4 ms·

I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventiona

I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border. But NATO doesn't have those forces, primarily because most European countries have neglected their armed forces over the past 30 years. In reality, a conventional confrontation with Putin would be very difficult. Eventually NATO might win, but it would take years. Given the fact that the EU alone has around 10x the GDP of Russia, the EU could relatively easily have had an army that is 2x to 5x more powerful than Russia's, even without assistance from the Anglosphere (which would have left the Anglosphere able to focus on China). One may hope that the EU learns from this. Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. If NATO cannot even keep their neighbours safe, what confidence can more remote countries have that they will be protected if attacked by a nuclear power, such as Russia or China? And once virtually every country has nukes, they WILL see use.

Aeolun 5y ago
I think the combined might of Europe is actually quite significant. The problem is getting them to actually DO something.
- cloverich 5y ago
  It’s not quite the same but certainly reminds one of the ww2 moves hitler made as he took one strategic territory after another, and by the time the rest were ready to fight they had already ceded much important ground i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it. In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.
- trashtester 5y ago
  In terms of number of personell, the "large" countries in the EU, such as Germany, France and Poland have about 200k each. Russia has 3 million, when including reserves. And while the Russian forces are actively trained as one force, European armies would have significant difficulties operating together and would lack shared leadership. Also, while some of the European forces are highly proficient, others are more at the level of militias, really only useful for defending their homelands, if that. Without heavy US involvement, I would expect Russia to dominate a confrontation with EU forces in the early stages, by focusing on the forces of one country at a time. This is particularily true if the confrontation happens in terrain such as that of the Ukraine or Poland, where the flat land gives attacking armored forces an advantage. With moderate US involvement, this changes a bit. Lets say the US sent an expeditionary force of 100k people, maybe half of which were fighting forces, then NATO would _perhaps_ be a match for Russia, but would probably not be superior, espeically in terms of infantry, armor and artillery. Realistically, a defence of Nato with current forces needs to be done in depth, forcing Russia to attack into central Germany and/or the Carpathian mountains. Eventually, Russia would lose such a conflict due to massive economic inferiority, but this kind of conflict is not something European countries are willing to go into over just the Ukraine.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    You're completely ignoring the economic angle. War is costly, especially for an aggressor, and Russia simply doesn't have the economy required to sustain a major offensive war, especially one far from his border.
    - trashtester 5y ago
      I think you misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that Russia would enter an all-out-war with EU countries (at least those in Nato). What I'm saying is that in a geographically limited conflict in the area of Belorussia, eastern Poland and the Ukraine, Russia would start with an upper hand. It would be hard for EU countries to gather enough force to stop the attack on the Ukraine, and if they tried, they would suffer bigger losses than Russia. And after the fall of the Ukraine, I think there is no way public opinion in the EU would support continuing a war aimed at freeing them. On the other hand, if the EU did have the strength to outmatch Russia even on Ukrainian soil, and mobilized that force as Russia mobilized for attack, I think the attack would never have come. In other words, I think this attack comes as a result of EU countries being too weak to be able to deter Russia, while the US is currently suffering too much internal conflict to really care.
jltsiren 5y ago
European countries have not neglected anything. The current state of things is by design. Europe used to be full of empires waging destructive wars all over the world. After two world wars, people had had enough. The predecessors of the EU were created to tame the former empires. To make them mutually dependent and act like ordinary countries. It worked, and Western Europe has enjoyed a lifetime of peace, which is unprecedented. We Europeans are shitty people. If you tell us that it's ok to start acting like empires again and to send troops to fight wars far away from home, the world will have more than one Putin to worry about.
- trashtester 5y ago
  First of all, I suppose I need to say that I'm European, living in a country with a very tiny military force. I understand why Germany, in particular, does not want to be a strong military power anymore. Britain and France seem less reluctant, probably taking some pride from standing up to Hitler in 1939, and this contributing to them seeing their armed forces primarily as defensive instruments. (Disregarding their long histories as colonial powers.) Germany's latest experience with a large army was from a time it was used offensively, with catastrophic results for Germany. Nobody argues that Germany should build up that kind of force again. But if peaceful countries are not able to protect themselves and each other from expansionist aggressors, seeing to annex territory, the world will most likely revert to something we've not really seen since the 19th century, just this time with nukes. And with internal strife and polarization seeming to mostly pacify the US's ability to provide protection, combined with an increasingly powerful China flexing in East Asia, Europe may have to take some of the responsibility for maintaining the strength needed to guarantee peace.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Well, the German army was significantly downsized since the end of the Cold War and Reunification. Once Germany had thousands of modern tanks for example. Now we are down to fraction of that. We called it the Peace Dividend, not sure if it actually saved any money so. The reason why the German Army was that big was the USSR and Warsaw pact. They were supposed to check any Soviet advance long enough, preferably before the Rhine, for the bulk of the US forces to show up after being shipped over the Atlantic. It would suck if that becomes necessary again, the high level of militarization during the Cold War was decidedly not a good thing.
vkou 5y ago
> Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border. Had NATO forces been deployed in Ukraine four months ago, nobody would be making any nuclear threats today, veiled or otherwise. In fact, there wouldn't have been an invasion to begin with. I am about 100% positive that Russian intelligence knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were picking a fight they could easily win. I am almost 100% positive that western intelligence knew that too, which is why its response was a bunch of bullshit about sanctions.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Four months ago Europe was still deeply enthralled with covid mania and not interested in pretty much anything else.
- kcb 5y ago
  NATO forces don't deploy in a foreign country. That's not how it works.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Could Ukraine not have invited them? It's their sovereign right. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making. You don't stop an invasion by sitting in a neighbouring country, and then staging a counterattack long after the target is overrun. You either stop it at the border, or not at all. Whatever complaints Russia would have raised over Ukraine inviting a NATO deployment, it would have them five times over were NATO to participate in the conflict after it started. Practically speaking, Russia would have probably backed down. Practically speaking, the reason NATO did not exercise this option is because it doesn't want to fight a war over a non-member.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Tell that the Afghans. NATO could have easily deployed there, or just EU forces. I think people in charge still had hopes to avoid an escalation. And to not get their own troops into the firing line immediately. Deploying troops to Ukraine also limits your options, because it means full, and preemptive, commitment to war. At place and time where the opponent had much more time to properly prepare.
ajuc 5y ago
> Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. That's a given after 2014 (let's remember Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 in exchange for security and territorial integrity guarantees of USA, UK and Russia).
jlcoff 5y ago

Aeolun 5y ago

I think the combined might of Europe is actually quite significant. The problem is getting them to actually DO something.

cloverich 5y ago
It’s not quite the same but certainly reminds one of the ww2 moves hitler made as he took one strategic territory after another, and by the time the rest were ready to fight they had already ceded much important ground i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it. In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.
trashtester 5y ago
In terms of number of personell, the "large" countries in the EU, such as Germany, France and Poland have about 200k each. Russia has 3 million, when including reserves. And while the Russian forces are actively trained as one force, European armies would have significant difficulties operating together and would lack shared leadership. Also, while some of the European forces are highly proficient, others are more at the level of militias, really only useful for defending their homelands, if that. Without heavy US involvement, I would expect Russia to dominate a confrontation with EU forces in the early stages, by focusing on the forces of one country at a time. This is particularily true if the confrontation happens in terrain such as that of the Ukraine or Poland, where the flat land gives attacking armored forces an advantage. With moderate US involvement, this changes a bit. Lets say the US sent an expeditionary force of 100k people, maybe half of which were fighting forces, then NATO would _perhaps_ be a match for Russia, but would probably not be superior, espeically in terms of infantry, armor and artillery. Realistically, a defence of Nato with current forces needs to be done in depth, forcing Russia to attack into central Germany and/or the Carpathian mountains. Eventually, Russia would lose such a conflict due to massive economic inferiority, but this kind of conflict is not something European countries are willing to go into over just the Ukraine.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  You're completely ignoring the economic angle. War is costly, especially for an aggressor, and Russia simply doesn't have the economy required to sustain a major offensive war, especially one far from his border.
  - trashtester 5y ago
    I think you misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that Russia would enter an all-out-war with EU countries (at least those in Nato). What I'm saying is that in a geographically limited conflict in the area of Belorussia, eastern Poland and the Ukraine, Russia would start with an upper hand. It would be hard for EU countries to gather enough force to stop the attack on the Ukraine, and if they tried, they would suffer bigger losses than Russia. And after the fall of the Ukraine, I think there is no way public opinion in the EU would support continuing a war aimed at freeing them. On the other hand, if the EU did have the strength to outmatch Russia even on Ukrainian soil, and mobilized that force as Russia mobilized for attack, I think the attack would never have come. In other words, I think this attack comes as a result of EU countries being too weak to be able to deter Russia, while the US is currently suffering too much internal conflict to really care.

jltsiren 5y ago

European countries have not neglected anything. The current state of things is by design. Europe used to be full of empires waging destructive wars all over the world. After two world wars, people had had enough. The predecessors of the EU were created to tame the former empires. To make them mutually dependent and act like ordinary countries. It worked, and Western Europe has enjoyed a lifetime of peace, which is unprecedented. We Europeans are shitty people. If you tell us that it's ok to start acting like empires again and to send troops to fight wars far away from home, the world will have more than one Putin to worry about.

trashtester 5y ago
First of all, I suppose I need to say that I'm European, living in a country with a very tiny military force. I understand why Germany, in particular, does not want to be a strong military power anymore. Britain and France seem less reluctant, probably taking some pride from standing up to Hitler in 1939, and this contributing to them seeing their armed forces primarily as defensive instruments. (Disregarding their long histories as colonial powers.) Germany's latest experience with a large army was from a time it was used offensively, with catastrophic results for Germany. Nobody argues that Germany should build up that kind of force again. But if peaceful countries are not able to protect themselves and each other from expansionist aggressors, seeing to annex territory, the world will most likely revert to something we've not really seen since the 19th century, just this time with nukes. And with internal strife and polarization seeming to mostly pacify the US's ability to provide protection, combined with an increasingly powerful China flexing in East Asia, Europe may have to take some of the responsibility for maintaining the strength needed to guarantee peace.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Well, the German army was significantly downsized since the end of the Cold War and Reunification. Once Germany had thousands of modern tanks for example. Now we are down to fraction of that. We called it the Peace Dividend, not sure if it actually saved any money so. The reason why the German Army was that big was the USSR and Warsaw pact. They were supposed to check any Soviet advance long enough, preferably before the Rhine, for the bulk of the US forces to show up after being shipped over the Atlantic. It would suck if that becomes necessary again, the high level of militarization during the Cold War was decidedly not a good thing.

vkou 5y ago

> Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border. Had NATO forces been deployed in Ukraine four months ago, nobody would be making any nuclear threats today, veiled or otherwise. In fact, there wouldn't have been an invasion to begin with. I am about 100% positive that Russian intelligence knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were picking a fight they could easily win. I am almost 100% positive that western intelligence knew that too, which is why its response was a bunch of bullshit about sanctions.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Four months ago Europe was still deeply enthralled with covid mania and not interested in pretty much anything else.
kcb 5y ago
NATO forces don't deploy in a foreign country. That's not how it works.
- vkou 5y ago
  Could Ukraine not have invited them? It's their sovereign right. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making. You don't stop an invasion by sitting in a neighbouring country, and then staging a counterattack long after the target is overrun. You either stop it at the border, or not at all. Whatever complaints Russia would have raised over Ukraine inviting a NATO deployment, it would have them five times over were NATO to participate in the conflict after it started. Practically speaking, Russia would have probably backed down. Practically speaking, the reason NATO did not exercise this option is because it doesn't want to fight a war over a non-member.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Tell that the Afghans. NATO could have easily deployed there, or just EU forces. I think people in charge still had hopes to avoid an escalation. And to not get their own troops into the firing line immediately. Deploying troops to Ukraine also limits your options, because it means full, and preemptive, commitment to war. At place and time where the opponent had much more time to properly prepare.

ajuc 5y ago

> Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. That's a given after 2014 (let's remember Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 in exchange for security and territorial integrity guarantees of USA, UK and Russia).

jlcoff 5y ago