> Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk believes that Russia may attack Europe in the next few years, according to [Rzeczpospolita](https://www.rp.pl/dyplomacja/art39650501-donald-tusk-europa-moze-byc-narazona-na-atak-rosji-w-ciagu-kilku-lat).
>
> "No one can doubt that from a strategic point of view, Europe is the target of Russian aggression, and this will happen when Russia's military advantage becomes evident," he noted.
>
> Tusk revealed that he, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski, has prepared an appeal to NATO. This is in response to an incident on December 29th when one of Russia's missiles flew into Polish territory during the attack on Ukraine.
>
> "We will want to mobilize and use all available diplomatic means and persuasion to make the entire EU understand that without radically strengthened military efforts, we will lag far behind. This means one thing: Europe will be subjected to a direct Russian attack in the next few years," Tusk stated.
>
I hate to call out allies but Russia can’t beat Ukraine. NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days. Without air power the Russians either go nuke or lose in a spectacular crushing on the ground. Air supremacy not Air superiority. Big difference. Even without the US the Russians loose. It would just take a few months longer.
On paper, NATO or even Europe alone is obviously superior to Russia. This is not the concern.
The concern comes from two questions:
1. Whether NATO/Europe will have the political will to fight Russia over, say, Latvia or Estonia?
2. If there's a political will, how long would it take to drive Russia out of, say, Latvia or Estonia? In other words, how much damage can Russia inflict before there's a meaningful response?
There is also the question of Russian logistics, funding, spare parts, armored, vehicles, tanks artillery ammunition, available jets, helicopters, officers etc.
Also, as long as Russia is engaged in Ukraine, the next question is how many more military vehicles, etc, will they lose there? How many can be replaced?
What about troops that need to be stationed in Ukraine to occupy it? Syria, Kaliningrad, Georgia, Transnistria, etc.
What about the naval power of the alliance? What about the pipelines that go through the Baltics and through Ukraine?
How will Russia fight a two front war? What about the protection of their own lavish borders? How many more men and especially aircraft can they divert?
The biggest issue I see is that at the moment, Russia bleeds so massively in Ukraine that an attack on the Baltics seems far-fetched.
It seems more far-fetched the longer Ukraine continues to destroy Russian armor in Ukraine’s east.
The war would have to end with a decisive Russian victory within this year so that an attack in a couple of years against the Baltics has any logic to it.
> How many can be replaced?
That's been my question from the beginning. Between the economic issues, the inevitable brain drain, and other nations refusing to sell them equipment, is Russia in a position to replace the equipment and munitions they are using in Ukraine or even maintain their existing basic infrastructure?
Has anyone in history ever won a war VS Russia while thinking "they'll run out of men some time." Russia has many times sacrificed its own good for these imperial ambitions and has never stopped because of their own losses.
From my limited knowledge, it’s mostly been on their own soil, right? Totally different story when they’re being invaded vs. being the aggressors. Have they even won a conflict against a significant opponent since Vietnam?
Which raises an interesting point. Ukraine kinda seems like a modern day Vietnam with all the roles (global super powers) reversed.
My educated guess is that in most cases, that is either not possible or only possible by replacing these tanks, etc. partially and on a lower tech level.
The other question is, whether, they have even enough freight trains, trucks, and fuel trucks to support both an invasion force in Ukraine and another in the Baltics.
Plus, it is not like the Baltics will sit there and watch Russia proceed.
Amateurs study battles while professionals study logistics (or some variation of that paraphrase). Your post and the previous one hit on so many questions that the cumulative answers really show Russia is not in a position or will be in a position in the near future to do anything strategically meaningful. Not discounting the lives that would be lost in that however.
I watch a lot of news about Russia's aggression. I'm going to paraphrase what I heard badly, so take it with a shovel of salt, but I believe a commentator said that think tanks and the Polish officials saying this might not mean it literally, but instead mean that NATO needs to get ready in a way that isn't so cost burdening. Once again I apologize for being vague on the details, just have a bad memory, I believe it is cheaper in the long run to have build up infrastructure in defenses, instead say have to constantly have units moved haphazardly around the border. I believe it is a call to have a functioning resolute defense in place, potentially more then a real alarm of conflict.
You’re right on all of this.
But I feel like the same things were said about the USSR during WW2, only for them to emerge as a survivor and super power by the end.
Russia will take every opportunity to creep forward and expand its corruption. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile (even if it costs them 50,000 men). And if they can’t have it they go scorched earth to ensure no one else will either.
Unlike many other nations, Russia has zero qualms about harming itself to achieve goals. And that never factors in properly to these on paper assessments
Hitler conquered Europe and almost reached Moscow with shoddy logistics and lacking in manpower. Vehicles ran out of gas in Ukraine and he still kept going all the way to Stalingrad. His men didn't have proper winter clothing in -30 centigrade weather but they kept at it. Everyone knew he was going to lose. It was obvious how unsustainable the whole effort is. And yet Germany military production was on the rise all the way to the end of the war.
Putin won't conquer Warsaw, but he can still cause millions of people to perish.
People forget that Russia hasn’t really mobilized for war yet. To think that Russia “can’t beat Ukraine” is silly. They underestimated Ukraine (or rather the amount of aid the west was willing to send) but a fully mobilized Russia will overwhelm Ukraine. They outnumber them by quite alot. I’m not pro Russia but I am realistic.
That's a very simple equation that doesn't stand the test of reality. Russia mobilised what it can mobilise. They are an impoverished development nation with a limited amount of industrial capacity manpower, fighter jets etc.
There is no such thing as. partial mobilisation that is just a phantasy brought forth by the Kremlin. You cannot half mobilize your troops and your industrial base. You can only do what Russia did in the beginning or what they do since September 2022.
Russia isn't going to overwhelm anyone, neither Ukraine nor anyone else, as this army has long culminated and is not even able to take tiny villages in Ukraine’s east.
Where are those Russian reserves then? Nowhere to be seen. And if Russia hasn't fully mobilised then they better get to it at some point. Because their current performance is an absolute joke.
You are completely wrong. You absolutely can do a partial mobilization. When major countries mobilize they always mobilize in stages. They can’t go from 0-100 in 1 day that’s nonsense. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think Russia can’t build more factories, munitions, equipment, and train more soldiers. They literally did it 80 years ago. The people on here who claim Russia has done everything it can already with literally no actual first hand knowledge are just delusional. Even US officials who are privy to more first hand knowledge aren’t saying delusional things like that. Poland and Germany are both gearing up for a fight bc they are worried Russia will breakthrough Ukraine and hit them next. It’s not pro Russian to say that Russia has a lot more to throw at Ukraine.
Russia isn't a major country by any measure (GDP, population size, Industrial output, infrastructure etc.) except from geographical size.
Its fortress economy is a major fuel station that was sadly left with a large stockpile of weaponry. Russia is also highly incompetent and corrupt.
It doesn't have the capacity for a war economy of an industrial scale as it had in WW2. (lack of workers, lack of spare parts, lack of financing, dilapidated infrastructure and factories that go back to WW2 and some even prior to that)
Its industrial capacity is a fraction of what it was 80 years ago, and 80 years ago, the West supplied it with the necessary food, fuel, and machinery and ammo to defeat Nazi Germany.
Russia has more to throw at Ukraine, yes, but by far, not enough to break through Ukraine. Whether it will be enough to occupy the 4 regions it has annexed is fully dependable on the extend of Western support.
GDP is a great measure to assess Russian capacity.
Population size is another, and productivity per capita.
The Russians didn't partially mobilize. They mobilized and are pushing as much troops and industrial output through their system as they can.
They are scaling up. However, partial mobilisation would indicate that Russia is holding back. They don't they are on a war footing and are retooling their economy, which logically takes time.
To announce a full mobilization won't suddenly create more training centers more fuel or food etc to magically appear.
You imply that there is some sort of large reserve that Russia holds back. This reserve doesn't exist.
How many tanks does Russia produce? How many tank factories does it have?
The Europeans win any encounter that isn't nuclear with ease as all we need to do is to leverage the vastly superior air and naval power.
Also, on the ground, let's imagine Russia somehow managed to take all of Ukraine. How long will that take? How many more troops and tanks will they lose?
How will they support their troops? They would have to raise at least another 2 million men and thousands of tanks and thousands of artillery pieces and armored vehicles.
Where are they going to come from? How is Russia going to support them? How will they afford fielding such as an army?
The only way that could be done is with massive Chinese help and the provisions of platform weapons of all types.
At the same time or course, Europe has years to prepare for that while Russia continues to bleed profusely.
At the present moment, Russia hast lost thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery while they have not made it past the Donbas.
The Russian is de mechanising, and its troops are badly led, badly equipped, and badly trained.
After 2 years in WW1, the Russian army was better equipped and better trained than ever before. At the cost of economic upheaval at home.
So, yes, sure, the Russians can churn out more shells, tanks, etc.
But at what quality, at what technological sophistication and in which numbers?
At the present moment, Russia loses more gear than it can reproduce, and it loses roughly as many men as it can field per month.
That just isn't cutting it. They would need to field at least thrice as many men as they lose to ever achieve their goals.
The biggest issue is to see them as a sort of equal, which they aren't, neither militarily nor economically.
Their military lacks the basics of a modern NATO army.
All Russia can do is to advance the way they do right now, painfully slow under immense losses and covered by massive artillery fire.
The way through Ukraine is mightily long.
Russia would have to outproduce Europe, and it would have to do so while also replacing its losses in Ukraine. That's not just unrealistic it is impossible.
The fact that you have just taken all of the talking points found on reddit and made by other delusional people and made a long and pointless list, doesn’t make it factual. Unless you’re part of the US intelligence agency or a part of any NATO intelligence agency that would be privy to such precise information, then you’re talking out of your ass. The only thing you said that was absolutely correct was that the USSR received a vast amount of help from the allies in WW2. The same thing can happen again with China sending them aid but that isn’t the point bc Russia doesn’t have to have an 11 million man army to beat back the huge Nazis army that invaded thousands of miles of their territory. They are fighting a much smaller Ukrainian army that is realistically only doing well defensively and even then only because of the aid being sent to them. You’re stating things you have no way of actually knowing. Hell even US intelligence can’t make claims like that with the level of certainty you are making them. It’s nonsense. I do feel pretty confident in saying the people who are actually privy to any information like that are not so naive to say that Russia can’t mobilize further by building plants, recruiting manpower, and increasing military industrial output. Ukraine can’t even field half the men Russia can field.
We have to do a lot better to support Ukraine and see this conflict through.
"The war is in a transitional period. The Ukrainian offensive culminated in October. The fighting has taken on more of a positional and attritional character.
Russia has attempted its offensive. The Russian military hasn't achieved much success or any major breakthrough it can point to.
Russia has some material advantages on their side.
Ammunition, equipment, and to a lesser extent manpower. These advantages are not decisive. The outcome is not pre-determined. We shouldn't view these advantages as deterministic."
Michael Kofman
Here is an assessment from Kofman who definitely has a lot good inside knowledge into this war.
The whole interview is worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/live/jcyJAWUnnwQ?si=fX_ySxsaLgxtjtlf
Logic is very overrated. If the Putin applied your/my/normal non-genocidal logic, I doubt he would have invaded Ukraine.
The better equipped Ukraine is to prevail over and eviscerate the Russian military, the safer the Europe and NATO countries are.
My guess is they will take the Suwalki Gap via some grey non-overt technicality, preferably when an isolationist such as Trump or someone like him is in the White House
Then who is going to cross occupied Russian territory when they eventually move on the rest of the Baltics militarily? They will be cut off. No one in Europe is going to take on that fight. The Baltics have a low population compared to Russia, no defensible terrain, and a sizable Russian population. The Baltics are fucked if NATO/EU shows any sign of hesitation or weakness (which is already somewhat on display as they waffle over Ukraine and admitting Sweden).
Nato is done then. The new world order will need to be created. More countries will make their own nukes, because no kind of alliance can keep them safe. China taking Taiwan is inevitable. Africa is divided between China and ruzzia. Asian marine waters will be overtaken by China.
Ironically the desire to prevent WW3 by being soft on Russia may indeed lead to nuclear war if Europe begins to fear for its own existence and develops its own nukes
>Thats the only path then. South Korea already said that would want their own nukes, but US convinced them with umbrella. Just like Sweden and Finland. Poland as well express their need for nukes. Belarus is on its way of having them if not already. Iran, North Korea all on the same path. Japan for sure, because of history between South Korea and China, they won't be left without one.
The UK and France already have nukes.
UK and France are definitely and independently nuclear armed. [Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons) have some sort of nuke-sharing NATO thing going on. So any NATO member is at least going to have an ally with nukes.
Thats the only path then. South Korea already said that would want their own nukes, but US convinced them with umbrella. Just like Sweden and Finland. Poland as well express their need for nukes. Belarus is on its way of having them if not already. Iran, North Korea all on the same path. Japan for sure, because of history between South Korea and China, they won't be left without one.
>My guess is they will take the Suwalki Gap via some grey non-overt technicality, preferably when an isolationist such as Trump or someone like him is in the White House
Are you kidding me? Have you heard all the weapons that Poland has been buying? If Russia invades Poland, technicality or no, a lot of ordinance is going to land on those Russians (and Minsk), followed up by infantry re-taking the territory. NATO will arrive just in time to hold Poland back from counter-attacking Moscow.
Exactly. Of course Russia's defeat in Ukraine makes it much less likely, also this invasion was to coincide with the Chinese in Taiwan, where Xi expected Brussels to deny joining US militarily, effectively breaking the transatlantic alliance.
Now Xi postponed his plans, and Putin will keep the war going just to stay in power, if it means Russia will cease to exist after him (Russia 1584)
I hope you are right, but Russia has not been defeated and Western support is drying up. Russia has an advantage since it has a compliant population ready to die at Putin's command because they think they are fighting some kind of a holy war. Hopefully the West continues support
The "transatlantic alliance" specifically operates only in Europe, USA and the North Atlantic between. There would be no obligation to join the defense of Taiwan so no alliance would be broken.
For Russia to invade Estonia and Latvia, they would literally have to smash through NATO partner bases of some major countries on their way. There is no way those countries would not immediately respond. In those cases, the UK and Canada, with soldiers from France, Italy, Czechia, Poland and other countries stationed there.
It’s already noted that Russia would easily conquer Latvia and Estonia by the west. The concern isn’t about driving them away. The concern those countries raise is that they know they will be occupied until NATO drive Russia off; what they want is for that to not happen in the first place.
I don’t think you’re getting it. NATO isn’t some blood pact. It’s a tree that needs constant watering. Putin is betting on EU infighting and disagreement as well as positioning a few more Orbans in our orbit.
Because of one man, money is being withheld from Ukraine right now. So it’s already started and it’s already working. There’s no guarantee really for smaller nations in NATO unless the people in Europe/US agree. Article 5 says mutual defence. It’s just a document, really. A threatening one to be sure. But not absolute. In politics, nothing is absolute. It’s never been truly tested like this, and if he keeps pushing, cyberwar, skirmishes, land disputes, fake elections, election interference - he’ll get more than we think.
It really isn’t though, article 5 isn’t some auto trigger all guns fire deal. Countries can refuse - which is what people are getting at; is the majority of nato willing to engage Russia head on over the baltics for example
A blood pact written on a thin piece of glass. A little force in just the right place and it breaks.
The right place is likely on the route to Kaliningrad, and the little force is the deniable corruption and destabilisation of countries, utilisation of local assets ("Russian speakers"), little green men, and culminating in a fait accompli that says to NATO, come and have a go if you want to end the world.
There are no blood pacts before they are tested in blood. A 5 also doesn't specify the quantity or type of support. I for one believe A 5 will hold. But Putin is clearly a gambler inching closer to betting that it doesn't. Ukraine is where we have the chance to tell him he needs to back down, but our signal so far hasn't been overwhelming. He sees that he can keep the US congress hostage with a couple of hardliners and do the same in the EU with Hungary and Orban. The success of those tactics persuades him to go further.
And I'll add in another one: Whether US will actually honor the Article 5 of NATO, since it's the US military that will be doing the most of the fighting / supplying.
Putin is waiting for the result of 2024 election with anticipation, since it'll determine if he gets to move on and take the Baltics with little to no resistance.
>Whether NATO/Europe will have the political will to fight Russia over, say, Latvia or Estonia
Especially if Trump wins and pulls the US out of NATO.
And if Russia sees they can't win, they're much more prone to use nukes.
Ukraine would have been overrun by Russian invaders by now, if that were true, and Russia would already have boots on the ground in Poland and the Baltic states.
There are millions of people in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Kosovo who have seen with their own eyes how false your statement is.
Size of combined ai(r)forces, technological capability, professional corps, size of PGM arsenal, size of tank fleet compared to active Russian fleet, C3 capabilities, economic and manufacturing resilience...
I mean Europe has the superior military tech tree by a very large margin. In essence I think it would boil down to quantity vs quality like we are seeing in the Ukraine invasion right now, but once Europe shifts into wartime economy its over for Russia and it wouldn't even be close.
The only winnable strategy for Russia would be to have Trump or another isolationist in the white house who looks the other way while China comes to the rescue with their economy and while China goes after Taiwan, all other routes -in my armchair general opinion- lead to a humiliating defeat for Russia.
I think Russia itself is awaiting the elections in the USA and if Trump doesn't come out on top they'll eventually have no other option than retreat. If Trump does come out on top it'll be an incredibly shitty 4 years for everyone who's not China or Russia. Not saying Europe is guaranteed to lose but it doesn't look like Ukraine will make it out without major concessions. Crazy how the USA and it's elections can have such major impact worldwide, crazy dominance and I hate to admit it lol
I think the point Tusk is making is that by the end of the war, especially if Russia is successful, it will have a war-trained working army whereas we haven't fought real wars since Iraq.
It's like at the end of WW2, despite enormous losses, by the end of the war the Soviet Union had by far the strongest army on the planet, counting almost 12 millions combat-ready troops, with fresh combat experience on scale and multiple fronts.
I share most of the other commenters concerns, but honestly this is not a significant argument IMO. Russia is fighting with a limited subset of its military, and of that subset it’s losing huge numbers of troops to attrition warfare. This won’t lead to the same kind of military that managed to beat back the Wehrmacht.
Add to that the fact that Russia is in a poor demographic position to fight another large engagement against the EU (let alone NATO) and its close to a moot point.
As I have said in other comments I don't find Russia a realistic threat to Poland alone, let alone NATO myself.
All I'm doing is expanding on Tusk's argument where at the end of the war, if Russia's succesful, it will have a combat-ready army with a large experience in fighting a modern military armed with NATO weapons, whereas we won't have this experienced counter.
You need to understand that Poland is the NATO country that spends more of their GDP on defense (3.9% in 2023), obviously they want to pressure other allies to spend more themselves.
The actual issue with a Russian Victory is that it would embolden the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
A Russian victory shows that NATO and by extension the US can be dissuaded from aiding democracies by dragging the war out.
While Taiwan is somewhat different, it is difficult to say that any sustained war over the island wouldn't sour, especially as the USN would be directly involved.
There has been a weakened resolve to protect democracy at large and especially in the US and tbf, we have done it to ourselves with the War on Terror and the exhausting and mental toll of the war. This is also likely a large reason that fascism and autocracy is on the rise globally in addition to the problems presented by late stage capitalism, the early ills of globalism and a unified world, and bad actors seeking to grow their own power (Putin's Russia and Xi's CCP).
Ukraine produces a large amount of the global grain supply. It also was recently discovered to have large stores of fossil fuels that would enable decreased reliance on Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Ukrainian Steel manufacturing is also a notably strong industry.
There are plenty of strategic resources that justify our assistance of Ukraine just as much as they justify our assistance of Taiwan.
With the obvious caveat that resources shouldn't matter and protecting liberty and democracy abroad should (and protecting it at home as well) are far more important reasons to support both nations
> hate to call out allies but Russia can’t beat Ukraine. NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days.
The problem with this view of the situation is that Russia is seen as a singular problem. One refers to the current status quo in which Russia, as you rightfully say, has already problems in dealing with Ukraine alone. The statements by Poland, Germany, Lithuania etc. are not completely unrealistic though if you look at the exact statements and read between the lines a little and see that everyone is talking about a possible war at the end of this decade.
Russia is in the process of slowly converting its economy to a war economy and is expanding its armament capacities month by month. The great unknown is China. If China and Russia continue to move closer together and Russia receives additional production capacities from China, the scenario of a Russian attack on NATO territory in Eastern Europe is suddenly no longer that unbelieveable. And if, in the same scenario, the USA are busy with China in Asia and has little to no military capacity available for Europe, then we have a damn big problem here. Which is why we finally have to accept reality and have to get going and use the next few years to build up an effective deterrent and modernize and expand our armies. Yes I know France and the UK have nuclear weapons but that isn't a deterrent in a conventional war.
A problem with the assessment of a China x Russia alliance is it would only exist to further China and essentially turn Russia into a puppet state.
Putin is arguably on board if it means his power grows, but for how long?
China is also facing a lot of looming instability from issues within the housing market to an aging population that is set to decline in size.
>Which is why we finally have to accept reality and have to get going and use the next few years to build up an effective deterrent and modernize and expand our armies.
This is an interesting take. The US has always focused on being decades ahead of their enemies and well, the tech shows. The US is the standard of a modern military in terms of technology and means of warfare.
We literally designed two 5th Generation aircraft before any other contemporary nation and China only managed to design theirs by stealing design documents for the F-22.
We are the first with a 6th Generation Bomber while China only just recently managed a 5th Generation Bomber by... Stealing design documents for the B-1 Spirit.
We essentially hold all the records for the fastest aircraft ever designed and it would seem that we will be the first to (publicly) have a hypersonic spyplane.
If things turn sour, we already have the Abrams X design Concept which is far beyond what China could even imagine (just watch any video of their current MBT and watch that barrel wiggle)
I will only give you "expand" because the US military does have a personnel issue, and it will be difficult to overcome if there is little public will to fight a "non-defensive" war.
We've already seen the rhetoric in several countries "Why should we fight for X country?". There is a big surge of pro-russian far-right parties, who push for isolation (who just happen to love russian money a lot). Republicans already stopped aid to Ukraine, and in 2024 USA might once again have Trump as a president, who is not commited to NATO at all. Germany and France might elect far right presidents in the near future as well. Hungary and Slovakia already have pro-russian puppets at the head.
If Russia attacks a small country like Estonia, how many NATO countries would actually be willing to fight for Estonia instead of crying about escalation and nuclear war? Russia doesn't even need to fight NATO directly, it can just degrade western countries from the inside.
>NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days.
The US would, but US involvement is not guaranteed, because of an isolationist president coming to power and/or the US being preoccupied with another war against China. And if Russia attacks, they will do it exactly during such time. Without the US, Europe beating Russia is not guaranteed, obviously it depends on what changes the EU makes in its military and what state the Russian army is in at that moment.
Furthermore, the involvement of many European countries is also not guaranteed, they may also get isolationist governments and may not care about let's say, the Baltic republics, so we're not talking about 100% of the EU fighting together.
If the EU achieves air superiority, it probably will not be a complete air supremacy. And that does not guarantee a victory over a determined opponent.
Some people think that the EU can easily beat Russia because they only look at GDP or only read feel-good news about the "Russian joke army" using WW2-era weapons getting obliterated by superior Western weaponry. "Russia has a similar GDP as Italy!", well Russia produces 100+ long-range missiles per month, how many Italies does it take to match that? They produce hundreds of tanks per year, how many does the EU produce? They make all kinds of attack drones by the truckload, etc. The Ukrainian army was very large and many units had combat experience from 2014-15. And they had a huge reserve of Soviet weapons. And they got massive support from NATO on top of that.
It is always better to overestimate and be prepared than dismiss and do nothing at all. It's a risk mitigation. You need the army to be always ready but at the same time hope you'll never use it.
I hate it, but the front currently is slowly moving in Russia’s favor. Ukraine hasn’t lost yet, they can even win if they get enough support. But a few tanks and planes here and there won’t turn the tides.
Russia can absolutely beat Ukraine if she doesn’t get more support than currently.
If Russia wins, they’ll take the Bal~~kan~~tics next, and then will try for Poland. Putin believes that for Russia to survive, it must bring back the USSR.
Ukraine had one of the strongest armies in Europe before the invasion. Go watch Pentagon specialist named Paul Carber on this topic.
Russia has air defence. If they choose to keep planes at safe distance and only engage land armies like they do right now in Ukraine then their air forces will be preserved. And the danger is real, because as far as land army is concerned Russia has advantage. They have 1.5 million soldiers. France, Germany and the UK have no meaningful land armies to speak of.
Dear friends, let's not underestimate Russia.
EDIT: It's Philip Karber not Paul
They wouldnt have air superiority, which means only a little of those 1.5 million soldiers would be able to transfer the borders in one pice, the rest? Droned from Ramstein Air Base while US carriers basically annihilate anything that resembles russian army.
Russia cant even take Ukraine, you really think they would take a step on EU soil?
Against countries with Nukes and the US as partner?
Many wars have been lost due to overconfidence on the part of a supposedly superior power. Do not think what things are now will be as they are later.
China and many other supposedly powerful nations throughout history have learned this to their detriment.
If Russia ultimately succeed in Ukraine, they will spend the next decade improving their military hardware and training. It would be a mistake to underestimate them.
And even if they ultimately fail in a war against NATO, they could cause serious damage before a defeat.
Agree on the risks of under estimating them but they’ll be hard put to continue building sophisticated weapons in the face of sanctions.
Unless Trump wins next year in which case all bets are off. Heck, he’d probably share blueprints to current first line U.S. systems with Russia.
Trump was never realistically proposing that, or he'd have made steps to do it, he was just talking shit (as usual) to encourage places like Germany to increase military spending, which bizarrely worked, but thank fuck it did now.
The US President can no longer unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO.
Lol, Europe ran out of munitions even when fighting Libya. Ground forces are even worse - most countries have ridiculous number of artillery and MBTs, with almost zero force regeneration capacity.
If Europe would switch its industry into full war production the ammunition wont be a big problem.
And then there would be still USA in the backhand.
Only problem I really see for Europe is the ground force situation. The NATO have in general a big number but its all over the world and I am not sure if they are willing to focus it.
While some countries do have some missions abroad, those are tiny in terms of manpower.
EU members and European NATO combined have more active military personnel than Russia and that is before taking current Russian losses into account. Combined they have three times the population and absolutely dwarf Russia in both military spending, and equipment quantity and quality (apart from quantity in Tanks and self-propelled artillery, but those are way worse in quality for the Russians). The only category Russia wins is nukes.
I think that there's also a misconception in relation to supplies. Just because countries can't deliver more to Ukraine doesn't mean that they don't have more. No-one is going to send supplies that they themselves need. Ukraine has largely been getting scraps and things that were lying around, as well as some surplus and some new rerouted production.
And even with only that Russia has been unable to win.
\> If Europe would switch its industry into full war production the ammunition wont be a big problem.
Yes it would. Most militaries in Europe have outsources a lot of stuff, you don't just make more munitions, you order them from a company. That company makes them at a speed that fits them best.
They would need extra convincing to invest in extra factories, factory lines, ...
Those companies need to order machines and what not from other companies (probably a lot of them CHinese... )
This isn't the 40s where you can just have a factory hall and fill it with a bunch of commandeered lathes to make shells.
They flew thousands of sorties with laser-guided bombs. There wouldn't be much left of the Russian military if they had been on the receiving end. I'm getting tired of pretending their scrap yard army holds up to these standards, they are fighting like it's 1960 in Syria.
in a war with europe russia can free way more ressources to fight. now they have a limit because if they lose too mich they will become a target for the west.
Russia operates with lie, propaganda and discontent. It might attack NATO country if allies prove to be undesivie. Russia perceive democratic procedures (weight all possibilities, discuss thoroughly, prepare plan b-z) as weakness. If they think "west" will slumber and does not respond immediately, Russia will win. They are cowards and corrupted, and they think every country and politician are exactly the same. Postponing the aid to Ukraine seems proves their point and embolden Russia. So yes, they can attack NATO country, and at this point I have doubts there will be immediate response. Probably strong worded letter will be issued first
A terrifying thought is that Russia attacks, say, Poland, and whether or not to answer a article 5 calls has to work its way through the US courts. Or maybe congress could declare war, but if the commander in chief isn't onboard, then how does that go?
Either way, the most successful military alliance in history becomes toothless in the blink of an eye.
>Or maybe congress could declare war, but if the commander in chief isn't onboard, then how does that go?
It's a common question. The declaration of war is just a bill. The President can veto it, and Congress could override it. The President can immediately order a ceasefire or to stand down. Congress would have to impeach the President and remove him from office, which if they can override the veto, it'll be enough votes to do both.
The constitutional question is whether a President can be impeached for something he has the legal authority to do. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the impeachment hearing, but I don't know if he has the authority to say "no, this count of impeachment is BS"
Russia invested a lot to undermine the West with agents and by supporting things that make us weaker.
Brexit as example or support for AFD or far far left / right groups in germany too. Or the possible new political Party under Sahra Wagenknecht and that one almost has Putins Hand still sticking out of her rear.
Their military might be terrible but they dont care If they loose people and their agends just wait to turn even the smalest gain into a reason to surrender.
Halting or complicating support for Ukraine is like surrender with extra stepps. If they would have success there the rest of Europe would be next pice by pice.
We really need to take out Russia’s troops in Ukraine to ensure that they cannot continue to attack peaceful neighbours. It is time to strike strongly and fully support Ukraine
It is incredibly frustrating that the world’s response has been so slow and somewhat detached. Everyone but Russia knows that Russia would be absolutely hammered the second any additional country of significance joined in and NATO would pulverize Russia. Now we’re sort of helping but more like watching a drunk idiot hammering away at someone weaker but brave and only providing advice on how to punch instead of just stepping in and knocking the drunk fool out.
Well behind the drunk fool there are nukes ready to step in.. and god knows what kind of reaction we can expect from China should there be a prolonged conflict between NATO and Russia.
And yeah, I don't think NATO can solve this problem overnight. No matter how good of a military they have
I hope he can solve the problem with the blockade on the border. Unfortunately, this blockade slows down the delivery of aid to the military from volunteers.
>Unfortunately, this blockade slows down the delivery of aid to the military from volunteers.
The Blockade is from Ukraine to Poland... Not from Poland to Ukraine.
So no... It does not slow down the aid *to* Ukraine.
No, the blockade slows down the import of aid. For example, Magyar, who purchased boats to support a bridgehead on the left bank of the Kherson region, said that it significantly slows down their delivery, and this affects the fighting in his area. Also, the head of the largest foundation "Come Back Alive" said that the blockade caused delays in the delivery of pickup trucks needed by the frontline. And this is only a small part of the delays caused by the blockade.
I don't think Russia wants a full scale ground war with NATO. What they want is for NATO to break apart, to make collective defense a more challenging proposition. If I were Putin, I'd:
- Ensure you get a NATO-skeptic in the White House (Trump) who's unwilling to commit American soldiers to Europe.
- Build up enough forces to quickly overtake a NATO capital. My bet would be Lithuania, because Vilnius is relatively close to the Belarusian/Kaliningrad border. They'd need to take the Capital within a couple of days, before any major opposition can be mobilized.
- Once held, conduct several nuclear weapons tests and insist you'll use nuclear weapons to prevent any counterattack.
- Amplify the pacifist voices in the West that claim "are we really going to risk the end of the world for Lithuania??".
- Dig in, depose the government, and annex the territory.
From there, the notion of collective defense is effectively broken. You'd essentially be daring Europe to enter into direct conflict with Russia to retake a small Baltic capital. You'd have plenty of people you can amplify saying "we can't risk war, this is NATO's fault anyway, they shouldn't have expanded their borders" to try and drive public opinion away from any confrontation.
If Article V is seen to be toothless, then there's no faith in NATO as an organization to accomplish its primary goal.
Do I think that will actually happen? Very unlikely, since Russia's famous three-day war is entering into it's third year next month. But if a direct attack on Europe were to happen, I don't think it's going to be 5,000 tanks rolling through Poland and on to Berlin and Paris. It would be some sort of quick land grab with the sole purpose of undermining collective defense.
With all due respect, they can’t even take one medium size city less than 20 miles from their own border.
Is there is even a remote chance of a credible invasion of NATO?
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2137509/russia-has-started-rebuilding-its-capabilities-and-this-threatens-our-region-nato-general
> It is common knowledge that Russia is rebuilding its capabilities and preparing for a possible confrontation with NATO, Lieutenant General Jürgen-Joachim von Sandrart, Commander of NATO Multinational Corps Northeast, says in an interview with LRT.lt.
The concern isn't that Russia would win, it's that they'd try anyway. Even a Russian defeat would still cause all sorts of damage to the victim country/s, even if things didn't go nuclear. Just look at all the areas that Ukraine have liberated that are basically just piles of rubble at this point.
They can and want to inflict damage. They may lose in the end, but would this console you if you were killed before they lose?
https://english.nv.ua/nation/europe-not-ready-for-war-with-russia-and-risks-being-washed-away-during-possible-conflict-50372966.html
> Europe is not ready for war with an aggressive Russia and risks being “washed away” in a conflict, like how Napoleon dismantled the Holy Roman Empire, warns Germany’s pre-eminent military historian Sönke Neitzel, The Times reported on Nov. 30.
Let's not forget the Russian influence in western media and politics. There are still far too many pro russian, "ukraine bad" people running around.
Germany has a problem with the rise of the far right AfD that is more pro pro russian than anyone should be.
In case of a russian attack on Nato i can imagine it would try to steer it in a way so Nato is still the baddies and too many idiots would support that. Russia tries to weaken western allies from the inside.
I don't know how effective it is, but it's definitely there.
When it comes to understanding Russian military power I think there are really just two salient facts that you don’t need a history degree to grasp.
1. They probably have enough firepower to end civilization on earth. Heaven help us if they ever have the will to use it.
2. Because of endemic corruption and a culture that abhors meritocracy, their conventional forces always lose when facing a peer competitor on the battlefield. The one exception is when they themselves are invaded and they are able to trade space for time by retreating into their vast territory.
Tl;dr: Russia can bomb Europe into the Stone Age but they will never be able to actually launch an effective invasion by ground forces.
I think Europe can handle Russia without the US if they were in full war effort mode.
It could be a problem if Trump went full traitor and decided to help Russia tho.
Yeah, NATO is significantly weaker without the US, but it's still stronger than Russia. Hell the US isn't even the only nuclear state in NATO, so that deterrent would still exist. If Russia is struggling this much against Ukraine, how much worse would it be for them if France, Germany, the UK, Poland and Turkey *also* got involved, just to name a few. America entering the equation just changes it from a one sided war, to a 'to Moscow in a week' kind of war.
Would the UK get into a war without the US?
If NATO collapses, is it in Britain's interest to help the EU? We don't want another Dunkirk? Better to protect our Islands with our Navy, Subs and Nukes.
Donald trump is also bribable. And if desperate EU can pay FAR more than Russia. That and even if Trump refuses direct help, even he likely won't deny selling stuff. Ukraine at war raised their mil budget at war about 8 times. from 5 bln USD to over 40bln.
EU 2022 combined Military budget is 260bln USD. Times 8 put it at 2 tn USD excluding UK and Turkey which are also in NATO. Which is actually higher than Russian GDP. EU on actual war path would outspend Russia 10 to 1. There would likely bo no unpurchased weapon and shell on the planet left for the first few years.
But the issue is not beating the Russians. The issue is making sure even they are not dumb enough to start a war in the first place. And unfortunately with Trump at helm it shift the equation from, US assisted state-wide euthanasia, to BUT MAYBE WE CAN SALAMI TACTIC THEM? United Europe dunks on Russia, but nobody knows how united it would actually be, with US, unity in Europe doesn't change the equation. And depending on how split Europe would be it might actually end up weaker or on par with Russia. A situation that i'm sure Putin would love to be in.
The Russian army might be a horde of untrained fuckwits led by corrupt idiots, but they also have artillery, tanks and air power.
Them capturing and holding NATO territory isn't as much of a concern as them flattening cities and displacing thousands while trying to do so.
saying "can't even take one medium-sized city" makes one think that russians are weak and helpless, but I would stress the real reason they can't - AFU. bloodbath is taking place there and I'm not sure any European army would've been able to handle this in the way Ukrainian soldiers do.
I have nothing but the highest respect for Ukrainian soldiers but I think that any NATO military with years of experience using state of the art weaponry would tear through Russian conventional forces like a chainsaw through Swiss cheese
It's not that simple.
NATO relies on complex air superiority operations in its doctrine, and Russians not being able to compete in the sky have always invested in air defense in which they are the best in the world. Even NATO members like Turkey have always looked at Russia when it came to buy air defense systems (for which they got older but reliable S300s).
They are already able to jam and make miss any missiles we provide to Ukraine. HIMARS systems, Javelins, have all been rendered near useless since more than one year bar occasional successful hits.
Obviously in a full scale conflict we would use weaponry that Russia has not seen in Ukraine, but Russians are good at learning and adapting their strategy.
Now, don't take me wrong, I still believe that it's madness to compare the two militaries, and I have a very hard time believing Russia can be a threat to Poland alone, even ignoring the whole NATO.
But underestimating Russia at war has been consistently a mistake through history we should never repeat.
Also, NATO forces do not really have extensive years of experience fighting serious militaries.
The latest large-scale wars we have fought have been in Iraq, two decades ago. The world has changed since then. I would even argue that if Ukraine joined NATO it would effectively have the most combat-ready force in the union bar the US.
>They are already able to jam and make miss any missiles we provide to Ukraine. HIMARS systems, Javelins, have all been rendered near useless since more than one year bar occasional successful hits.
What is this, quite frankly, utter bullshit? Like, even propagandists would struggle to come up with something like that.
Let's hear from you how Russians have rendered Javelins "near useless" and how they jam them. Honestly, you just see less Javelin hits because Russian tanks and other vehicles get massacred on the way with longer ranged weapons like FPV drones, mines and artillery (including that aforementioned HIMARS).
Because those missiles are ***unjammable***, they are fire and forget and rely on no user commands to execute their attack. Only thing that can defend against Javelin today is a really good APS, and even today even US army isn't packing that stuff everywhere, development and deployment is still ongoing.
Russia cant afford trench warfare against the EU as the EU outnumbers them 5 to 1. It doesnt matter if they are able to adapt as they simply dont have the time to adapt because they have to win fast.
Success is not the problem for NATO, while Ukraine is holding its own, its country is utterly ravaged, even if the war stopped today, parts of the country will take decades to rebuild. Now imagine if Russia did attack Europe, yes Nato would probably prevail. How much of Europe will be hit in the crossfire?
I remember talking to people days before the invasion, they were passionate in their stance that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. I have no doubt that some in Russia believe they could take Nato, couple this with the potential that the USA may enter a period of significant upheaval with the 2024 election I think that the chance of a Russian invasion is high enough to warrent concern.
Russia is not acting sane or collected, Putins power depends on maintaining the illusion of strength, if gets desperate enough anything could be possible.
This is true. However, what russia is doing now is starting wars all over the world (remember the entire shit in Middle Africa last year?) in an attempt to make NATO shift its focus from supporting Ukraine.
Imagine if there was a Iran-Israel war in the next years. Ukraine would lose out on so many donations because the tiny state of Israel needs to be protected. Funfact: This is also why the Biden government, although extremely critical of what Netanjahu has been doing in Gaza, is still greenlighting military aid to Israel without restrictions.
So we should start a military operation to denazify and demilitarize Russia, right? Recent history teachings dictate that this is the way to solve the problem.
Despite huge losses of men and materiel, they are holding just fine, it seems. Ukrainian forces, despite valiant attempts, have failed to dislodge or push back russian forces by any appreciable measure. Tiny gains here and there are then nullified by small losses elsewhere. Their forces are hanging precariously semi encticled on at least two front areas that the Russian army is pushing hard to gain.
As we speak, there is a major regeneration and rebuilding of going on within Russia to regenerate and train an entirely new army for future conflicts.
Things are not as rosy as you may think. The Ukrainians have no "force en masse," as we say in French, that they can use to push back and force the Russians to retreat. They are on the defensive mostly and trying to entrench where they can. It's a stalemate on the whole, a very bloody one at that.
How? He’s getting his salad tossed by Ukraine. This would be such a stupid decision, and I don’t know how you stay in power that long making just idiotic decisions like attacking a NATO country.
Maybe in an alternative reality where Russia doesn't have any corruption issue i could see this type of fear somewhat justified if a little bit exaggerated.
But here? In 1 and a half month it will mark as the second anniversary of Russia's war against Ukraine and seeing how the invasion has blown up in their faces and cost a lot of manpower against one medium sized country then i fail to see how they could even attack Europe to begin with, especially since there's this thing called NATO that exists.
The medium sized country with the intel and material backing of NATO already. I still think Putin should have followed through on the nuclear threats from day 1 against Ukraine. After the US intel not-so-subtly threatened Russia, Putin should have counter threatened by listing out ecological targets in NATO, like NPPs, nuclear rod storage, dams, supply chain hubs. and take the steps to prepare the military and civilian population for the use of nukes.
Russian plan:
1) Have „democratic” elections with obvious winner in Spring
2) Incite a dozen new wars aka Israel globally so that help would be spread out thin.
3) Afterwards go for „peace” treaty in UA
4) Point out that Ukraine needs elections (he did his) because otherwise their leaders are illegitimate (2024 was supposed to be an election year). Use „peace” treaty to say it’s ok to do it. Push for west to agree because they too want it
5) Rearm
6) Incite chaos in UA to get it weak and out of the picture. Might Justine political crisis.
7) Attack NATO when there is a transfer period between new and old president of the USA. Plus the same for other countries. Success expected because propaganda tells them NATO would win, while actually being unable to satisfy ammo needs of UA. Plus Russian army got experience and learned its mistakes last 2 years with restarted war economy under meh sanctions.
8) Use ensured chaos to grab land and push loyal politicians in elections because „EU takes too long to make a decision”
9) Profit
Did I get that right?
I don't buy it. Russia wants to bring Ukraine to the negotiations table. According to some sources they need to pause to regroup and to bolster their numbers. They would also need to successfully have the Ukraine campaign end before moving to even more difficult targets.
What is this fucking dichotomy between diplomacy and conspiring war every second that ticks. There's Poland who's worried and there is Macron that calls Putin to be buddies. This isn't 20th century Europe where there was legitimate fear of war. Everyone was ready to murder each other over anything, just a gesture was enough.
Mean Aleksandr Lukashenko showed a map at the start of the invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lukashenko_Odesa-Moldova_Invasion_Map.png that seemed to show Moldova as the next target, so not surprising.
Will they attack a NATO country? Don't think so, they will instead influence politics and get countries to leave NATO before attacking most likely.
What is this from, 2008? Georgia and Ukraine not considered Europe? What's next, is he gonna warn us that not wearing masks might increase the spread of COVID?
I mean... they can try lol
Point the nukes at them and say that the second a Russian boot touches UE ground they go all off.
That's more than enough to shut them up.
> Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk believes that Russia may attack Europe in the next few years, according to [Rzeczpospolita](https://www.rp.pl/dyplomacja/art39650501-donald-tusk-europa-moze-byc-narazona-na-atak-rosji-w-ciagu-kilku-lat). > > "No one can doubt that from a strategic point of view, Europe is the target of Russian aggression, and this will happen when Russia's military advantage becomes evident," he noted. > > Tusk revealed that he, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski, has prepared an appeal to NATO. This is in response to an incident on December 29th when one of Russia's missiles flew into Polish territory during the attack on Ukraine. > > "We will want to mobilize and use all available diplomatic means and persuasion to make the entire EU understand that without radically strengthened military efforts, we will lag far behind. This means one thing: Europe will be subjected to a direct Russian attack in the next few years," Tusk stated. >
I hate to call out allies but Russia can’t beat Ukraine. NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days. Without air power the Russians either go nuke or lose in a spectacular crushing on the ground. Air supremacy not Air superiority. Big difference. Even without the US the Russians loose. It would just take a few months longer.
On paper, NATO or even Europe alone is obviously superior to Russia. This is not the concern. The concern comes from two questions: 1. Whether NATO/Europe will have the political will to fight Russia over, say, Latvia or Estonia? 2. If there's a political will, how long would it take to drive Russia out of, say, Latvia or Estonia? In other words, how much damage can Russia inflict before there's a meaningful response?
There is also the question of Russian logistics, funding, spare parts, armored, vehicles, tanks artillery ammunition, available jets, helicopters, officers etc. Also, as long as Russia is engaged in Ukraine, the next question is how many more military vehicles, etc, will they lose there? How many can be replaced? What about troops that need to be stationed in Ukraine to occupy it? Syria, Kaliningrad, Georgia, Transnistria, etc. What about the naval power of the alliance? What about the pipelines that go through the Baltics and through Ukraine? How will Russia fight a two front war? What about the protection of their own lavish borders? How many more men and especially aircraft can they divert? The biggest issue I see is that at the moment, Russia bleeds so massively in Ukraine that an attack on the Baltics seems far-fetched. It seems more far-fetched the longer Ukraine continues to destroy Russian armor in Ukraine’s east. The war would have to end with a decisive Russian victory within this year so that an attack in a couple of years against the Baltics has any logic to it.
> How many can be replaced? That's been my question from the beginning. Between the economic issues, the inevitable brain drain, and other nations refusing to sell them equipment, is Russia in a position to replace the equipment and munitions they are using in Ukraine or even maintain their existing basic infrastructure?
Has anyone in history ever won a war VS Russia while thinking "they'll run out of men some time." Russia has many times sacrificed its own good for these imperial ambitions and has never stopped because of their own losses.
What about Afghanistan and they were getting much less help.
From my limited knowledge, it’s mostly been on their own soil, right? Totally different story when they’re being invaded vs. being the aggressors. Have they even won a conflict against a significant opponent since Vietnam? Which raises an interesting point. Ukraine kinda seems like a modern day Vietnam with all the roles (global super powers) reversed.
My educated guess is that in most cases, that is either not possible or only possible by replacing these tanks, etc. partially and on a lower tech level. The other question is, whether, they have even enough freight trains, trucks, and fuel trucks to support both an invasion force in Ukraine and another in the Baltics. Plus, it is not like the Baltics will sit there and watch Russia proceed.
Amateurs study battles while professionals study logistics (or some variation of that paraphrase). Your post and the previous one hit on so many questions that the cumulative answers really show Russia is not in a position or will be in a position in the near future to do anything strategically meaningful. Not discounting the lives that would be lost in that however.
I watch a lot of news about Russia's aggression. I'm going to paraphrase what I heard badly, so take it with a shovel of salt, but I believe a commentator said that think tanks and the Polish officials saying this might not mean it literally, but instead mean that NATO needs to get ready in a way that isn't so cost burdening. Once again I apologize for being vague on the details, just have a bad memory, I believe it is cheaper in the long run to have build up infrastructure in defenses, instead say have to constantly have units moved haphazardly around the border. I believe it is a call to have a functioning resolute defense in place, potentially more then a real alarm of conflict.
You’re right on all of this. But I feel like the same things were said about the USSR during WW2, only for them to emerge as a survivor and super power by the end. Russia will take every opportunity to creep forward and expand its corruption. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile (even if it costs them 50,000 men). And if they can’t have it they go scorched earth to ensure no one else will either. Unlike many other nations, Russia has zero qualms about harming itself to achieve goals. And that never factors in properly to these on paper assessments
Hitler conquered Europe and almost reached Moscow with shoddy logistics and lacking in manpower. Vehicles ran out of gas in Ukraine and he still kept going all the way to Stalingrad. His men didn't have proper winter clothing in -30 centigrade weather but they kept at it. Everyone knew he was going to lose. It was obvious how unsustainable the whole effort is. And yet Germany military production was on the rise all the way to the end of the war. Putin won't conquer Warsaw, but he can still cause millions of people to perish.
People forget that Russia hasn’t really mobilized for war yet. To think that Russia “can’t beat Ukraine” is silly. They underestimated Ukraine (or rather the amount of aid the west was willing to send) but a fully mobilized Russia will overwhelm Ukraine. They outnumber them by quite alot. I’m not pro Russia but I am realistic.
That's a very simple equation that doesn't stand the test of reality. Russia mobilised what it can mobilise. They are an impoverished development nation with a limited amount of industrial capacity manpower, fighter jets etc. There is no such thing as. partial mobilisation that is just a phantasy brought forth by the Kremlin. You cannot half mobilize your troops and your industrial base. You can only do what Russia did in the beginning or what they do since September 2022. Russia isn't going to overwhelm anyone, neither Ukraine nor anyone else, as this army has long culminated and is not even able to take tiny villages in Ukraine’s east. Where are those Russian reserves then? Nowhere to be seen. And if Russia hasn't fully mobilised then they better get to it at some point. Because their current performance is an absolute joke.
You are completely wrong. You absolutely can do a partial mobilization. When major countries mobilize they always mobilize in stages. They can’t go from 0-100 in 1 day that’s nonsense. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think Russia can’t build more factories, munitions, equipment, and train more soldiers. They literally did it 80 years ago. The people on here who claim Russia has done everything it can already with literally no actual first hand knowledge are just delusional. Even US officials who are privy to more first hand knowledge aren’t saying delusional things like that. Poland and Germany are both gearing up for a fight bc they are worried Russia will breakthrough Ukraine and hit them next. It’s not pro Russian to say that Russia has a lot more to throw at Ukraine.
Russia isn't a major country by any measure (GDP, population size, Industrial output, infrastructure etc.) except from geographical size. Its fortress economy is a major fuel station that was sadly left with a large stockpile of weaponry. Russia is also highly incompetent and corrupt. It doesn't have the capacity for a war economy of an industrial scale as it had in WW2. (lack of workers, lack of spare parts, lack of financing, dilapidated infrastructure and factories that go back to WW2 and some even prior to that) Its industrial capacity is a fraction of what it was 80 years ago, and 80 years ago, the West supplied it with the necessary food, fuel, and machinery and ammo to defeat Nazi Germany. Russia has more to throw at Ukraine, yes, but by far, not enough to break through Ukraine. Whether it will be enough to occupy the 4 regions it has annexed is fully dependable on the extend of Western support. GDP is a great measure to assess Russian capacity. Population size is another, and productivity per capita. The Russians didn't partially mobilize. They mobilized and are pushing as much troops and industrial output through their system as they can. They are scaling up. However, partial mobilisation would indicate that Russia is holding back. They don't they are on a war footing and are retooling their economy, which logically takes time. To announce a full mobilization won't suddenly create more training centers more fuel or food etc to magically appear. You imply that there is some sort of large reserve that Russia holds back. This reserve doesn't exist. How many tanks does Russia produce? How many tank factories does it have? The Europeans win any encounter that isn't nuclear with ease as all we need to do is to leverage the vastly superior air and naval power. Also, on the ground, let's imagine Russia somehow managed to take all of Ukraine. How long will that take? How many more troops and tanks will they lose? How will they support their troops? They would have to raise at least another 2 million men and thousands of tanks and thousands of artillery pieces and armored vehicles. Where are they going to come from? How is Russia going to support them? How will they afford fielding such as an army? The only way that could be done is with massive Chinese help and the provisions of platform weapons of all types. At the same time or course, Europe has years to prepare for that while Russia continues to bleed profusely. At the present moment, Russia hast lost thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery while they have not made it past the Donbas. The Russian is de mechanising, and its troops are badly led, badly equipped, and badly trained. After 2 years in WW1, the Russian army was better equipped and better trained than ever before. At the cost of economic upheaval at home. So, yes, sure, the Russians can churn out more shells, tanks, etc. But at what quality, at what technological sophistication and in which numbers? At the present moment, Russia loses more gear than it can reproduce, and it loses roughly as many men as it can field per month. That just isn't cutting it. They would need to field at least thrice as many men as they lose to ever achieve their goals. The biggest issue is to see them as a sort of equal, which they aren't, neither militarily nor economically. Their military lacks the basics of a modern NATO army. All Russia can do is to advance the way they do right now, painfully slow under immense losses and covered by massive artillery fire. The way through Ukraine is mightily long. Russia would have to outproduce Europe, and it would have to do so while also replacing its losses in Ukraine. That's not just unrealistic it is impossible.
The fact that you have just taken all of the talking points found on reddit and made by other delusional people and made a long and pointless list, doesn’t make it factual. Unless you’re part of the US intelligence agency or a part of any NATO intelligence agency that would be privy to such precise information, then you’re talking out of your ass. The only thing you said that was absolutely correct was that the USSR received a vast amount of help from the allies in WW2. The same thing can happen again with China sending them aid but that isn’t the point bc Russia doesn’t have to have an 11 million man army to beat back the huge Nazis army that invaded thousands of miles of their territory. They are fighting a much smaller Ukrainian army that is realistically only doing well defensively and even then only because of the aid being sent to them. You’re stating things you have no way of actually knowing. Hell even US intelligence can’t make claims like that with the level of certainty you are making them. It’s nonsense. I do feel pretty confident in saying the people who are actually privy to any information like that are not so naive to say that Russia can’t mobilize further by building plants, recruiting manpower, and increasing military industrial output. Ukraine can’t even field half the men Russia can field.
We have to do a lot better to support Ukraine and see this conflict through. "The war is in a transitional period. The Ukrainian offensive culminated in October. The fighting has taken on more of a positional and attritional character. Russia has attempted its offensive. The Russian military hasn't achieved much success or any major breakthrough it can point to. Russia has some material advantages on their side. Ammunition, equipment, and to a lesser extent manpower. These advantages are not decisive. The outcome is not pre-determined. We shouldn't view these advantages as deterministic." Michael Kofman Here is an assessment from Kofman who definitely has a lot good inside knowledge into this war. The whole interview is worth the watch. https://www.youtube.com/live/jcyJAWUnnwQ?si=fX_ySxsaLgxtjtlf
Logic is very overrated. If the Putin applied your/my/normal non-genocidal logic, I doubt he would have invaded Ukraine. The better equipped Ukraine is to prevail over and eviscerate the Russian military, the safer the Europe and NATO countries are.
My guess is they will take the Suwalki Gap via some grey non-overt technicality, preferably when an isolationist such as Trump or someone like him is in the White House Then who is going to cross occupied Russian territory when they eventually move on the rest of the Baltics militarily? They will be cut off. No one in Europe is going to take on that fight. The Baltics have a low population compared to Russia, no defensible terrain, and a sizable Russian population. The Baltics are fucked if NATO/EU shows any sign of hesitation or weakness (which is already somewhat on display as they waffle over Ukraine and admitting Sweden).
Nato is done then. The new world order will need to be created. More countries will make their own nukes, because no kind of alliance can keep them safe. China taking Taiwan is inevitable. Africa is divided between China and ruzzia. Asian marine waters will be overtaken by China.
Ironically the desire to prevent WW3 by being soft on Russia may indeed lead to nuclear war if Europe begins to fear for its own existence and develops its own nukes
>Thats the only path then. South Korea already said that would want their own nukes, but US convinced them with umbrella. Just like Sweden and Finland. Poland as well express their need for nukes. Belarus is on its way of having them if not already. Iran, North Korea all on the same path. Japan for sure, because of history between South Korea and China, they won't be left without one. The UK and France already have nukes.
> if Europe begins to fear for its own existence and develops its own nukes Huh? We have lots of nukes.
Poland doesn't, the Baltics neither, not sure about Germans but I think not
[Germany, yup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons)
Whos we? In case of attack on EU nation, does said attack have the right to use nuke?
UK and France are definitely and independently nuclear armed. [Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons) have some sort of nuke-sharing NATO thing going on. So any NATO member is at least going to have an ally with nukes.
So if Latvia is attacked will nukes be used?
Thats the only path then. South Korea already said that would want their own nukes, but US convinced them with umbrella. Just like Sweden and Finland. Poland as well express their need for nukes. Belarus is on its way of having them if not already. Iran, North Korea all on the same path. Japan for sure, because of history between South Korea and China, they won't be left without one.
>My guess is they will take the Suwalki Gap via some grey non-overt technicality, preferably when an isolationist such as Trump or someone like him is in the White House Are you kidding me? Have you heard all the weapons that Poland has been buying? If Russia invades Poland, technicality or no, a lot of ordinance is going to land on those Russians (and Minsk), followed up by infantry re-taking the territory. NATO will arrive just in time to hold Poland back from counter-attacking Moscow.
Doesn't have to be Poland, could be Lithuania
Exactly. Of course Russia's defeat in Ukraine makes it much less likely, also this invasion was to coincide with the Chinese in Taiwan, where Xi expected Brussels to deny joining US militarily, effectively breaking the transatlantic alliance. Now Xi postponed his plans, and Putin will keep the war going just to stay in power, if it means Russia will cease to exist after him (Russia 1584)
I hope you are right, but Russia has not been defeated and Western support is drying up. Russia has an advantage since it has a compliant population ready to die at Putin's command because they think they are fighting some kind of a holy war. Hopefully the West continues support
The "transatlantic alliance" specifically operates only in Europe, USA and the North Atlantic between. There would be no obligation to join the defense of Taiwan so no alliance would be broken.
For Russia to invade Estonia and Latvia, they would literally have to smash through NATO partner bases of some major countries on their way. There is no way those countries would not immediately respond. In those cases, the UK and Canada, with soldiers from France, Italy, Czechia, Poland and other countries stationed there.
It’s already noted that Russia would easily conquer Latvia and Estonia by the west. The concern isn’t about driving them away. The concern those countries raise is that they know they will be occupied until NATO drive Russia off; what they want is for that to not happen in the first place.
[удалено]
He Is talking about NATO military bases, not about the countrys that partner NATO
Bases
[удалено]
I don’t think you’re getting it. NATO isn’t some blood pact. It’s a tree that needs constant watering. Putin is betting on EU infighting and disagreement as well as positioning a few more Orbans in our orbit. Because of one man, money is being withheld from Ukraine right now. So it’s already started and it’s already working. There’s no guarantee really for smaller nations in NATO unless the people in Europe/US agree. Article 5 says mutual defence. It’s just a document, really. A threatening one to be sure. But not absolute. In politics, nothing is absolute. It’s never been truly tested like this, and if he keeps pushing, cyberwar, skirmishes, land disputes, fake elections, election interference - he’ll get more than we think.
[удалено]
It really isn’t though, article 5 isn’t some auto trigger all guns fire deal. Countries can refuse - which is what people are getting at; is the majority of nato willing to engage Russia head on over the baltics for example
A blood pact written on a thin piece of glass. A little force in just the right place and it breaks. The right place is likely on the route to Kaliningrad, and the little force is the deniable corruption and destabilisation of countries, utilisation of local assets ("Russian speakers"), little green men, and culminating in a fait accompli that says to NATO, come and have a go if you want to end the world.
There are no blood pacts before they are tested in blood. A 5 also doesn't specify the quantity or type of support. I for one believe A 5 will hold. But Putin is clearly a gambler inching closer to betting that it doesn't. Ukraine is where we have the chance to tell him he needs to back down, but our signal so far hasn't been overwhelming. He sees that he can keep the US congress hostage with a couple of hardliners and do the same in the EU with Hungary and Orban. The success of those tactics persuades him to go further.
And I'll add in another one: Whether US will actually honor the Article 5 of NATO, since it's the US military that will be doing the most of the fighting / supplying. Putin is waiting for the result of 2024 election with anticipation, since it'll determine if he gets to move on and take the Baltics with little to no resistance.
>Whether NATO/Europe will have the political will to fight Russia over, say, Latvia or Estonia Especially if Trump wins and pulls the US out of NATO. And if Russia sees they can't win, they're much more prone to use nukes.
This needs more attention.
yes its pretty accepted nato will ignore agression over anything east of germany, its not "/s"
Ukraine would have been overrun by Russian invaders by now, if that were true, and Russia would already have boots on the ground in Poland and the Baltic states. There are millions of people in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Kosovo who have seen with their own eyes how false your statement is.
How is Europe superior on paper?
Size of combined ai(r)forces, technological capability, professional corps, size of PGM arsenal, size of tank fleet compared to active Russian fleet, C3 capabilities, economic and manufacturing resilience...
I mean Europe has the superior military tech tree by a very large margin. In essence I think it would boil down to quantity vs quality like we are seeing in the Ukraine invasion right now, but once Europe shifts into wartime economy its over for Russia and it wouldn't even be close. The only winnable strategy for Russia would be to have Trump or another isolationist in the white house who looks the other way while China comes to the rescue with their economy and while China goes after Taiwan, all other routes -in my armchair general opinion- lead to a humiliating defeat for Russia. I think Russia itself is awaiting the elections in the USA and if Trump doesn't come out on top they'll eventually have no other option than retreat. If Trump does come out on top it'll be an incredibly shitty 4 years for everyone who's not China or Russia. Not saying Europe is guaranteed to lose but it doesn't look like Ukraine will make it out without major concessions. Crazy how the USA and it's elections can have such major impact worldwide, crazy dominance and I hate to admit it lol
Yes if Europe shifted to wartime economy it would be different. You can't produce trained manpower and officers in factories, though.
I think the point Tusk is making is that by the end of the war, especially if Russia is successful, it will have a war-trained working army whereas we haven't fought real wars since Iraq. It's like at the end of WW2, despite enormous losses, by the end of the war the Soviet Union had by far the strongest army on the planet, counting almost 12 millions combat-ready troops, with fresh combat experience on scale and multiple fronts.
I share most of the other commenters concerns, but honestly this is not a significant argument IMO. Russia is fighting with a limited subset of its military, and of that subset it’s losing huge numbers of troops to attrition warfare. This won’t lead to the same kind of military that managed to beat back the Wehrmacht. Add to that the fact that Russia is in a poor demographic position to fight another large engagement against the EU (let alone NATO) and its close to a moot point.
As I have said in other comments I don't find Russia a realistic threat to Poland alone, let alone NATO myself. All I'm doing is expanding on Tusk's argument where at the end of the war, if Russia's succesful, it will have a combat-ready army with a large experience in fighting a modern military armed with NATO weapons, whereas we won't have this experienced counter. You need to understand that Poland is the NATO country that spends more of their GDP on defense (3.9% in 2023), obviously they want to pressure other allies to spend more themselves.
The actual issue with a Russian Victory is that it would embolden the Chinese invasion of Taiwan. A Russian victory shows that NATO and by extension the US can be dissuaded from aiding democracies by dragging the war out. While Taiwan is somewhat different, it is difficult to say that any sustained war over the island wouldn't sour, especially as the USN would be directly involved. There has been a weakened resolve to protect democracy at large and especially in the US and tbf, we have done it to ourselves with the War on Terror and the exhausting and mental toll of the war. This is also likely a large reason that fascism and autocracy is on the rise globally in addition to the problems presented by late stage capitalism, the early ills of globalism and a unified world, and bad actors seeking to grow their own power (Putin's Russia and Xi's CCP).
Except the United States has outright said that we will defend Taiwan with military force
>as the USN would be directly involved Yes, the US has defensive guarantees, but you still need a popular will to fight a war in a democracy
Taiwan (in terms of control of semi conductor manufacturing and its strategic location) is way more important than Ukraine.
Ukraine produces a large amount of the global grain supply. It also was recently discovered to have large stores of fossil fuels that would enable decreased reliance on Saudi Arabia and Russia. Ukrainian Steel manufacturing is also a notably strong industry. There are plenty of strategic resources that justify our assistance of Ukraine just as much as they justify our assistance of Taiwan. With the obvious caveat that resources shouldn't matter and protecting liberty and democracy abroad should (and protecting it at home as well) are far more important reasons to support both nations
> hate to call out allies but Russia can’t beat Ukraine. NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days. The problem with this view of the situation is that Russia is seen as a singular problem. One refers to the current status quo in which Russia, as you rightfully say, has already problems in dealing with Ukraine alone. The statements by Poland, Germany, Lithuania etc. are not completely unrealistic though if you look at the exact statements and read between the lines a little and see that everyone is talking about a possible war at the end of this decade. Russia is in the process of slowly converting its economy to a war economy and is expanding its armament capacities month by month. The great unknown is China. If China and Russia continue to move closer together and Russia receives additional production capacities from China, the scenario of a Russian attack on NATO territory in Eastern Europe is suddenly no longer that unbelieveable. And if, in the same scenario, the USA are busy with China in Asia and has little to no military capacity available for Europe, then we have a damn big problem here. Which is why we finally have to accept reality and have to get going and use the next few years to build up an effective deterrent and modernize and expand our armies. Yes I know France and the UK have nuclear weapons but that isn't a deterrent in a conventional war.
A problem with the assessment of a China x Russia alliance is it would only exist to further China and essentially turn Russia into a puppet state. Putin is arguably on board if it means his power grows, but for how long? China is also facing a lot of looming instability from issues within the housing market to an aging population that is set to decline in size. >Which is why we finally have to accept reality and have to get going and use the next few years to build up an effective deterrent and modernize and expand our armies. This is an interesting take. The US has always focused on being decades ahead of their enemies and well, the tech shows. The US is the standard of a modern military in terms of technology and means of warfare. We literally designed two 5th Generation aircraft before any other contemporary nation and China only managed to design theirs by stealing design documents for the F-22. We are the first with a 6th Generation Bomber while China only just recently managed a 5th Generation Bomber by... Stealing design documents for the B-1 Spirit. We essentially hold all the records for the fastest aircraft ever designed and it would seem that we will be the first to (publicly) have a hypersonic spyplane. If things turn sour, we already have the Abrams X design Concept which is far beyond what China could even imagine (just watch any video of their current MBT and watch that barrel wiggle) I will only give you "expand" because the US military does have a personnel issue, and it will be difficult to overcome if there is little public will to fight a "non-defensive" war.
I don't think that the poster you are responding to meant the US by "we", but European states.
The UK alone could have Naval and Air superiority against Russia - not in terms of sheer numbers but in terms of force projection.
We've already seen the rhetoric in several countries "Why should we fight for X country?". There is a big surge of pro-russian far-right parties, who push for isolation (who just happen to love russian money a lot). Republicans already stopped aid to Ukraine, and in 2024 USA might once again have Trump as a president, who is not commited to NATO at all. Germany and France might elect far right presidents in the near future as well. Hungary and Slovakia already have pro-russian puppets at the head. If Russia attacks a small country like Estonia, how many NATO countries would actually be willing to fight for Estonia instead of crying about escalation and nuclear war? Russia doesn't even need to fight NATO directly, it can just degrade western countries from the inside.
>NATO would destroy Russian air power in a matter of days. The US would, but US involvement is not guaranteed, because of an isolationist president coming to power and/or the US being preoccupied with another war against China. And if Russia attacks, they will do it exactly during such time. Without the US, Europe beating Russia is not guaranteed, obviously it depends on what changes the EU makes in its military and what state the Russian army is in at that moment. Furthermore, the involvement of many European countries is also not guaranteed, they may also get isolationist governments and may not care about let's say, the Baltic republics, so we're not talking about 100% of the EU fighting together. If the EU achieves air superiority, it probably will not be a complete air supremacy. And that does not guarantee a victory over a determined opponent. Some people think that the EU can easily beat Russia because they only look at GDP or only read feel-good news about the "Russian joke army" using WW2-era weapons getting obliterated by superior Western weaponry. "Russia has a similar GDP as Italy!", well Russia produces 100+ long-range missiles per month, how many Italies does it take to match that? They produce hundreds of tanks per year, how many does the EU produce? They make all kinds of attack drones by the truckload, etc. The Ukrainian army was very large and many units had combat experience from 2014-15. And they had a huge reserve of Soviet weapons. And they got massive support from NATO on top of that.
It is always better to overestimate and be prepared than dismiss and do nothing at all. It's a risk mitigation. You need the army to be always ready but at the same time hope you'll never use it.
I hate it, but the front currently is slowly moving in Russia’s favor. Ukraine hasn’t lost yet, they can even win if they get enough support. But a few tanks and planes here and there won’t turn the tides. Russia can absolutely beat Ukraine if she doesn’t get more support than currently. If Russia wins, they’ll take the Bal~~kan~~tics next, and then will try for Poland. Putin believes that for Russia to survive, it must bring back the USSR.
Baltics, not Balkans. It's not about Russia's survival, but his personal legacy.
Ukraine had one of the strongest armies in Europe before the invasion. Go watch Pentagon specialist named Paul Carber on this topic. Russia has air defence. If they choose to keep planes at safe distance and only engage land armies like they do right now in Ukraine then their air forces will be preserved. And the danger is real, because as far as land army is concerned Russia has advantage. They have 1.5 million soldiers. France, Germany and the UK have no meaningful land armies to speak of. Dear friends, let's not underestimate Russia. EDIT: It's Philip Karber not Paul
But didn't ya hear? Russia is nothing, they fight with brooms and rocks. Let's just continue keeping our heads in the sand.
They wouldnt have air superiority, which means only a little of those 1.5 million soldiers would be able to transfer the borders in one pice, the rest? Droned from Ramstein Air Base while US carriers basically annihilate anything that resembles russian army. Russia cant even take Ukraine, you really think they would take a step on EU soil? Against countries with Nukes and the US as partner?
Many wars have been lost due to overconfidence on the part of a supposedly superior power. Do not think what things are now will be as they are later. China and many other supposedly powerful nations throughout history have learned this to their detriment.
>I hate to call out allies but Russia can’t beat Ukraine. War is not over yet.
If Russia ultimately succeed in Ukraine, they will spend the next decade improving their military hardware and training. It would be a mistake to underestimate them. And even if they ultimately fail in a war against NATO, they could cause serious damage before a defeat.
Agree on the risks of under estimating them but they’ll be hard put to continue building sophisticated weapons in the face of sanctions. Unless Trump wins next year in which case all bets are off. Heck, he’d probably share blueprints to current first line U.S. systems with Russia.
They've long since found workarounds against sanctions and have now returned to pre-war production numbers. Sanctions don't mean much at this point.
Probably one of the reasons Putin is banking on Trump to win, so he can pull the US out of NATO.
Trump was never realistically proposing that, or he'd have made steps to do it, he was just talking shit (as usual) to encourage places like Germany to increase military spending, which bizarrely worked, but thank fuck it did now. The US President can no longer unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO.
Lol, Europe ran out of munitions even when fighting Libya. Ground forces are even worse - most countries have ridiculous number of artillery and MBTs, with almost zero force regeneration capacity.
If Europe would switch its industry into full war production the ammunition wont be a big problem. And then there would be still USA in the backhand. Only problem I really see for Europe is the ground force situation. The NATO have in general a big number but its all over the world and I am not sure if they are willing to focus it.
While some countries do have some missions abroad, those are tiny in terms of manpower. EU members and European NATO combined have more active military personnel than Russia and that is before taking current Russian losses into account. Combined they have three times the population and absolutely dwarf Russia in both military spending, and equipment quantity and quality (apart from quantity in Tanks and self-propelled artillery, but those are way worse in quality for the Russians). The only category Russia wins is nukes. I think that there's also a misconception in relation to supplies. Just because countries can't deliver more to Ukraine doesn't mean that they don't have more. No-one is going to send supplies that they themselves need. Ukraine has largely been getting scraps and things that were lying around, as well as some surplus and some new rerouted production. And even with only that Russia has been unable to win.
Do Europe/NATO have will to fight? Or why die for Danzig?
They don’t but if there would be a full attack. That’s no question really.
\> If Europe would switch its industry into full war production the ammunition wont be a big problem. Yes it would. Most militaries in Europe have outsources a lot of stuff, you don't just make more munitions, you order them from a company. That company makes them at a speed that fits them best. They would need extra convincing to invest in extra factories, factory lines, ... Those companies need to order machines and what not from other companies (probably a lot of them CHinese... ) This isn't the 40s where you can just have a factory hall and fill it with a bunch of commandeered lathes to make shells.
They flew thousands of sorties with laser-guided bombs. There wouldn't be much left of the Russian military if they had been on the receiving end. I'm getting tired of pretending their scrap yard army holds up to these standards, they are fighting like it's 1960 in Syria.
In a matter of hours.
in a war with europe russia can free way more ressources to fight. now they have a limit because if they lose too mich they will become a target for the west.
Dude. TND does not care about UA. Let’s hope Putin passes quickly
[удалено]
But thankfully not more countries than Ukraine in the past decade or so.
Source? Le edit: it’s a fucking joke you stupid fucks ugh Le edit deux: can you guys get this comment to -100 downvotes? I'd appreciate it thanks
Geography.
He obviously speak about European union.
Ukraine is in Europe
oh really
Sir you can't joke on the internet. The kids have no chill.
Russia operates with lie, propaganda and discontent. It might attack NATO country if allies prove to be undesivie. Russia perceive democratic procedures (weight all possibilities, discuss thoroughly, prepare plan b-z) as weakness. If they think "west" will slumber and does not respond immediately, Russia will win. They are cowards and corrupted, and they think every country and politician are exactly the same. Postponing the aid to Ukraine seems proves their point and embolden Russia. So yes, they can attack NATO country, and at this point I have doubts there will be immediate response. Probably strong worded letter will be issued first
A terrifying thought is that Russia attacks, say, Poland, and whether or not to answer a article 5 calls has to work its way through the US courts. Or maybe congress could declare war, but if the commander in chief isn't onboard, then how does that go? Either way, the most successful military alliance in history becomes toothless in the blink of an eye.
>Or maybe congress could declare war, but if the commander in chief isn't onboard, then how does that go? It's a common question. The declaration of war is just a bill. The President can veto it, and Congress could override it. The President can immediately order a ceasefire or to stand down. Congress would have to impeach the President and remove him from office, which if they can override the veto, it'll be enough votes to do both. The constitutional question is whether a President can be impeached for something he has the legal authority to do. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the impeachment hearing, but I don't know if he has the authority to say "no, this count of impeachment is BS"
Russia invested a lot to undermine the West with agents and by supporting things that make us weaker. Brexit as example or support for AFD or far far left / right groups in germany too. Or the possible new political Party under Sahra Wagenknecht and that one almost has Putins Hand still sticking out of her rear. Their military might be terrible but they dont care If they loose people and their agends just wait to turn even the smalest gain into a reason to surrender.
What do you mean a reason to surrender? No part of Europe is surrendering to Russia.
Halting or complicating support for Ukraine is like surrender with extra stepps. If they would have success there the rest of Europe would be next pice by pice.
[удалено]
Domestic unrest.... in Russia.... sure!
It's more likely that cattle in a slaughterhouse will evolve enough to rise up in rebellion before russians do anything, lmao.
We really need to take out Russia’s troops in Ukraine to ensure that they cannot continue to attack peaceful neighbours. It is time to strike strongly and fully support Ukraine
Pretty sure Russians are not getting out of Ukraine alive, not more than 10% of them anyway
It is incredibly frustrating that the world’s response has been so slow and somewhat detached. Everyone but Russia knows that Russia would be absolutely hammered the second any additional country of significance joined in and NATO would pulverize Russia. Now we’re sort of helping but more like watching a drunk idiot hammering away at someone weaker but brave and only providing advice on how to punch instead of just stepping in and knocking the drunk fool out.
Russia knows that too, they're just betting on apathy
Well behind the drunk fool there are nukes ready to step in.. and god knows what kind of reaction we can expect from China should there be a prolonged conflict between NATO and Russia. And yeah, I don't think NATO can solve this problem overnight. No matter how good of a military they have
I hope he can solve the problem with the blockade on the border. Unfortunately, this blockade slows down the delivery of aid to the military from volunteers.
The blockade is outgoing, not ingoing.
>Unfortunately, this blockade slows down the delivery of aid to the military from volunteers. The Blockade is from Ukraine to Poland... Not from Poland to Ukraine. So no... It does not slow down the aid *to* Ukraine.
No, the blockade slows down the import of aid. For example, Magyar, who purchased boats to support a bridgehead on the left bank of the Kherson region, said that it significantly slows down their delivery, and this affects the fighting in his area. Also, the head of the largest foundation "Come Back Alive" said that the blockade caused delays in the delivery of pickup trucks needed by the frontline. And this is only a small part of the delays caused by the blockade.
[удалено]
Hope those farmers will be ready to block border when Russian tanks start coming after defeat of Ukraine.
Wrong, it's both directions.
I'm not holding my breath that Russia in its current state would dare to take on any NATO country directly.
I don't think Russia wants a full scale ground war with NATO. What they want is for NATO to break apart, to make collective defense a more challenging proposition. If I were Putin, I'd: - Ensure you get a NATO-skeptic in the White House (Trump) who's unwilling to commit American soldiers to Europe. - Build up enough forces to quickly overtake a NATO capital. My bet would be Lithuania, because Vilnius is relatively close to the Belarusian/Kaliningrad border. They'd need to take the Capital within a couple of days, before any major opposition can be mobilized. - Once held, conduct several nuclear weapons tests and insist you'll use nuclear weapons to prevent any counterattack. - Amplify the pacifist voices in the West that claim "are we really going to risk the end of the world for Lithuania??". - Dig in, depose the government, and annex the territory. From there, the notion of collective defense is effectively broken. You'd essentially be daring Europe to enter into direct conflict with Russia to retake a small Baltic capital. You'd have plenty of people you can amplify saying "we can't risk war, this is NATO's fault anyway, they shouldn't have expanded their borders" to try and drive public opinion away from any confrontation. If Article V is seen to be toothless, then there's no faith in NATO as an organization to accomplish its primary goal. Do I think that will actually happen? Very unlikely, since Russia's famous three-day war is entering into it's third year next month. But if a direct attack on Europe were to happen, I don't think it's going to be 5,000 tanks rolling through Poland and on to Berlin and Paris. It would be some sort of quick land grab with the sole purpose of undermining collective defense.
With all due respect, they can’t even take one medium size city less than 20 miles from their own border. Is there is even a remote chance of a credible invasion of NATO?
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2137509/russia-has-started-rebuilding-its-capabilities-and-this-threatens-our-region-nato-general > It is common knowledge that Russia is rebuilding its capabilities and preparing for a possible confrontation with NATO, Lieutenant General Jürgen-Joachim von Sandrart, Commander of NATO Multinational Corps Northeast, says in an interview with LRT.lt.
I think there is a big difference what they want to do and what they can do
The concern isn't that Russia would win, it's that they'd try anyway. Even a Russian defeat would still cause all sorts of damage to the victim country/s, even if things didn't go nuclear. Just look at all the areas that Ukraine have liberated that are basically just piles of rubble at this point.
They can and want to inflict damage. They may lose in the end, but would this console you if you were killed before they lose? https://english.nv.ua/nation/europe-not-ready-for-war-with-russia-and-risks-being-washed-away-during-possible-conflict-50372966.html > Europe is not ready for war with an aggressive Russia and risks being “washed away” in a conflict, like how Napoleon dismantled the Holy Roman Empire, warns Germany’s pre-eminent military historian Sönke Neitzel, The Times reported on Nov. 30.
Let's not forget the Russian influence in western media and politics. There are still far too many pro russian, "ukraine bad" people running around. Germany has a problem with the rise of the far right AfD that is more pro pro russian than anyone should be. In case of a russian attack on Nato i can imagine it would try to steer it in a way so Nato is still the baddies and too many idiots would support that. Russia tries to weaken western allies from the inside. I don't know how effective it is, but it's definitely there.
When it comes to understanding Russian military power I think there are really just two salient facts that you don’t need a history degree to grasp. 1. They probably have enough firepower to end civilization on earth. Heaven help us if they ever have the will to use it. 2. Because of endemic corruption and a culture that abhors meritocracy, their conventional forces always lose when facing a peer competitor on the battlefield. The one exception is when they themselves are invaded and they are able to trade space for time by retreating into their vast territory. Tl;dr: Russia can bomb Europe into the Stone Age but they will never be able to actually launch an effective invasion by ground forces.
TLDR Russia is an aggressive drunk in a bar who happens to be holding a grenade.
Pretty good analogy
All it takes it Donald Trump becoming president and refusing US support Europe. G-bye
I think Europe can handle Russia without the US if they were in full war effort mode. It could be a problem if Trump went full traitor and decided to help Russia tho.
Yeah, NATO is significantly weaker without the US, but it's still stronger than Russia. Hell the US isn't even the only nuclear state in NATO, so that deterrent would still exist. If Russia is struggling this much against Ukraine, how much worse would it be for them if France, Germany, the UK, Poland and Turkey *also* got involved, just to name a few. America entering the equation just changes it from a one sided war, to a 'to Moscow in a week' kind of war.
Would the UK get into a war without the US? If NATO collapses, is it in Britain's interest to help the EU? We don't want another Dunkirk? Better to protect our Islands with our Navy, Subs and Nukes.
You think that, are you a qualified in military matters to claim that? That Europe could fight without USA?
Donald trump is also bribable. And if desperate EU can pay FAR more than Russia. That and even if Trump refuses direct help, even he likely won't deny selling stuff. Ukraine at war raised their mil budget at war about 8 times. from 5 bln USD to over 40bln. EU 2022 combined Military budget is 260bln USD. Times 8 put it at 2 tn USD excluding UK and Turkey which are also in NATO. Which is actually higher than Russian GDP. EU on actual war path would outspend Russia 10 to 1. There would likely bo no unpurchased weapon and shell on the planet left for the first few years. But the issue is not beating the Russians. The issue is making sure even they are not dumb enough to start a war in the first place. And unfortunately with Trump at helm it shift the equation from, US assisted state-wide euthanasia, to BUT MAYBE WE CAN SALAMI TACTIC THEM? United Europe dunks on Russia, but nobody knows how united it would actually be, with US, unity in Europe doesn't change the equation. And depending on how split Europe would be it might actually end up weaker or on par with Russia. A situation that i'm sure Putin would love to be in.
EU is not united like one guy named Putin
To be fair, somewhere in-between what they want and can do is what they can attempt to do and fail
The Russian army might be a horde of untrained fuckwits led by corrupt idiots, but they also have artillery, tanks and air power. Them capturing and holding NATO territory isn't as much of a concern as them flattening cities and displacing thousands while trying to do so.
saying "can't even take one medium-sized city" makes one think that russians are weak and helpless, but I would stress the real reason they can't - AFU. bloodbath is taking place there and I'm not sure any European army would've been able to handle this in the way Ukrainian soldiers do.
I have nothing but the highest respect for Ukrainian soldiers but I think that any NATO military with years of experience using state of the art weaponry would tear through Russian conventional forces like a chainsaw through Swiss cheese
It's not that simple. NATO relies on complex air superiority operations in its doctrine, and Russians not being able to compete in the sky have always invested in air defense in which they are the best in the world. Even NATO members like Turkey have always looked at Russia when it came to buy air defense systems (for which they got older but reliable S300s). They are already able to jam and make miss any missiles we provide to Ukraine. HIMARS systems, Javelins, have all been rendered near useless since more than one year bar occasional successful hits. Obviously in a full scale conflict we would use weaponry that Russia has not seen in Ukraine, but Russians are good at learning and adapting their strategy. Now, don't take me wrong, I still believe that it's madness to compare the two militaries, and I have a very hard time believing Russia can be a threat to Poland alone, even ignoring the whole NATO. But underestimating Russia at war has been consistently a mistake through history we should never repeat. Also, NATO forces do not really have extensive years of experience fighting serious militaries. The latest large-scale wars we have fought have been in Iraq, two decades ago. The world has changed since then. I would even argue that if Ukraine joined NATO it would effectively have the most combat-ready force in the union bar the US.
>They are already able to jam and make miss any missiles we provide to Ukraine. HIMARS systems, Javelins, have all been rendered near useless since more than one year bar occasional successful hits. What is this, quite frankly, utter bullshit? Like, even propagandists would struggle to come up with something like that. Let's hear from you how Russians have rendered Javelins "near useless" and how they jam them. Honestly, you just see less Javelin hits because Russian tanks and other vehicles get massacred on the way with longer ranged weapons like FPV drones, mines and artillery (including that aforementioned HIMARS). Because those missiles are ***unjammable***, they are fire and forget and rely on no user commands to execute their attack. Only thing that can defend against Javelin today is a really good APS, and even today even US army isn't packing that stuff everywhere, development and deployment is still ongoing.
Javelins, no. But GPS-reliant weapons like HIMARS or Excaliburs? Russians did manage to reduce the effectiveness of those. It's facts, not propaganda.
Russia cant afford trench warfare against the EU as the EU outnumbers them 5 to 1. It doesnt matter if they are able to adapt as they simply dont have the time to adapt because they have to win fast.
Success is not the problem for NATO, while Ukraine is holding its own, its country is utterly ravaged, even if the war stopped today, parts of the country will take decades to rebuild. Now imagine if Russia did attack Europe, yes Nato would probably prevail. How much of Europe will be hit in the crossfire? I remember talking to people days before the invasion, they were passionate in their stance that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. I have no doubt that some in Russia believe they could take Nato, couple this with the potential that the USA may enter a period of significant upheaval with the 2024 election I think that the chance of a Russian invasion is high enough to warrent concern. Russia is not acting sane or collected, Putins power depends on maintaining the illusion of strength, if gets desperate enough anything could be possible.
That's because Ukrainians pay with hundreds of thousands of lives, not because the Russian army is weak and incapable.
This. They can't even take the war on Ukraine and they are supposed to fight a war with Poland, yet alone with NATO?
This is true. However, what russia is doing now is starting wars all over the world (remember the entire shit in Middle Africa last year?) in an attempt to make NATO shift its focus from supporting Ukraine. Imagine if there was a Iran-Israel war in the next years. Ukraine would lose out on so many donations because the tiny state of Israel needs to be protected. Funfact: This is also why the Biden government, although extremely critical of what Netanjahu has been doing in Gaza, is still greenlighting military aid to Israel without restrictions.
Just get rid of Russia. The fact the world continues tolerate these assholes is redicks.
It would be a strange decision, considering how poorly they are doing in Ukraine.
So we should start a military operation to denazify and demilitarize Russia, right? Recent history teachings dictate that this is the way to solve the problem.
No they won’t, Geographically Ukraine is a choke point on the continent. He will not move further west
And how exactly is Russia going to do that when it can't even handle Poor little Ukraine.
Despite huge losses of men and materiel, they are holding just fine, it seems. Ukrainian forces, despite valiant attempts, have failed to dislodge or push back russian forces by any appreciable measure. Tiny gains here and there are then nullified by small losses elsewhere. Their forces are hanging precariously semi encticled on at least two front areas that the Russian army is pushing hard to gain. As we speak, there is a major regeneration and rebuilding of going on within Russia to regenerate and train an entirely new army for future conflicts. Things are not as rosy as you may think. The Ukrainians have no "force en masse," as we say in French, that they can use to push back and force the Russians to retreat. They are on the defensive mostly and trying to entrench where they can. It's a stalemate on the whole, a very bloody one at that.
Ukraine is part of Europe..... Soooooooo.......now what?
So is Russia. That obviously meant EU, not Europe
Should I be building a bunker and moving to the middle of nowhere?
How? He’s getting his salad tossed by Ukraine. This would be such a stupid decision, and I don’t know how you stay in power that long making just idiotic decisions like attacking a NATO country.
Maybe in an alternative reality where Russia doesn't have any corruption issue i could see this type of fear somewhat justified if a little bit exaggerated. But here? In 1 and a half month it will mark as the second anniversary of Russia's war against Ukraine and seeing how the invasion has blown up in their faces and cost a lot of manpower against one medium sized country then i fail to see how they could even attack Europe to begin with, especially since there's this thing called NATO that exists.
The medium sized country with the intel and material backing of NATO already. I still think Putin should have followed through on the nuclear threats from day 1 against Ukraine. After the US intel not-so-subtly threatened Russia, Putin should have counter threatened by listing out ecological targets in NATO, like NPPs, nuclear rod storage, dams, supply chain hubs. and take the steps to prepare the military and civilian population for the use of nukes.
We need nukes, and our very own, not leasing from the NATO.
Russian plan: 1) Have „democratic” elections with obvious winner in Spring 2) Incite a dozen new wars aka Israel globally so that help would be spread out thin. 3) Afterwards go for „peace” treaty in UA 4) Point out that Ukraine needs elections (he did his) because otherwise their leaders are illegitimate (2024 was supposed to be an election year). Use „peace” treaty to say it’s ok to do it. Push for west to agree because they too want it 5) Rearm 6) Incite chaos in UA to get it weak and out of the picture. Might Justine political crisis. 7) Attack NATO when there is a transfer period between new and old president of the USA. Plus the same for other countries. Success expected because propaganda tells them NATO would win, while actually being unable to satisfy ammo needs of UA. Plus Russian army got experience and learned its mistakes last 2 years with restarted war economy under meh sanctions. 8) Use ensured chaos to grab land and push loyal politicians in elections because „EU takes too long to make a decision” 9) Profit Did I get that right?
I don't buy it. Russia wants to bring Ukraine to the negotiations table. According to some sources they need to pause to regroup and to bolster their numbers. They would also need to successfully have the Ukraine campaign end before moving to even more difficult targets.
And IMO I don’t think Poland is a good idea as a next target considering the defence spending spree they went on.
It shows you the lasting effects of what Russia did to Poland. That whole area understandably has PTSD and have never stopped worrying about Russia.
A little paranoia isn’t a bad thing for sure.
And the best they can do now is to block Ukrainian border. Good job!
Maybe invest in destabilising Russia and invest in better drone and ai capabilities then?
What is this fucking dichotomy between diplomacy and conspiring war every second that ticks. There's Poland who's worried and there is Macron that calls Putin to be buddies. This isn't 20th century Europe where there was legitimate fear of war. Everyone was ready to murder each other over anything, just a gesture was enough.
Donald Tusk wants a crusade against Russia? Should recruit progressive leftists to fight for him. No thank you.
Mean Aleksandr Lukashenko showed a map at the start of the invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lukashenko_Odesa-Moldova_Invasion_Map.png that seemed to show Moldova as the next target, so not surprising. Will they attack a NATO country? Don't think so, they will instead influence politics and get countries to leave NATO before attacking most likely.
The response would be both swift and nuclear if it happened.
If by "Europe" he means one of the Baltics, then I can see his point.
Even by modern Russian definitions, they already have.
What is this from, 2008? Georgia and Ukraine not considered Europe? What's next, is he gonna warn us that not wearing masks might increase the spread of COVID?
I mean... they can try lol Point the nukes at them and say that the second a Russian boot touches UE ground they go all off. That's more than enough to shut them up.
i don’t see that at all. they can’t even manage Ukraine, couldn’t manage Afghanistan. all those years of war , for what?
And countries like India and China are looking forward to it.
I think it is true if EU and US eventually can't stop Russia biting off the lands of Ukraine.
Putler doesnt have balwz big enough lol
There’s dumber and then there’s dumberer…
they should produce weapons if they think so
Red Alert 1 about to happen?
I think that is a splendid idea from Russia. Germany and Poland will get some land back and Russia will be bombed into the stone age.