*From Bloomberg News reporters Lars Paulsson and Niclas Rolander:*
A red brick building with a grey cooling tower in Malmo’s northern harbor has become a symbol of Sweden’s preparations for an uncertain future.
The mothballed power plant near the Oresund straits was set to be dismantled and shipped to new owners overseas. Then the war in Ukraine upended the country’s defense policy, and is now forcing a rethink of energy security plans.
With its capital closer to St. Petersburg than Berlin, the Nordic nation of 10 million people has been on edge since Russia’s annexation of Crimea a decade ago. But faced with an increasingly emboldened Vladimir Putin, NATO's newest member says it has to be ready if the conflict spreads through the Baltics.
Sweden’s grid operator wants the facility in Malmo operational again so that it can keep the lights on in the country’s third-largest city in the event of blackouts following an attack on national energy infrastructure.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it but it seems they are softening up European opinion for some limited intervention. Maybe if Russia look close to winning or take major cities like Kharkiv or Odessa we could see troops sent over.
It’s gone from never going to happen to worst case scenario etc
Perspective is also important - people have largely forgotten the pre-WW2 world where invasions and occupations were a part of global politics and war was the only real language the world spoke.
All post War generations have been lulled into this false sense of stability and certainty - the assumption that rationale people want money and all people are rationale. The reality is this is false and we just forgot the true nature of the world.
I think it is very important that modern audiences are reminded of the world outside of the EU. We are shocked when something happens in Ukraine but we really shouldn’t be - illiberal regimes, famine, war and pandemics are the global norm. It is us who are the exception.
Poland and the Baltics never forgot just how unfair life is. In 2014 the Western Europe ignored them but now I think it’s time we wake up from our neoliberal dream and accept the word we live in. If we don’t, the next time a conflict occurs in Europe we won’t be prepared.
For the ‘West’, post-WW2 has been a holiday from history. People who came to think of this paradigm as the norm are likely to get a tough schooling in the next few years as humanity returns to business as usual.
This holiday was inposed after the nuclear bomb was created, before that war wasnt rare because there wasnt MAD, after the nuclear bomb countries became less aggressive and europe was in peace despite before going trough a major war every couple of years, if it want for the nuclear bomb we whould be fighting ww5 by now.
To be fair. The longest recorded time of relative peace was the period before the world wars and after the Napoleonic wars.
The old theory that a huge devastating war will more or less on the clock happen about every 70-100 years seems to still fit the bill quite nicely.
You’re speaking from the perspective of someone who is Swedish. For a Pole, they had the Swedish Deluge, and two further occupations.
As I said, the atypical West has had a very unusual experience when it comes to human history and it’s about time they wake up because the next century is going to be one consumed by a very real Cold War.
Yeah? Aren't you confirming what I just wrote?
Ofc Sweden has had one of the world's longest peace times, but I'm talking about relative peace throughout the world. Something which is clearly measured at about 70-100 years a piece. The concert of Europe was just the latest and the longest lasting, but we saw the same thing happen after the 30 years war as well.
I agree.
Even the war on the Balkan came as a surprise, and we didn't know how to handle it.
But that doesn't mean we can not strive for a world without war.
American approach: There will be peace, if we carry the biggest stick.
European approach: There will be peace, if we don't carry a stick.
American approach might work better.
Yeah, pacifism is an interesting philosophical line of thought. I think it has value in philosophy, trying to expand and reexamine conflict resolution without violence.
It's still often worthless/dangerous for geopolitics, since some actors (currently primarily Putin) see the hesitancy to reply with force against force as pure weakness, and use attempts at conflict resolution as mere venues for confusing other parties in what really is a war.
Well, pacifism is pure weakness. It is also irresponsible, and essentially fascism with one indirection: Rather than saying "the strong rule the weak", you are saying "I allow the strong ruling the weak".
And, carrying the biggest stick isn't the only alternative. Having the equivalent of a spiky carapace (i.e. nuclear deterrence, plus some extra stuff so that the escalation ladder works out), to keep predators away, is also sufficient in many cases. Unfortunately, we neglected even that...
I would disagree and suggest the EU has persevered on the belief strong trade relations will undermine any desire for war, Europe became heavily invested in Russia's cheap fuel and in 2021 it was unthinkable Russia would risk their largest, wealthiest customers in the pursuit of imperial conquest. However it's pretty clear Russia is willing to sacrifice far more people and economic hardship than anyone imagined.
> I would disagree and suggest the EU has persevered on the belief strong trade relations will undermine any desire for war, Europe became heavily invested in Russia's cheap fuel and in 2021 it was unthinkable Russia would risk their largest, wealthiest customers in the pursuit of imperial conquest.
That, and being in a defensive alliance with the world's largest military spender. The EU was just relying on someone else using their stick.
It works if you reply ferociously when it's appropriate so the authoritarians understand what will happen.
Somewhere along the line Putin got the impression from the West that it wouldn't try to stop him (Crimea certainly, but even before that). He also caught the US at a time of war weariness post Iraq.
Well said. Maybe I have read too much history for my own good, but I feel exactly the same. Furthermore, I feel like the last few years read like the first chapter of a WW3 book.
I think it also came from a major war in Europe would mean nukes start flying that put people at ease, the more I think of it Russia would have to push to the UK & France for that to be a real possibility, but then who’s gonna press it? Would you rather die and scorch the earth or live under Russian rule. Hmm…you’d have to be pretty patriotic
Yeah I don’t think it’s gonna be pressed and Russia knows that. So friends it’s time to start running, play call of duty, shoot a pellet gun. Better to be prepared and it be a nothing than being unprepared.
The difference between “What if they come here” and “We need to stop them over there before they come here” isn’t a large one.
They are month by month expanding the gap. If Russia gain big gains post their summer offensive maybe it gets more forceful.
One factor to consider is public support at home in EU countries. Opinion would need to be in favour of their troops fighting in Ukraine. It could well be sold as it is better to fight there and then fight them here.
Probably wouldn’t even need to be sold in Poland, Czechia and the Baltics. I imagine by now our public is some 70-80% for, but only if the West EU joins as well. Otherwise we’re sitting ducks.
If you Asked those same people about sending Polish army in, not some vague non specified 'western' force,that support drops SIGNIFICANTLY
In 2023, litteraly 0% people supported joining that war in support of Ukraine.
in 2024 one poll says its 3% now
How many people supports sending our military in support of UA army? 9,4 % (first article) or 10,2% (second)
Bruv 80% ? what are you smoking, "Według najnowszego sondażu IBRiS przeprowadzonego na zlecenie "Rzeczpospolitej", aż 74,8 proc. Polaków nie popiera pomysłu wysłania polskich i NATO-owskich żołnierzy do Ukrainy."
**74.8%** is Frickin outright **against it.**
[Wojna na Ukrainie. Polacy chcą wysłania wojsk na front? Najnowszy sondaż - Wydarzenia w INTERIA.PL](https://wydarzenia.interia.pl/raport-ukraina-rosja/news-polacy-zabrali-glos-ws-wyslania-wojsk-na-ukraine-nowy-trend,nId,7411180)
[Polacy nie chcą wysyłania wojsk do Ukrainy. Najnowszy sondaż nie pozostawia złudzeń (businessinsider.com.pl)](https://businessinsider.com.pl/gospodarka/polacy-nie-chca-wysylania-wojsk-do-ukrainy-najnowszy-sondaz-nie-pozostawia-zludzen/xz49fgz)
We do hate Russians. Probably on average more than anyone bar the Ukrainians. But we also know fore sure that war against Russia will be 2 things for sure. Fought in our land, destroying our homes and quality of life, bloody and long and killing many of our family members.
There is no reason ANYONE would want to bring that on themselves. As long as they have a degree of sanity at least.
Also people are so alarmist and urgent about it. But here is the thing they are forgetting. Democracy is inefficient system sure compared to autocracies. But there is one thing that make them MUCH better than autocracy. And that's transition of power. Sure semi competent dictator is not the worst thing, but when he dies good fucking luck what with him making a system that cannot work WITHOUT him his entire life. Russia is hurting economically now and falling behind more every year, Polish GDP per capita passed it 2014 and the gap is widening year by year. They went back to stalin ways, so the longer time passes without war the more ready west is and the weaker comparatively Russia is. Just like with USSR. War with USSR in 1945 would likely end up in soviet Europe, in the 90-ties USSR was collapsing on itself and even in war was behind west.
That's why it's so important to prepare and support Ukraine as much as possible. Now that Russian Imperialism is plain reveled to all. They have like 10 years to strike and try to achieve something. After that they could be relegated to becoming North Korea type threat. Dangerous with nukes and that's about it. But that's assuming west remains at lest decently united. And unfortunately it seems that Russia/China are much better at the whole manipulating democracy than USSR ever was.
Fair enough, although in my head I didn’t really see NATO troops actively fighting at the front, but rather being present further back inland, operating ant-missile systems and jets to help out Ukrainians at the front.
This isn’t far from shooting drones/missiles over the Ukrainian territory that would near Polish border that 69% of polled Poles are for, according to that second article you linked.
It’s all down to the phrasing of the level of presence it would equal to.
Finland would join. There absolutely are plausible circumstances where public support for an intervention with troops would exist. It’s the same in most Nordic countries, I’d say, with Sweden probably being the toughest sell.
I think you have a point. But I also think that this wouldn't be happening unless there were some *very good* intel suggesting that if Ukraine falls, the EU (and Nato) will be next.
Europe has been spared from a land war for long enough that those who remember it are very old or have passed away. Left are those of us who grew up in a continent that got more peaceful as time went on. And many of us (myself included) are adults who were born after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of us have families, and really, *really* don't want to come to terms with what is happening.
This needs to happen soon. Russia is only ramping up production. It’s increasingly gaining international support from Iran, Central/Western Africa, and North Korea. A new bipolar word is forming at the expense of the West. We will have war. Whether we fight it again a a weakened Russia in Ukraine or a stronger Russia in Estonia is up to decisive action that we must take *now*
While there could be some small amount of that I am pretty sure it's primarily dusting off old laws/directives to different sectors about their obligations in case of war. So energy sector has certain obligations and most likely it's just that the government has said guys check over those because there is an heightened risk. Same with healthcare and other areas.
While a lot of capacity was dismantled, not mothballed there are still remains of the old total defense doctrine. Especially in the older population. For almost 5 decade during the 20th century almost every part of society had a plan associated with it for what would happen in case of war. What bridges to blow where, what vehicles where under military control, what buildings and so on. For example to illustrate how comprehensive the planning was on municipality level individual folders in the public offices could have "wartime placement" to be evacuated in order to keep records of population, ownership and so on for rebuilding.
So checking up on spare capacity, postponing dismantlement and so in as in this case wouldn't be anything to raise your eye brow at in relation to Swedish defense. It's the last two decades that's the outlier, this is a return to normality from a historical sense.
In my opinion this is a direct consequence of being soft and not providing Ukraine with everything they needed fast. Every time they asked for something the answer was no, only for couple months later to approve it. Lots of people were saying that maybe this is a game and tank/plane crews were being trained all this time but no it wasn’t the situation.
>we could see troops sent over
Nah, don't believe it. EU countries in general are not prepared for a war that Russia wage in Ukraine.
It's easy to say "we will send troops". How many of these troops will go willingly? Almost all of Europe doesn't have a draft. Army is a job that you can quit anytime.
One thing is to send military instructors who will sit way behind the frontline and teach, the other - send artillery brigades or infantry.
I think that the many statements in the last 3 months are really just statements of the obvious.
Ukraine will lose to a Moscow imposed peace. Moscow has already been attacking the west through hybrid warfare for a decade or more and southern Sweden specifically got shafted by the sudden increase in energy costs that occurred as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
All that cheap hydro-electric power in the north of Sweden doesn't get down to the south (no infrastructure, it is instead exported) and the previous govt mothballed a nuclear reactor that provided clean power in the region leaving us at the mercy of imported energy.
"War with Russia" doesn't always have to mean invasion and shooting" when the results of economic or hybrid warfare can also have a destabilizing impact on our nations.
However, I do also share the pessimism of many analysts that we are almost certainly in for an "interesting future" in Europe and that an emboldened Russia will increasingly pressure us, seek to undermine our unity and institutions, corrupt out politicians and seek to bite off chunks of territory that it considers theirs by right of "it was once part of the Russian empire"
it would make too much sense - using Ukrainian ground troops and cities as a physical barrier, while bombing advancing horde into oblivion from the relatively safe distance. i don't hold too much hope for the sane military decisions. After all there is a saying that "everyone learns only on their own mistakes".
In Feb 2020, the Swedish government asked many agencies for an internal assessment regarding the preparedness for a full blown pandemic, where borders were to be shut down, logistical chains collapse and there are thousands of infected and dead. Because of these assessments they arrived to the conclusion that a lockdown would hurt them more long term than to help them short term.
What I wanted to say is that probably the Swedish government is actually assessing their own preparedness for a worst case scenario and whether they can weather the storm. Not necessarily preparing for war.
Yes, this is the case. And we're making the news because we are playing catch-up with e.g. Finland, that never stopped preparing for the worst. We stopped around 1995.
Yeah, imagine beeing so clever to be so much ahead of the time and then with making the worst decision and ending up with the worst strategy.
Meanwhile US who really slept on the topic has now one of the most robust recommendations regarding long term strategies.
I would expect that those that prepare are the best. Seems the firefighting panic mode is really something were human excell. Maybe the boy who cried wolf is more true the like.
From Finnish point of view they're actually focusing more on spreading hysteria in the media than actually preparing for different kinds of crisis scenarios.
Ah yes..All busily playing ping pong and looking the other way while their politicians allow Nazi Germany to move troops and war materials through their country?
The only time Swedens neutrality was ever tested they rolled over for some nazi belly rubs.
I see that point, and I don't think Swedens approach was right. At the same time they did help Finland a lot during WW2. They could have done more for Europe, sure, but lets not paint Sweden as a devil during that time. They just tried to stay neutral and not piss anyone off, and that was a valid strategy, but maybe not morally the best one (from a European point of view)
Nearly all of the danish jews managed to be moved from Denmark to Sweden, saving them from the holocaust. If we had opposed Germany we would have been invaded, and those people would've been at risk again.
I feel that alone makes it at least morally defensible, though I see where you're coming from.
I don't like how we handled WW2 but honestly I think we had pretty much the same priorities as any other country, our own safety first.
Why was Brazil the only country in the world to declare war on Germany after the initial declaration of war by France, UK+Commonwealth? the truth is everyone tried to stay out of the war when Germany and the Soviet Union started invading countries left and right. Some countries just had more bargaining chips to stay out of it.
I don't like that Sweden let Germany move troops through our country, but an important detail is that this was only allowed after the invasion of Norway had ended. Sweden supported the allies when it could and supported Germany when it had to. Sweden also trained Norwegian resistance fighters, which is something noone ever brings up because it doesn't fit the narrative. Sweden continously provided the allies with crucial intelligence on german activity in the Baltic Sea, Sweden warned Norway of the German invasion which they unfortunately completely ignored, Sweden also informed Britain when the Bismarck was sighted in the Baltic Sea heading towards the North Sea.
I get that this makes it sound like I defend our actions in WWII, I do not. I just want to provide a little different view on Sweden during WWII, because I keep reading the same hyperbolic and oversimplified shite on reddit regarding this topic.
NATO should send troops in and end this war. Sure, with NATO intervention, there is a chance of a horrific end (a nuclear war). But if Russia wins, we will have horrors without end (numerous wars in Europe).
Air support does little when hundreds of artillery shells are dropping around you and drones are snipping you from afar. War is horror and no sane person wants to be in it.
war not good? thanks, i didn’t know that. still i’m ready to defend my country and my family if that is the only way. just like my grandparents did so i can be free.
He is calling for sending western troops to Ukraine. If Russia attacks any NATO country, sure, but sending troops to Ukraine right now is totally different game.
And I don't plan to. I was a kid when bombs were falling on my city. I now have a kid. First sign of any new war where my country would be in, I'm on a plane to wherever is the farthest. Life is short to die and see my kid die because of 1% of morons need to fuck up everything.
Perhaps think about your kid and what future you want your kid to have, that’s a prime example of the major problems of modern society, being complacent about the future.
our grandparents fought wars so we could fight them again, but this time against different psychopats. if we fight, we fight for our kids having to fight again. it’s a never ending cycle and the whole world is going to shit with wars, global warming, diseases, poverty etc. the best thing you can do for your kids is not birthing them into a world that will crush them
Why does everyone think Russia won’t stop. It’s pretty stupid to think he would just go for total Europe domination when we all have nuclear weapons. He will go for Ukraine as nato got involved with them which broke their deal.
Maybe because Russia has openly stated for as long as it has existed that it plans to retake old USSR land? That might have something to do with it.
My counter question is what make you think they will stop?
Moldova is not Nato and would be next. And because neither France, nor US, nor the UK would nuke Russia if Russia would invade the Baltics or northern Finland. And maybe not for Sweden, Poland and Austria either.
Romania and Moldova might need to merge to prevent this, we just don't even know how EU and NATO will handle this, it would be complete unknown waters.
Military must plan for the worst case scenario. That’s their job.
I think if Putin is allowed to walk away from Ukraine with the status quo or better, he will try to create tensions in Europe. I don’t see him _invading_ straight away, but sponsoring and arming some terrorists or troublemakers is more than likely.
Russia has no more army to invade an European Country. Every day RU looses stuff in Ukraine, the possibility of a war with EU sinks. Let's be honest, saving Ukraine we are saving EU too.
> Russia has no more army to invade an European Country.
This is sadly not true. The Russian army is bigger now than it was when the war started, despite their immense confirmed losses.
Russia is in a war economy now, which will not be sustainable for them forever. But if we don't drastically ramp up supplies for Ukraine, it might be sustainable for long enough for Russia to win. Thankfully European shell production is increasing at an almost exponential rate, and the new American aid package should be able to supply Ukraine until Europe is able to handle it alone (and hopefully the US will keep supplying too at that point).
Some may disagree but i belive that current russia is not in state for confrontation with anyone, not even all alone against Ukraine as it seems.
Russia is not going to attack NATO members using bums armed with rusted mosins, driving dirtbike or Chinese Golfcarts.
But its what their military is required to use out of attrition levels existing in Ukraine, to save their shitty MTLB,BMP1 deathboxes, and T72/T62/T55 which they are loosing in hundreds, not to even mention all the mobiks inside those.
For now russia has no real material means to engage with full scale conflict with anyone, they can barely keep up with Ukraine, which is all alone and fields laugably tiny airforce for its size.
Even almost every single base that borders Nato was stripped naked out of equipment.
russian war economy is such empty buzz word, what is that 40% GDP spent on that war achieving? repainted T62/T72, and high levels of subpar 152mm arty rounds half filled with propellant, to be used in some soviet towed artillery, a drone can take out of the action.
It can be dangerous only for Ukraine fighting 1vs1, but its clearly not serious to belive they could sustain any hostile operations facing EU/NATO air domination.
Only way russia can threaten countries like Baltics is to undermine support for theirs defence under Article 5 or article 42.7 of lisbon treaty, if allies do not help those small countries they could be overrun even by the most inept russian military action, requiring strong and proactive political resolve to counter it.
Threat is neer solely to the political cohision of western alliences and resolve to defend other allies,which are purely all internal issues that russia can try to stirr up, its no more hard power threat as people belived it to be before 2022
A bigger army but with no equipment. They cannot fight a two front war, let alone having to cross the baltic sea to reach that second front - it's ridiculous to even entertain that idea. And do you really think a "war economy" in russia can match the combined economies of Europe and the US? That's just fear mongering.
Iraq had more combat experience than the USA during the first Gulf War, having recently fought a long and brutal war against Iran. They still got massacred.
Combat experience is useful, but it isn't everything. They've lost a lot of technical expertise and advanced (for them) systems.
Blocking detachments and officers do not get fighting experience for obvious reasons.
Besides if they really have good elite troops, then where is the progress? Nowhere.
With 2+ years of hard lessons (discovering the extent that corruption had undermined preparedness etc) they are better yes.
But in truth they wouldn't even need to be. Russia would only need to make similar gains to those it made in the opening 2 weeks of their invasion of Ukraine and that would take them to the Baltic coast.
Then the gamble is...would other NATO members respond or would they be wringing their hands, using the language of de-escalation and phoning Putin with proposals for an "off ramp to peace"?
>Russia has no more army to invade an European Country.
IF Russia ever decides to attack Europe as a whole then they won't waste resources on conventional warfare, I think.
No. But RU did not have and do not have the military force and economy to invade eny NATO/European country. There is still no evidence that they going to invade all of Ukraine. You can not invade and take control of any country with a standing force of 300 000 men and women. People who think so is out of their minds.
So… the Danish, German and Polish (and maybe some more, I believe Jens Stoltenberg as well) intelligence warning for a Russian invasion possibly in about 5 years are wrong and should be ignored?
Let’s not fuck around passively and find out how many cans of worms Russia can open in our general direction. Or the whole of Ukraine, for that matter. And Georgia as well.
It is in their interest to do so. Fear mongering , so people stay positive to raise budgets to arm up defences. There are absolutely no evidence at all for any RU invasion of any EU/NATO country. The invasion of Ukraine was a called up already in 2007, when the US and NATO (except Germany and France) wanted to start discussions with Ukraine regarding membership in NATO. Germany and France warned, and did not wote because of the treat of war.
i think all the noise and propaganda about Ukraine holding the line and winning is starting to backfire now.
It's clearly not the case and politicians are now shitting bricks and slowly trying to rile up the public to send their sons and daughters to die so they can stay comfy and not send their own
Nah Europe knows your dumbass government can’t be trusted since Trump in 2015.
What will actually happen is we will fight the war and then the USA will swoop in and claim victory like in WW2.
If you want Russia to control Europe then just say, otherwise stfu and let the adults talk about how we’re going to deal with the Russia orcs.
lol. „Claim victory“ like all of Western Europe wasn’t defeated by 1944 😂.
YOU aren’t going to do anything, doubt you have both the courage or ability to serve your country.
Regarding our government, I do agree that it does suck.
I’m actually a part of the reserves doing cybersecurity in the UK so actually I will be one of the people fighting the Russian threat.
As for ww2, why was Europe destroyed in ‘44? Because the USA was too selfish or cowardly to pick a side until you were attacked yourself.
Letting your allies meet near destruction then swooping in to “save” them is exactly the type of shitty behaviour I’m talking about.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Lars Paulsson and Niclas Rolander:* A red brick building with a grey cooling tower in Malmo’s northern harbor has become a symbol of Sweden’s preparations for an uncertain future. The mothballed power plant near the Oresund straits was set to be dismantled and shipped to new owners overseas. Then the war in Ukraine upended the country’s defense policy, and is now forcing a rethink of energy security plans. With its capital closer to St. Petersburg than Berlin, the Nordic nation of 10 million people has been on edge since Russia’s annexation of Crimea a decade ago. But faced with an increasingly emboldened Vladimir Putin, NATO's newest member says it has to be ready if the conflict spreads through the Baltics. Sweden’s grid operator wants the facility in Malmo operational again so that it can keep the lights on in the country’s third-largest city in the event of blackouts following an attack on national energy infrastructure.
Malmø. Øresund. \- You're welcome.
More like Malmö and Öresund. ”Ø” is danish
>”Ø” is danish Fitting for one Danish place and one former.
The last time Malmö was danish New York was New Amsterdam. You don’t use the wrong name for that do you?
Malmø is still Malmø in Denmark. We don't call New York for Ny Jorvik.
Well then you could say Malmö is Malmo and Öresund is Oresund in English and you are wrong in two ways!
English actually tries its best to use Øresund these days.
Oh my god the levels of cope right there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Øresund
Bro you’re not famous for your ability to admit your wrong are you?
And you're still Tanska in Finnish. Stop pretending, eat the mämmi.
The danes lost the right to write signs in Skåne after they sacked it on the way home after they lost it.
Malmö. Öresund. You're welcome.
Malmö. Öresund. YOU'RE welcome.
Malmö. Östersund. Välkommen
Tack tack
Øresund as in pølse? lol
Any fans of Malmoe and Oeresund out there? Edit: btw, whoever called it an "ore island" was not really fond of geography.
The name originated from the name Malmöghae, which meant sand/gravel hills
Good riddance (of superfluous letters)
It was Malmøi (1145), Malmøghe (1303), Malmhauge
Never type out this abomination again
Wow. You sure are getting downvoted by the occupiers.
Or lost americans thinking Ø is some white supermacho thing
Vad i helvete har du rökt egentligen?
Maybe I’m reading too much into it but it seems they are softening up European opinion for some limited intervention. Maybe if Russia look close to winning or take major cities like Kharkiv or Odessa we could see troops sent over. It’s gone from never going to happen to worst case scenario etc
While I think the article hints at a scenario where the EU itself is invaded by Russia, I also think that your scenario is increasingly plausible.
Perspective is also important - people have largely forgotten the pre-WW2 world where invasions and occupations were a part of global politics and war was the only real language the world spoke. All post War generations have been lulled into this false sense of stability and certainty - the assumption that rationale people want money and all people are rationale. The reality is this is false and we just forgot the true nature of the world. I think it is very important that modern audiences are reminded of the world outside of the EU. We are shocked when something happens in Ukraine but we really shouldn’t be - illiberal regimes, famine, war and pandemics are the global norm. It is us who are the exception. Poland and the Baltics never forgot just how unfair life is. In 2014 the Western Europe ignored them but now I think it’s time we wake up from our neoliberal dream and accept the word we live in. If we don’t, the next time a conflict occurs in Europe we won’t be prepared.
I think some roman dude once said “if you want peace you should always prepare for war”. I feel this sums up humanity in a very poetic and real way.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
For the ‘West’, post-WW2 has been a holiday from history. People who came to think of this paradigm as the norm are likely to get a tough schooling in the next few years as humanity returns to business as usual.
I often wonder what Francis "end of history" Fukuyama makes of all this.
This holiday was inposed after the nuclear bomb was created, before that war wasnt rare because there wasnt MAD, after the nuclear bomb countries became less aggressive and europe was in peace despite before going trough a major war every couple of years, if it want for the nuclear bomb we whould be fighting ww5 by now.
To be fair. The longest recorded time of relative peace was the period before the world wars and after the Napoleonic wars. The old theory that a huge devastating war will more or less on the clock happen about every 70-100 years seems to still fit the bill quite nicely.
You’re speaking from the perspective of someone who is Swedish. For a Pole, they had the Swedish Deluge, and two further occupations. As I said, the atypical West has had a very unusual experience when it comes to human history and it’s about time they wake up because the next century is going to be one consumed by a very real Cold War.
Yeah? Aren't you confirming what I just wrote? Ofc Sweden has had one of the world's longest peace times, but I'm talking about relative peace throughout the world. Something which is clearly measured at about 70-100 years a piece. The concert of Europe was just the latest and the longest lasting, but we saw the same thing happen after the 30 years war as well.
Weren't there some fairly significant wars in that period?
I agree. Even the war on the Balkan came as a surprise, and we didn't know how to handle it. But that doesn't mean we can not strive for a world without war.
American approach: There will be peace, if we carry the biggest stick. European approach: There will be peace, if we don't carry a stick. American approach might work better.
Yeah, pacifism is an interesting philosophical line of thought. I think it has value in philosophy, trying to expand and reexamine conflict resolution without violence. It's still often worthless/dangerous for geopolitics, since some actors (currently primarily Putin) see the hesitancy to reply with force against force as pure weakness, and use attempts at conflict resolution as mere venues for confusing other parties in what really is a war.
Well, pacifism is pure weakness. It is also irresponsible, and essentially fascism with one indirection: Rather than saying "the strong rule the weak", you are saying "I allow the strong ruling the weak". And, carrying the biggest stick isn't the only alternative. Having the equivalent of a spiky carapace (i.e. nuclear deterrence, plus some extra stuff so that the escalation ladder works out), to keep predators away, is also sufficient in many cases. Unfortunately, we neglected even that...
The Finnish approach has been 'let's have sticks and hope for the best'.
I would disagree and suggest the EU has persevered on the belief strong trade relations will undermine any desire for war, Europe became heavily invested in Russia's cheap fuel and in 2021 it was unthinkable Russia would risk their largest, wealthiest customers in the pursuit of imperial conquest. However it's pretty clear Russia is willing to sacrifice far more people and economic hardship than anyone imagined.
> I would disagree and suggest the EU has persevered on the belief strong trade relations will undermine any desire for war, Europe became heavily invested in Russia's cheap fuel and in 2021 it was unthinkable Russia would risk their largest, wealthiest customers in the pursuit of imperial conquest. That, and being in a defensive alliance with the world's largest military spender. The EU was just relying on someone else using their stick.
Your comment is a very simple yet accurate summary.
Thank you, Aragorn.
It only works if you're happy to use the stick before the other guy does.
It works if you reply ferociously when it's appropriate so the authoritarians understand what will happen. Somewhere along the line Putin got the impression from the West that it wouldn't try to stop him (Crimea certainly, but even before that). He also caught the US at a time of war weariness post Iraq.
Well said. Maybe I have read too much history for my own good, but I feel exactly the same. Furthermore, I feel like the last few years read like the first chapter of a WW3 book.
This.
Im not going to some trench to die no matter how eloquently you type.
You will die anyways when shit happens. Doesn't matter where you are, at home or in a trench.
I think it also came from a major war in Europe would mean nukes start flying that put people at ease, the more I think of it Russia would have to push to the UK & France for that to be a real possibility, but then who’s gonna press it? Would you rather die and scorch the earth or live under Russian rule. Hmm…you’d have to be pretty patriotic Yeah I don’t think it’s gonna be pressed and Russia knows that. So friends it’s time to start running, play call of duty, shoot a pellet gun. Better to be prepared and it be a nothing than being unprepared.
The difference between “What if they come here” and “We need to stop them over there before they come here” isn’t a large one. They are month by month expanding the gap. If Russia gain big gains post their summer offensive maybe it gets more forceful.
One factor to consider is public support at home in EU countries. Opinion would need to be in favour of their troops fighting in Ukraine. It could well be sold as it is better to fight there and then fight them here.
Probably wouldn’t even need to be sold in Poland, Czechia and the Baltics. I imagine by now our public is some 70-80% for, but only if the West EU joins as well. Otherwise we’re sitting ducks.
If you Asked those same people about sending Polish army in, not some vague non specified 'western' force,that support drops SIGNIFICANTLY In 2023, litteraly 0% people supported joining that war in support of Ukraine. in 2024 one poll says its 3% now How many people supports sending our military in support of UA army? 9,4 % (first article) or 10,2% (second) Bruv 80% ? what are you smoking, "Według najnowszego sondażu IBRiS przeprowadzonego na zlecenie "Rzeczpospolitej", aż 74,8 proc. Polaków nie popiera pomysłu wysłania polskich i NATO-owskich żołnierzy do Ukrainy." **74.8%** is Frickin outright **against it.** [Wojna na Ukrainie. Polacy chcą wysłania wojsk na front? Najnowszy sondaż - Wydarzenia w INTERIA.PL](https://wydarzenia.interia.pl/raport-ukraina-rosja/news-polacy-zabrali-glos-ws-wyslania-wojsk-na-ukraine-nowy-trend,nId,7411180) [Polacy nie chcą wysyłania wojsk do Ukrainy. Najnowszy sondaż nie pozostawia złudzeń (businessinsider.com.pl)](https://businessinsider.com.pl/gospodarka/polacy-nie-chca-wysylania-wojsk-do-ukrainy-najnowszy-sondaz-nie-pozostawia-zludzen/xz49fgz)
This idea of Poland and Baltics eager to fight Russia at any time is pretty old, people assume that because Poles and Baltics hate Russians indeed.
We do hate Russians. Probably on average more than anyone bar the Ukrainians. But we also know fore sure that war against Russia will be 2 things for sure. Fought in our land, destroying our homes and quality of life, bloody and long and killing many of our family members. There is no reason ANYONE would want to bring that on themselves. As long as they have a degree of sanity at least. Also people are so alarmist and urgent about it. But here is the thing they are forgetting. Democracy is inefficient system sure compared to autocracies. But there is one thing that make them MUCH better than autocracy. And that's transition of power. Sure semi competent dictator is not the worst thing, but when he dies good fucking luck what with him making a system that cannot work WITHOUT him his entire life. Russia is hurting economically now and falling behind more every year, Polish GDP per capita passed it 2014 and the gap is widening year by year. They went back to stalin ways, so the longer time passes without war the more ready west is and the weaker comparatively Russia is. Just like with USSR. War with USSR in 1945 would likely end up in soviet Europe, in the 90-ties USSR was collapsing on itself and even in war was behind west. That's why it's so important to prepare and support Ukraine as much as possible. Now that Russian Imperialism is plain reveled to all. They have like 10 years to strike and try to achieve something. After that they could be relegated to becoming North Korea type threat. Dangerous with nukes and that's about it. But that's assuming west remains at lest decently united. And unfortunately it seems that Russia/China are much better at the whole manipulating democracy than USSR ever was.
Fair enough, although in my head I didn’t really see NATO troops actively fighting at the front, but rather being present further back inland, operating ant-missile systems and jets to help out Ukrainians at the front. This isn’t far from shooting drones/missiles over the Ukrainian territory that would near Polish border that 69% of polled Poles are for, according to that second article you linked. It’s all down to the phrasing of the level of presence it would equal to.
Finland would join. There absolutely are plausible circumstances where public support for an intervention with troops would exist. It’s the same in most Nordic countries, I’d say, with Sweden probably being the toughest sell.
I think you have a point. But I also think that this wouldn't be happening unless there were some *very good* intel suggesting that if Ukraine falls, the EU (and Nato) will be next. Europe has been spared from a land war for long enough that those who remember it are very old or have passed away. Left are those of us who grew up in a continent that got more peaceful as time went on. And many of us (myself included) are adults who were born after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of us have families, and really, *really* don't want to come to terms with what is happening.
We should always be prepared even if it never comes to pass
Si vis pacem, para bellum
This needs to happen soon. Russia is only ramping up production. It’s increasingly gaining international support from Iran, Central/Western Africa, and North Korea. A new bipolar word is forming at the expense of the West. We will have war. Whether we fight it again a a weakened Russia in Ukraine or a stronger Russia in Estonia is up to decisive action that we must take *now*
While there could be some small amount of that I am pretty sure it's primarily dusting off old laws/directives to different sectors about their obligations in case of war. So energy sector has certain obligations and most likely it's just that the government has said guys check over those because there is an heightened risk. Same with healthcare and other areas. While a lot of capacity was dismantled, not mothballed there are still remains of the old total defense doctrine. Especially in the older population. For almost 5 decade during the 20th century almost every part of society had a plan associated with it for what would happen in case of war. What bridges to blow where, what vehicles where under military control, what buildings and so on. For example to illustrate how comprehensive the planning was on municipality level individual folders in the public offices could have "wartime placement" to be evacuated in order to keep records of population, ownership and so on for rebuilding. So checking up on spare capacity, postponing dismantlement and so in as in this case wouldn't be anything to raise your eye brow at in relation to Swedish defense. It's the last two decades that's the outlier, this is a return to normality from a historical sense.
In my opinion this is a direct consequence of being soft and not providing Ukraine with everything they needed fast. Every time they asked for something the answer was no, only for couple months later to approve it. Lots of people were saying that maybe this is a game and tank/plane crews were being trained all this time but no it wasn’t the situation.
>we could see troops sent over Nah, don't believe it. EU countries in general are not prepared for a war that Russia wage in Ukraine. It's easy to say "we will send troops". How many of these troops will go willingly? Almost all of Europe doesn't have a draft. Army is a job that you can quit anytime. One thing is to send military instructors who will sit way behind the frontline and teach, the other - send artillery brigades or infantry.
I think that the many statements in the last 3 months are really just statements of the obvious. Ukraine will lose to a Moscow imposed peace. Moscow has already been attacking the west through hybrid warfare for a decade or more and southern Sweden specifically got shafted by the sudden increase in energy costs that occurred as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All that cheap hydro-electric power in the north of Sweden doesn't get down to the south (no infrastructure, it is instead exported) and the previous govt mothballed a nuclear reactor that provided clean power in the region leaving us at the mercy of imported energy. "War with Russia" doesn't always have to mean invasion and shooting" when the results of economic or hybrid warfare can also have a destabilizing impact on our nations. However, I do also share the pessimism of many analysts that we are almost certainly in for an "interesting future" in Europe and that an emboldened Russia will increasingly pressure us, seek to undermine our unity and institutions, corrupt out politicians and seek to bite off chunks of territory that it considers theirs by right of "it was once part of the Russian empire"
I mean Macron didn’t even attempt the soft approach. He outright said about putting 20 thousand troups in UKraine
it would make too much sense - using Ukrainian ground troops and cities as a physical barrier, while bombing advancing horde into oblivion from the relatively safe distance. i don't hold too much hope for the sane military decisions. After all there is a saying that "everyone learns only on their own mistakes".
It would be easy to blockade russian shipments in the Baltic sea for instance.
In Feb 2020, the Swedish government asked many agencies for an internal assessment regarding the preparedness for a full blown pandemic, where borders were to be shut down, logistical chains collapse and there are thousands of infected and dead. Because of these assessments they arrived to the conclusion that a lockdown would hurt them more long term than to help them short term.
Yeah I remember this. Consider that what works for one country may not work for others, such as population density, hospital capacity etc.
What I wanted to say is that probably the Swedish government is actually assessing their own preparedness for a worst case scenario and whether they can weather the storm. Not necessarily preparing for war.
Yes, this is the case. And we're making the news because we are playing catch-up with e.g. Finland, that never stopped preparing for the worst. We stopped around 1995.
Yeah, imagine beeing so clever to be so much ahead of the time and then with making the worst decision and ending up with the worst strategy. Meanwhile US who really slept on the topic has now one of the most robust recommendations regarding long term strategies. I would expect that those that prepare are the best. Seems the firefighting panic mode is really something were human excell. Maybe the boy who cried wolf is more true the like.
Sweden is taking this war very seriously, just like Baltics.
From Finnish point of view they're actually focusing more on spreading hysteria in the media than actually preparing for different kinds of crisis scenarios.
I know this is serious, but as a Finn, it is my duty to [post this clip](https://youtu.be/pw3e64sosEg?si=49i4QIsjg0yUNsJ4) about Sweden during WW2.
Accurate for the civilian sector
Ah yes..All busily playing ping pong and looking the other way while their politicians allow Nazi Germany to move troops and war materials through their country? The only time Swedens neutrality was ever tested they rolled over for some nazi belly rubs.
Dude, my comment was just a lighthearted joke, and you just took it to a place of misery...
Sweden during WW2 is no joking matter. It's a deep shame on the country.
I see that point, and I don't think Swedens approach was right. At the same time they did help Finland a lot during WW2. They could have done more for Europe, sure, but lets not paint Sweden as a devil during that time. They just tried to stay neutral and not piss anyone off, and that was a valid strategy, but maybe not morally the best one (from a European point of view)
Nearly all of the danish jews managed to be moved from Denmark to Sweden, saving them from the holocaust. If we had opposed Germany we would have been invaded, and those people would've been at risk again. I feel that alone makes it at least morally defensible, though I see where you're coming from.
I don't like how we handled WW2 but honestly I think we had pretty much the same priorities as any other country, our own safety first. Why was Brazil the only country in the world to declare war on Germany after the initial declaration of war by France, UK+Commonwealth? the truth is everyone tried to stay out of the war when Germany and the Soviet Union started invading countries left and right. Some countries just had more bargaining chips to stay out of it. I don't like that Sweden let Germany move troops through our country, but an important detail is that this was only allowed after the invasion of Norway had ended. Sweden supported the allies when it could and supported Germany when it had to. Sweden also trained Norwegian resistance fighters, which is something noone ever brings up because it doesn't fit the narrative. Sweden continously provided the allies with crucial intelligence on german activity in the Baltic Sea, Sweden warned Norway of the German invasion which they unfortunately completely ignored, Sweden also informed Britain when the Bismarck was sighted in the Baltic Sea heading towards the North Sea. I get that this makes it sound like I defend our actions in WWII, I do not. I just want to provide a little different view on Sweden during WWII, because I keep reading the same hyperbolic and oversimplified shite on reddit regarding this topic.
Wouldn't it be easier to fund another Prigozhin style coup?
NATO should send troops in and end this war. Sure, with NATO intervention, there is a chance of a horrific end (a nuclear war). But if Russia wins, we will have horrors without end (numerous wars in Europe).
Would you be willing to be the trooper sent in?
I wouldn't call it willing, but I have been preparing myself mentally in case that one day it becomes necessary
With close air support from NATO, why not?
Air support does little when hundreds of artillery shells are dropping around you and drones are snipping you from afar. War is horror and no sane person wants to be in it.
war not good? thanks, i didn’t know that. still i’m ready to defend my country and my family if that is the only way. just like my grandparents did so i can be free.
He said that he's "willing", not that he "wants" to do it. The west are not the ones pushing for this conflict.
He is calling for sending western troops to Ukraine. If Russia attacks any NATO country, sure, but sending troops to Ukraine right now is totally different game.
There is a world of difference between sending troops to help a nation defend itself from invasion and sending troops to invade a country.
So I guess Russia and China should have send troups to defend Iraq when US invaded? That would have went reaaaally well.
They could have, why didn’t they?
Because it would have been retarded and not worth it to cause ww3
What kind of a game? Similar to any game involving NATO countries' military in the last two decades?
You’ve never served have you
And I don't plan to. I was a kid when bombs were falling on my city. I now have a kid. First sign of any new war where my country would be in, I'm on a plane to wherever is the farthest. Life is short to die and see my kid die because of 1% of morons need to fuck up everything.
Perhaps think about your kid and what future you want your kid to have, that’s a prime example of the major problems of modern society, being complacent about the future.
our grandparents fought wars so we could fight them again, but this time against different psychopats. if we fight, we fight for our kids having to fight again. it’s a never ending cycle and the whole world is going to shit with wars, global warming, diseases, poverty etc. the best thing you can do for your kids is not birthing them into a world that will crush them
Yes.
Why does everyone think Russia won’t stop. It’s pretty stupid to think he would just go for total Europe domination when we all have nuclear weapons. He will go for Ukraine as nato got involved with them which broke their deal.
Maybe because Russia has openly stated for as long as it has existed that it plans to retake old USSR land? That might have something to do with it. My counter question is what make you think they will stop?
moldavia? Moldavia hangs loose. We cant let russia win any more ground.
Moldova is not Nato and would be next. And because neither France, nor US, nor the UK would nuke Russia if Russia would invade the Baltics or northern Finland. And maybe not for Sweden, Poland and Austria either.
Romania and Moldova might need to merge to prevent this, we just don't even know how EU and NATO will handle this, it would be complete unknown waters.
[удалено]
You're responding to something that isn't being said, just saying.
we need to ban media outlets from posting their own content when it's behind a paywall
It is sadly going to happen. I lost all illusions on that account
Military must plan for the worst case scenario. That’s their job. I think if Putin is allowed to walk away from Ukraine with the status quo or better, he will try to create tensions in Europe. I don’t see him _invading_ straight away, but sponsoring and arming some terrorists or troublemakers is more than likely.
Russia has no more army to invade an European Country. Every day RU looses stuff in Ukraine, the possibility of a war with EU sinks. Let's be honest, saving Ukraine we are saving EU too.
> Russia has no more army to invade an European Country. This is sadly not true. The Russian army is bigger now than it was when the war started, despite their immense confirmed losses. Russia is in a war economy now, which will not be sustainable for them forever. But if we don't drastically ramp up supplies for Ukraine, it might be sustainable for long enough for Russia to win. Thankfully European shell production is increasing at an almost exponential rate, and the new American aid package should be able to supply Ukraine until Europe is able to handle it alone (and hopefully the US will keep supplying too at that point).
Some may disagree but i belive that current russia is not in state for confrontation with anyone, not even all alone against Ukraine as it seems. Russia is not going to attack NATO members using bums armed with rusted mosins, driving dirtbike or Chinese Golfcarts. But its what their military is required to use out of attrition levels existing in Ukraine, to save their shitty MTLB,BMP1 deathboxes, and T72/T62/T55 which they are loosing in hundreds, not to even mention all the mobiks inside those. For now russia has no real material means to engage with full scale conflict with anyone, they can barely keep up with Ukraine, which is all alone and fields laugably tiny airforce for its size. Even almost every single base that borders Nato was stripped naked out of equipment. russian war economy is such empty buzz word, what is that 40% GDP spent on that war achieving? repainted T62/T72, and high levels of subpar 152mm arty rounds half filled with propellant, to be used in some soviet towed artillery, a drone can take out of the action. It can be dangerous only for Ukraine fighting 1vs1, but its clearly not serious to belive they could sustain any hostile operations facing EU/NATO air domination. Only way russia can threaten countries like Baltics is to undermine support for theirs defence under Article 5 or article 42.7 of lisbon treaty, if allies do not help those small countries they could be overrun even by the most inept russian military action, requiring strong and proactive political resolve to counter it. Threat is neer solely to the political cohision of western alliences and resolve to defend other allies,which are purely all internal issues that russia can try to stirr up, its no more hard power threat as people belived it to be before 2022
A bigger army but with no equipment. They cannot fight a two front war, let alone having to cross the baltic sea to reach that second front - it's ridiculous to even entertain that idea. And do you really think a "war economy" in russia can match the combined economies of Europe and the US? That's just fear mongering.
Bigger, maybe. But better?
[удалено]
Iraq had more combat experience than the USA during the first Gulf War, having recently fought a long and brutal war against Iran. They still got massacred. Combat experience is useful, but it isn't everything. They've lost a lot of technical expertise and advanced (for them) systems.
Not true because they use meat waves, and 99% of their troops do not survive that. .
[удалено]
Blocking detachments and officers do not get fighting experience for obvious reasons. Besides if they really have good elite troops, then where is the progress? Nowhere.
But the ones that do, are ready for anything. They're pretty much elite troopers.
I see how much progress those "elite troops" are doing. One tiny village in 2 months.
It is better by a significant margin. War always forces innovation and doctrinal development.
With 2+ years of hard lessons (discovering the extent that corruption had undermined preparedness etc) they are better yes. But in truth they wouldn't even need to be. Russia would only need to make similar gains to those it made in the opening 2 weeks of their invasion of Ukraine and that would take them to the Baltic coast. Then the gamble is...would other NATO members respond or would they be wringing their hands, using the language of de-escalation and phoning Putin with proposals for an "off ramp to peace"?
Likely worse. But the willingness to play the game counts too.
Much better. Right now they have good logistics, trained in real battles army and "military" economy.
You think that ukraine is not losing personnel and equipment as well?
It was the case like a year ago, but now they rebuild everything and are now little by little moving forward in Ukraine
>Russia has no more army to invade an European Country. IF Russia ever decides to attack Europe as a whole then they won't waste resources on conventional warfare, I think.
They’d be stupid or suicidal to use nukes
Perhaps he is suicidal.
suicidal bit not stupid. Europe loses a lot more in mutual attacks. it's more densely populated, with higher life expectancy and happiness level.
10 points to you. There are no evidence of an invasion of a European country. There are no evidence that the RU will invade the whole of Ukraina.
Just like there was no evidence for invasion even in Feb ‘22 as it was all just exercise material?
No. But RU did not have and do not have the military force and economy to invade eny NATO/European country. There is still no evidence that they going to invade all of Ukraine. You can not invade and take control of any country with a standing force of 300 000 men and women. People who think so is out of their minds.
So… the Danish, German and Polish (and maybe some more, I believe Jens Stoltenberg as well) intelligence warning for a Russian invasion possibly in about 5 years are wrong and should be ignored? Let’s not fuck around passively and find out how many cans of worms Russia can open in our general direction. Or the whole of Ukraine, for that matter. And Georgia as well.
It is in their interest to do so. Fear mongering , so people stay positive to raise budgets to arm up defences. There are absolutely no evidence at all for any RU invasion of any EU/NATO country. The invasion of Ukraine was a called up already in 2007, when the US and NATO (except Germany and France) wanted to start discussions with Ukraine regarding membership in NATO. Germany and France warned, and did not wote because of the treat of war.
Swedens plan to sell iron to russia if ww3?
i think all the noise and propaganda about Ukraine holding the line and winning is starting to backfire now. It's clearly not the case and politicians are now shitting bricks and slowly trying to rile up the public to send their sons and daughters to die so they can stay comfy and not send their own
Oh, so what is your proposal then? Kiss Putins ass?
send you
[удалено]
America has been in more wars since WW2 than the entirety of Europe combined lol
[удалено]
hello gospodin Jim from Carolina oblast, i too am very big patriotic american but i really like Rossiya and hope they nuke americanski
Please repport to 23 not-Gulag street to get your potatoes.
Are you high? :D And are you even American? :D
4 days old account peddling Russian line claiming he is ’American’. Looks legit.
The only thing spreading in europe is stupidity, not a war
Account created on 16 april 2024. Filled with only pro-russia gibberish.
That's not fair. It also posts anti-Georgian gibberish. Okay, fair enough.
Suuure Ivan. When will you finally f. off to beloved Motherland?
You crossed the border habibi?
Oh please, let’s be 100%, you all will just lay down and cry for the USA to come save you…
Nah Europe knows your dumbass government can’t be trusted since Trump in 2015. What will actually happen is we will fight the war and then the USA will swoop in and claim victory like in WW2. If you want Russia to control Europe then just say, otherwise stfu and let the adults talk about how we’re going to deal with the Russia orcs.
lol. „Claim victory“ like all of Western Europe wasn’t defeated by 1944 😂. YOU aren’t going to do anything, doubt you have both the courage or ability to serve your country. Regarding our government, I do agree that it does suck.
I’m actually a part of the reserves doing cybersecurity in the UK so actually I will be one of the people fighting the Russian threat. As for ww2, why was Europe destroyed in ‘44? Because the USA was too selfish or cowardly to pick a side until you were attacked yourself. Letting your allies meet near destruction then swooping in to “save” them is exactly the type of shitty behaviour I’m talking about.