5 ms·

Yeah, in my humble opinion anyone in Europe that considers wider war breaking out to be farfetched is not paying enough attention. You can be forgiven however

by xp84 1y ago

Yeah, in my humble opinion anyone in Europe that considers wider war breaking out to be farfetched is not paying enough attention. You can be forgiven however if you're a millennial (as I am) or younger, because the long peace has been so long that it seems crazy that Russia might start dropping bombs, say, on Copenhagen or London. "They wouldn't dare attack NATO" we would have said 10 years ago. But today, NATO is at risk since too much of its credibility is tied to the US and the US is now unpredictable. With one stroke of an "executive order" pen the US could just call backsies and pull out if one man considers it politically advantageous to him to do so. That has been unthinkable for 75 years and now it's just reality. Russia is a lot less afraid of Western Europe than they were/are of NATO. Would they win? IDK. But my perception is that the very notion of war would shock the s**t out of the 20-somethings that Western Europe would need to conscript in order to fight an all-out war. If too many refused to fight, Putin might just roll in there relatively unchallenged. Note: US civilians are certainly not any more ready to enlist than Europe's! But the US is the only Western country with (almost) enough people already enlisted to be a credible threat in a major war.

riffraff 1y ago
All out war shocked the shit out of the 20 somethings in Ukraine too, many fled, and yet Russia has not made significant advances in the following three years. There's no plausible world in which Russia has the strength to take on the rest of Europe, in, say, the next ten years. (Let's assume nukes are out of the question)
- wiseowise 1y ago
  > There's no plausible world in which Russia has the strength to take on the rest of Europe, in, say, the next ten years. Sure they do. Total war + support from norks and China will do it.
- scotty79 1y ago
  Not conventionally, but they still can cause a nuisance with long range weapons and even few nukes out of thousands they advertise might still be accidentally operational.
- vintermann 1y ago
  Something the fresh european patriots overlook is that the parts of Ukraine Putin managed to hold on to overlap very closely with the areas most hostile to the rehabilitation of Ukrainian nationalism/most positive to Russia (at least to some largely imaginary Russia which defeated the Nazis but wasn't really communist, i.e. Putin's Russia). If it's that costly to hold onto areas where most people actually like Putin relatively speaking, how much more expensive wouldn't it be to hold onto areas to where people hate him?
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  Rest - maybe not. But russia currently holds territory about the size of the 3 baltic states. And Ukraine before 2022 had about 10 times larger army than those 3 countries combined.
  - riffraff 1y ago
    yes, but we're talking of waging war against actual NATO and the EU, not a country which was vaguely friendly towards the west. No european country has actually put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, but if an actual EU+NATO member was attacked things would be different. Even without the US. It's not accidental that Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia but not the baltic states.
guappa 1y ago
That is basically NATO propaganda to convince people it's ok to stop paying for healthcare because we need to buy weapons, so that guys like Crosetto can become even richer. Is it true? No. Also air force is not so useful and we are spending insane amounts into that.
- xp84 1y ago
  Military spending is healthcare -- think of it as preventative medicine so that you don't get sudden massive lead poisoning when Putin decides it would be nice to have more territory. I'm being cute above with the phrasing, but your attitude of "why spend on military, it's wasted money" is obsolete thinking. It's based on a world where the US was spending enough to intimidate Russia or anyone else from stepping out of line, and where the US could be relied upon to keep their commitments. It was logical for Germany, for instance, to spend only 1.2% for the past 25 years because the NATO obligations guaranteed the US's support and the US's leaders understood the qualitative ROI of having all of Europe firmly in its own sphere of influence. Now, regardless of how we feel about it, it's foolish to depend on the US anymore. NATO still has some value -- the US may defend parts of Europe, and under this presidency it probably depends on stupid stuff like how impressed Trump is by your head of state's handshake, how hot their wife is, whether they compliments Trump, etc. But you can't stake your safety on that silliness.
  - guappa 1y ago
    Russia is already very large and sparsely populated. They don't want more territory. What they want is to not be surrounded by enemies, which is why the current war is happening: basically try to force a regime change after the USA did their regime change a few years ago. USA could not defeat afghanistan so I doubt it intimidates anyone really… if we are talking conventional warfare. Anyway despite all of Trump's bullshit talking points, USA will do as always militarily, because it's convenient to them that EU doesn't become independent.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
Actually, those who remember the 90s and, before that, the Cold War see and understand that Europe is much safer now that it was then. The USSR was much stronger relative to Western Europe then. Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO (it might have been weaker in the early 90s but NATO had also not expanded to its current footprint). Rememeber also that there was a hot war in the middle of Europe (former Yugoslavia) during the 90s with the US even carrying airstrikes on an European capital (Belgrade). Obviously this does not mean that European countries should have weak militaries or not show strength. But the threat of Russia is overblown and used to manufacture consent in public opinion for more spending and more EU integration at a time when people already suffer economically and are already squeezed, and growing disatisfied with the EU. IMHO, the highest risk of violent instability in Western Europe now and in the coming years is not Russia but mass immigration and islamist terrorism at large. And perhaps that's also partly why governments are trying to deflect attention... > it seems crazy that Russia might start dropping bombs, say, on Copenhagen or London. Yes, that is totally crazy.
- scotty79 1y ago
  > Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO That's exactly why there's gonna by full scale war with russia. It's simply the best moment for it and russia showed it can't be left alone.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    Are you suggesting that NATO is going to start a war against Russia, the country with the largest nuke stockpile? That's bonkers on all levels, and more.
    - ath3nd 1y ago
      Russia can't deal with small Ukraine for 4 years. Their outdated poor tech and drunkard band of villagers called "soldiers" can't defeat a country with 5 times less population. Even with the help of the equally poor and unqualified North Korea and the jihadists of Khadirov, Russia hasn't achieved anything substantial but lose north of a million poor conscripts. I want to remind you Russia's long distance rockets have largely self destructed on Russian territory even without a liftoff: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/europe/russia-sarmat-missile-test-failure-intl https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/europe/russia-sarmat-miss... A single misstep of the Russian war criminals on EU soil, and they will be obliterated in seconds. It's bonkers to think otherwise.
4ggr0 1y ago
> But my perception is that the very notion of war would shock the s*t out of the 20-somethings that Western Europe would need to conscript in order to fight an all-out war as a 20-something western european i don't see why i should die because some politicians behave like absolute fucking pieces of shits. if war breaks out in my country or they start conscripting people like me i'll just flee the country together with whomever would like to join me.
- xp84 1y ago
  This is called cowardice and nihilism. If we all run to "safety" when evil comes, evil will happily take over everything.
  - 4ggr0 1y ago
    i'll gladly live as a nihilist coward in safety. will leave the optimistic and heroic option of getting blown up by a drone on a muddy field, slowly choking on your own blood and leaving behind your closest ones to people who aren't such cowards like myself. thanks for your service.
    - xp84 1y ago
      lol. Enjoy your “safety” - it’ll be short-lived

by xp84 1y ago

riffraff 1y ago

All out war shocked the shit out of the 20 somethings in Ukraine too, many fled, and yet Russia has not made significant advances in the following three years. There's no plausible world in which Russia has the strength to take on the rest of Europe, in, say, the next ten years. (Let's assume nukes are out of the question)

wiseowise 1y ago
> There's no plausible world in which Russia has the strength to take on the rest of Europe, in, say, the next ten years. Sure they do. Total war + support from norks and China will do it.
scotty79 1y ago
Not conventionally, but they still can cause a nuisance with long range weapons and even few nukes out of thousands they advertise might still be accidentally operational.
vintermann 1y ago
Something the fresh european patriots overlook is that the parts of Ukraine Putin managed to hold on to overlap very closely with the areas most hostile to the rehabilitation of Ukrainian nationalism/most positive to Russia (at least to some largely imaginary Russia which defeated the Nazis but wasn't really communist, i.e. Putin's Russia). If it's that costly to hold onto areas where most people actually like Putin relatively speaking, how much more expensive wouldn't it be to hold onto areas to where people hate him?
TiredOfLife 1y ago
Rest - maybe not. But russia currently holds territory about the size of the 3 baltic states. And Ukraine before 2022 had about 10 times larger army than those 3 countries combined.
- riffraff 1y ago
  yes, but we're talking of waging war against actual NATO and the EU, not a country which was vaguely friendly towards the west. No european country has actually put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, but if an actual EU+NATO member was attacked things would be different. Even without the US. It's not accidental that Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia but not the baltic states.

guappa 1y ago

That is basically NATO propaganda to convince people it's ok to stop paying for healthcare because we need to buy weapons, so that guys like Crosetto can become even richer. Is it true? No. Also air force is not so useful and we are spending insane amounts into that.

xp84 1y ago
Military spending is healthcare -- think of it as preventative medicine so that you don't get sudden massive lead poisoning when Putin decides it would be nice to have more territory. I'm being cute above with the phrasing, but your attitude of "why spend on military, it's wasted money" is obsolete thinking. It's based on a world where the US was spending enough to intimidate Russia or anyone else from stepping out of line, and where the US could be relied upon to keep their commitments. It was logical for Germany, for instance, to spend only 1.2% for the past 25 years because the NATO obligations guaranteed the US's support and the US's leaders understood the qualitative ROI of having all of Europe firmly in its own sphere of influence. Now, regardless of how we feel about it, it's foolish to depend on the US anymore. NATO still has some value -- the US may defend parts of Europe, and under this presidency it probably depends on stupid stuff like how impressed Trump is by your head of state's handshake, how hot their wife is, whether they compliments Trump, etc. But you can't stake your safety on that silliness.
- guappa 1y ago
  Russia is already very large and sparsely populated. They don't want more territory. What they want is to not be surrounded by enemies, which is why the current war is happening: basically try to force a regime change after the USA did their regime change a few years ago. USA could not defeat afghanistan so I doubt it intimidates anyone really… if we are talking conventional warfare. Anyway despite all of Trump's bullshit talking points, USA will do as always militarily, because it's convenient to them that EU doesn't become independent.

mytailorisrich 1y ago

Actually, those who remember the 90s and, before that, the Cold War see and understand that Europe is much safer now that it was then. The USSR was much stronger relative to Western Europe then. Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO (it might have been weaker in the early 90s but NATO had also not expanded to its current footprint). Rememeber also that there was a hot war in the middle of Europe (former Yugoslavia) during the 90s with the US even carrying airstrikes on an European capital (Belgrade). Obviously this does not mean that European countries should have weak militaries or not show strength. But the threat of Russia is overblown and used to manufacture consent in public opinion for more spending and more EU integration at a time when people already suffer economically and are already squeezed, and growing disatisfied with the EU. IMHO, the highest risk of violent instability in Western Europe now and in the coming years is not Russia but mass immigration and islamist terrorism at large. And perhaps that's also partly why governments are trying to deflect attention... > it seems crazy that Russia might start dropping bombs, say, on Copenhagen or London. Yes, that is totally crazy.

scotty79 1y ago
> Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO That's exactly why there's gonna by full scale war with russia. It's simply the best moment for it and russia showed it can't be left alone.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Are you suggesting that NATO is going to start a war against Russia, the country with the largest nuke stockpile? That's bonkers on all levels, and more.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    Russia can't deal with small Ukraine for 4 years. Their outdated poor tech and drunkard band of villagers called "soldiers" can't defeat a country with 5 times less population. Even with the help of the equally poor and unqualified North Korea and the jihadists of Khadirov, Russia hasn't achieved anything substantial but lose north of a million poor conscripts. I want to remind you Russia's long distance rockets have largely self destructed on Russian territory even without a liftoff: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/europe/russia-sarmat-missile-test-failure-intl https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/europe/russia-sarmat-miss... A single misstep of the Russian war criminals on EU soil, and they will be obliterated in seconds. It's bonkers to think otherwise.

4ggr0 1y ago

> But my perception is that the very notion of war would shock the s*t out of the 20-somethings that Western Europe would need to conscript in order to fight an all-out war as a 20-something western european i don't see why i should die because some politicians behave like absolute fucking pieces of shits. if war breaks out in my country or they start conscripting people like me i'll just flee the country together with whomever would like to join me.

xp84 1y ago
This is called cowardice and nihilism. If we all run to "safety" when evil comes, evil will happily take over everything.
- 4ggr0 1y ago
  i'll gladly live as a nihilist coward in safety. will leave the optimistic and heroic option of getting blown up by a drone on a muddy field, slowly choking on your own blood and leaving behind your closest ones to people who aren't such cowards like myself. thanks for your service.
  - xp84 1y ago
    lol. Enjoy your “safety” - it’ll be short-lived