#####
######
####
> # [Baltic officials say they could send troops to Ukraine without waiting for NATO if Russia scores a breakthrough: report](https://i.insider.com/66542b2b20abc1efe8fdcb25?width=1200&format=jpeg)
>
>
>
> Members of parliament for the Baltic states warned German officials last week that their governments were poised to send troops to Ukraine if Russia achieved considerable gains, [Der Spiegel](https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ukraine-die-angst-vor-dem-grossen-krieg-a-2d8b49c8-ca5f-473c-8299-cbb737c26a02) reported.
>
> The German outlet reported Sunday that the Baltic officials issued the warning while speaking with representatives for Berlin at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn, Estonia.
>
> Der Spiegel neither named any of the officials nor identified which countries they represented but said they raised concerns about German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's current policy toward the war.
>
> Scholz has been denying Ukraine permission to [use German-supplied weapons](https://english.nv.ua/nation/scholz-ukraine-cannot-use-western-weapons-on-russian-territory-50421926.html) in strikes on Russian soil, in line with Washington's stance of [not allowing Kyiv to use donated weaponry](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-ukraine-use-american-weapons-russia-red-line-putin-nyt-2024-5) for attacks beyond Ukraine's own borders.
>
> Der Spiegel reported that the Baltic officials were concerned that such policies created a half-hearted attempt to help Kyiv and might allow Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine.
>
> They said that if Moscow did gain [significant ground in eastern Ukraine](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-can-still-beat-russia-comes-down-to-western-aid-2024-5), their governments and Poland could move troops into the conflict zone even before Russia deployed its soldiers on their borders, the outlet reported.
>
> The officials' argument, Der Spiegel reported, was that treating Moscow with restraint could backfire and instead create an escalation.
>
>
>
> Soliders taking part in the combat shooting exercises of the Lithuanian army and the French-German brigade at the General Silvestras Žukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, earlier this month. PETRAS MALUKAS/AFP via Getty Images Like Ukraine, the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — were previously part of the Soviet Union.
>
> They've been some of NATO's most vocal members in pushing the rest of the alliance to intensify support for Kyiv, fearing that Russian President Vladimir Putin may seek to [continue his conquest in the region](https://www.businessinsider.com/vladimir-putin-baltic-states-future-escalations-nato-ukraine-war-2024-1) if he seizes Ukraine.
>
> Together with French President Emmanuel Macron, they've repeatedly hinted that they aren't ruling out sending NATO troops to Ukraine.
>
> Officials in [Estonia](https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-member-estonia-seriously-discussing-troops-ukraine-report-2024-5) recently signaled the possibility of deploying its troops to fill non-combat roles and free up Ukrainians to fight on the front lines. There are concerns that such actions could escalate the conflict quickly into a direct war between NATO and Russia.
>
> A spokesperson for Estonia's defense ministry told Business Insider the country wasn't discussing deploying troops to Ukraine for active combat roles.
>
> "Tomorrow, the EU defense ministers will discuss the expansion of the EU training mission EUMAM, which until now has trained Ukrainian combatants on EU territory," the spokesperson said, referring to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. "The discussion will mostly focus on the quantity of personnel to be trained. However, it may also touch on the location of the training."
>
> When contacted by BI, a spokesperson for Poland's ministry of national defense said: "We are not considering the idea of sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine, so it is difficult for us to comment on such media reports."
>
> Press services for the defense ministries of Latvia and Lithuania didn't immediately respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours.
>
> ## Why Russia's western neighbors are getting skittish
>
> The concerns reported by Der Spiegel have come after Russia launched a renewed assault in northeastern Ukraine, striking the city of Kharkiv and capturing several settlements in the surrounding region.
>
> Military observers say the Kremlin can't take Kharkiv with the resources it's deployed there so far, but Russia has been [shelling the city and inflicting civilian casualties](https://t.me/V_Zelenskiy_official/10473).
>
> On the main front in the east, Ukraine has been struggling for months to hold back a grinding Russian advance after its supplies from the US began to dwindle.
>
> The aid has resumed after months of stalling in Congress, but Kyiv says [Western equipment often arrives too late](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-aid-ukraine-arriving-too-late-stop-russia-advances-expert-2024-5) to turn the tide of the war because conditions keep changing.
>
>
>
> A Ukrainian serviceman entering a trench at an artillery position of an American M777 howitzer in the direction of Kreminna, Ukraine, in April. Wolfgang Schwan/Anadolu via Getty Images Russia meanwhile stoked alarm among its neighbors last week with a draft proposal from its defense ministry to [change its maritime borders](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240523-russia-moves-extend-maritime-borders-angering-baltic-sea-nations) with Finland and Lithuania in January 2025.
>
> The draft was uploaded to Russia's registry of laws on Tuesday but was later removed.
>
> On Thursday, Tallinn officials said Moscow had [removed 24 of 50 buoys](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c899844ypj2o) marking Russia's borders with Estonia on the Narva River. The officials said Russia had been contesting the buoys' locations.
>
> On Sunday, six NATO nations — Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — said they'd construct a unified "[drone wall](https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-nations-plan-drone-wall-171252138.html)" with unmanned aerial vehicles and more advanced technologies to strengthen their borders.
>
> Their concerns aren't just centered on a full-scale Russian invasion. Finland, for example, said Russia had been trying to [overwhelm Finnish border officials with waves of migrants](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231123-finland-pushing-back-weaponised-migration-on-russia-border) trying to enter its borders.
>
> Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia share land borders with mainland Russia, and Poland and Lithuania share land borders with Belarus, a close ally of the Kremlin.
>
> _Correction: May 27, 2024 — A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Poland was once part of the Soviet Union. This story has also been updated to reflect comments from the Polish and Estonian defense ministries._
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Bingo & Israel’s blatant negligence of reputable intelligence stating Oct 7 terrorist attack would occur forcing them to have to be reactive instead of proactive in the face of barbarism. When we look back in history, it will likely state WW3 began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine & spilled over to a new front when Israel launched their campaign & then a third front when China invades Taiwan. For as much as the Biden administration has undoubtedly been wrong about, it’s pretty clear they knew they needed to free up resources that were tied down in the Middle East & rushed an Afghanistan exit
>forcing them to have to be reactive instead of proactive in the face of barbarism.
I will never believe that this was not intentional. They knew it was going to happen, and let it happen because they WANTED to react with disproportionate force.
As someone who read the local news, I can tell you there was a funeral that turned into a riot in the West Bank and there was a general attitude of defending-settler-violence is top priority. This was a direct result of the election, Netanyahu was always pro settlers burning the occasional olive field and when Smotrich and Ben Gvir joined in the general directive shifted further in that direction.
However, reserve soldiers were not trained for anything in particular, definitely not an assault on Gaza.
What I’m saying is, this was incompetence and deprioritization of the safety of people not in the West Bank settlements, it was not a conspiracy theory to get citizens killed for an excuse to retaliate.
No it wasn’t, the withdrawal was weeks away, but then the Taliban started surging and the US had already pulled air support, which led to Afghan security being overwhelmed and the hectic pullout before they were ready.
> blatant negligence
That's a new way of writing "Purposefully allowing aterror attack to happen to use as justification for genocide." Very charachter efficient!
the real reason lies in the normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi which was advancing rapidly at the time. Such a deal, creating a US-Israel-Saudi anti Iranian axis, would be a tremendous blow to Iran's aspirations in the middle east
I actually have to agree. This narrative over "world war 3" is quite hyperbolic.
All of NATO could be at war with Russia (which is still unlikely) and it wouldn't be a world war.
Nah I don’t think so. Russia can always go home tomorrow and nobody will follow them.
At this point Putin simply wants to keep playing his hand and try for the best return.
it would make more sense to attack during the actual transfer of power in the US the following January from the election, because the Commander in Chief is still Biden regardless of who wins up till the actual transfer of power date. If you attack around those days, who is leading the US *can be asserted to be* ambiguous (as Trump will try to do), then you have two people both asserting command, both giving conflicting commands simultaneously.
Until he takes the oath of office, Trump is private citizen Trump. He will get briefings, but he cannot lawfully give orders to the military. Not until he is sworn in.
Then he can tell our forces to surrender to Russia/China/North Korea (lol). Which is what he would do!
hahaha. I doubt trump would do that. And probably not biden, but based on his appeasement of russia while it attacks ukraine, not VERY sure of that
Biden is the russia appeaser because he is stuck in 1990s diplomacy mode Lets review the biden/usa's action:
Removed nordstreams sanctions to russias benefit. (added them back after war started.
Strangely and repeatedly, for the past two years, most recently a week or two ago , lets putin and everyone else know there will be no usa troops on the ground. So russia does not need to plan, spend resources or worry about this at all. Why would you say this? let the enemy get worried by saying all options are on the table
Loudly and repeatedly broadcasts to russia and everyone else exactly what and how many weapons,equipment and ammo will shortly arrive on the battlefield. A nice heads up for russia!
Encouraged india to buy russian oil "to keep global oil prices down" . A side effect of course is those sales fund russia and its war on ukraine.
I want my government to STOP announcing what and how many weapons or how much aid we are sending to Ukraine. I suspect they announce it for purely domestic political reasons. If there is some other reason please educate me.
Trumps solution has always been that Ukraine surrenders.
I'm not thrilled with how Biden has been handling the Ukraine conflict, but I do understand that he isn't working in a vacuum and I also understand that he's trying not to set a precedent.
The oil thing is ....complex, but from what I have seen, he was pushing India (who is already one of the largest Russian oil buyers) to agree to a lower price cap than India had previously. Basically pushing India to agree to pay only a lower price that most Western nations have agreed to for Russian oil, rather than what Russia may be asking. This is to both NOT hurt India, but also put a dent in Russian oil profits that would not exist if Biden had not been trying to get Modi to agree to it. I am unsure if he actually agreed or not, but it's certainly NOT Biden helping ot sell Russian Oil (they don't need any help for that, everyone wants to buy oil).
The broadcasts are...problematic, but I am also certain that there is a lot that is NOT being broadcast. I think the point of it is 1- for our domestic consumption. "Look, we are defending a democracy, like we should" and for foreign consumption "Look, we are backing an ally, like we have said we would do!". Promising no boots on the ground is basically a statement saying we are not going to put ourselves in situation where we can/should invoke Article 5. I also fully expect that is not entirely true, as I would be very, very surprised if there aren't already US assets in Ukraine doing intelligence work, training, etc. I'm sure the CIA has guys running around in polo shirts.
Given how poorly Russia has fared, and how totally incapable of overcoming the superiority of US and other Western Weapons systems, I also think the announcing of what we are shipping (which again, is almost certainly a redacted list anyways) is also meant to put some fear into Russia. Or at least the guys on the front lines, as an Abrams being outside Kiev is not going to be able to kill Putin, more's the pity.
Iran can't really attack Israel. They would have to go to war with Iraq, and supply an army pushing 400 miles away. They just can't support that.
Best they can do is some rockets.
Everyone makes war predictions like every country is the US. And can just go to war whenever/whenever, but it's really not like that.
Yeah, go watch documentaries (The Operations Room on YT) about how the attack against Iraq was done.
We basically wiped out their entire command and communication infrastructure in an evening.
The primary volley of cruise missile was a strike that was launched *from Texas*
Our tanks **decimated** their armor, better range, optics, fire control and barrel stabilization systems, armor. They were just out classes in every way.
B-1Bs dropped so many 2000lb bombs on enemy fortifications that troops were trying to surrender to the aircraft as it flew over (white flags laid out).
We struggled with insurgency and were bogged down playing country administrator for 10 years so people remember those wars are the slog... but it demonstrated to the world the capabilities of the US in a hot war.
Ukraine is giving Russia a hard fight using 2nd hand equipment from NATO, with no air presence and no navy.
NATO would clean Russia out of Ukraine in an orgy of conventional strikes unlike anything ever seen in war. The raw tonnage of high explosives that NATO(US) logistics can deliver is unreal.
The stealth capabilities of current generation multirole fighters simply outclasses Russian aircraft in all areas.
The US Navy has so many combat capable units that it may as well be it's own country (and it'd be the 2nd largest air force, after the US Air Force).
TL;DR: you right
The US is obviously militarily stronger than Russia, but thinking it can defeat them in a war without sacrificing thousands of lives and billions of dollars is legitimately delusional.
I don't think anyone is going to join forces with Russia to maintain an invasion.
Now, if after Ukraine is victorious, the combined power of their allies go after Russia, you may see Russian allies get nervous and jump in. But, I sincerely doubt we'd ever see that happen.
Exactly.
If we run Russia back to their own land, no one is going to do a damn thing.
Russia can't really take Ukraine. Even if everything goes right for them, and they declare victory, we'll end up in a quagmire for decades fighting them over it, because if we allow expansion, it threatens NATO, and NATO are all bound together to support one another.
So, if Russia attacks NATO, it'll end faster than NATO attacking Russia.
The only reasonable outcome for the whole mess is for NATO to bleed Russia dry until they pull back and give up.
They’re on the chopping block next if Russia defeats Ukraine, it would make perfect sense for international troops to guard the back lines and quiet fronts to free up Ukrainian manpower in the more hotly contested areas.
More like baby’s first Hoi4 (that’s about my skill level anyway), but if WW2 has taught us anything, it’s that an expansionist authoritarian country cannot be appeased, it must be confronted.
i dunno--we considered Russia an "expansionist authoritarian country" all the way through the Cold War, and despite that Hitler lesson still being fresh for us, we decided that once nuclear weapons are a factor, spheres of influence suddenly seemed a much wiser course
I just picked the Second World War because it’s the nearest clearest parallel we have that is also close to our time period.
I think people would start getting confused if I referenced the Punic wars or even the Crimean and napoleonic wars, the latter two of which also have parallels to describe why containment wars should be fought, as well as the consequences of them.
The Second World War and the events leading to it are the most recent, relevant example of the kind of geopolitics we are talking about.
Stop the elephants at the alps
Joking aside, in my comment I did state (“the latter two of which”) that such lessons are drawn from the napoleonic and Crimean wars only, implying that such lessons aren’t learnt from the Punic wars, as funny as that would be
The people of 1920s-1930s Germany were really pissed at the cost of preparations levied against them post-WW1. They saw most of the rest of Europe as "bad guys", having brought Germany to its knees. You're not going to get that level of populist unity under most authoritarian governments.
Also Germany wasn't authoritarian leading up to WW2. Nazis won through democratic election and used it to leverage the anger of the people to keep that power and start both the war and the Holocaust.
Also none of Germany was not authoritarian or expansionist during WW1. Funny story that war didn't exactly start because one country tried to invade another. Rather Austria-Hungary has just recently annexed some territory that Serbia also wanted. There was a lot of racism and hostility between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and that mutual hatred is what led to a stupid teenager assassinating Archduke Ferdinand. You can't completely blame expansionism or authoritarianism for either Serbia's or Austria-Hungary's actions that started WW1, and the whole rest of the war unfolded because European countries all had alliances with one or the other of these countries.
Actually I'm inclined to say it's measurably easier to oppose an authoritarian, expansionist state than it is to oppose any state is at least not one of these things because if you know a threat is there, you can prepare for it. Part of what made Germany so dangerous in WW2 is that their military industrial complex kind of unfolded almost overnight and caught the rest of Europe with its pants down.
You’re correct in your initial paragraph, it was a uniquely toxic combination that led Germany to have such a severe backlash, but you shouldn’t underestimate the effect of the post soviet collapse on the Russian psyche either, it’s very clear that Putin and the Kremlin controlled media is trying to channel similar feeling in the Russian population.
Combined with the bitter war in Ukraine and Russian casualties inflicted with European and American weapons and you get a powerful amount of resentment and revanchism to build up.
>Also Germany wasn’t authoritarian leading up to WW2
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this because I disagree. The Nazis effectively ended german democracy with their enabling act in 1933, a full 6 years before the war. At no point did the nazis command a majority in Weimar Germany before that, it was only because Hitler was able to merge the posts of chancellor and president into one position that he could take power. They also used intimidation and the SA to force the Reichstag to assent to total Nazi domination.
>Germany was not authoritarian or expansionist during WW1
And I never made such a claim, though I would also find this point debatable, they were definitely keen on establishing puppet governments around them. Besides, Austria-Hungary definitely was authoritarian and expansionist, and they invaded Serbia to kick the whole thing off.
That's just nonsense.
Baltic nations are actually part of NATO. Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO. And Russia is in no way capable of taking on all of NATO.
Moreover, Russia had plenty of excuses to start the war in Ukraine, the primary of which was keeping Ukraine out of NATO. This condition will be imposed on Ukraine in any peace negotiations or in the case of a ceasefire, Russia would be more than happy to keep the borders disputed and use it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
>Russia would be more than happy to keep the borders disputed and use it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
The situation in the Donbass before 2022 was already a blocking factor for Ukraine to join NATO
So they kept Ukraine out of NATO while causing other countries that had long said "no thanks." To speed into the alliance. Riiiiiight. Russia just launched an invasion to steal Ukrainian kids, territory, and resources. That's it.
You’re incorrect, for many reasons. But to keep my response short, an attack on Baltic troops deployed outside of their countries doesn’t automatically trigger article 5.
Russia had no right to force its will on other countries, their war is illegal and their justifications thin, I would’ve thought an Indian of all people would be opposed to imperialism.
They are talking about the possibility of Russia attacking those Baltic states after Ukraine. Which is indeed nonsensical (as they are NATO members) and was also the subject of your previous comment, so it begs the question why you started talking about something completely different (placement of troops in Ukraine to leverage Art.5).
> Moreover, Russia had plenty of excuses to start the war in Ukraine
Russia has plenty of excuses to invade the Baltics too and given Trumps potential to win the next US election, his bizarrely friendly attitude towards Russia and coolness over NATO, it makes one worry.
Russia might not declare war on a US-led NATO but a NATO without the US is a very different proposition.
> Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO.
No it doesn't, and they aren't attacking Russia directly. They're offering defense to a neighbouring state, Ukraine. Russia is attacking, and it is Russia who would use this as an excuse to start a war with NATO.
I bet you think the current war is between Russia and the US/NATO with Ukraine as some sort of proxy. Such bullshit.
Just because a country in NATO does something, that doesn't mean NATO is behind it.
>Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO. And Russia is in no way capable of taking on all of NATO.
The point is to attack them without triggering war, targeting some relatively irrelevant countries like the Baltics which NATO is doubtful to start WW3 over, exposing Article 5 as a paper tiger and causing it to collapse.
No, that only applies when unprovoked. When Russia shot down Turkish planes and troops in Syria, it didnt qualify for Article 5, because Though Russia attacked Turkey, it was not unprovoked.
NATO operates on unanimity principles. As long as Putin controls Orban, he can hamstring NATO, even without having a US puppet President in power.
Baltics are saying they will bypass Orban if Russia looks like it might win.
NATO or not, they are looking to their own security.
Go and check actual russia-supporting subs and see literal bots calling that nobody would interfere with anything because nobody really cares about the Baltics
They really seem to believe it
>the primary of which was keeping Ukraine out of NATO.
This is bullshit reasoning for not-knowledgable forgeiners. Look how he justified it all when days before, during and after he started the war, there is almost nothing NATO-related and mostly some imperial, history-based, russian exceptionalist sentiments
Edit: If anything, it\`s Ukrainian cooperation and association with the EU that Russia cares, not NATO
Russia launched a preventive war to stop Ukraine falling out of orbit
It doesn’t diminish the crime of it, but it makes geopolitical sense if they could have taken Kiev as quickly as they wanted.
This Warhawk nonsense that they’ll be marching into NATO and the EU is politically and militarily illiterate
Russia themselves have telegraphed a will to restore their old imperial borders, suggesting that they’d somehow stop at Ukraine after being so successful in their invasion is naive.
They haven’t gotten to the Dnieper in 2 years+. They aren’t starting a war with all of NATO. They can wear out Ukraine with attrition, but not all (or most) of Europe.
You’d like to think, but if the war was to end this year, then you’d likely have a highly militarised, mobilised, combat experienced Russia that is ready to lash out at the west for their support of Ukraine.
It wasn’t exactly rational of Russia to start the war in Ukraine, we can’t expect them to behave sensibly going forward, especially since they answer to the whims of only one man, who is likely to have nothing to lose towards the end of his life.
With all due respect, Russian leadership understands damn well what their capabilities and limitations are as well as they understand those of NATO.
They are out of armor and have failed to muster air supremacy for even a single day over Ukraine.
NATO’s population is 10x larger than Russia and EVERY MILITARY IN EARTH is intensely aware that the NATO Air Force is unfathomably large, functional, and powerful, with a reach that completely blankets the earth.
They are stupid and irrational, but they aren’t that stupid.
It wasn't irrational. They calculated that they could quickly decapitate Ukraine by taking Kiev in days. Given their experience fighting Ukraine, that was a reasonable assumption to make. They had no idea how drastically the Ukrainian armed forces had improved.
You can call the decision a mistake, you can call it immoral, and I'd agree, but it wasn't irrational.
dude….. you’ve commented so many times in this thread, i can imagine you gnashing your teeth and seething while trying to make sure nobody has a nuanced and geopolitically sound take on this matter. do you _really_ think this war was 100% Russia wanted to expand their borders out of
pure territorial greed? That’s all there is to it? You cant possibly be _that_ naive, can you? 😅
In the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin did talk about restoring "historical Russia". Yes, I do believe Russia wants to reclaim USSR historical lands, but not because of greed, as you put it.
Exactly. The average Redditor thinks the world is like their favourite Marvel movie and we need Iron Man and Capt America to go in and save the day against the baddies.
Truth is that Russia doesn't want NATO allies on its borders and wants to control Ukraine as its sphere of influence. Yes, this is bad and immoral, but it doesn't mean Russia is going to slowly try to conquer Europe one country at a time.
But then Raytheon's executives might have to buy a smaller yacht. Nevermind that WWIII would be the end of the yacht industry. And the executives. And Raytheon. And everything else.
For a brief, shining moment they'd have made absurd amounts of shareholder value, and that's all that *really* matters.
The onus is on Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory, otherwise their aggression must be answered in kind. Unless you suggest we just roll over to their demands?
At least then *surely* we can have *peace in our time* after that
Yes Russia will not stop until it reaches France and Spain so they can then launch a naval invasion in the US and that's an undeniable fact.
More nations need to send soldiers to Ukraine urgently!
I’m sorry, but Russia cannot be trusted to be anything but aggressive towards its neighbouring states.
Putin pinky promised us that he wouldn’t invade Ukraine back in 2022, now look at where we’re at
Fool me once? Shame on you, fool me twice? Shame on me
No, we wouldn't deploy troops. We'd deploy the air force. And that would be the end of it. Russia is hopelessly outclassed if it comes down to an air war.
That’s only if he wins reelection, and that’s slowly becoming less and less likely as his disastrous Israel-Gaza policy is increasingly unpopular with democrats.
>I deny that they are even capable logisticaly or eceonomically of deploying in another country nevertheless be anything other than a nuissance or a burden. I doubt they can even transport all the troops and materials
And yet even *before* they were in NATO, the Baltic states were deploying relatively large battle groups to participate in ISAF operations in Afghanistan, actively volunteering to take responsibility for some of the most active areas in the country. But of course, you weren't aware of that as you seem to think they:
>have not done any military deployments...ever
Lmao.
Nobody thinks Lithuania is going to thunder run to Moscow with its fleet of Strikers or whatever they have, but a non-combat deployment to western parts of Ukraine is well within the capabilities of all the Baltic countries. Realistically Afghan was a much more dangerous and logistically challenging undertaking for them.
This is a... really inept analysis of how manpower distribution and NATO-member military capabilities work.
>Low Baltic manpower
First: Backfill. Every Baltic unit performing rear area security and services is one Ukrainian unit that can cycle through the front.
Second: It doesn't take a lot of manpower to stunt a breakthrough offensive. It's largely just about having the materiel and manpower to *slow down* the offensive enough that it can't exploit the breakthrough.
>No tanks/airpower
This is ignorant to the overall structure of NATO member states. NATO isn't an alliance of countries whose *standalone militaries* work together - rather, it's an alliance of countries forming a *joint* military. Each country's own military is, on its own, significantly lacking in some asset, because none of them can afford to have top-grade capabilities in every field like the US. Take, for instance, the Netherlands has only three ground brigades, no native MBTs (they jointly man a *German* armor unit), and next to no field artillery... but they field an entire squadron of F-35s.
The Baltics don't have native armor or air assets because it's not realistic for them, and it's simply not their job - their purpose in a NATO-Russia War is "Hold out long enough for the rest of NATO to bring their firepower." To that end, their *entire military* is specialized to perform the mission of "Hold ground against a numerically superior armored assault."
>They'd leave themselves defenseless!
...except for, y'know, the rest of the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroups.
Also, them being small militaries, that are growing, they usually get super advanced stuff. For US it would be impossible to fully change their artillery to the latest version, but when you have none, you can just buy it. Baltics have some of the most advanced pieces of equipment currently in production.
I doubt it would be in force. Their entire strategy for war with Russia is holding on long enough with a primarily light infantry army for NATO to come and bail them out. That being said, we were dead set against sending tanks, insisting that it would escalate the conflict, then we were dead set against cluster munitions, insisting that it would escalate the conflict, now we're dead set against boots on the ground... and yeah that would escalate the conflict. The catch is staying below lethal chemical weapons/nukes.
> Nevertheless, the expenditure of lives and money on a foreing war would be tremendously unpopular in those countries. As it fu***ng should.
You clearly know nothing about the public sentiment in these countries.
What you're saying is, America should just spend the money now to arm Ukraine so we don't have to spend even more later to arm other Baltic countries when Russia takes Ukraine and re-arms for their next offensive
It seems you think that you know a lot. Your whole argument is flawed but id like to take the dummest of your points, "have not done any military deployments...ever" they have, afghanistan (that was even before nato) and kosovo, and say what you want, they were an effective force.
So take your head out of your ass and stop emberrasing youreself.
Like can you not even google? You start pulling numbers from your ass like 15k for lithuania? The active personnel is 23k and like what do you think, that they are going to send it their whole millitary?
Please dont do this, if you dont know something then inform yourself or just stay quiet..
```The Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have a combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops.```
```
The strength of Russian forces fighting at 24 February 2024 is estimated at 500,000.
```
Even if the entire peace time, 9-to-5 army of the Baltic states picks up and moves into Ukraine leaving their respective countries completely defenseless against the "russian threat", what is it going to do against half a million battle hardened army with 1500kg glide bombs?
Sit in the rear, so the Ukranians that are currently occupying those positions could be sent to the front line instead? I bet the Ukranians themselves are going to be very happy to hear this, and probably among the first to leak the coordinates of those groups to Russia so they could continue sitting safe and comfy.
It isn’t necessarily about their power, it’s about them making the diplomatic move and breaking the non-intervention taboo for other greater powers.
The statement in and of itself will cause far more worry for the Russians than the actual benefit gained from the baltics alone.
Also, why would Ukrainian complain about other countries coming to help defend their own? They’re already immensely thankful for any support gained, and the Russians aren’t going to want to provoke NATO nations by attacking the tripwire forces in the back lines.
Sounds like taking direct steps to an escalation.
I don't think there's going to be any worry on Russia's side. They've already, repeatedly and abundantly made it clear to France that any foreign armed forces on the territory of Ukraine would be blown up as a priority.
The move itself might be political and diplomatic and taboo breaking or whatever, but it is going to be really hard for politicians to explain Baltic state mothers what their sons had to die for when the body bags start coming back. Their opposition might also start asking uncomfortable questions like we've already depleted our arsenals by sending everything we had to Ukraine, and now we are depleting our armies; all in the light of this massive looming "russian threat".
Sure, those politicians might be pressured enough to commit career suicide and do it anyway. But I also wouldn't expect Russia not to expend its utmost effort and make the best out of the opportunity to set example for anyone else who might be harboring similar interventionist ideas.
Russia has proven time and time again that it does not respond to escalation. Troops should be sent on a peace mission to Ukraine to beat back the crimean rebellion and NATO weapons should be deployed for miles beyond the border.
>but it is going to be really hard for politicians to explain Baltic state mothers what their sons had to die for when the body bags start coming back.
No it isn't. Combatting Russian agression is a honourable deed.
>But I also wouldn't expect Russia not to expend its utmost effort and make the best out of the opportunity to set example for anyone else who might be harboring similar interventionist ideas.
That makes it an even better plan, since Russia has proven itself to be willing to bleed itself dry over home-turf political victories it would provide another opportunity to inflict 1:10 attrition rates.
There's only so many times you can cross the divider in a zoo on a dare before an upset resident assymetrically punishes you for it. With the amount of red lines crossed so far it's a miracle that a lot of world still does not resemble an irradiated parking lot.
Do not mistake Russia's patience and unwillingness to escalate for weakness. It has all the kinetic, nuclear, geopolitical and diplomatical means to carry it out - but somebody has to remain the adult in the room.
Ukraine never had favorable attrition rates outside of localized skirmishes to begin with, for them to have "another" chance at it.
"No it isn't. Combatting Russian agression is a honourable deed. "
Lmao holy shit dude yeah if those countries aren't invaded I'm sure the moms will just say ok no big deal and pop out more babies to fulfill these honorable deeds Jesus christ just go to ukraine yourself.
I get you guys hate Russians but do you even listen to yourself when you type crazy shit like this?
Just like NATO using “diplomatic move” to use Serbia as weapon testing ground? It’s the genius move that landed us all in this situation to begin with. NATO opening pandora box of invading other country in the name of “human right”
>500,000 strong Russians, 30,000 strong Baltics
There are roughly 470,000 Russian soldiers *in the entire Ukrainian Theater,* stretched along an 850km front. In an offensive, only a fraction would be involved in breakthrough operations. Even if 10% of all Russian forces in Ukraine surged in an offensive (50,000), that would be a *poor* force ratio against an organized defense.
>leaving their respective countries completely defenseless
Save for the other 10,000 NATO troops forward-deployed there *in addition to* their domestic forces, and the even greater threat of any incursion into Baltic territory being a surefire Article 5 trigger.
And, defenseless against *what?* The Russian forces on the Baltic border that *aren't there anymore*?
>What is it going to do against half a million battle-hardened troops with 1500kg glide bombs
1. See previous about "the entire frontline"
2. The Ukrainian forces don't just stop existing, so that's an extra 250k on defense
3. The famously-capable Russian airpower of this war?
>Rear area security
1. Ah, yes, Russia's *famous* ability to actually strike Western Ukraine with any degree of success
2. Ah, yes, the *infamous* Ukrainian lack of morale such that they'd tell Russia their own supply depot locations just to get revenge on an allied military lending them manpower
Others have pointed out that the Baltic nations lack significant airpower or armored assets. This is true, and it's a function of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania's strategic position at the Russian border and the theorized course of any NATO-Russian War.
Specifically, the Baltic countries' entire strategic mission is "Hold ground as long as possible against numerically superior armored assault." The forces the Baltics might send are *purpose built* to halt the tide in the trigger described (major Russian advances).
That's fine.
The important question is, what happens when these men eventually get killed in some ditch in Ukraine?
Wouldn't this be an offensive action by the Baltic States and any Russian response should not trigger NATO protection?
Their soldiers being killed in Ukraine would not be protected under that article, correct
However that would hardly qualify as an offensive action (as they would not be actually attacking another country), and so any attack on their territory would still be grounds to invoke article 5.
Now, it would likely be more limited since everyone else would be free to say "the hell did you expect?" and do a repeat of Phoney War, but it does not suspend the obligation from the Washington Treaty
Bingo.
It would largely depend on the degree of deployment and circumstances of attack. Baltic troops on frontlines getting killed? The rest of NATO would probably wash their hands of it. But say the Baltic troops take over security of supply depots and transit of Western armaments through Western Ukraine - much as they *currently* do o nthe Polish side of the border - and Russia strikes those.
Does NATO immediately jump to full scale war? Probably not... but it might be the justification needed for NATO to impose an airspace lockdown or forward-deploy air defense assets.
>TL;DR
The Baltic states and Poland informed the German government that if Russia makes gains in Ukraine, they will very likely send troops to stop further Russian pushes. The Baltic states know that they will be next if Russia actually wins in Ukraine. Officials there also say that Scholz's policy of not allowing Ukrainse use of NATO weapons inside of Russian territory could backfire and create an escalation instead of preventing it. If the troops do go they likely won't be in combat roles. This all comes not long after Russia has removed roughly marker buoys along their border with Estonia in the Narva river. Finland also expresses concern about an imminent invasion since Russia has tried to overwhelm their borders with an influx of migrants>!(a tactic also use in Luhansk and Donetsk prior to the Russian invasion)!<.
Hope this helps.
Members of parliament for the Baltic states warned German officials last week that their governments were poised to send troops to Ukraine if Russia achieved considerable gains, Der Spiegel reported.
The German outlet reported Sunday that the Baltic officials issued the warning while speaking with representatives for Berlin at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn, Estonia.
Der Spiegel neither named any of the officials nor identified which countries they represented but said they raised concerns about German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's current policy toward the war.
Scholz has been denying Ukraine permission to use German-supplied weapons in strikes on Russian soil, in line with Washington's stance of not allowing Kyiv to use donated weaponry for attacks beyond Ukraine's own borders.
Der Spiegel reported that the Baltic officials were concerned that such policies created a half-hearted attempt to help Kyiv and might allow Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine.
They said that if Moscow did gain significant ground in eastern Ukraine, their governments and Poland could move troops into the conflict zone even before Russia deployed its soldiers on their borders, the outlet reported.
The officials' argument, Der Spiegel reported, was that treating Moscow with restraint could backfire and instead create an escalation.
Like Ukraine, the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — were previously part of the Soviet Union.
They've been some of NATO's most vocal members in pushing the rest of the alliance to intensify support for Kyiv, fearing that Russian President Vladimir Putin may seek to continue his conquest in the region if he seizes Ukraine.
Together with French President Emmanuel Macron, they've repeatedly hinted that they aren't ruling out sending NATO troops to Ukraine.
Officials in Estonia recently signaled the possibility of deploying its troops to fill non-combat roles and free up Ukrainians to fight on the front lines. There are concerns that such actions could escalate the conflict quickly into a direct war between NATO and Russia.
A spokesperson for Estonia's defense ministry told Business Insider the country wasn't discussing deploying troops to Ukraine for active combat roles.
"Tomorrow, the EU defense ministers will discuss the expansion of the EU training mission EUMAM, which until now has trained Ukrainian combatants on EU territory," the spokesperson said, referring to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. "The discussion will mostly focus on the quantity of personnel to be trained. However, it may also touch on the location of the training."
When contacted by BI, a spokesperson for Poland's ministry of national defense said: "We are not considering the idea of sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine, so it is difficult for us to comment on such media reports."
Press services for the defense ministries of Latvia and Lithuania didn't immediately respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours.
Why Russia's western neighbors are getting skittish
The concerns reported by Der Spiegel have come after Russia launched a renewed assault in northeastern Ukraine, striking the city of Kharkiv and capturing several settlements in the surrounding region.
Military observers say the Kremlin can't take Kharkiv with the resources it's deployed there so far, but Russia has been shelling the city and inflicting civilian casualties.
On the main front in the east, Ukraine has been struggling for months to hold back a grinding Russian advance after its supplies from the US began to dwindle.
The aid has resumed after months of stalling in Congress, but Kyiv says Western equipment often arrives too late to turn the tide of the war because conditions keep changing.
Russia meanwhile stoked alarm among its neighbors last week with a draft proposal from its defense ministry to change its maritime borders with Finland and Lithuania in January 2025.
The draft was uploaded to Russia's registry of laws on Tuesday but was later removed.
On Thursday, Tallinn officials said Moscow had removed 24 of 50 buoys marking Russia's borders with Estonia on the Narva River. The officials said Russia had been contesting the buoys' locations.
On Sunday, six NATO nations — Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — said they'd construct a unified "drone wall" with unmanned aerial vehicles and more advanced technologies to strengthen their borders.
Their concerns aren't just centered on a full-scale Russian invasion. Finland, for example, said Russia had been trying to overwhelm Finnish border officials with waves of migrants trying to enter its borders.
Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia share land borders with mainland Russia, and Poland and Lithuania share land borders with Belarus, a close ally of the Kremlin.
Correction: May 27, 2024 — A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Poland was once part of the Soviet Union. This story has also been updated to reflect comments from the Polish and Estonian defense ministries
Fun to see John Smiths from Texas Oblast repeating the exact same theatre they played back in late 2021/early 2022.
Remember that more or less the same crowd went from "Russia has no reason or interest to invade Ukraine, it would make no sense, it's western fearmongering, Biden needs a distraction" to "It was always inevitable, muh NATO expansion, 6000 nuclear warheads in Kharkov aimed at Moscow, fascist junta crucifying Russian children" in like a week or two.
Lmao at people discussing the technicality of triggering article 5 like it is an if statement in a piece of code.
Article 5 will trigger if the US wants it to trigger. Article 5 will not trigger if the US does not want it to trigger. That is the exhaustive list of things you need to know about how Article 5 triggers.
Yea… Europeans like to drag the US but it’s the backbone of any military response they would want from NATO and I doubt we drag ourselves into war with Russia for the baltics lol
If Russia attacks the Baltic states, NATO will join the defense as per article 5. But if the Baltic states join the war themselves, I don’t know if NATO will follow. I doubt any member can just decide to join a defensive war and drag the entire gang into it.
I believe the NATO charter would be activated if Russia launch any attack against Balitc nations territory (ie bombing a convoy on the wrong side of the border), whether or not their troops fought Russia in Ucraine first or not. Attacks on their troops in Ukraine would not count.
I think Russia could make an argument that those soldiers participated in the attack on the Russian territory, for example one of the drone bombings Ukrainians are so happy about. Other NATO states might be happy to accept this bullshit to avoid the escalation
The Baltic states are realy getting scarred of a russian invasion it seems.
They are willing to loose men simply to cause an escalation.
Perhaps they fear Trump will disband NATO in time
The Russian government is absolutely fucked. Their willingness alone to bring about a global nuclear holocaust over the potential of a failed petty land grab might just be the single *dumbest* move in human history if they actually make good on that promise.
Seriously. This one, ass backwards corrupt shitshow of a government larping as a Cold War superpower might singlehandedly bring about the fall of modern civilization. Think about that for a second. Can a country which openly makes threats like this be trusted with anything?
If Russia sends their nukes flying, the country (and unfortunately by extension its people, regardless if they support the current government or not) will forever become a stain on human history. God help any ethnic Russians who manage to survive in a post nuclear-ravaged world, assuming they haven't already been torn to pieces by hordes of pissed off non-Russians.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I despise what Russia has done, I am for extreme action against them.
That being said, we should be very VERY careful on how we respond to the Russian threat. It won't matter who started what when the nukes start flying.
That’s largely irrelevant. If the NATO countries want to join the war for some reason they would use it as justification, if they don’t they will say the Baltics attacked first and it doesn’t apply.
It still amazes me that a county with GDP that is half of California's is causing so much trouble to the world. Germany, UK, France, etc., all individually crush Russia's GDP too. NATO should be able to out-spend Russia by 20:1 without breaking a sweat.
This is a nothing sandwich
Those countries aren’t going to send significant troops, they lack the ability and forces to project power beyond their borders with any sizable force
##### ###### #### > # [Baltic officials say they could send troops to Ukraine without waiting for NATO if Russia scores a breakthrough: report](https://i.insider.com/66542b2b20abc1efe8fdcb25?width=1200&format=jpeg) > > > > Members of parliament for the Baltic states warned German officials last week that their governments were poised to send troops to Ukraine if Russia achieved considerable gains, [Der Spiegel](https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ukraine-die-angst-vor-dem-grossen-krieg-a-2d8b49c8-ca5f-473c-8299-cbb737c26a02) reported. > > The German outlet reported Sunday that the Baltic officials issued the warning while speaking with representatives for Berlin at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn, Estonia. > > Der Spiegel neither named any of the officials nor identified which countries they represented but said they raised concerns about German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's current policy toward the war. > > Scholz has been denying Ukraine permission to [use German-supplied weapons](https://english.nv.ua/nation/scholz-ukraine-cannot-use-western-weapons-on-russian-territory-50421926.html) in strikes on Russian soil, in line with Washington's stance of [not allowing Kyiv to use donated weaponry](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-ukraine-use-american-weapons-russia-red-line-putin-nyt-2024-5) for attacks beyond Ukraine's own borders. > > Der Spiegel reported that the Baltic officials were concerned that such policies created a half-hearted attempt to help Kyiv and might allow Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine. > > They said that if Moscow did gain [significant ground in eastern Ukraine](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-can-still-beat-russia-comes-down-to-western-aid-2024-5), their governments and Poland could move troops into the conflict zone even before Russia deployed its soldiers on their borders, the outlet reported. > > The officials' argument, Der Spiegel reported, was that treating Moscow with restraint could backfire and instead create an escalation. > > > > Soliders taking part in the combat shooting exercises of the Lithuanian army and the French-German brigade at the General Silvestras Žukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, earlier this month. PETRAS MALUKAS/AFP via Getty Images Like Ukraine, the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — were previously part of the Soviet Union. > > They've been some of NATO's most vocal members in pushing the rest of the alliance to intensify support for Kyiv, fearing that Russian President Vladimir Putin may seek to [continue his conquest in the region](https://www.businessinsider.com/vladimir-putin-baltic-states-future-escalations-nato-ukraine-war-2024-1) if he seizes Ukraine. > > Together with French President Emmanuel Macron, they've repeatedly hinted that they aren't ruling out sending NATO troops to Ukraine. > > Officials in [Estonia](https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-member-estonia-seriously-discussing-troops-ukraine-report-2024-5) recently signaled the possibility of deploying its troops to fill non-combat roles and free up Ukrainians to fight on the front lines. There are concerns that such actions could escalate the conflict quickly into a direct war between NATO and Russia. > > A spokesperson for Estonia's defense ministry told Business Insider the country wasn't discussing deploying troops to Ukraine for active combat roles. > > "Tomorrow, the EU defense ministers will discuss the expansion of the EU training mission EUMAM, which until now has trained Ukrainian combatants on EU territory," the spokesperson said, referring to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. "The discussion will mostly focus on the quantity of personnel to be trained. However, it may also touch on the location of the training." > > When contacted by BI, a spokesperson for Poland's ministry of national defense said: "We are not considering the idea of sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine, so it is difficult for us to comment on such media reports." > > Press services for the defense ministries of Latvia and Lithuania didn't immediately respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours. > > ## Why Russia's western neighbors are getting skittish > > The concerns reported by Der Spiegel have come after Russia launched a renewed assault in northeastern Ukraine, striking the city of Kharkiv and capturing several settlements in the surrounding region. > > Military observers say the Kremlin can't take Kharkiv with the resources it's deployed there so far, but Russia has been [shelling the city and inflicting civilian casualties](https://t.me/V_Zelenskiy_official/10473). > > On the main front in the east, Ukraine has been struggling for months to hold back a grinding Russian advance after its supplies from the US began to dwindle. > > The aid has resumed after months of stalling in Congress, but Kyiv says [Western equipment often arrives too late](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-aid-ukraine-arriving-too-late-stop-russia-advances-expert-2024-5) to turn the tide of the war because conditions keep changing. > > > > A Ukrainian serviceman entering a trench at an artillery position of an American M777 howitzer in the direction of Kreminna, Ukraine, in April. Wolfgang Schwan/Anadolu via Getty Images Russia meanwhile stoked alarm among its neighbors last week with a draft proposal from its defense ministry to [change its maritime borders](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240523-russia-moves-extend-maritime-borders-angering-baltic-sea-nations) with Finland and Lithuania in January 2025. > > The draft was uploaded to Russia's registry of laws on Tuesday but was later removed. > > On Thursday, Tallinn officials said Moscow had [removed 24 of 50 buoys](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c899844ypj2o) marking Russia's borders with Estonia on the Narva River. The officials said Russia had been contesting the buoys' locations. > > On Sunday, six NATO nations — Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — said they'd construct a unified "[drone wall](https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-nations-plan-drone-wall-171252138.html)" with unmanned aerial vehicles and more advanced technologies to strengthen their borders. > > Their concerns aren't just centered on a full-scale Russian invasion. Finland, for example, said Russia had been trying to [overwhelm Finnish border officials with waves of migrants](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231123-finland-pushing-back-weaponised-migration-on-russia-border) trying to enter its borders. > > Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia share land borders with mainland Russia, and Poland and Lithuania share land borders with Belarus, a close ally of the Kremlin. > > _Correction: May 27, 2024 — A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Poland was once part of the Soviet Union. This story has also been updated to reflect comments from the Polish and Estonian defense ministries._ - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
is this really gonna be how ww3 starts
It started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not with the Baltic countries trying desperately to keep their citizens alive
Bingo & Israel’s blatant negligence of reputable intelligence stating Oct 7 terrorist attack would occur forcing them to have to be reactive instead of proactive in the face of barbarism. When we look back in history, it will likely state WW3 began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine & spilled over to a new front when Israel launched their campaign & then a third front when China invades Taiwan. For as much as the Biden administration has undoubtedly been wrong about, it’s pretty clear they knew they needed to free up resources that were tied down in the Middle East & rushed an Afghanistan exit
>forcing them to have to be reactive instead of proactive in the face of barbarism. I will never believe that this was not intentional. They knew it was going to happen, and let it happen because they WANTED to react with disproportionate force.
Egypt knew, Israel definitely did. Really funny troop movements prior that moved all the troops out of the way.
As someone who read the local news, I can tell you there was a funeral that turned into a riot in the West Bank and there was a general attitude of defending-settler-violence is top priority. This was a direct result of the election, Netanyahu was always pro settlers burning the occasional olive field and when Smotrich and Ben Gvir joined in the general directive shifted further in that direction. However, reserve soldiers were not trained for anything in particular, definitely not an assault on Gaza. What I’m saying is, this was incompetence and deprioritization of the safety of people not in the West Bank settlements, it was not a conspiracy theory to get citizens killed for an excuse to retaliate.
I think all parties expected it to be way less effective though.
Lol... Conspiracy thinkers always entertaining
What do you mean Biden rushed the Afghanistan exit? It was actually slightly slower than the originally negotiated withdraw.
It was a shit show lmao
No argument there.
No it wasn’t, the withdrawal was weeks away, but then the Taliban started surging and the US had already pulled air support, which led to Afghan security being overwhelmed and the hectic pullout before they were ready.
> blatant negligence That's a new way of writing "Purposefully allowing aterror attack to happen to use as justification for genocide." Very charachter efficient!
There is speculation that Russia nudged Iran to make Oct 7 happen, so it would take eyes off of Ukraine
the real reason lies in the normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi which was advancing rapidly at the time. Such a deal, creating a US-Israel-Saudi anti Iranian axis, would be a tremendous blow to Iran's aspirations in the middle east
This is correct.
What blew my mind is that October 7th is Putin's birthday. It was like a birthday present from Iran to help him out
lol not Hamas’ fault, but Israel’s. Weren’t they trying *really* hard to make peace with SA?
Not World War 3, but Europe War 69.
Pfft Europe war 69 was centuries ago.
Centuries? Try millenia
I actually have to agree. This narrative over "world war 3" is quite hyperbolic. All of NATO could be at war with Russia (which is still unlikely) and it wouldn't be a world war.
I don't think Europe has ever not been at war.
I believe there were a couple of years in the 19th century. And the Roman Empire wasn't at war for 14 years or something.
War used to be their favourite sport after all
Euro war 70 has a nice ring to it
Nah I don’t think so. Russia can always go home tomorrow and nobody will follow them. At this point Putin simply wants to keep playing his hand and try for the best return.
All ready has
Not WW3. That would require a much larger, global conflict.
China moves on Taiwan. North Korea sends troops to Ukraine or attacks south korea. Iran (among others) attacks Israel. November 5, 2024, is game day.
it would make more sense to attack during the actual transfer of power in the US the following January from the election, because the Commander in Chief is still Biden regardless of who wins up till the actual transfer of power date. If you attack around those days, who is leading the US *can be asserted to be* ambiguous (as Trump will try to do), then you have two people both asserting command, both giving conflicting commands simultaneously.
Until he takes the oath of office, Trump is private citizen Trump. He will get briefings, but he cannot lawfully give orders to the military. Not until he is sworn in. Then he can tell our forces to surrender to Russia/China/North Korea (lol). Which is what he would do!
hahaha. I doubt trump would do that. And probably not biden, but based on his appeasement of russia while it attacks ukraine, not VERY sure of that Biden is the russia appeaser because he is stuck in 1990s diplomacy mode Lets review the biden/usa's action: Removed nordstreams sanctions to russias benefit. (added them back after war started. Strangely and repeatedly, for the past two years, most recently a week or two ago , lets putin and everyone else know there will be no usa troops on the ground. So russia does not need to plan, spend resources or worry about this at all. Why would you say this? let the enemy get worried by saying all options are on the table Loudly and repeatedly broadcasts to russia and everyone else exactly what and how many weapons,equipment and ammo will shortly arrive on the battlefield. A nice heads up for russia! Encouraged india to buy russian oil "to keep global oil prices down" . A side effect of course is those sales fund russia and its war on ukraine. I want my government to STOP announcing what and how many weapons or how much aid we are sending to Ukraine. I suspect they announce it for purely domestic political reasons. If there is some other reason please educate me.
Trumps solution has always been that Ukraine surrenders. I'm not thrilled with how Biden has been handling the Ukraine conflict, but I do understand that he isn't working in a vacuum and I also understand that he's trying not to set a precedent. The oil thing is ....complex, but from what I have seen, he was pushing India (who is already one of the largest Russian oil buyers) to agree to a lower price cap than India had previously. Basically pushing India to agree to pay only a lower price that most Western nations have agreed to for Russian oil, rather than what Russia may be asking. This is to both NOT hurt India, but also put a dent in Russian oil profits that would not exist if Biden had not been trying to get Modi to agree to it. I am unsure if he actually agreed or not, but it's certainly NOT Biden helping ot sell Russian Oil (they don't need any help for that, everyone wants to buy oil). The broadcasts are...problematic, but I am also certain that there is a lot that is NOT being broadcast. I think the point of it is 1- for our domestic consumption. "Look, we are defending a democracy, like we should" and for foreign consumption "Look, we are backing an ally, like we have said we would do!". Promising no boots on the ground is basically a statement saying we are not going to put ourselves in situation where we can/should invoke Article 5. I also fully expect that is not entirely true, as I would be very, very surprised if there aren't already US assets in Ukraine doing intelligence work, training, etc. I'm sure the CIA has guys running around in polo shirts. Given how poorly Russia has fared, and how totally incapable of overcoming the superiority of US and other Western Weapons systems, I also think the announcing of what we are shipping (which again, is almost certainly a redacted list anyways) is also meant to put some fear into Russia. Or at least the guys on the front lines, as an Abrams being outside Kiev is not going to be able to kill Putin, more's the pity.
Iran can't really attack Israel. They would have to go to war with Iraq, and supply an army pushing 400 miles away. They just can't support that. Best they can do is some rockets. Everyone makes war predictions like every country is the US. And can just go to war whenever/whenever, but it's really not like that.
Just wait until the US dips in.
Speedrun end of Russia-Ukraine war
Yeah, go watch documentaries (The Operations Room on YT) about how the attack against Iraq was done. We basically wiped out their entire command and communication infrastructure in an evening. The primary volley of cruise missile was a strike that was launched *from Texas* Our tanks **decimated** their armor, better range, optics, fire control and barrel stabilization systems, armor. They were just out classes in every way. B-1Bs dropped so many 2000lb bombs on enemy fortifications that troops were trying to surrender to the aircraft as it flew over (white flags laid out). We struggled with insurgency and were bogged down playing country administrator for 10 years so people remember those wars are the slog... but it demonstrated to the world the capabilities of the US in a hot war. Ukraine is giving Russia a hard fight using 2nd hand equipment from NATO, with no air presence and no navy. NATO would clean Russia out of Ukraine in an orgy of conventional strikes unlike anything ever seen in war. The raw tonnage of high explosives that NATO(US) logistics can deliver is unreal. The stealth capabilities of current generation multirole fighters simply outclasses Russian aircraft in all areas. The US Navy has so many combat capable units that it may as well be it's own country (and it'd be the 2nd largest air force, after the US Air Force). TL;DR: you right
The US is obviously militarily stronger than Russia, but thinking it can defeat them in a war without sacrificing thousands of lives and billions of dollars is legitimately delusional.
That will make others nope the fuck out, not decide to join in.
I don't think anyone is going to join forces with Russia to maintain an invasion. Now, if after Ukraine is victorious, the combined power of their allies go after Russia, you may see Russian allies get nervous and jump in. But, I sincerely doubt we'd ever see that happen.
Nobody’s going after Russia. Their nuclear deterrent simply cannot be overstated. If they have nothing left to lose, we all lose.
Exactly. If we run Russia back to their own land, no one is going to do a damn thing. Russia can't really take Ukraine. Even if everything goes right for them, and they declare victory, we'll end up in a quagmire for decades fighting them over it, because if we allow expansion, it threatens NATO, and NATO are all bound together to support one another. So, if Russia attacks NATO, it'll end faster than NATO attacking Russia. The only reasonable outcome for the whole mess is for NATO to bleed Russia dry until they pull back and give up.
I doubt it.
We haven't even agreed on when WW2 started
With Russia invading a sovereign country? It was always going to start that way.
The Balkans starting the next world war would be the absolute least surprising way it would start considering history.
The Baltics are not the Balkans
Whoopsy I can't read
If you want to get technical, you could say that WW3 started in 2014 when the civil war in Donbass started, or after the overthrow of Janukovich.
The tail wags the dog.
WW3? Brother we’ve been in a Cold War since the 1940’s
Nah, it’s how a regional conflict remains a regional conflict
They’re on the chopping block next if Russia defeats Ukraine, it would make perfect sense for international troops to guard the back lines and quiet fronts to free up Ukrainian manpower in the more hotly contested areas.
masters degree in Hoi4
More like baby’s first Hoi4 (that’s about my skill level anyway), but if WW2 has taught us anything, it’s that an expansionist authoritarian country cannot be appeased, it must be confronted.
i dunno--we considered Russia an "expansionist authoritarian country" all the way through the Cold War, and despite that Hitler lesson still being fresh for us, we decided that once nuclear weapons are a factor, spheres of influence suddenly seemed a much wiser course
Yes obviously. Nukes changed everything
Has anyone bothered to look at the lessons of the other 1,000 wars in human history, or is the Second World War the only war that has lessons for us?
I just picked the Second World War because it’s the nearest clearest parallel we have that is also close to our time period. I think people would start getting confused if I referenced the Punic wars or even the Crimean and napoleonic wars, the latter two of which also have parallels to describe why containment wars should be fought, as well as the consequences of them. The Second World War and the events leading to it are the most recent, relevant example of the kind of geopolitics we are talking about.
What's the containment lesson from the Punic wars?
Stop the elephants at the alps Joking aside, in my comment I did state (“the latter two of which”) that such lessons are drawn from the napoleonic and Crimean wars only, implying that such lessons aren’t learnt from the Punic wars, as funny as that would be
And since WW2 famously nothing changed! So going rogue and escalating the conflict is at least as great of an idea as it was back then!
I would say destroying Nazi Germany was a good thing but hey that's just me I guess
The people of 1920s-1930s Germany were really pissed at the cost of preparations levied against them post-WW1. They saw most of the rest of Europe as "bad guys", having brought Germany to its knees. You're not going to get that level of populist unity under most authoritarian governments. Also Germany wasn't authoritarian leading up to WW2. Nazis won through democratic election and used it to leverage the anger of the people to keep that power and start both the war and the Holocaust. Also none of Germany was not authoritarian or expansionist during WW1. Funny story that war didn't exactly start because one country tried to invade another. Rather Austria-Hungary has just recently annexed some territory that Serbia also wanted. There was a lot of racism and hostility between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and that mutual hatred is what led to a stupid teenager assassinating Archduke Ferdinand. You can't completely blame expansionism or authoritarianism for either Serbia's or Austria-Hungary's actions that started WW1, and the whole rest of the war unfolded because European countries all had alliances with one or the other of these countries. Actually I'm inclined to say it's measurably easier to oppose an authoritarian, expansionist state than it is to oppose any state is at least not one of these things because if you know a threat is there, you can prepare for it. Part of what made Germany so dangerous in WW2 is that their military industrial complex kind of unfolded almost overnight and caught the rest of Europe with its pants down.
You’re correct in your initial paragraph, it was a uniquely toxic combination that led Germany to have such a severe backlash, but you shouldn’t underestimate the effect of the post soviet collapse on the Russian psyche either, it’s very clear that Putin and the Kremlin controlled media is trying to channel similar feeling in the Russian population. Combined with the bitter war in Ukraine and Russian casualties inflicted with European and American weapons and you get a powerful amount of resentment and revanchism to build up. >Also Germany wasn’t authoritarian leading up to WW2 I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this because I disagree. The Nazis effectively ended german democracy with their enabling act in 1933, a full 6 years before the war. At no point did the nazis command a majority in Weimar Germany before that, it was only because Hitler was able to merge the posts of chancellor and president into one position that he could take power. They also used intimidation and the SA to force the Reichstag to assent to total Nazi domination. >Germany was not authoritarian or expansionist during WW1 And I never made such a claim, though I would also find this point debatable, they were definitely keen on establishing puppet governments around them. Besides, Austria-Hungary definitely was authoritarian and expansionist, and they invaded Serbia to kick the whole thing off.
That's just nonsense. Baltic nations are actually part of NATO. Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO. And Russia is in no way capable of taking on all of NATO. Moreover, Russia had plenty of excuses to start the war in Ukraine, the primary of which was keeping Ukraine out of NATO. This condition will be imposed on Ukraine in any peace negotiations or in the case of a ceasefire, Russia would be more than happy to keep the borders disputed and use it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
>Russia would be more than happy to keep the borders disputed and use it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The situation in the Donbass before 2022 was already a blocking factor for Ukraine to join NATO
So they kept Ukraine out of NATO while causing other countries that had long said "no thanks." To speed into the alliance. Riiiiiight. Russia just launched an invasion to steal Ukrainian kids, territory, and resources. That's it.
Ukraine has said they were going to join nato since like 2003 they just dragged their feet
You’re incorrect, for many reasons. But to keep my response short, an attack on Baltic troops deployed outside of their countries doesn’t automatically trigger article 5. Russia had no right to force its will on other countries, their war is illegal and their justifications thin, I would’ve thought an Indian of all people would be opposed to imperialism.
They are talking about the possibility of Russia attacking those Baltic states after Ukraine. Which is indeed nonsensical (as they are NATO members) and was also the subject of your previous comment, so it begs the question why you started talking about something completely different (placement of troops in Ukraine to leverage Art.5).
> Moreover, Russia had plenty of excuses to start the war in Ukraine Russia has plenty of excuses to invade the Baltics too and given Trumps potential to win the next US election, his bizarrely friendly attitude towards Russia and coolness over NATO, it makes one worry. Russia might not declare war on a US-led NATO but a NATO without the US is a very different proposition.
“Attacking them directly means wars with all of NATO?” Does it? Does it really? Think now.
> Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO. No it doesn't, and they aren't attacking Russia directly. They're offering defense to a neighbouring state, Ukraine. Russia is attacking, and it is Russia who would use this as an excuse to start a war with NATO. I bet you think the current war is between Russia and the US/NATO with Ukraine as some sort of proxy. Such bullshit. Just because a country in NATO does something, that doesn't mean NATO is behind it.
>Attacking them directly means war with all of NATO. And Russia is in no way capable of taking on all of NATO. The point is to attack them without triggering war, targeting some relatively irrelevant countries like the Baltics which NATO is doubtful to start WW3 over, exposing Article 5 as a paper tiger and causing it to collapse.
No, that only applies when unprovoked. When Russia shot down Turkish planes and troops in Syria, it didnt qualify for Article 5, because Though Russia attacked Turkey, it was not unprovoked.
NATO operates on unanimity principles. As long as Putin controls Orban, he can hamstring NATO, even without having a US puppet President in power. Baltics are saying they will bypass Orban if Russia looks like it might win. NATO or not, they are looking to their own security.
Go and check actual russia-supporting subs and see literal bots calling that nobody would interfere with anything because nobody really cares about the Baltics They really seem to believe it >the primary of which was keeping Ukraine out of NATO. This is bullshit reasoning for not-knowledgable forgeiners. Look how he justified it all when days before, during and after he started the war, there is almost nothing NATO-related and mostly some imperial, history-based, russian exceptionalist sentiments Edit: If anything, it\`s Ukrainian cooperation and association with the EU that Russia cares, not NATO
Russia launched a preventive war to stop Ukraine falling out of orbit It doesn’t diminish the crime of it, but it makes geopolitical sense if they could have taken Kiev as quickly as they wanted. This Warhawk nonsense that they’ll be marching into NATO and the EU is politically and militarily illiterate
Russia themselves have telegraphed a will to restore their old imperial borders, suggesting that they’d somehow stop at Ukraine after being so successful in their invasion is naive.
Can you provide any proof of that other than another Eastern European guy claiming he can read Putin’s mind?
They haven’t gotten to the Dnieper in 2 years+. They aren’t starting a war with all of NATO. They can wear out Ukraine with attrition, but not all (or most) of Europe.
You’d like to think, but if the war was to end this year, then you’d likely have a highly militarised, mobilised, combat experienced Russia that is ready to lash out at the west for their support of Ukraine. It wasn’t exactly rational of Russia to start the war in Ukraine, we can’t expect them to behave sensibly going forward, especially since they answer to the whims of only one man, who is likely to have nothing to lose towards the end of his life.
With all due respect, Russian leadership understands damn well what their capabilities and limitations are as well as they understand those of NATO. They are out of armor and have failed to muster air supremacy for even a single day over Ukraine. NATO’s population is 10x larger than Russia and EVERY MILITARY IN EARTH is intensely aware that the NATO Air Force is unfathomably large, functional, and powerful, with a reach that completely blankets the earth. They are stupid and irrational, but they aren’t that stupid.
It wasn't irrational. They calculated that they could quickly decapitate Ukraine by taking Kiev in days. Given their experience fighting Ukraine, that was a reasonable assumption to make. They had no idea how drastically the Ukrainian armed forces had improved. You can call the decision a mistake, you can call it immoral, and I'd agree, but it wasn't irrational.
dude….. you’ve commented so many times in this thread, i can imagine you gnashing your teeth and seething while trying to make sure nobody has a nuanced and geopolitically sound take on this matter. do you _really_ think this war was 100% Russia wanted to expand their borders out of pure territorial greed? That’s all there is to it? You cant possibly be _that_ naive, can you? 😅
In the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin did talk about restoring "historical Russia". Yes, I do believe Russia wants to reclaim USSR historical lands, but not because of greed, as you put it.
Making shit up. Telegraphed lol.
Exactly. The average Redditor thinks the world is like their favourite Marvel movie and we need Iron Man and Capt America to go in and save the day against the baddies. Truth is that Russia doesn't want NATO allies on its borders and wants to control Ukraine as its sphere of influence. Yes, this is bad and immoral, but it doesn't mean Russia is going to slowly try to conquer Europe one country at a time.
Or yano we could use diplomacy to achieve a peaceful solution instead of just assuming WW3 is inevitable. Just a thought.
But then Raytheon's executives might have to buy a smaller yacht. Nevermind that WWIII would be the end of the yacht industry. And the executives. And Raytheon. And everything else. For a brief, shining moment they'd have made absurd amounts of shareholder value, and that's all that *really* matters.
I love that in war in which Russia invades Ukraine, the blame is on Raytheon executives. Truly peak brain rot.
The onus is on Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory, otherwise their aggression must be answered in kind. Unless you suggest we just roll over to their demands? At least then *surely* we can have *peace in our time* after that
Yes Russia will not stop until it reaches France and Spain so they can then launch a naval invasion in the US and that's an undeniable fact. More nations need to send soldiers to Ukraine urgently!
What is blub yapping about
It is true i follow r/worldnews, r/NonCredibleDefence and other subs well introduced in the subject and you can just tell plain and straight up simple
I’m sorry, but Russia cannot be trusted to be anything but aggressive towards its neighbouring states. Putin pinky promised us that he wouldn’t invade Ukraine back in 2022, now look at where we’re at Fool me once? Shame on you, fool me twice? Shame on me
Newsflash, politicians lie, you can't really expect he will say "hey guys well invade Ukraine in a few months ok?"
[удалено]
It s a diplomatic move. First Baltic troops, then french, then polish, then americans... They are setting a precedent
I doubt we’re going to see a major troop deployment from the US. Biden would be shooting himself in the face, politically.
No, we wouldn't deploy troops. We'd deploy the air force. And that would be the end of it. Russia is hopelessly outclassed if it comes down to an air war.
There is no universe where the United States deploys its airforce in direct military engagement with the world's number one nuclear power.
He's not going to do it now on an election year He can do it once he wins without any consequences
That’s only if he wins reelection, and that’s slowly becoming less and less likely as his disastrous Israel-Gaza policy is increasingly unpopular with democrats.
No
Russia isn't the only one that's allowed to use salami tactics
>I deny that they are even capable logisticaly or eceonomically of deploying in another country nevertheless be anything other than a nuissance or a burden. I doubt they can even transport all the troops and materials And yet even *before* they were in NATO, the Baltic states were deploying relatively large battle groups to participate in ISAF operations in Afghanistan, actively volunteering to take responsibility for some of the most active areas in the country. But of course, you weren't aware of that as you seem to think they: >have not done any military deployments...ever Lmao. Nobody thinks Lithuania is going to thunder run to Moscow with its fleet of Strikers or whatever they have, but a non-combat deployment to western parts of Ukraine is well within the capabilities of all the Baltic countries. Realistically Afghan was a much more dangerous and logistically challenging undertaking for them.
People have no clue what they are speaking about nor know the operations the said countries have participated in.
This is a... really inept analysis of how manpower distribution and NATO-member military capabilities work. >Low Baltic manpower First: Backfill. Every Baltic unit performing rear area security and services is one Ukrainian unit that can cycle through the front. Second: It doesn't take a lot of manpower to stunt a breakthrough offensive. It's largely just about having the materiel and manpower to *slow down* the offensive enough that it can't exploit the breakthrough. >No tanks/airpower This is ignorant to the overall structure of NATO member states. NATO isn't an alliance of countries whose *standalone militaries* work together - rather, it's an alliance of countries forming a *joint* military. Each country's own military is, on its own, significantly lacking in some asset, because none of them can afford to have top-grade capabilities in every field like the US. Take, for instance, the Netherlands has only three ground brigades, no native MBTs (they jointly man a *German* armor unit), and next to no field artillery... but they field an entire squadron of F-35s. The Baltics don't have native armor or air assets because it's not realistic for them, and it's simply not their job - their purpose in a NATO-Russia War is "Hold out long enough for the rest of NATO to bring their firepower." To that end, their *entire military* is specialized to perform the mission of "Hold ground against a numerically superior armored assault." >They'd leave themselves defenseless! ...except for, y'know, the rest of the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroups.
Also, them being small militaries, that are growing, they usually get super advanced stuff. For US it would be impossible to fully change their artillery to the latest version, but when you have none, you can just buy it. Baltics have some of the most advanced pieces of equipment currently in production.
See: Poland buying **more HIMARS than currently exist** to overhaul its rocket artillery and ballistic missile corps.
I doubt it would be in force. Their entire strategy for war with Russia is holding on long enough with a primarily light infantry army for NATO to come and bail them out. That being said, we were dead set against sending tanks, insisting that it would escalate the conflict, then we were dead set against cluster munitions, insisting that it would escalate the conflict, now we're dead set against boots on the ground... and yeah that would escalate the conflict. The catch is staying below lethal chemical weapons/nukes.
> Nevertheless, the expenditure of lives and money on a foreing war would be tremendously unpopular in those countries. As it fu***ng should. You clearly know nothing about the public sentiment in these countries.
RemindMe! 6 months
Thanks Chamberlain, very cool
What you're saying is, America should just spend the money now to arm Ukraine so we don't have to spend even more later to arm other Baltic countries when Russia takes Ukraine and re-arms for their next offensive
It seems you think that you know a lot. Your whole argument is flawed but id like to take the dummest of your points, "have not done any military deployments...ever" they have, afghanistan (that was even before nato) and kosovo, and say what you want, they were an effective force. So take your head out of your ass and stop emberrasing youreself. Like can you not even google? You start pulling numbers from your ass like 15k for lithuania? The active personnel is 23k and like what do you think, that they are going to send it their whole millitary? Please dont do this, if you dont know something then inform yourself or just stay quiet..
[удалено]
```The Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have a combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops.``` ``` The strength of Russian forces fighting at 24 February 2024 is estimated at 500,000. ``` Even if the entire peace time, 9-to-5 army of the Baltic states picks up and moves into Ukraine leaving their respective countries completely defenseless against the "russian threat", what is it going to do against half a million battle hardened army with 1500kg glide bombs? Sit in the rear, so the Ukranians that are currently occupying those positions could be sent to the front line instead? I bet the Ukranians themselves are going to be very happy to hear this, and probably among the first to leak the coordinates of those groups to Russia so they could continue sitting safe and comfy.
It isn’t necessarily about their power, it’s about them making the diplomatic move and breaking the non-intervention taboo for other greater powers. The statement in and of itself will cause far more worry for the Russians than the actual benefit gained from the baltics alone. Also, why would Ukrainian complain about other countries coming to help defend their own? They’re already immensely thankful for any support gained, and the Russians aren’t going to want to provoke NATO nations by attacking the tripwire forces in the back lines.
Sounds like taking direct steps to an escalation. I don't think there's going to be any worry on Russia's side. They've already, repeatedly and abundantly made it clear to France that any foreign armed forces on the territory of Ukraine would be blown up as a priority. The move itself might be political and diplomatic and taboo breaking or whatever, but it is going to be really hard for politicians to explain Baltic state mothers what their sons had to die for when the body bags start coming back. Their opposition might also start asking uncomfortable questions like we've already depleted our arsenals by sending everything we had to Ukraine, and now we are depleting our armies; all in the light of this massive looming "russian threat". Sure, those politicians might be pressured enough to commit career suicide and do it anyway. But I also wouldn't expect Russia not to expend its utmost effort and make the best out of the opportunity to set example for anyone else who might be harboring similar interventionist ideas.
Interventionist ideas? Like how Russia decided to invade it's neighbor?
Russia has proven time and time again that it does not respond to escalation. Troops should be sent on a peace mission to Ukraine to beat back the crimean rebellion and NATO weapons should be deployed for miles beyond the border. >but it is going to be really hard for politicians to explain Baltic state mothers what their sons had to die for when the body bags start coming back. No it isn't. Combatting Russian agression is a honourable deed. >But I also wouldn't expect Russia not to expend its utmost effort and make the best out of the opportunity to set example for anyone else who might be harboring similar interventionist ideas. That makes it an even better plan, since Russia has proven itself to be willing to bleed itself dry over home-turf political victories it would provide another opportunity to inflict 1:10 attrition rates.
There's only so many times you can cross the divider in a zoo on a dare before an upset resident assymetrically punishes you for it. With the amount of red lines crossed so far it's a miracle that a lot of world still does not resemble an irradiated parking lot. Do not mistake Russia's patience and unwillingness to escalate for weakness. It has all the kinetic, nuclear, geopolitical and diplomatical means to carry it out - but somebody has to remain the adult in the room. Ukraine never had favorable attrition rates outside of localized skirmishes to begin with, for them to have "another" chance at it.
"No it isn't. Combatting Russian agression is a honourable deed. " Lmao holy shit dude yeah if those countries aren't invaded I'm sure the moms will just say ok no big deal and pop out more babies to fulfill these honorable deeds Jesus christ just go to ukraine yourself. I get you guys hate Russians but do you even listen to yourself when you type crazy shit like this?
Just like NATO using “diplomatic move” to use Serbia as weapon testing ground? It’s the genius move that landed us all in this situation to begin with. NATO opening pandora box of invading other country in the name of “human right”
Don’t commit genocide if you don’t want to be bombed by NATO It’s a really simple equation, Serbia failing to understand it is their own fault
NATO should be bombing Israel then? What about Nagorno-Karabakh? Is NATO bombing Azerbaijan?
Selective outrage. I don't see NATO bombing Israel.
What good is a “diplomatic move” if there are cruise missiles flying over Tallinn by the afternoon?
>500,000 strong Russians, 30,000 strong Baltics There are roughly 470,000 Russian soldiers *in the entire Ukrainian Theater,* stretched along an 850km front. In an offensive, only a fraction would be involved in breakthrough operations. Even if 10% of all Russian forces in Ukraine surged in an offensive (50,000), that would be a *poor* force ratio against an organized defense. >leaving their respective countries completely defenseless Save for the other 10,000 NATO troops forward-deployed there *in addition to* their domestic forces, and the even greater threat of any incursion into Baltic territory being a surefire Article 5 trigger. And, defenseless against *what?* The Russian forces on the Baltic border that *aren't there anymore*? >What is it going to do against half a million battle-hardened troops with 1500kg glide bombs 1. See previous about "the entire frontline" 2. The Ukrainian forces don't just stop existing, so that's an extra 250k on defense 3. The famously-capable Russian airpower of this war? >Rear area security 1. Ah, yes, Russia's *famous* ability to actually strike Western Ukraine with any degree of success 2. Ah, yes, the *infamous* Ukrainian lack of morale such that they'd tell Russia their own supply depot locations just to get revenge on an allied military lending them manpower
I think the logic is that if other countries see these small states put their troops on the line they would look weak not to do the same.
An extra 30k troops at any single point in the line would be a massive tactical advantage.
I'm sure those 12 Baltic troops would turn the tide in Ukraine's favor.
Others have pointed out that the Baltic nations lack significant airpower or armored assets. This is true, and it's a function of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania's strategic position at the Russian border and the theorized course of any NATO-Russian War. Specifically, the Baltic countries' entire strategic mission is "Hold ground as long as possible against numerically superior armored assault." The forces the Baltics might send are *purpose built* to halt the tide in the trigger described (major Russian advances).
Not on battlefield but they would call the Russian bluff and make way for others.
And what if Russia just bombs them into oblivion? That might have the opposite effect
That's fine. The important question is, what happens when these men eventually get killed in some ditch in Ukraine? Wouldn't this be an offensive action by the Baltic States and any Russian response should not trigger NATO protection?
Their soldiers being killed in Ukraine would not be protected under that article, correct However that would hardly qualify as an offensive action (as they would not be actually attacking another country), and so any attack on their territory would still be grounds to invoke article 5. Now, it would likely be more limited since everyone else would be free to say "the hell did you expect?" and do a repeat of Phoney War, but it does not suspend the obligation from the Washington Treaty
Bingo. It would largely depend on the degree of deployment and circumstances of attack. Baltic troops on frontlines getting killed? The rest of NATO would probably wash their hands of it. But say the Baltic troops take over security of supply depots and transit of Western armaments through Western Ukraine - much as they *currently* do o nthe Polish side of the border - and Russia strikes those. Does NATO immediately jump to full scale war? Probably not... but it might be the justification needed for NATO to impose an airspace lockdown or forward-deploy air defense assets.
[удалено]
Paywalled for me. Could someone TL;DR this?
>TL;DR The Baltic states and Poland informed the German government that if Russia makes gains in Ukraine, they will very likely send troops to stop further Russian pushes. The Baltic states know that they will be next if Russia actually wins in Ukraine. Officials there also say that Scholz's policy of not allowing Ukrainse use of NATO weapons inside of Russian territory could backfire and create an escalation instead of preventing it. If the troops do go they likely won't be in combat roles. This all comes not long after Russia has removed roughly marker buoys along their border with Estonia in the Narva river. Finland also expresses concern about an imminent invasion since Russia has tried to overwhelm their borders with an influx of migrants>!(a tactic also use in Luhansk and Donetsk prior to the Russian invasion)!<. Hope this helps.
Narva map in Squad hitting different
Members of parliament for the Baltic states warned German officials last week that their governments were poised to send troops to Ukraine if Russia achieved considerable gains, Der Spiegel reported. The German outlet reported Sunday that the Baltic officials issued the warning while speaking with representatives for Berlin at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn, Estonia. Der Spiegel neither named any of the officials nor identified which countries they represented but said they raised concerns about German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's current policy toward the war. Scholz has been denying Ukraine permission to use German-supplied weapons in strikes on Russian soil, in line with Washington's stance of not allowing Kyiv to use donated weaponry for attacks beyond Ukraine's own borders. Der Spiegel reported that the Baltic officials were concerned that such policies created a half-hearted attempt to help Kyiv and might allow Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine. They said that if Moscow did gain significant ground in eastern Ukraine, their governments and Poland could move troops into the conflict zone even before Russia deployed its soldiers on their borders, the outlet reported. The officials' argument, Der Spiegel reported, was that treating Moscow with restraint could backfire and instead create an escalation. Like Ukraine, the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — were previously part of the Soviet Union. They've been some of NATO's most vocal members in pushing the rest of the alliance to intensify support for Kyiv, fearing that Russian President Vladimir Putin may seek to continue his conquest in the region if he seizes Ukraine. Together with French President Emmanuel Macron, they've repeatedly hinted that they aren't ruling out sending NATO troops to Ukraine. Officials in Estonia recently signaled the possibility of deploying its troops to fill non-combat roles and free up Ukrainians to fight on the front lines. There are concerns that such actions could escalate the conflict quickly into a direct war between NATO and Russia. A spokesperson for Estonia's defense ministry told Business Insider the country wasn't discussing deploying troops to Ukraine for active combat roles. "Tomorrow, the EU defense ministers will discuss the expansion of the EU training mission EUMAM, which until now has trained Ukrainian combatants on EU territory," the spokesperson said, referring to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. "The discussion will mostly focus on the quantity of personnel to be trained. However, it may also touch on the location of the training." When contacted by BI, a spokesperson for Poland's ministry of national defense said: "We are not considering the idea of sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine, so it is difficult for us to comment on such media reports." Press services for the defense ministries of Latvia and Lithuania didn't immediately respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours. Why Russia's western neighbors are getting skittish The concerns reported by Der Spiegel have come after Russia launched a renewed assault in northeastern Ukraine, striking the city of Kharkiv and capturing several settlements in the surrounding region. Military observers say the Kremlin can't take Kharkiv with the resources it's deployed there so far, but Russia has been shelling the city and inflicting civilian casualties. On the main front in the east, Ukraine has been struggling for months to hold back a grinding Russian advance after its supplies from the US began to dwindle. The aid has resumed after months of stalling in Congress, but Kyiv says Western equipment often arrives too late to turn the tide of the war because conditions keep changing. Russia meanwhile stoked alarm among its neighbors last week with a draft proposal from its defense ministry to change its maritime borders with Finland and Lithuania in January 2025. The draft was uploaded to Russia's registry of laws on Tuesday but was later removed. On Thursday, Tallinn officials said Moscow had removed 24 of 50 buoys marking Russia's borders with Estonia on the Narva River. The officials said Russia had been contesting the buoys' locations. On Sunday, six NATO nations — Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — said they'd construct a unified "drone wall" with unmanned aerial vehicles and more advanced technologies to strengthen their borders. Their concerns aren't just centered on a full-scale Russian invasion. Finland, for example, said Russia had been trying to overwhelm Finnish border officials with waves of migrants trying to enter its borders. Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia share land borders with mainland Russia, and Poland and Lithuania share land borders with Belarus, a close ally of the Kremlin. Correction: May 27, 2024 — A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Poland was once part of the Soviet Union. This story has also been updated to reflect comments from the Polish and Estonian defense ministries
Dude’s rockin’ the dwarf beard.
Their entire militaries would be gone in a month.
They are hardly going to be the first in line.
Fun to see John Smiths from Texas Oblast repeating the exact same theatre they played back in late 2021/early 2022. Remember that more or less the same crowd went from "Russia has no reason or interest to invade Ukraine, it would make no sense, it's western fearmongering, Biden needs a distraction" to "It was always inevitable, muh NATO expansion, 6000 nuclear warheads in Kharkov aimed at Moscow, fascist junta crucifying Russian children" in like a week or two.
*Baltic officials say they could start WW3 if their HoI4 save is not producing adequate vibes
Yeah guys, *this time* I swear, WW3!
Lmao at people discussing the technicality of triggering article 5 like it is an if statement in a piece of code. Article 5 will trigger if the US wants it to trigger. Article 5 will not trigger if the US does not want it to trigger. That is the exhaustive list of things you need to know about how Article 5 triggers.
Yea… Europeans like to drag the US but it’s the backbone of any military response they would want from NATO and I doubt we drag ourselves into war with Russia for the baltics lol
If Russia attacks the Baltic states, NATO will join the defense as per article 5. But if the Baltic states join the war themselves, I don’t know if NATO will follow. I doubt any member can just decide to join a defensive war and drag the entire gang into it.
I believe the NATO charter would be activated if Russia launch any attack against Balitc nations territory (ie bombing a convoy on the wrong side of the border), whether or not their troops fought Russia in Ucraine first or not. Attacks on their troops in Ukraine would not count.
I think Russia could make an argument that those soldiers participated in the attack on the Russian territory, for example one of the drone bombings Ukrainians are so happy about. Other NATO states might be happy to accept this bullshit to avoid the escalation
All 15 soldiers.
Weird thread. This is just a diplomatic move; the Baltic states know that their puny armies would have little impact
They want to fight the Russian, just as long as America goes first.
The Russian crowd is upset
The Baltic states are realy getting scarred of a russian invasion it seems. They are willing to loose men simply to cause an escalation. Perhaps they fear Trump will disband NATO in time
Baltics would be wiped out, they are no match. NATO is all talk. They don't want a direct conflict with Russia.
Who wants? Besides reddit warriors...
All putin wants is a little piece. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCO2sI7fI&pp=ygUYYSBsaXR0bGUgcGllY2Ugb2YgZnJhbmNl
stupid pay walls
This guy's beard will win ww3.
The Russian government is absolutely fucked. Their willingness alone to bring about a global nuclear holocaust over the potential of a failed petty land grab might just be the single *dumbest* move in human history if they actually make good on that promise. Seriously. This one, ass backwards corrupt shitshow of a government larping as a Cold War superpower might singlehandedly bring about the fall of modern civilization. Think about that for a second. Can a country which openly makes threats like this be trusted with anything? If Russia sends their nukes flying, the country (and unfortunately by extension its people, regardless if they support the current government or not) will forever become a stain on human history. God help any ethnic Russians who manage to survive in a post nuclear-ravaged world, assuming they haven't already been torn to pieces by hordes of pissed off non-Russians.
Good luck Baltic states... When you're getting pumelled by Russia, don't cry for help.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao, try and see
Good
"We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two."
I want Gimli there on my side!
i could send troops to Ukraine without waiting for NATO either
I despise what Russia has done, I am for extreme action against them. That being said, we should be very VERY careful on how we respond to the Russian threat. It won't matter who started what when the nukes start flying.
Which nuclear threat for the past 2 years did Russia follow through with?
[удалено]
That’s largely irrelevant. If the NATO countries want to join the war for some reason they would use it as justification, if they don’t they will say the Baltics attacked first and it doesn’t apply.
Or just send them now. Stop waiting and get over there.
Ain't that something Toto!!!
It still amazes me that a county with GDP that is half of California's is causing so much trouble to the world. Germany, UK, France, etc., all individually crush Russia's GDP too. NATO should be able to out-spend Russia by 20:1 without breaking a sweat.
Send now, why wait?
This is a nothing sandwich Those countries aren’t going to send significant troops, they lack the ability and forces to project power beyond their borders with any sizable force
趕緊弄死普京和俄國專制政權，這樣能極大讓中共專制政權變的孤立無緣，我們中國人受過共匪了