4 ms·

You're concerned that Russia, the country that has spent two years struggling to win a war against the poorest country in Europe is going to invade NATO? I hav

by vkou 2y ago

You're concerned that Russia, the country that has spent two years struggling to win a war against the poorest country in Europe is going to invade NATO? I have some great deals on oceanfront property in Magnitogorsk that I'm willing to cut you in on.

_heimdall 2y ago
I agree it seems unlikely, but the concern isn't totally unfounded. Russia has invested heavily in its military and if the Ukraine war ended today there is a question of whether the military would be disbanded or refocused. There is also an increase in turmoil in NATO countries. The UK still hasn't really figured out how to not be part of the EU and many countries, from the US to France and Belgium, are seeing an increase in support for populist parties. If Russia was interested in regaining former Soviet territory, NATO may currently look weak to them.
- bigfudge 2y ago
  Give the uk a chance. It will take time to unwind some of the more stupid brexit decisions without obviously losing face. There is appetite for it, but it’s probably going to take at least another govt to be able to make consequential decisions without reopening the wound
- ajuc 2y ago
  Russia can't win against Ukraine supported with about 0.5% of NATO military budget. If it started a war against actual NATO it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army. Even without significant USA support - European NATO countries have enough airpower to manage. This is all PR to slow down help to Ukraine. They did the same in 2008 and in 2014.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    > it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
        ajuc 2y ago
        France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
        protomolecule 2y ago
        Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
      - swores 2y ago
        But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
        ajuc 2y ago
        There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    War between Russia and NATO would look so much different than the Ukraine war though. For one thing, Russia almost certainly wouldn't be as restrained with what targets its going after or the tactics they use. The Kremlin has to be aware that they can win a war of attrition here, especially if they can lean in to erode western support for Ukraine. With both the wars in Ukraine and Gaza it seems like many observers have forgotten just how bad wars can get. We're counting deaths in Gaza by the thousands, and though military deaths in Ukraine have been estimated into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, civilian casualties are almost nonexistent.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      If we responded in 2008 or 2014 like we responded in 2022 - there wouldn't be any more russian agressions. Instead we let them think they will win easily. The easiest way to avoid further wars in Europe is to help Ukraine win quickly.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Well that's a whole other ball of wax. I was always extremely frustrated with the American response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. When the Russians made clear it wasn't them entering Ukraine, we should have gotten them on the phone to confirm and make them aware that we have bombers in the air scrambled to hit all invading forces that have crossed the border. We also would have to follow through with that threat, Obama's red line with Syria was a pointless mess that just made us weaker. If Russia really wouldn't claim the invading force, who would say we were out of line for helping Ukraine defend their soverign borders from an invading paramilitary force?
- otherme123 2y ago
  Are you aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_generation_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_generation_warfare ? Russia has been playing that game for decades, sowing an image of "we are extremely powerful" and "you are all weak". They know they can't do nothing against NATO, and they opt for that strategy of bullying their small neighbors while avoiding a NATO response using reflexive control (i.e. make NATO believe they are weak).
The_Colonel 2y ago
Just because something doesn't make sense to us doesn't mean it won't happen. Putin gave us at least 3 such moments in the past 10 years where the majority thought "It makes zero sense for Putin to do XXX", but he did it anyway. Likely because his assumptions, evaluation and priorities were quite different from ours. This also suffers from presentism - situation today is not the same situation as in a year, two or 10, but we need to start preparing now for eventualities anyway. In a year, with Trump at the helm, there might not even be any NATO anymore ...
- vkou 2y ago
  The only people who believe Putin is insane/crazy/stupid/unpredictable/reckless is our media that is trying to rabble-rouse. He's none of those things, and NATO's not going anywhere, even if the US leaves it. (And odds are good it won't.)
- lionkor 2y ago
  IMO most of the moves were predictable if you actually listened to what theyre saying. If you dismiss everything a govt is saying as misinformation and propaganda, then of course you will never know the next step.
Moldoteck 2y ago
considering how far the far right got in the recent elections, who knows, sabotages could happen, at the end, nobody guarantees nato will apply it's article to defend it's members Also, afaik only France does have some own nuclear warheads that aren't controlled by the US and it's unknown if they will apply those to defend other countries. Imagine trump gets elected, what could happen in this case?
protomolecule 2y ago
>Russia, the country that has spent two years struggling to win a war against the poorest country in Europe The war will end with Ukrainian capitulation in a couple of months if NATO were to stop all intelligence, communications and material support for the Ukraine.

by vkou 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

I agree it seems unlikely, but the concern isn't totally unfounded. Russia has invested heavily in its military and if the Ukraine war ended today there is a question of whether the military would be disbanded or refocused. There is also an increase in turmoil in NATO countries. The UK still hasn't really figured out how to not be part of the EU and many countries, from the US to France and Belgium, are seeing an increase in support for populist parties. If Russia was interested in regaining former Soviet territory, NATO may currently look weak to them.

bigfudge 2y ago
Give the uk a chance. It will take time to unwind some of the more stupid brexit decisions without obviously losing face. There is appetite for it, but it’s probably going to take at least another govt to be able to make consequential decisions without reopening the wound
ajuc 2y ago
Russia can't win against Ukraine supported with about 0.5% of NATO military budget. If it started a war against actual NATO it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army. Even without significant USA support - European NATO countries have enough airpower to manage. This is all PR to slow down help to Ukraine. They did the same in 2008 and in 2014.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  > it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
      - ajuc 2y ago
        France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
        protomolecule 2y ago
        Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
    - swores 2y ago
      But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
      - ajuc 2y ago
        There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  War between Russia and NATO would look so much different than the Ukraine war though. For one thing, Russia almost certainly wouldn't be as restrained with what targets its going after or the tactics they use. The Kremlin has to be aware that they can win a war of attrition here, especially if they can lean in to erode western support for Ukraine. With both the wars in Ukraine and Gaza it seems like many observers have forgotten just how bad wars can get. We're counting deaths in Gaza by the thousands, and though military deaths in Ukraine have been estimated into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, civilian casualties are almost nonexistent.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    If we responded in 2008 or 2014 like we responded in 2022 - there wouldn't be any more russian agressions. Instead we let them think they will win easily. The easiest way to avoid further wars in Europe is to help Ukraine win quickly.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Well that's a whole other ball of wax. I was always extremely frustrated with the American response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. When the Russians made clear it wasn't them entering Ukraine, we should have gotten them on the phone to confirm and make them aware that we have bombers in the air scrambled to hit all invading forces that have crossed the border. We also would have to follow through with that threat, Obama's red line with Syria was a pointless mess that just made us weaker. If Russia really wouldn't claim the invading force, who would say we were out of line for helping Ukraine defend their soverign borders from an invading paramilitary force?
otherme123 2y ago
Are you aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_generation_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_generation_warfare ? Russia has been playing that game for decades, sowing an image of "we are extremely powerful" and "you are all weak". They know they can't do nothing against NATO, and they opt for that strategy of bullying their small neighbors while avoiding a NATO response using reflexive control (i.e. make NATO believe they are weak).

The_Colonel 2y ago

Just because something doesn't make sense to us doesn't mean it won't happen. Putin gave us at least 3 such moments in the past 10 years where the majority thought "It makes zero sense for Putin to do XXX", but he did it anyway. Likely because his assumptions, evaluation and priorities were quite different from ours. This also suffers from presentism - situation today is not the same situation as in a year, two or 10, but we need to start preparing now for eventualities anyway. In a year, with Trump at the helm, there might not even be any NATO anymore ...

vkou 2y ago
The only people who believe Putin is insane/crazy/stupid/unpredictable/reckless is our media that is trying to rabble-rouse. He's none of those things, and NATO's not going anywhere, even if the US leaves it. (And odds are good it won't.)
lionkor 2y ago
IMO most of the moves were predictable if you actually listened to what theyre saying. If you dismiss everything a govt is saying as misinformation and propaganda, then of course you will never know the next step.

Moldoteck 2y ago

considering how far the far right got in the recent elections, who knows, sabotages could happen, at the end, nobody guarantees nato will apply it's article to defend it's members Also, afaik only France does have some own nuclear warheads that aren't controlled by the US and it's unknown if they will apply those to defend other countries. Imagine trump gets elected, what could happen in this case?

protomolecule 2y ago

>Russia, the country that has spent two years struggling to win a war against the poorest country in Europe The war will end with Ukrainian capitulation in a couple of months if NATO were to stop all intelligence, communications and material support for the Ukraine.