4 ms·
Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war. The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a differe
by bloodm 7y ago
Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war.
The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.
- La1n 7y agoUkraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.
- bloodm 7y agoI never said Ukraine is a Baltic state. Take out a map. Think about why the Baltic states can hardly be defended militarily. Think about what would be different if Ukraine were in the Nato (and a decent amount of Nato troops on the UA/RU border). "No way the EU would let that slide." They EU has no ability in military things if the UK is out. The Nato would not let it slide but they also would not fight back to win it back. It would be cold war II.
- hkt 7y agoSorry to be a pedant, but the UK's military capability is at an all time low. We have made awful purchasing decisions across the army, navy and air force, as well as failing to recruit enough people. There isn't a part of the UK military which isn't in crisis. We are not the force your post suggests we are.
- dTal 7y agoAwful purchasing decisions from the US, uniformly. The deeper into this rabbit hole one goes, the stronger the smell of rats. One truly wonders who was persuaded to give away the entire fleet of carrier-borne aircraft to the US Marines - and how...
- hkt 7y agoI read it as political stupidity rather than malice. Maybe not though. The requirement to have VTOL craft for our new carriers was an unforced error though, that necessitated the much more expensive model of the F35 that even the US doesn't generally use. We could've just opted for a better carrier design, or retrofitted.
- dTal 7y agoOr just... kept the perfectly serviceable (indeed, newly refitted) fleet of Harrier VTOL carrier aircraft? Instead of practically giving them to the US? Who were mysteriously happy to have them, despite the ostensible F35 replacement being an American product? The entire thing reminds of this[1] Futurama bit. "You won't be needing Harriers anymore, will you? I take Harriers now, F35 come next decade". [1]https://youtu.be/kNyETSyc4qo?t=98 https://youtu.be/kNyETSyc4qo?t=98
- hkt 7y agoNo disagreement here. I somewhat assumed there was a reason for the F35 at all..
- bakuninsbart 7y agoFrance has a more capable and experienced force than Russia. Also, while small individually, the combined forces of the EU far exceed that of Russia. And the US has troops stationed in Estonia, they would most certainly not let that slide. Russia can't defend its population centres either, the whole discussion is quite absurd.