5 ms·
I honestly don't know much about warfare, but that seems like a pretty insane move to me. First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to start a war wit
by scoofy 10mo ago
I honestly don't know much about warfare, but that seems like a pretty insane move to me.
First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to start a war with NATO and it's very grumpy neighbor to the south. There isn't a world in which the Suwałki gap it cut off without strikes and an invasion of Belarus. Lukashenko might want it, but given the last "election" there will likely be a 5th, 6th, and 7th column waiting for guns to be carried over the border from Poland and Ukraine.
Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I doubt that), the Baltic Sea is not. Sweden, Denmark, and Germany will shut down any ships entering and leaving the Baltic. Ukraine and Turkey cut off the Black Sea, and the Russian fleet is left in Murmansk (which is likely immediately destroyed), and Vladivostok... which as a single port as mostly useless, and can be mostly cut off in the Sea of Japan.
I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any NATO territory without the entire thing being a psyop against NATO not responding via far-right isolationists, and we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China take Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all fucked.
- jacquesm 10mo agoInvading Ukraine was also a pretty insane move, if insanity is a pre-requisite then that makes it more likely, not less...
- koonsolo 10mo agoNo it was not. Show me any military analyst that stated Ukraine could last longer than a few weeks or months after the invasion in 2022. And after the weak response from the West in 2014, I don't see how invading Ukraine was insane on Russia's part.
- jacquesm 10mo agoIt's not up to military analysts to get this right, it is up to the aggressor to know their own and their opposition's capabilities to within a reasonable degree of error before going in on something irreversible like this. With hindsight, we can conclude it was madness. Before the war we maybe could have concluded that it would be better to err on the side of caution because of what it will do to foreign relations.
- mamonster 10mo ago>First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to start a war with NATO I think there is a more than 50% chance that Belarus is reintegrated in some form into Russia within this century. It's very clear that there is no plan for sovereignty post-Lukashenko and all of the opposition(like in Russia) has been exiled(so powerless). This is probably the 2nd biggest miss of EU foreign policy in the 21st century after Ukraine, they basically put Lukashenko in the same basket as Putin even though up until 2020 he did everything he could to maintain his sovereignty and got hit with horrible sanctions. But IMO it's too late now. >Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I doubt that) Russian military doctrine is kind of nebulous, but the one thing it is extremely clear on is that Kaliningrad will be defended using nuclear weapons. Exactly because it's basically not defensible using conventional means.
- scoofy 10mo agoThe point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A siege trivially collapses the place. The place is wildly vulnerable on all sides despite the short distance to Belarus. This isn't a "the Kerch Bridge is outside of missle range" situation. Literally every way in and out of the enclave can be exploded on a daily basis, even without striking the enclave itself. So if the idea is to invade the Baltics, but "not allow an invasion of Kaliningrad, without nuclear retaliation"... well then we've going to have a nuclear war and everyone loses, simply because you can't retake the Baltics without Kaliningrad, and NATO isn't going to allow the Baltics to be lost.
- 10mo ago
- voidfunc 10mo ago> I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any NATO territory without the entire thing being a psyop against NATO not responding via far-right isolationists, and we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China take Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all fucked. I mean that's really the setup. 1. Get America to move towards a more isolationist setup / unwilling to help Europe or Taiwan. This is already in motion politically and via social media operations. 2. Get America stuck in a conflict with Iran. This is ramping up. 3. China takes Taiwan. Probably in the next 2-5 years. 4. Russia takes the Baltics and starts to carve further into Europe. My further total crackpot theory on all of this is that most of this has been agreed upon by all the major powers involved. 1. Russia gets to claim over Europe in the future. 2. China gets Taiwan and control of Africa + APAC. 3. US gets control of North America and South America. This culminates in the annexation of Greenland once Russia takes Europe. This is the agreed upon transaction for America to back out of Russo-European affairs and China-Taiwan affairs. Canada and Mexico eventually are also merged into the US unwillingly but without any major allies left there isn't much to prevent it.
- padjo 10mo agoIn your mind what does a “Russian claim over Europe” mean. Do you really imagine a country with one third the population of the EU is going to dominate the EU + UK?
- jacquesm 10mo agoIt's not about what we think, it is about what they think. They got away with it for 50+ years and they want that back.
- type0 10mo agoUS annexing Greenland is just an excuse for US to leave NATO, Trump or Vance might do it if Putin attacks Europe, and he will when China attacks Taiwan.
- maxerickson 10mo agoThe US somehow subjugating 180 million people is delusional. And tens of millions of current US citizens would probably side with Canada and Mexico.