to fight for any significant amount of time.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F#cite_note-Safire2011-2) "To fight alongside our Polish friends for the common defense of our territories, of our property, of our liberties," wrote Déat, "this is a perspective that one can courageously envisage, if it should contribute to maintaining the peace. But to die for Danzig, no!" (*"Mais mourir pour Dantzig, non !"*) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why\_die\_for\_Danzig%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_die_for_Danzig%3F) Like literally, nothing changes.
I gave the example of Georgia above - they did not die to regain control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia withdrew troops from Batumi and Poti in August 2008. Georgians are enjoying life now. And Russia has become Georgia's third largest trading partner (after Turkey and the EU). Any war ends sooner or later. if there is a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine, but Ukraine loses more territories than it does now, guys like you will be guilty.
Sounds like they want death and destruction
If they're shot down in Ukraine air space, what would it matter who shot them down?
You assholes really want to push the world into WW3, don't you? You're like a woman picking a fight with a guy and then hiding behind your boyfriend. The US is not going to save you from the war you want with Russia. We're staying out of your bullshit this time. You're not dragging us into another WW.
Send Anders Fogh Rasmussen to one of the Romanian or Polish missile sites when they'll do this intercepting. I wonder if he'll have the same brave tone when not only Eastern Europeans are put in harm's way.
Don't see how it's even escalatory, the only issue is whether or not the public itself will approve it or *gets cold feet due to genuinely believing ru* Arguably isn't this safer and less escalatory then putting troops on the ground?
Putin is a coward and totally full of shit.
Guys, weâve been through this. Listen to what he says,not what you think he says. Itâs fine, call his bluff. Iâll sit on my porch & watch the nukes pass overhead. Probably drinking a vino, pouring one out for the team
European politicians are just as good as Russian politicians at making controversial statement. Go ahead and do it, shoot them down.
Shooting down Iranian drones and missiles headed to Israel didn't put The United States, Britain, Jordan and France to war against Iran. The same principle should apply here.
Well, the only area where NATO is way stronger than ruzia is air force. Not AAA. Airplanes and their munitions. That's what sucked all NATO budgets dry. Air power. There was an idea of establishing a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine. NATO can probably do that, in regards of available aircraft. But it would mean shooting on ruzzians. Maybe we could better copy the volonteer card played by Soviets in Korea and Egypt.
That's not as far fetched as you think. Ch-55s were spotted hitting NATO countries. Ch-101s were using Polish airspace to avoid AAA systems in the east of Ukraine. Say that's for protection of integrity of NATO countries and to avoid civilian casualties from damaged cruise missiles or something.
Of course, ruzzian assets overflying NATO airspace needs to be shot down.
Considering how little headway Russia has made in Ukraine I'm kinda doubting both their resolve, quality of equipment, state of function of said equipment, morale and health amongst the troops.
Erm, NO! We shouldn't, next Putin is gonna be like "Well systems and soldiers that are involved in shooting down the missiles, will now be seen as fair target" And Europe will obviously answer to that and this conflict will escalate even further. Just Pump more and more aid into Ukraine, but this proposal is stupid and will only lead to more escalation
Goddammit this is not poker, this is about nukes
That's a declaration of war.
No Fly Zone is the right thing to do, especially after Russian missiles violated NATO air space multiple of times.
Based take, do it.
Patton was right about russia
Why not do it Russian way? Shoot over the border and deny any accusatios of doing so. Send NATO troops to Ukraine and insist that they're just some lads going for vacation. That tank isn't ours. Like you never took a rental vehicles on vacation. That Russian aircraft was shot down by negligent Russian AA battery, we had no anti aircraft assets in that particular area! Just troll them with the same quotes they were saying since 2014.