4 ms·

> like containing Russia without having to rely on the whims of another country's politics That's true, but at the same time it was probably already the case b

> like containing Russia without having to rely on the whims of another country's politics That's true, but at the same time it was probably already the case before invasion of Ukraine, and it is definitely the case now. The main issue is political fragmentation: would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius? But if the answer is true (as obligated by the Treaty of Maastricht, independently of NATO) then Russia stands no chance with conventional weapons against the whole Western Europe, the balance of military, demographic and industrial power is ridiculously lopsided (involving nuclear weapons would also raise the same political question about the French willingness to nuke Russia in retaliation to Russia nuking Poland but if the answer is yes, Russia cannot win a nuclear war either (which everyone would lose)).

tokai 9mo ago
>would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius? Yes very much.
- generic92034 9mo ago
  Absolutely: https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/news/eastern-flank-new-brigade-5929244 https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/news/eastern-flank-new-brigade-...
- hilbert42 9mo ago
  Right. Aggression can only be tolerated up to a point before it triggers a response. Remember, on 1 September 1939 the Nazis invaded Poland and two days later both the UK and France declared war on Germany.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    “and two days later both the UK and France decided not to intervene and just set up defensive position in Belgium and eastern France” is what actually happened. With the terrible results we known for France (the defensive position being hammered on its weakest point, leading to the complete collapse of the French army in less than a month.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  I wouldn't be so categorical about France. Pro-russian/ “anti-war” political parties earned the majority of votes (but not seats) in the last elections, and the personality of Macron is so divisive (he has had record low approval for most of his tenure) it really impairs support for war.
HPsquared 9mo ago
The answer is always going to be "maybe", but hopefully enough of a maybe to deter hostile actions. That puts everything in an uncomfortable state of uncertainty.
- bornfreddy 9mo ago
  Better uncomfortable state of uncertainty than comfortable state of war. Nuclear or conventional.
  - hilbert42 9mo ago
    "…comfortable state of war." No war is "comfortable", it's a distaster for all involved participants—even the victors.
dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
> The main issue is political fragmentation: would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius? This is a wrong question. If one day Russia feels brave enough to attack any NATO country, the right question to ask is, "Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours?". This is the reason why Europe is so focused on helping Ukraine BTW.
- vasac 9mo ago
  > Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours? Russia thought so too.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
    What do you mean? There was never any question of attacking Russia and fighting any war on their soil. Nobody in their right mind would attack a country with the 2nd largest army and nuclear weapons. The war in Ukraine definitely made this army still very weak, but, except Ukraine defending itself, I don't see anyone rushing to attack Russia anytime soon. It makes no sense now and made no sense before they invaded Ukraine. There is nothing to win by attacking Russia and a lot to lose.
    - pqtyw 9mo ago
      > with the 2nd largest army By what metric?
      - dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
        Global Firepower maintains a database and is a popular reference: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=russia https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-de... But I saw several people criticizing their relatively high position on this chart given high incompetence and losses. EDIT: Apparently this website doesn't follow any rigorous methodology. So basically the only thing their army is 2nd in the world is the nominal number of nukes (hopefully most of them don't work).

tokai 9mo ago

>would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius? Yes very much.

generic92034 9mo ago
Absolutely: https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/news/eastern-flank-new-brigade-5929244 https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/news/eastern-flank-new-brigade-...
hilbert42 9mo ago
Right. Aggression can only be tolerated up to a point before it triggers a response. Remember, on 1 September 1939 the Nazis invaded Poland and two days later both the UK and France declared war on Germany.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  “and two days later both the UK and France decided not to intervene and just set up defensive position in Belgium and eastern France” is what actually happened. With the terrible results we known for France (the defensive position being hammered on its weakest point, leading to the complete collapse of the French army in less than a month.
littlestymaar 9mo ago
I wouldn't be so categorical about France. Pro-russian/ “anti-war” political parties earned the majority of votes (but not seats) in the last elections, and the personality of Macron is so divisive (he has had record low approval for most of his tenure) it really impairs support for war.

HPsquared 9mo ago

The answer is always going to be "maybe", but hopefully enough of a maybe to deter hostile actions. That puts everything in an uncomfortable state of uncertainty.

bornfreddy 9mo ago
Better uncomfortable state of uncertainty than comfortable state of war. Nuclear or conventional.
- hilbert42 9mo ago
  "…comfortable state of war." No war is "comfortable", it's a distaster for all involved participants—even the victors.

dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago

> The main issue is political fragmentation: would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius? This is a wrong question. If one day Russia feels brave enough to attack any NATO country, the right question to ask is, "Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours?". This is the reason why Europe is so focused on helping Ukraine BTW.

vasac 9mo ago
> Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours? Russia thought so too.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
  What do you mean? There was never any question of attacking Russia and fighting any war on their soil. Nobody in their right mind would attack a country with the 2nd largest army and nuclear weapons. The war in Ukraine definitely made this army still very weak, but, except Ukraine defending itself, I don't see anyone rushing to attack Russia anytime soon. It makes no sense now and made no sense before they invaded Ukraine. There is nothing to win by attacking Russia and a lot to lose.
  - pqtyw 9mo ago
    > with the 2nd largest army By what metric?
    - dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
      Global Firepower maintains a database and is a popular reference: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=russia https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-de... But I saw several people criticizing their relatively high position on this chart given high incompetence and losses. EDIT: Apparently this website doesn't follow any rigorous methodology. So basically the only thing their army is 2nd in the world is the nominal number of nukes (hopefully most of them don't work).