7 ms·

It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania

It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania? After all, Putin told 2 days ago he wants NATO out of Romania and Bulgaria: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/21/get-out-of-romania-and-bulgaria-russia-tells-nato-amid-ukraine-tensions-a76116 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/21/get-out-of-romania...

jacquesm 5y ago
> It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? This is a very good question. My guess is there will be a period of consolidation (one year, maybe two) and then the next target will be set, either Belarus will be pulled back in or Kaliningrad will be re-connected to the mothership. The fact that it isn't is a serious issue for Russia, they have to cross NATO controlled territory to get to one of their more important bases.
- GlobalFrog 5y ago
  Completely agree with that. Belarus has already joined its armed forces with Russia and they are de facto part of Russia today, even if it is not in a formal way (yet), and exactly the same will happen to Ukraine after the consolidation you mention. I'm pretty sure also that there will be some consolidation in NATO too. My bet would be on Finland joining formally NATO in the near future. Finland was already invaded by Russia in WW2 during which they managed to seize the Karelia territory of Finland, which is still in Russia today. But there are other countries which are probably wondering what will happen to them in the next few years: Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia... So maybe the best asnwer to Russia would be to expand NATO quickly to the ones wanting to join in.
  - tonis2 5y ago
    Finland hasn't joined nato exactly cause, they want to keep the heat low and can defend themselves.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Opinion here has swung significantly pro-NATO in the last week since the above was written. For instance, I think it's not one but two separate Citizen's Initiatives for joining that have each gathered enough signatures to qualify for debate in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament. (Not that it was all that far below that before this either.)
leto_ii 5y ago
> What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania? An attack on Moldova is not beyond conceivable. Bulgaria and Romania however are NATO members with US troops stationed there - Russia will not risk WW3 over those countries. Serbia is a bit far to be invaded without a lot of other things happening before that.
- publicola1990 5y ago
  Also Serbia possibly no need to invade since they are a loyal Russian ally anyway since quite a long time.
  - helij 5y ago
    Serbia is not Russian ally. It strives to join the EU and is neutral in military sense. They declared armed neutrality in 2007 and there was no change since then. They regularly hold exercises with both NATO and Russian Federation.
- o4b 5y ago
  I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    > NATO would repel the attack Let's say afterwards Russia nukes Western Europe/the US. What then? That's the thing with MAD, you have to be mad to toy with the possibility.
    - o4b 5y ago
      Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia. As much as we like to think Putin is unhinged or desperate, as much as Putin says a nuclear response could happen, he knows this. What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
My assumption is that they will continue the propaganda campaign they've been doing for at least ten years now; they fuel right-wing political parties that have an insular approach, "eurosceptics", an "own people / own country first" mindset. look at the US: Trump is Putin's buddy, and he pushed the 'America First' tagline. Look at the UK, they broke away from the EU. Look at the eastern countries, Poland and Hungary; they have right-leaning governments that broke the rule of law and the separation of legislative branches, which caused them to get sanctioned by the EU, which fuels anti-EU sentiments. And in eastern Europe, anti-EU is pretty much equivalent to pro-Russia. I haven't heard about it myself, but I'm sure anti-NATO sentiments will increase as well. It's only a matter of time before they get people to leave NATO. Especially if NATO does not come to the defense of a NATO country, they will lose their trustworthiness then.
- EEBio 5y ago
  While I agree that in Eastern Europe anti-EU often means pro-Russia, Poland is a more of an exception here. Poland still has a very negative aftertaste of Russia after WWII. But if anything, Eastern European countries will cling to NATO more than ever, they most certainly won't leave it. Just look at the most recent speech of the Czech president, who is generally pro-Russian (the president, not the whole country). In the speech he absolutely condemned Russia's aggression and expressed support to Ukraine. Moreover, he urged to kick Russian Federation out of the SWIFT system as soon as possible.
buran77 5y ago
Russia is most likely incapable of carrying any sustained conflict as far as Serbia, Bulgaria, or Romania, particularly when the last 2 are NATO members. They can cause disruption in other ways but no effective open conflict. But Russia doesn't need to fight those countries. They are hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian border. Ukraine on the other hand is hundreds of meters away. Having Ukraine in NATO or in the EU is a threat to Russia and its leadership today. So Russia will look to poison Ukraine for these 2 organizations and make it an unattractive member. When EU got too close in 2013-2014 Russia responded in exactly the same way. Both the US and Russia have reacted in the same manner when the enemy tried to reach their borders in any way (via Cuba or via Ukraine). So in 2022 pursuing any relationship particularly between NATO and Ukraine could not have had any other result. It is absolutely inconceivable that this was unexpected given the obviousness, so it's a safe assumption that the goal is to keep Russia fighting and draining the little they have left, with Ukraine paying the (biggest) price. "Buffer" countries always do.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  How does that play out for the Balkan states on the border and in NATO?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lostlogin 5y ago
  This is a setup to keep Russia fighting indefinitely in a war of attrition? This seems a leap, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
  - posix_me_less 5y ago
    This seemed far fetched to me, but I am starting to think this is the only rational strategy behind Western actions... poor Ukrainians, they did not deserve this.
- KSteffensen 5y ago
  Ukraine was already 'poisoned' for NATO, due to the Crimea annexation and the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists. No need for an invasion to poison anything further. My view is that this is about maintaining a fading colonial empire. Ukraine has been drifting away from Russian influence at least since 2014 and since Russia does not have the economy to re-assert its influence through trade it has to do so by military means. I have no facts to base it on other than news propaganda, but I think they are too late to re-capture Ukraine and this rather desperate move will only bolster the Ukrainian nationalism. The Russian forces also will not be able to hold the Ukraine well enough to extract any sort of economic benefit from it. 45 million is a lot of people.

jacquesm 5y ago

> It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? This is a very good question. My guess is there will be a period of consolidation (one year, maybe two) and then the next target will be set, either Belarus will be pulled back in or Kaliningrad will be re-connected to the mothership. The fact that it isn't is a serious issue for Russia, they have to cross NATO controlled territory to get to one of their more important bases.

GlobalFrog 5y ago
Completely agree with that. Belarus has already joined its armed forces with Russia and they are de facto part of Russia today, even if it is not in a formal way (yet), and exactly the same will happen to Ukraine after the consolidation you mention. I'm pretty sure also that there will be some consolidation in NATO too. My bet would be on Finland joining formally NATO in the near future. Finland was already invaded by Russia in WW2 during which they managed to seize the Karelia territory of Finland, which is still in Russia today. But there are other countries which are probably wondering what will happen to them in the next few years: Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia... So maybe the best asnwer to Russia would be to expand NATO quickly to the ones wanting to join in.
- tonis2 5y ago
  Finland hasn't joined nato exactly cause, they want to keep the heat low and can defend themselves.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Opinion here has swung significantly pro-NATO in the last week since the above was written. For instance, I think it's not one but two separate Citizen's Initiatives for joining that have each gathered enough signatures to qualify for debate in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament. (Not that it was all that far below that before this either.)

leto_ii 5y ago

> What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania? An attack on Moldova is not beyond conceivable. Bulgaria and Romania however are NATO members with US troops stationed there - Russia will not risk WW3 over those countries. Serbia is a bit far to be invaded without a lot of other things happening before that.

publicola1990 5y ago
Also Serbia possibly no need to invade since they are a loyal Russian ally anyway since quite a long time.
- helij 5y ago
  Serbia is not Russian ally. It strives to join the EU and is neutral in military sense. They declared armed neutrality in 2007 and there was no change since then. They regularly hold exercises with both NATO and Russian Federation.
o4b 5y ago
I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > NATO would repel the attack Let's say afterwards Russia nukes Western Europe/the US. What then? That's the thing with MAD, you have to be mad to toy with the possibility.
  - o4b 5y ago
    Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia. As much as we like to think Putin is unhinged or desperate, as much as Putin says a nuclear response could happen, he knows this. What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

My assumption is that they will continue the propaganda campaign they've been doing for at least ten years now; they fuel right-wing political parties that have an insular approach, "eurosceptics", an "own people / own country first" mindset. look at the US: Trump is Putin's buddy, and he pushed the 'America First' tagline. Look at the UK, they broke away from the EU. Look at the eastern countries, Poland and Hungary; they have right-leaning governments that broke the rule of law and the separation of legislative branches, which caused them to get sanctioned by the EU, which fuels anti-EU sentiments. And in eastern Europe, anti-EU is pretty much equivalent to pro-Russia. I haven't heard about it myself, but I'm sure anti-NATO sentiments will increase as well. It's only a matter of time before they get people to leave NATO. Especially if NATO does not come to the defense of a NATO country, they will lose their trustworthiness then.

EEBio 5y ago
While I agree that in Eastern Europe anti-EU often means pro-Russia, Poland is a more of an exception here. Poland still has a very negative aftertaste of Russia after WWII. But if anything, Eastern European countries will cling to NATO more than ever, they most certainly won't leave it. Just look at the most recent speech of the Czech president, who is generally pro-Russian (the president, not the whole country). In the speech he absolutely condemned Russia's aggression and expressed support to Ukraine. Moreover, he urged to kick Russian Federation out of the SWIFT system as soon as possible.

buran77 5y ago

Russia is most likely incapable of carrying any sustained conflict as far as Serbia, Bulgaria, or Romania, particularly when the last 2 are NATO members. They can cause disruption in other ways but no effective open conflict. But Russia doesn't need to fight those countries. They are hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian border. Ukraine on the other hand is hundreds of meters away. Having Ukraine in NATO or in the EU is a threat to Russia and its leadership today. So Russia will look to poison Ukraine for these 2 organizations and make it an unattractive member. When EU got too close in 2013-2014 Russia responded in exactly the same way. Both the US and Russia have reacted in the same manner when the enemy tried to reach their borders in any way (via Cuba or via Ukraine). So in 2022 pursuing any relationship particularly between NATO and Ukraine could not have had any other result. It is absolutely inconceivable that this was unexpected given the obviousness, so it's a safe assumption that the goal is to keep Russia fighting and draining the little they have left, with Ukraine paying the (biggest) price. "Buffer" countries always do.

kasey_junk 5y ago
How does that play out for the Balkan states on the border and in NATO?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lostlogin 5y ago
This is a setup to keep Russia fighting indefinitely in a war of attrition? This seems a leap, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
- posix_me_less 5y ago
  This seemed far fetched to me, but I am starting to think this is the only rational strategy behind Western actions... poor Ukrainians, they did not deserve this.
KSteffensen 5y ago
Ukraine was already 'poisoned' for NATO, due to the Crimea annexation and the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists. No need for an invasion to poison anything further. My view is that this is about maintaining a fading colonial empire. Ukraine has been drifting away from Russian influence at least since 2014 and since Russia does not have the economy to re-assert its influence through trade it has to do so by military means. I have no facts to base it on other than news propaganda, but I think they are too late to re-capture Ukraine and this rather desperate move will only bolster the Ukrainian nationalism. The Russian forces also will not be able to hold the Ukraine well enough to extract any sort of economic benefit from it. 45 million is a lot of people.