3 ms·

I have trouble following the logic here. Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years, but somehow, suddenly, he will be able to conqu

I have trouble following the logic here. Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years, but somehow, suddenly, he will be able to conquer all of the Baltic states without breaking a sweat? So which is it? Is the Russian army fighting with shovels or are they a ferocious horde that is unstoppable? Those two things cannot be true at the same time. I am getting tired of people parroting this narrative. If Putin could conquer Ukraine, he would have done so by now. Yet according to you this means is able to conquer more countries when his army can't even hold on to a full one. No offense, but that makes zero sense.

timeon 2y ago
Either way, if this continues, Americans will not be welcomed there. So point about visit still stands.
GJim 2y ago
> Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years, but somehow, suddenly, he will be able to conquer all of the Baltic states without breaking a sweat? Putin will find it much easier to wage war in Europe if Trump pulls out and takes the USA into isolationism (so abandoning the western democracies). And he will find it much easier to do this if he starts before Europe has a chance to re-arm. That is the logic you fail to see.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > Putin will find it much easier to wage war in Europe if Trump pulls out and takes the USA into isolationism (so abandoning the western democracies). And he will find it much easier to do this if he starts before Europe has a chance to re-arm. It still does not explain how he is supposed to do that while he is bogged down in Ukraine. You answer doe not provide any shred of evidence that is what his plans are. You are just speculating. Opening multiple fronts in a war when you are not making progress does not make any sense. Putin is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed but I am pretty sure that even he knows that. Finally, France and the UK both have nukes and are the allies of the Baltic states so an attack is highly unlikely unless the MAD doctrine is broken.
  - GJim 2y ago
    Nobody is going to wage a first strike nuclear war! Nuclear powers and MAD are irrelevant. It is conventional arms in Europe that are lacking, and Europe is re-arming as rapidly as possible for such a defence. One must have their head in the sand to think otherwise.
citrin_ru 2y ago
The current situation is a stalemate. The US suddently flipping sides will shift the balance and it's hard to predict how far Trump will go in supporting Putin.
StefanBatory 2y ago
Russians could invade and while it is most likely that after a long war they'd be pushed back, they'd still leave ruins. Also, we don't have unified army. So as painful as it is, it is most likely Baltic states would have to fend of with their military (and due to population, well, they can't - even if they are bringing conscription back), maybe Poland and Finland. Maybe. And then you'd have to coordinate what to do next between all national militaries. And what would stop a Frenchman or Portuguese to say Why die for Vilnius? :\
- skeletal88 2y ago
  Your data is wrong Estonia has had conscription for our whole independence from russia, and we don't intend to go back to russia. Lithuania also has conscription and Latvia started it again last year. Estonia also has the Defence League, a voluntary organisation which offers trainings and will support our defence forces. Finland and Poland also have conscription.
  - StefanBatory 2y ago
    I wanted to tell you that we don't have conscription in Poland - ... but it got reinstated yesterday.
mrtesthah 2y ago
>Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years... And with whose weapons and support do you think they managed to do that? Not to mention the US had been helping to train the Ukrainian army since 2014. Anyone who has paid attention to the Ukraine war this far already understands what past, present, and future assurances of military support mean for deterrence. Your comment suggests a level of ignorance or naivety either on the part of the author or the reader.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  Your comment is exactly the kind of high-ended attitude that is turning off people from having healthy debates with other people who might disagree with them. I am asking a legitimate question. Your contention is that even though the war is at best a stalemate and has revealed that Russia is at best a paper tiger, we should now believe that somehow it has the strength to invade all the Baltic states? I am sorry to say but this is a fantasy that is not supported by the facts of the situation that we have seen in the last 3 years. Now, you are free to disagree and that is fine but that should not stop us to ask questions about these matters.
  - mrtesthah 2y ago
    >I am asking a legitimate question. At best your question was uninformed to the point that it constitutes provocation, at worst it was deliberate disinformation. I’ll repeat: Russia appears weak because the Ukrainians have received so much military backing from the US and the rest of Europe. It’s a stalemate because others stepped in to stop them. And furthermore, Russia’s rate of ammo production is higher than Europe’s, their army is larger than Ukraine’s, and their leaders have no limits on how many people they throw into the meat grinder. Regarding Putin’s attempted restoration of the USSR, even if they’re unable to hold other Balkan countries, that process will result in horrific bloodshed. The US stepping away from defending NATO countries only emboldens Russia to try. If my attitude puts you off from dialog, then might I politely suggest you educate yourself more on these topics before engaging? You seem more than eager to jump into dialog with others about this topic to push your singular viewpoint, so I’m sure you can direct some of that energy toward broadening your understanding of recent world events.
TrackerFF 2y ago
Baltics could very well be on the menu, but it will not be this year. Not next year. Not the year after that. Right now, Russia needs to rebuild their military as much as they can, and get their real economy back in shape. My prediction is that IF Ukraine is being forced into a shitty peace agreement, Russia will spend the next 3-4 years rebuilding everything they can, and then when Trump has 6 months left, they'll go all-inn on Ukraine. Trump is effectively in his lame duck period, no republicans want to campaign on entering a huge war, and while democrats might campaign on defending Ukraine - it will not be a popular issue among regular voters. Then, if Russia manages to do that, other countries will be on the chopping block years later. I simply do not believe Russia has the manpower, or political backing to do a mobilization required to invade the Baltics. Even if this would be the right moment to do it, with a completely neutered USA.
- RealityVoid 2y ago
  I agree, I just think the estimation is on the order of 2 years. But, yes, Putin might wait it a bit more in order to see the maximum damage that Trump can do to the US. Same as last time.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
Ukraine is huge and had a large army. Baltic states are small, have in total about the same amount of military as russia loses in a month.
sireat 2y ago
As someone living in the Baltics, most people here are fully aware that when Putin chooses to attack we would have trouble holding the mythical 72 hours for full NATO help to arrive. If NATO help is not coming it is over quite quickly. You have to remember that Ukraine has/had 40 million population, Baltics has about 7 million. We also do not have the miles of mined out defenses that Ukraine has had since 2014. We do have 2000 strong NATO brigades on rotation, a few rotating F-35 from western Europe, some Himars I think. If unthinkable happens and NATO chooses not to defend the Baltics it is over.
- RealityVoid 2y ago
  If it's any consolation, the buildup of the invasion preceding the war in Ukraine was visible well before the actual invasion, so probably EU would have time to act. And, Russia would give you a breather of 1-2 years after the fall of Ukraine in order to build up their stocks.
- jajko 2y ago
  > We also do not have the miles of mined out defenses that Ukraine has had since 2014. I'd say you guys should have started building yesterday. Like what the heck to wait for? This isn't some temporary blip but permanent course of direction. Want to avoid having thousands of sleeper agents with double citizenship causing mayhem before invasion? Revoke it all for dual citizens that won't revoke their russian one, its time to pick side.
  - aaronbaugher 2y ago
    Ending dual citizenship is a great idea that needs to catch on in the US too.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  Look at your situation from a different perspective: the Baltics have ~3 times the population of Gaza, and at the very least something resembling air defenses. Gaza was bombed into rubble but the governing body still exists. Or you have roughly the same population as Lebanon, where Hezbollah completely stymied the IDF ground offensive (they wanted to force Hezbollah north of the Litani) even after paralyzing Hezbollah C2 with the pager attack. Why are the Baltics not fortified as well as Gaza? Why haven't you spent the past 3 years mining the ever-living fuck out of your border with Russia? Why can't 7 million Baltic citizens hold your territory for 72 hours, when 7 million Lebanese are able to bog down the heavily-mechanized IDF for weeks? Now I will admit that terrain is a HUGE factor, but the seeming total unpreparedness of Europeans to invest in the defense of their own homeland communicates a ton to me....none of it positive.
regularjack 2y ago
Ukraine has been able to fight back because of the aid it got, that's why Russian's invasion wasn't a field trip.
layer8 2y ago
Russia hasn’t been able to conquer Ukraine in three years primarily due to US support. Now that US support is falling away, Europe can only compensate for a minor portion of it. One important part that Europe can’t replace anytime soon is military intelligence, including satellite reconnaissance, but also advanced air defense systems and fighter jets. It would or will take many years for Europe to be able to provide anywhere near the previous level of US support.
- ojl 2y ago
  So you believe Trump when he said that the US has given more support than Europe? He was corrected several times but continues saying it, and I see several comments about it here as well. I agree about satellite reconnaissance and such systems though. Several countries wants to give fighter jets, and Sweden wanted to give Gripens but someone convinced them to pause those plans.
  - layer8 2y ago
    I was talking about technological, military, and intelligence capabilities, not about financing. Regarding support budgets, it does appear to me that Trump is misrepresenting things, see for example this tracker: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af... I nevertheless agree that Europe needs to invest more both in their capabilities and in Ukraine support. However, I don’t know how useful it is to compare it like that 1:1. The problem with Trump is that apparently he doesn’t believe that the US has strong (or even any) interests in containing Russia’s imperialist drive and geopolitical gains, and to the contrary is needlessly giving up a lot of bargaining power to Russia. Russia has zero interest in stopping the war, except to their own conditions, which includes installing a Russia-friendly government in Kiev (what they call “denazification”). They have expressed that many times.

timeon 2y ago

Either way, if this continues, Americans will not be welcomed there. So point about visit still stands.

GJim 2y ago

> Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years, but somehow, suddenly, he will be able to conquer all of the Baltic states without breaking a sweat? Putin will find it much easier to wage war in Europe if Trump pulls out and takes the USA into isolationism (so abandoning the western democracies). And he will find it much easier to do this if he starts before Europe has a chance to re-arm. That is the logic you fail to see.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago
> Putin will find it much easier to wage war in Europe if Trump pulls out and takes the USA into isolationism (so abandoning the western democracies). And he will find it much easier to do this if he starts before Europe has a chance to re-arm. It still does not explain how he is supposed to do that while he is bogged down in Ukraine. You answer doe not provide any shred of evidence that is what his plans are. You are just speculating. Opening multiple fronts in a war when you are not making progress does not make any sense. Putin is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed but I am pretty sure that even he knows that. Finally, France and the UK both have nukes and are the allies of the Baltic states so an attack is highly unlikely unless the MAD doctrine is broken.
- GJim 2y ago
  Nobody is going to wage a first strike nuclear war! Nuclear powers and MAD are irrelevant. It is conventional arms in Europe that are lacking, and Europe is re-arming as rapidly as possible for such a defence. One must have their head in the sand to think otherwise.

citrin_ru 2y ago

The current situation is a stalemate. The US suddently flipping sides will shift the balance and it's hard to predict how far Trump will go in supporting Putin.

StefanBatory 2y ago

Russians could invade and while it is most likely that after a long war they'd be pushed back, they'd still leave ruins. Also, we don't have unified army. So as painful as it is, it is most likely Baltic states would have to fend of with their military (and due to population, well, they can't - even if they are bringing conscription back), maybe Poland and Finland. Maybe. And then you'd have to coordinate what to do next between all national militaries. And what would stop a Frenchman or Portuguese to say Why die for Vilnius? :\

skeletal88 2y ago
Your data is wrong Estonia has had conscription for our whole independence from russia, and we don't intend to go back to russia. Lithuania also has conscription and Latvia started it again last year. Estonia also has the Defence League, a voluntary organisation which offers trainings and will support our defence forces. Finland and Poland also have conscription.
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  I wanted to tell you that we don't have conscription in Poland - ... but it got reinstated yesterday.

mrtesthah 2y ago

>Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years... And with whose weapons and support do you think they managed to do that? Not to mention the US had been helping to train the Ukrainian army since 2014. Anyone who has paid attention to the Ukraine war this far already understands what past, present, and future assurances of military support mean for deterrence. Your comment suggests a level of ignorance or naivety either on the part of the author or the reader.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago
Your comment is exactly the kind of high-ended attitude that is turning off people from having healthy debates with other people who might disagree with them. I am asking a legitimate question. Your contention is that even though the war is at best a stalemate and has revealed that Russia is at best a paper tiger, we should now believe that somehow it has the strength to invade all the Baltic states? I am sorry to say but this is a fantasy that is not supported by the facts of the situation that we have seen in the last 3 years. Now, you are free to disagree and that is fine but that should not stop us to ask questions about these matters.
- mrtesthah 2y ago
  >I am asking a legitimate question. At best your question was uninformed to the point that it constitutes provocation, at worst it was deliberate disinformation. I’ll repeat: Russia appears weak because the Ukrainians have received so much military backing from the US and the rest of Europe. It’s a stalemate because others stepped in to stop them. And furthermore, Russia’s rate of ammo production is higher than Europe’s, their army is larger than Ukraine’s, and their leaders have no limits on how many people they throw into the meat grinder. Regarding Putin’s attempted restoration of the USSR, even if they’re unable to hold other Balkan countries, that process will result in horrific bloodshed. The US stepping away from defending NATO countries only emboldens Russia to try. If my attitude puts you off from dialog, then might I politely suggest you educate yourself more on these topics before engaging? You seem more than eager to jump into dialog with others about this topic to push your singular viewpoint, so I’m sure you can direct some of that energy toward broadening your understanding of recent world events.

TrackerFF 2y ago

Baltics could very well be on the menu, but it will not be this year. Not next year. Not the year after that. Right now, Russia needs to rebuild their military as much as they can, and get their real economy back in shape. My prediction is that IF Ukraine is being forced into a shitty peace agreement, Russia will spend the next 3-4 years rebuilding everything they can, and then when Trump has 6 months left, they'll go all-inn on Ukraine. Trump is effectively in his lame duck period, no republicans want to campaign on entering a huge war, and while democrats might campaign on defending Ukraine - it will not be a popular issue among regular voters. Then, if Russia manages to do that, other countries will be on the chopping block years later. I simply do not believe Russia has the manpower, or political backing to do a mobilization required to invade the Baltics. Even if this would be the right moment to do it, with a completely neutered USA.

RealityVoid 2y ago
I agree, I just think the estimation is on the order of 2 years. But, yes, Putin might wait it a bit more in order to see the maximum damage that Trump can do to the US. Same as last time.

TiredOfLife 2y ago

Ukraine is huge and had a large army. Baltic states are small, have in total about the same amount of military as russia loses in a month.

sireat 2y ago

As someone living in the Baltics, most people here are fully aware that when Putin chooses to attack we would have trouble holding the mythical 72 hours for full NATO help to arrive. If NATO help is not coming it is over quite quickly. You have to remember that Ukraine has/had 40 million population, Baltics has about 7 million. We also do not have the miles of mined out defenses that Ukraine has had since 2014. We do have 2000 strong NATO brigades on rotation, a few rotating F-35 from western Europe, some Himars I think. If unthinkable happens and NATO chooses not to defend the Baltics it is over.

RealityVoid 2y ago
If it's any consolation, the buildup of the invasion preceding the war in Ukraine was visible well before the actual invasion, so probably EU would have time to act. And, Russia would give you a breather of 1-2 years after the fall of Ukraine in order to build up their stocks.
jajko 2y ago
> We also do not have the miles of mined out defenses that Ukraine has had since 2014. I'd say you guys should have started building yesterday. Like what the heck to wait for? This isn't some temporary blip but permanent course of direction. Want to avoid having thousands of sleeper agents with double citizenship causing mayhem before invasion? Revoke it all for dual citizens that won't revoke their russian one, its time to pick side.
- aaronbaugher 2y ago
  Ending dual citizenship is a great idea that needs to catch on in the US too.
CapricornNoble 2y ago
Look at your situation from a different perspective: the Baltics have ~3 times the population of Gaza, and at the very least something resembling air defenses. Gaza was bombed into rubble but the governing body still exists. Or you have roughly the same population as Lebanon, where Hezbollah completely stymied the IDF ground offensive (they wanted to force Hezbollah north of the Litani) even after paralyzing Hezbollah C2 with the pager attack. Why are the Baltics not fortified as well as Gaza? Why haven't you spent the past 3 years mining the ever-living fuck out of your border with Russia? Why can't 7 million Baltic citizens hold your territory for 72 hours, when 7 million Lebanese are able to bog down the heavily-mechanized IDF for weeks? Now I will admit that terrain is a HUGE factor, but the seeming total unpreparedness of Europeans to invest in the defense of their own homeland communicates a ton to me....none of it positive.

regularjack 2y ago

Ukraine has been able to fight back because of the aid it got, that's why Russian's invasion wasn't a field trip.

layer8 2y ago

Russia hasn’t been able to conquer Ukraine in three years primarily due to US support. Now that US support is falling away, Europe can only compensate for a minor portion of it. One important part that Europe can’t replace anytime soon is military intelligence, including satellite reconnaissance, but also advanced air defense systems and fighter jets. It would or will take many years for Europe to be able to provide anywhere near the previous level of US support.

ojl 2y ago
So you believe Trump when he said that the US has given more support than Europe? He was corrected several times but continues saying it, and I see several comments about it here as well. I agree about satellite reconnaissance and such systems though. Several countries wants to give fighter jets, and Sweden wanted to give Gripens but someone convinced them to pause those plans.
- layer8 2y ago
  I was talking about technological, military, and intelligence capabilities, not about financing. Regarding support budgets, it does appear to me that Trump is misrepresenting things, see for example this tracker: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af... I nevertheless agree that Europe needs to invest more both in their capabilities and in Ukraine support. However, I don’t know how useful it is to compare it like that 1:1. The problem with Trump is that apparently he doesn’t believe that the US has strong (or even any) interests in containing Russia’s imperialist drive and geopolitical gains, and to the contrary is needlessly giving up a lot of bargaining power to Russia. Russia has zero interest in stopping the war, except to their own conditions, which includes installing a Russia-friendly government in Kiev (what they call “denazification”). They have expressed that many times.