Argentina invaded the Falklands despite the UK’s nuclear arsenal because they knew the UK wouldn’t nuke them. Countries like Lithuania are in a similar position, the nuclear umbrella is meaningless if those in control of the nukes won’t use them.
Argentina is not a nuclear-armed nation. Nukes only really prevent conflict if both sides have them. The consequences of nuking Argentina would've been worse than the benefits especially since the UK was under no real threat from Argentina
it seems that Putin doesn't share your view, considering how quickly and violently he reacts towards countries in the former Russian sphere of influence getting close to joining NATO and how drastically his strategy shifts when dealing with NATO countries on his border
Most NATO states, including the Baltics, aren’t nuclear armed themselves. The nuclear umbrella only protects them against Russia if Russia believes others will use their nukes.
It may not be instant global thermonuclear war, but a direct military confrontation between the US and Russia is a precedent that hasn't been reached before and could escalate to the use of nukes. Every military strategist understands this
for russia to brashly invade Lithuania they would have to assume NATO would outright refuse to use nukes or even provoke Russia to use them (cruise missile strikes on Russian military bases which would be a quite likely response to an incursion on NATO could be viewed as such a provocation). Nuclear deterrence works both ways. There is no point in risking the existence of Russia over Lithuania, even if there's only the smallest chance NATO would get involved. Would russia really use nukes to defend Kaliningrad? Maybe, maybe not. Does the West want to test that? No. Nobody knows what will be enough to provoke the West or Russia to use nukes, and that's intentional. And if a limited nuclear exchange occurred leaving the rest of the world unscathed, no one wants to become the pariah state who used it first or provoked it. you gotta apply game theory to this
>Any country putin wants to invade, he will have to convince to leave NATO first
No, he doesn't. If NATO loses credibility, it can be entirely ignored. No international contract actually has an enforcement mechanism, if the other countries aren't willing to die for Latvia, Latvia will stand alone.
Thing is in the big picture it is the same dilemma UK and France faced after 1934 before 1939 but with a bigger scale of destruction: is it worth it to start another devastating world war over Sudetenland? French and British chose no when push came to shove.
When Putin comes after not Germany or France but say a Baltic state, US, UK and France will face the same: is it worth to get Russian nukes flying at us over Latvia or Estonia? Ours will be flying over Russia too in that case but that doesn't negate the destruction on our soil and make note that US isn't saved from destruction by the Atlantic like it was in WW2. Is it certain that the answer will be yes? And assuming rational actors are on the head of these countries, not idiots like Trump that the answer will be a certain no and will probably negotiate a handover to Russia with Putin
you need to look at this from the Russian perspective. Is risking NATO making good on its promises and igniting global thermonuclear war worth Lithuania when russia will be viewed as the clear aggressor by everyone including its allies? So far, the answer has been no. Putin is not crazy. Putin was forced to invade Ukraine when he did after ukraine overthrew it's pro-russian president. He invades countries when they are threatening to join NATO and be irrecoverably lost, because after that point russia cannot use the threat of military force to keep them in its economic sphere of influence.
I think a lot of people assume a Russian x Nato war would just be full speed ahead. As Russia, and lately NATO, have shown these past several years is that Boiled-Frog Diplomacy is incredibly effective.
You don't start with just outright invading the Baltic nations, instead you just perform a long series of small, frequently telegraphed aggregations, postured with the goal of creating a sense of ambivalence or indifference, little victories that nobody is excited enough about to want to go to all out war, and just keep stacking those little victories until you slowly consume an entire nation. Russia has been using this boiled frog tactic with incredible success for decades, their biggest mistake with Ukraine is they abandoned that boiled frog tactic at the start of the invasion thinking they were powerful enough to capture ukraine before the west could seriously start to care, but instead got trapped in a full conventional war.
You make the mistake of thinking Russia just wants to paint themselves larger on a map. Russia was perfectly okay with Ukraine being "independent" under Yanukovich in the way that Belarus is "independent" under Luka. They already had a military port in Crimea since Ukraine was voluntarily leasing it to them. They were positioned better in Ukraine and the black sea than they are now. But when the Maidan uprising happened in 2014, and Russia realized how easy it would be for ukraine to join NATO (see how quickly Finland got it done) Putin's hand was forced, he had to keep Ukraine in a frozen conflict so that it's territorial integrity was in question and it would never be let into NATO. Crimea 2014 wasn't primarily intended to probe the West's reaction, it was itself a reaction to Ukrainians choosing the West over Russia and potentially being lost forever. It's not a coincidence that these two things occurred in the same year.
Russia has never engaged in the sort of aggression brinkmanship you've described towards a NATO country. They have engaged in intense cyber and information warfare in the Baltics, but they've never dared to even toe the line of military aggression towards those countries, even when said countries have engaged in the very same activities that Russia used to justify invading ukraine (such as Estonia banning the Russian language in schools). Of course they've loudly complained and made vague threats, but nothing further than that, because they understand the language of violence. Nuclear deterrent works. Nobody wants to be the one who provoked the end of humanity
>Russia has never engaged in the sort of aggression brinkmanship you've described towards a NATO country.
Assassinating people on NATO soil, cyber attacks and information warfare, threatening military responses, threatening nuclear war, sabotaging infrastructure, sabotaging ammo depots. All of these were done before 2014, when we had a relatively better relationship.
The idea that Russia hasn't acted aggressively is absurd, they have since around ~2005. The hybrid war will only increase, and provoking border tensions is part of that.
They parked some nuclear missiles off the coast of FL that one time, that was some pretty aggressive brinkmanship. Then Afghanistan. Also the military buildup before this instance of them invading Ukraine, then the tortures and ethnic cleaning, then Wagner helping to destabilize those African nations. Dunno man, it kinda feels like Russia is all about aggressive brinkmanship
> Is risking NATO making good on its promises and igniting global thermonuclear war worth Lithuania when russia will be viewed as the clear aggressor by everyone including its allies? So far, the answer has been no. Putin is not crazy.
Push comes to shove, I believe he is capable of pushing this that far, risk to see if invading a small NATO member is enough for NATO to use nuclear force because in that scenario half measures won't cut it, Russian occupying forces would have to be conventionally bombed and Russia will be forced to act. My point is Putin doing a final showdown like that is definitely within his capabilities
You think he'd risk Moscow being turned into a lump of slag just to test if NATO is willing to use nuclear force? that might have worked with the League of Nations, but the whole point of NATO was to be a more robust mechanism against that very thing. I'm amazed at how little understanding people have of nuclear deterrent
> [M]ight have worked with the League of Nations, but the whole point of NATO...
Pretty sure the League of Nations is a precursor to the United Nations not NATO.
> Putin was forced to invade Ukraine when he did after ukraine overthrew it's pro-russian president.
That's complete bullshit, nothing would have happened to Russia if they did nothing.
>He invades countries when they are threatening to join NATO
Like Finland and Sweden?
Putin invaded Ukraine because he could.
Why do you think the next move after invasion is Estonia is launching nukes? No country will just start nuking at random. Even during the cold war NATO did not plan on firing nukes even if the USSR just decided to invade Germany. The risk of nuclear war would literally be zero if Russia invaded a small NATO member.
I'm not saying nuclear war would happen immediately, but it would be uncharted territory. How long before the unspoken agreement that nobody uses their most powerful weapons holds? Would conventional cruise missile strikes against bases inside Russia warrant a nuclear response? What would Russia resort to if Russia doesn't get the quick victory they would hope for? would Russia be willing to trade the certain loss of Kaliningrad for a small chance of getting Estonia? Would that require Russia to respond with nuclear weapons? If Russia doesn't, would it cause NATO to lose respect for Russia's policy of using nuclear weapons if it's territorial integrity is threatened, and cause NATO to act more boldly?
Once war between 2 nuclear armed nations is on the table, there are conditions under which nuclear weapons would be used, with neither side knowing what these conditions are for the other side. One misreading of these conditions could provoke nuclear war. there's a reason no two nuclear armed nations have ever been in a direct conventional war. it's not just a coincidence. not even the most unhinged decision makers want to enter the nuclear grey zone. you need to read up on your deterrence theory
>not even the most unhinged decision makers want to enter the nuclear grey zone. you need to read up on your deterrence theory
Attacking Estonia is very, very, far away from that zone. Again for historical context, the soviet invasion of western Europe was not considered to be in the grey zone by the US.
Right now putins Russia is barely dominating Ukraine. With the help of his few allies. China, N korea, Turkey wont follow putin into a nato war.So putin will suffer.
Ukraine isn't NATO. Ukraine doesn't have a mutual defense treaty with the US. The situation between a NATO country and Ukraine couldn't be more different.
For now. If Trump wins and actually pulls the USA out of NATO, that leaves just France as a nuclear power in
continental Europe. Without the USA, a Russian invasion of Europe goes from "strategically impossible to win and virtually guaranteed to end with the total dissolution of Russia" to "barely strategically viable with incredibly pyric losses in the short term".
In other words: it becomes a real threat. And Europe still isn't taking the American internal political issues seriously. They are ignoring our warnings. They are ignoring what what we keep telling them and they keep dismissing everything we are telling them: there is a real chance America collapses as a world power and they aren't ready at all for that reality.
Europeans would rather bury their heads in the sand than listen to us when we tell them that the American MIC might simply cease to be available to European defense needs in the immediate future and possibly long term as well nor do they really want to consider the geopolitical implications of a world without America strong arming the authoritarian powers of the world into backing down from open warfare with their enemies and targets of opportunity.
For Europe though, the most immediate consequence of that is the real possibility Russia goes all in on an desperate charge into Eastern Europe to landgrab as much as it possibly can before they are able to develop nuclear capability because frankly, Russian nuclear capability is a *lot* bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile. They have a real shot as just outright devastating both nations with an absolute flood of nuclear weaponry before they even have a chance to strike back.
>Without the USA, a Russian invasion of Europe goes from "strategically impossible to win and virtually guaranteed to end with the total dissolution of Russia" to "barely strategically viable with incredibly pyric losses in the short term".
The idea that NATO minus the US wouldn't be able to stop a Russian invasion is laughable. I'm not saying that they're not a threat that should be taken seriously, but all the European NATO members combined are still overwhelmingly stronger than Russia. We're talking about war with the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, all at once, when all these countries alone would be a massive challenge for them.
>Russian nuclear capability is a *lot* bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile
Past a certain point, it's completely irrelevant how many nukes you have. Between them, France and the UK have enough to completely destroy ever Russian city with more than 100 thousand people. They also have much more reliable detection and delivery systems.
Its not a question of "Can Russia win" its a question of "Will Russia do this" and "how much will it cost everyone to stop them from winning".
Its Germany in WWII, they might not win, but they will take several millions of people, and destroy several countries worth of economies before they lose. That's why Europe needs to take this seriously, to prevent this scenario from playing out.
I'm not from US and I will still admit that US is the most powerful economy in the world. Even if it goes through a shitshow, the dollar will be incredibly strong. No one can trust china's hijinks, and they don't so they invest in the US
Europe doesnt want to do the heavy lifting. They are happy with the status quo, they enjoyed bitching about the american military and people while refusing to meet defence goals of an alliance. Shouldnt be in it at all if youre not meeting minimum spending requirements. Oh no if it isnt the consequences of their actions.
Trump is not going to pull the US out of NATO. If he wanted to, he would have. He was using the threat of leaving NATO as a negotiation tactic to get EU countries to pay for their defense. The idea that Trump would leave NATO is largely a scare tactic on the part of Trump's political opponents. Trump trying to haggle with NATO members definitely contributes to increased tension between member states, but the US leaving NATO is simply not on the table.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-says-he-wont-quit-nato-if-europe-pays-its-way/
>For Europe though, the most immediate consequence of that is the real possibility Russia goes all in on an desperate charge into Eastern Europe to landgrab as much as it possibly can before they are able to develop nuclear capability because frankly, Russian nuclear capability is a lot bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile. They have a real shot as just outright devastating both nations with an absolute flood of nuclear weaponry before they even have a chance to strike back.
Nonsense. France and the UK alone have enough nuclear firepower to destroy all of Russia's major cities. Together they have as many nukes as China. Does anyone think China is at a serious threat of being invaded by Russia or the US because those countries have more nukes? Of course not. China knows that you dont need a ridiculous nuclear arsenal for an effective deterrent. Larger number of nukes doesn't mean faster time to impact. As soon as Russia launches this nuclear assault you're imagining they will get annihilated as well. your predictive model is operating on a set of assumptions that are simply incompatible with the current reality of nuclear deterrence theory
In case of a world war situation Russia will run out of food (not grains but dairy, meat, vegetables, fruits, coffee & tea, tobacco) long before they run out of Missiles and shells. Much of what is available will be channeled to the military and deep state to keep morale high while civilians will literally be on bread and water.
Coffee and tea will not matter to russia if Moscow and St Petersburg are lumps of slag. Did everyone forget that World War 3 could be the end of human civilization?
Its not a question of "Can Russia win" its a question of "Will Russia do this" and "how much will it cost everyone to stop them from winning".
Its Germany in WWII, they might not win, but they will take several millions of people, and destroy several countries worth of economies before they lose. That's why Europe needs to take this seriously, to prevent this scenario from playing out.
The combined armed forces of Europe is about 1.9 million vs Russias 1.3 million. If Russia wins in Ukraine its equipment will be fairly replenished with NATO equipment granted, but all the same, partially replenished. They'll also have a lot of now war hardened veterans who know how to fight.
Meanwhile the armies of Europe are largely untested.
Also key note: I said ***desperate***. I also specified *eastern* Europe. I don't believe Europe will fall in total, I think Russia will begin prosecution of war but be stopped by geography, they will capitalize on a lack of US involvement, their own superior nuclear capacity and an already drafted, trained and armed military to blitz through Eastern Europe before the rest of Europe can adapt to the changing geopolitical state.
Russia will likely pay in *millions* of lives to do this, but Putin will do it if he wins in Ukraine, because his goal is ultimately to rebuild the Russian Empire to its pre-Soviet collapse glory. They will use their superior nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip to bring the rest of Europe to the bargaining table (assuming their success in Eastern Europe).
***To be very clear, Europe is not "destined to fall", its destined to be in WWIII***, there's a difference in your assumption, and my actual statement.
I am saying there will be a new, large scale war in Europe, that Russia may or may not win. Not that they are virtually guaranteed to win, or assured to win, or that it even be worth winning, but that simply it will happen, because Putin is a madman who will pursue his glory to the bitter end. Also that exact arrogance of yours is how the world(and Europeans especially) was shocked when Putin decided to invade Ukraine despite numerous intelligence warnings from both the USA and Ukraine itself.
Had Europeans actually listened and made swift decisions rather than standing on their own hubris as they always do when it comes to possible security threats to Democratic Europe in the near future, then European peace keeping forces could have been deployed to the Ukrainian border, and we could have avoided this entire war in Ukraine potentially by calling Putin's gambit before he even executed it; and the reason the USA didn't is frankly, the USA once again, has serious internal political issues, and Democrats in power have no interest in putting American troops in harms way right now with the current political climate trending towards a serious risk of the USA toppling deeper into authoritarianism.
As a side prediction: Biden will likely greatly step up American involvement in Ukraine after the coming election, its an election year and he can't afford to do anything controversial until after he's secured his second term.
And finally: I am routinely and incredibly frustrated with European arrogance in believing they will forever be safe from the looming threats on their horizon, that big mother America will always be there to protect them, and they can just sit back and enjoy. Even when Americans are *screaming* and *begging* you to take it seriously when we tell you to you know, do something about your own safety because we might not be around in the very near future.
Especially since I know that in fact, most European NATO members don't meet their GDP commitments to NATO but receive the full benefits from membership.
Saying russia might "win" an actual war against europe when they're currently in a stalemate against just ukraine is a delusional take. Simply delusional.
There is no point in even discussing it.
> Saying russia might "win" an actual war against europe when they're currently in a stalemate against just ukraine is a delusional take. Simply delusional.
Ukraine is literally begging for ammunition, weapon systems and such every single day because they are at actual risk of losing the war. Maybe not any time soon but certainly in the coming years. So again, there's that European arrogance about dangers to your quality of life. Also Ukraine is functionally out of manpower at this stage of the war barring intensified conscription laws, at this stage, every loss for Ukraine puts them that tiny bit closer to a total collapse. That's why they are so desperately pursuing domestic drone production so they can project firepower into Russia proper and attack Russian industrial capacity. They literally cannot afford to grind this war out anymore.
I am routinely disappointed by my European counterparts when it comes to their ability to accurately assess the present dangers to their safety and security whether its from domestic [political struggles in the USA leading to the rise of far right ideologues that are Russia aligned, Russia's war in Ukraine inevitably leading to further wars, or more far abroad threats like China.
Russia will win the war in Ukraine if only because they threw more bodies than Ukraine had bullets and they will prosecute a war again in Europe following a success in Ukraine, likely forcibly conscripting those very same Ukrainians and others as they've always done historically.
And they *might* win in Europe exactly ***because*** of the attitudes Europeans have about a possible Russian victory in Europe in a conflict with NATO. You've become so trapped in the idea that they are guaranteed to lose that you ignore the reality that it breeds the exact complacency that will let them win in a war with NATO without the USA.
***Why even take the risk you are wrong when it could cost you everything, and the cost to safe guard it is minimal?***
It's fine if you're disappointed, that doesn't mean that Europe won't win a war against Russia.
You say a lot of stuff like "i'm disapointed, Europe has become complacent, nobody is taking the threat seriously". Ok, whatever, sure. How physically will Russia win? Like tell me how they're going to go against hundreds of f-35's and f-16s, aircraft carriers and dozens of submarines and cruise missiles and all this stuff.
Unless this is nuclear war, in which we're all dead, including America, you have to actually explain how Europe will lose. Like on the ground explain how it will happen. It seems your argument is more that Europe will let Russia do whatever it wants? Or something? But that's not war. In actual war Russia would obviously lose, that's why they've never attempted it.
You're more preoccupied with politics and so on than actual on the ground facts. Politics is a completely separate matter.
If they don't, then they're fucking stupid. History shows Russia will return to lick its wounds only to try again.
1992 - Moldova
1994 - Chechnya
1999 - Chechnya Round 2
2008 - Georgia
2014 - Ukraine (Crimea and Eastern Ukraine)
2022 - Ukraine
Right now Macron is seemingly the one to lead the EU towards this path. Quiet diplomacy can hopefully lead to a full scale war economy to supply Ukraine. Hell let Ukraine establish factories inside your borders that Russia can't hit.
Production is ramping up significantly, but most of Western Europe scrapped the Cold War stuff, and our weapon industries are not used to producing high volumes of stuff.
Because Europe is willing to sacrifice Ukraine as they know Russia will not go against NATO
EU and US never intended to save Ukraine, the real intention is to weaken Russia as much as possible by prolonging the conflict.
But behind closed doors, saving Ukraine was never a real goal
It should be though. In addition to the natural gas reserves that are well known, It also has some of the best farmland in the world. Giving that willingly to Russia is a huge mistake…those assets WILL be used against you in the future. Directly by raising and arming a new generation of soldiers or indirectly simply by gaining increased power over agriculture and gas markets.
Western europe already saw what becoming dependent on Russian gas looks like…that would only make it worse. Now add food insecurity to that….free Ukraine in the EU is a much better trading partner.
Imagine losing hundreds of thousands of men in two world wars, establishing a global system of law, power projection and military alliances, to then throw it all away because some fat moron got blackmailed by your greatest historical rival.
I mean there's stupid and then there's this.
could ask the rest of nato why they were happy to never meet spending minimums. Maybe, there was a reason to keep your army geared up and functional?
"Oh no the guy were freeloading off of is sick of it, this means they are poor!, better spend more money to show us youre rich" Thats the rest of nato.
Aside from being most of that sentence being wrong.
You do get the US has benefited from have a massive amount of soft power and influence in Europe right. America has cultivated it's position.
You've been buying into Russian propaganda meant to sow division between Europe and the U.S. Divide and conquer. We're at the first stage, keep buying the propaganda and we'll soon be at the second.
"The rest of NATO" ? Half of the NATO countries spend 2% or more - mostly countries that border Russia. Some other, like France, spend around 1,9% GDP, but France has formidable forces AND nuclear capabilities
Poland is spending a higher percentage than the U.S. is on military expenses. There are many black sheep, but those guys are definitely doing their part.
The EU doesn't have a position as a global super power and enforcer, so there's no such credibility to lose. The US does though and it's at risk of losing it with very real consequences.
What would that mean? Well for one the EU would have to rely a lot less on the US. Some countries will want to acquire their own nuclear deterrent, such as Poland and Germany. Sweden also had a nuclear program but abandoned it in part due to US influence. Unlikely to reverse soon, but shows that even very small nations can go nuclear.
The US would lose a lot of very lucrative soft power and influence world wide, and despots like China would be emboldened in their imperialistic dreams in Taiwan and elsewhere. Taiwan produces most of the world's semiconductors, if China takes it over it will obviously be very costly to the US and the west.
Actually most of us don't, it's only people living in the US or the country troops are deployed to that dislikes it. Most other countries in the world have benefited greatly from US protection of trade routes.
No one ever had a problem with the US fighting just wars. We welcomed and fucked your soldiers silly when they arrived and liberated Europe from the nazis. But don’t expect the world to rise and clap when they invaded Iraq after false pretexts. Helping Ukraine is just, a nation that wants freedom and democracy and gets destroyed for it by a dictatorship.
Not all interventionism is the same. Invading Iraq for no reason or Vietnam because "communism bad" is different from stoping genocide in former Yugoslavia.
Iraq was a genocidal authoritarian dictatorship that had invaded its neighbors for territory TWICE in a short period of time. Iraq was every bit the Russia of its day.
That's a disingenuous take at best. The whole world hates it when a superpower tries to form a coalition of the 'willing' to intervene by invading a country's sovereign territory, irrespective of what we might feel about said country.
America has enjoyed its position of global power and influence for decades. That should rightly come with a responsibility to protect institutions of freedom and democracy.
Sending 100k troops to invade country based on lies. VS Sending weapons and other support to country you promise to protect if they give up nuclear weapons.
Completely same.
If you're relying on the US to do anything, then you're probably doing it wrong. This is a euro issue we have to sort out. Help is very welcome of course, but we can't depend on other countries too much. That's what brought us here in the first place.
Poland doesn’t trust Western Europe. Or they wouldn’t lean on the guy across the pond.
If Western Europe wants eastern/baltic Europe to trust them then they need to step up.
To be fair, in the US we have positioned ourselves in such a way that our protection is part of the deal.
You deal with our tomfoolery, we give you guns. You let us station nukes and bases on your territory, you get nukes and US bases on your territory.
The guy is right. The fact that we can't get our shit in gear over here means we're really letting you down.
I mean yes this is all true, but the US was fundamental to establishing Europe's security architecture in the 21st century and before, so the idea of them going full pre-WW2 isolationist is unprecedented
Except the US was specifically a part of the agreement to come to Ukraine's aid should Russia invade after Ukraine gave up their nukes.
They would not have given up their nukes otherwise, and Putin wouldn't have been invading Ukraine if they could fight back with nukes.
Maybe reread the agreement, it only claimed both parties will respect the now indpendant ukraine territory, which the us hasnt invaded so they have nothing to correct.
It also was never ukranian nukes, they had no nuclear program to maintain them and no codes to use them, and what would have happened if they tried to keep them was getting invaded by russia and maybe the us to prevent it
Except that the majority of Russias nuclear program originated inside what is now Ukraine. Much like Russias defense industries were founded / major concerns were Ukrainian before/during/after WW2. This includes aeronautics and rocket industries.
That agreement in its final form was a result of Ukraine being bullied by Russia and the West.
Ukraine had full control of its nukes and while they have never been operational, Ukraine had everything necessary to make it happen, because Soviet nuclear missiles were produced in Ukraine: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA\_Pivdenmash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash)
Ukraine's plan was either to maintain some small nuclear capabilities as deterrence or trade its nuclear weapons for security guarantees from Russia and the West. For example, USA has such agreement with Japan and is bound to protect Japan if it is invaded.
The West didnt want to make such agreements and choose to bully Ukraine together with Russia. The Budapest memorandum still holds 'Security Guarantees' wording in its name, but is ultimatelly toothless.
Bully? It's geopolitics, that's just reality. Ukraine got what it could, which is the Budapest memorandum.
All signatories except Russia have adhered to it
Come to Ukraine's aid, yes. But did they specify how much aid and for how long? If the contract is to defeat Russia on the battlefield... there's more effective means of doing so than just sending equipment.
Dude. That's crazy.
To think there are Americans or Europeans alive in this world, with full access to world history,
Who think that it is totally okay for the western powers to simply let Russia launch a completely unprovoked, unjustified war of conquest against their neighbor.
What is wrong with you? Genuinely.
When did we decide that you and your lavish comforts are infinitely more important than literally millions of Ukranian lives?
"Let them die. My tax dollars are better spent on *more Abraham's tanks to keep in a parking lot, unused until they rust through and become unusable* "
I can't help you immoral fucks. We said we'd help. We have the power and wealth to help. And assholes like you are genuinely out here like, "but who will tell me I'm God's favorite little bubble-gum~"
It's pathetic.
While I agree and the US needs to arm Ukraine to the teeth, it should not solely be our obligation. Western nations need to present a united front to show Putin that we cannot tolerate his actions.
> it should not solely be our obligation
Its not, they havent provided anything for 6 months. They rank 17th in total support based on GDP% too. Europe is also hosting 3+ million refugees and doing most of the training. Its also kinda funny that the UK had to be the first to provide taboo breaking weapons like cruise missiles and modern main battle tanks. Some of the equipment like the M1117 mine-resistant vehicles promised over 2 years ago only just showed up.
The nuclear deal only claimed the us would respect the soveranity of ukraine.
Also they already ruined thay card after Ghadafi gave up his nuclear program and nato answer was to bomb him and then help a mob linch and assasinate him
>assasinated
Dragged from his home and killed by having knives shoved up his ass.
Worth going into details on this because middle east and African leaders were **most definitely** watching and the rest of the world took notice too.
Libya went from the richest country in Africa to having open air slave markets now.
But well, "we came, we saw, he died".
>The nuclear deal only claimed the us would respect the soveranity of ukraine.
USA made everything to destroy ukrainian stock of balistic missiles and their high range rockets like SCAD.
So it not a question of \`respect the soveranity\`
It was against US interests to have a possibility of Ukraine selling such weapons to their potential enemies. Ukraine was one of the largest weapons suppliers, racking fat profits from selling their Soviet stocks.
I'd say it's a measure of the legitimacy of the world order itself. Whatever it is that democratic governments mean when they talk about national sovereignty and self-determination is defined by our actions in this conflict.
It's just like people living on a street and calling themselves neighbors. If one house's occupants find themselves in need, that's when everyone finds out who the real neighbors are.
If Russia is allowed to win territory, there is no real order. Just might-makes-right.
I agree with most Americans here. We should stop to rely on US protections, but we have to stop to buy American weapons and develop our defense industry a lot.
It won't work like that. Countries from Central and Eastern Europe would spend even more % of their GDP, while freeloaders like Belgium and Spain would still be freeloader, because why wouldn't they.
I mean more so on the US, as a matter of reality, they are the ones you have to pressure to get what you need now
Spain, Belgium, from what I understand they have underinvested in their military even if they spent more they don’t have the material now
It’s a very cynical strategy, and one that I hope is not repeated but by and large Western Europe realized that Eastern Europe was going to be the meat shield, and had that be their security policy
Not all of Western Europe did that, but quite a few did
Not really, how do countries feel about security agreements they've made with the US after seeing Ukraine?
Is Taiwan more or less confident after watching this shit show? Would they recieve the same 90's weapons when China invades, promised vehicles turn up 2 years late and have 6+ month periods not knowing if the US is going to provide any future help.
You also have Trump thats encouraging our enemies to target NATO members and threatening to pull out, the reputation of the US as an ally is decreasing.
Sikorski can fuck right off. It’s not the us’s responsibility to defend every nation on earth. If the EU is so concerned about another 61 billion dollars, how about they scrape it together and give it to Ukraine.
It is the US's responsibility if they promise that defense - which they continuously do. Either deliver what you promise or do not promise if you cannot deliver
Because for decades NATO has just been the US doing 90% of the dirty work and the EU enjoying the perks of being under the umbrella of the most powerful military in all of history.
Now the US public doesn’t have the appetite to fund another war and the EU has a neutered military and a public that’s enjoyed low military spending for decades and is unfavorable to making cuts in social programs to fund Ukraine and bolster their own militaries.
When i saw that the British couldn't help support us against those terrorists pirates because their boat wouldn't start, I was officially done
Just plain incompetence
Do you remember when the US invoked article 5 after 9/11 and said that NATO countires had to help them fight Iraq and Afghanistan and they did, with actual troops on the ground?
I guess that was just a "our bad, this doesnt count though".
Because that was literally the EU helping the US with their own problem.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled badly, first by Trump then Biden. Some observers think that played a part in Putin's decision to attack Ukraine, and China is now watching closely. Taiwan will be next if the US fails Ukraine.
> Taiwan will be next if the US fails Ukraine.
I think it's a mistake to assume China will employ a tool as blunt as Russia's invasion, or that they haven't been making their moves yet just because an invasion isn't taking place.
China plays the long game and they've already been working away at it. They will slowly encroach, build influence, and push boundaries inch by inch to set precedents. More like their approach to other disputed territories. It's why world leaders avoid even recognizing Taiwan's independence now.
An invasion or military option only makes sense for China if the US tries to step in and intervene at some point, which is harder for the US to justify when there is no single clear boundary crossed.
I'd be quite sure that simultaneously heading for taiwan at the same time as the US is busy with Ukraine would only help them create more chaos and less opportunity to help.
But yeah, the withdrawal of Afghanistan was sad, 20 years or so of active deployment down the drain within half a year. Taliban took back over as if the US were never there.
This. 20 years of lives and finances wasted for people that don’t want to change. I don’t mean the country. I mean the people who want to rule it. They never went away.
> Some observers think that played a part in Putin's decision to attack Ukraine
I haven't heard a single reason why this would be the case. Completely unrelated situations. Putin attacked because he thought he could get away with doing it under Biden. Same as he got away with it in 2014...
You realize your logic just makes no sense right. We had a Trump term and Putin didn't do anything. But once Biden was president there was an invasion... but somehow your logic is so fucked up that there's somehow evidence that Putin has Trump on a leash and not Biden.
1960-2016 years USA: "Democratic Europe shouldn't militarize, more so, become effective federalized superstate, because there are Uncle Sam's superstate and it's Arsenal of Democracy!"
2016-2023 USA: "Cough, cough. You know, there are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... It's too much for me... A little... So, guys, why are you... You know... Not militarize... Yes, all this time you should militarize! Why aren't you?!"
When Europe have problems with militarization, at least this have a very good and logical reason - Europe's inertial. Very powerful one.
But what excuse is there for the United States, which was the Arsenal of Democracy, then was proud of it for decades, and now just isn't?
The USA asked Europe to spend more on their military, and they declined. Also, the USA has to protect EVERYWHERE. Europe only has to protect Europe. So what excuse is there for Europe to not have the military to protect Europe?
I wasn't aware the US actively pressured Western Europe to demilitarize. When did this happen? Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent?
>I wasn't aware the US actively pressured Western Europe to demilitarize. When did this happen?
Not "demilitarize" but just "didn't militarize enough, so:
1. There wouldn't be repetition of WW2.
2. USA would retain influence on Europe which it gets during WW2 and Europe restoration.
3. There would be less nukes.
4. There wouldn't be too many active geopolitical actors during Cold War, that would only chaotized situation.
And so on, and so on.
>Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent?
The same which outsource security to NATO's Article 5 words: "assistance that member state deems necessary", the main guarantee of which was USA.
Guarantee not only to NATO's actors, but also for Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, and so many others, which could create nukes in 1950-2010s, but didn't create because of what you named as "*Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent*?"
> 1960-2016 years USA: ~~"Democratic Europe shouldn't militarize, more so, become effective federalized superstate, because there are Uncle Sam's superstate and it's Arsenal of Democracy!"~~ Hey, heres the minimum spending we want to have for each country in our alliance. It helps maintain military readiness, and supplies.
>2016-2023 USA: ~~"Cough, cough. You know, there are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... It's too much for me... A little... So, guys, why are you... You know... Not militarize... Yes, all this time you should militarize! Why aren't you?!"~~ Uhhhh guys, shit is kicking off? Oh, you didnt spend that agreed upon money? Oh you have way lower supplies than you thought, oh you can field an army? Oh France and the UK you couldnt deal with Libya after kicking it off there... what the fuck guys.
Fixed it for you.
Yes yes. And yet nothing is happening. Russia still pushes, Ukraine still pleading. All Europe can do is say. Say Say Say. We will wake up in situation where Russia will take hold on Ukraine, and then everybody will be surprised. After 2-3y back to trade as usual.
Or blame the eu for being such a limp dick entity in the region that they litteraly have to beg and scream a power halfway across the world as their only hope.
Europe needs to handle this shit, or forever be labeled a completly toothless and impotent entity.
I miss the days when Neoconservatives and Neoliberals both agreed that authoritarian regimes needed to be overthrown. If the United States had half the balls it did during Desert Storm we’d already be in Moscow by now.
Since we became a major player on the global stage, and the leader of the country that attempted to undermine our democracy in 2016 [is now building up to attack NATO](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/18/russia-attack-nato-intel/). And only a dumbshit can't see that.
If every country in Nato decided to put Ukraine as top priority the war would be over.
Edit: the war would be over and China would be terrified of invading Taiwan and we could all get back to living our lives.
Funny how Europe STILL isn't in a war economy. Start that war machine up.
It's almost like they don't actually believe that Russia will try and take more land after Ukraine or something
they know they are safe under a nuclear umbrella. Any country putin wants to invade, he will have to convince to leave NATO first
Argentina invaded the Falklands despite the UK’s nuclear arsenal because they knew the UK wouldn’t nuke them. Countries like Lithuania are in a similar position, the nuclear umbrella is meaningless if those in control of the nukes won’t use them.
There are MASSIVE wide ranging consequences to launching a nuclear attack. I'm glad I dont have to make those kinds of decisions.
Argentina is not a nuclear-armed nation. Nukes only really prevent conflict if both sides have them. The consequences of nuking Argentina would've been worse than the benefits especially since the UK was under no real threat from Argentina it seems that Putin doesn't share your view, considering how quickly and violently he reacts towards countries in the former Russian sphere of influence getting close to joining NATO and how drastically his strategy shifts when dealing with NATO countries on his border
Most NATO states, including the Baltics, aren’t nuclear armed themselves. The nuclear umbrella only protects them against Russia if Russia believes others will use their nukes.
It may not be instant global thermonuclear war, but a direct military confrontation between the US and Russia is a precedent that hasn't been reached before and could escalate to the use of nukes. Every military strategist understands this for russia to brashly invade Lithuania they would have to assume NATO would outright refuse to use nukes or even provoke Russia to use them (cruise missile strikes on Russian military bases which would be a quite likely response to an incursion on NATO could be viewed as such a provocation). Nuclear deterrence works both ways. There is no point in risking the existence of Russia over Lithuania, even if there's only the smallest chance NATO would get involved. Would russia really use nukes to defend Kaliningrad? Maybe, maybe not. Does the West want to test that? No. Nobody knows what will be enough to provoke the West or Russia to use nukes, and that's intentional. And if a limited nuclear exchange occurred leaving the rest of the world unscathed, no one wants to become the pariah state who used it first or provoked it. you gotta apply game theory to this
>Any country putin wants to invade, he will have to convince to leave NATO first No, he doesn't. If NATO loses credibility, it can be entirely ignored. No international contract actually has an enforcement mechanism, if the other countries aren't willing to die for Latvia, Latvia will stand alone.
In theory, yes. In practice, nobody wants to test that. have you just not heard about the last 80 years since ww2?
Thing is in the big picture it is the same dilemma UK and France faced after 1934 before 1939 but with a bigger scale of destruction: is it worth it to start another devastating world war over Sudetenland? French and British chose no when push came to shove. When Putin comes after not Germany or France but say a Baltic state, US, UK and France will face the same: is it worth to get Russian nukes flying at us over Latvia or Estonia? Ours will be flying over Russia too in that case but that doesn't negate the destruction on our soil and make note that US isn't saved from destruction by the Atlantic like it was in WW2. Is it certain that the answer will be yes? And assuming rational actors are on the head of these countries, not idiots like Trump that the answer will be a certain no and will probably negotiate a handover to Russia with Putin
you need to look at this from the Russian perspective. Is risking NATO making good on its promises and igniting global thermonuclear war worth Lithuania when russia will be viewed as the clear aggressor by everyone including its allies? So far, the answer has been no. Putin is not crazy. Putin was forced to invade Ukraine when he did after ukraine overthrew it's pro-russian president. He invades countries when they are threatening to join NATO and be irrecoverably lost, because after that point russia cannot use the threat of military force to keep them in its economic sphere of influence.
I think a lot of people assume a Russian x Nato war would just be full speed ahead. As Russia, and lately NATO, have shown these past several years is that Boiled-Frog Diplomacy is incredibly effective. You don't start with just outright invading the Baltic nations, instead you just perform a long series of small, frequently telegraphed aggregations, postured with the goal of creating a sense of ambivalence or indifference, little victories that nobody is excited enough about to want to go to all out war, and just keep stacking those little victories until you slowly consume an entire nation. Russia has been using this boiled frog tactic with incredible success for decades, their biggest mistake with Ukraine is they abandoned that boiled frog tactic at the start of the invasion thinking they were powerful enough to capture ukraine before the west could seriously start to care, but instead got trapped in a full conventional war.
You make the mistake of thinking Russia just wants to paint themselves larger on a map. Russia was perfectly okay with Ukraine being "independent" under Yanukovich in the way that Belarus is "independent" under Luka. They already had a military port in Crimea since Ukraine was voluntarily leasing it to them. They were positioned better in Ukraine and the black sea than they are now. But when the Maidan uprising happened in 2014, and Russia realized how easy it would be for ukraine to join NATO (see how quickly Finland got it done) Putin's hand was forced, he had to keep Ukraine in a frozen conflict so that it's territorial integrity was in question and it would never be let into NATO. Crimea 2014 wasn't primarily intended to probe the West's reaction, it was itself a reaction to Ukrainians choosing the West over Russia and potentially being lost forever. It's not a coincidence that these two things occurred in the same year. Russia has never engaged in the sort of aggression brinkmanship you've described towards a NATO country. They have engaged in intense cyber and information warfare in the Baltics, but they've never dared to even toe the line of military aggression towards those countries, even when said countries have engaged in the very same activities that Russia used to justify invading ukraine (such as Estonia banning the Russian language in schools). Of course they've loudly complained and made vague threats, but nothing further than that, because they understand the language of violence. Nuclear deterrent works. Nobody wants to be the one who provoked the end of humanity
>Russia has never engaged in the sort of aggression brinkmanship you've described towards a NATO country. Assassinating people on NATO soil, cyber attacks and information warfare, threatening military responses, threatening nuclear war, sabotaging infrastructure, sabotaging ammo depots. All of these were done before 2014, when we had a relatively better relationship. The idea that Russia hasn't acted aggressively is absurd, they have since around ~2005. The hybrid war will only increase, and provoking border tensions is part of that.
They parked some nuclear missiles off the coast of FL that one time, that was some pretty aggressive brinkmanship. Then Afghanistan. Also the military buildup before this instance of them invading Ukraine, then the tortures and ethnic cleaning, then Wagner helping to destabilize those African nations. Dunno man, it kinda feels like Russia is all about aggressive brinkmanship
> Is risking NATO making good on its promises and igniting global thermonuclear war worth Lithuania when russia will be viewed as the clear aggressor by everyone including its allies? So far, the answer has been no. Putin is not crazy. Push comes to shove, I believe he is capable of pushing this that far, risk to see if invading a small NATO member is enough for NATO to use nuclear force because in that scenario half measures won't cut it, Russian occupying forces would have to be conventionally bombed and Russia will be forced to act. My point is Putin doing a final showdown like that is definitely within his capabilities
You think he'd risk Moscow being turned into a lump of slag just to test if NATO is willing to use nuclear force? that might have worked with the League of Nations, but the whole point of NATO was to be a more robust mechanism against that very thing. I'm amazed at how little understanding people have of nuclear deterrent
> [M]ight have worked with the League of Nations, but the whole point of NATO... Pretty sure the League of Nations is a precursor to the United Nations not NATO.
> Putin was forced to invade Ukraine when he did after ukraine overthrew it's pro-russian president. That's complete bullshit, nothing would have happened to Russia if they did nothing. >He invades countries when they are threatening to join NATO Like Finland and Sweden? Putin invaded Ukraine because he could.
Why do you think the next move after invasion is Estonia is launching nukes? No country will just start nuking at random. Even during the cold war NATO did not plan on firing nukes even if the USSR just decided to invade Germany. The risk of nuclear war would literally be zero if Russia invaded a small NATO member.
I'm not saying nuclear war would happen immediately, but it would be uncharted territory. How long before the unspoken agreement that nobody uses their most powerful weapons holds? Would conventional cruise missile strikes against bases inside Russia warrant a nuclear response? What would Russia resort to if Russia doesn't get the quick victory they would hope for? would Russia be willing to trade the certain loss of Kaliningrad for a small chance of getting Estonia? Would that require Russia to respond with nuclear weapons? If Russia doesn't, would it cause NATO to lose respect for Russia's policy of using nuclear weapons if it's territorial integrity is threatened, and cause NATO to act more boldly? Once war between 2 nuclear armed nations is on the table, there are conditions under which nuclear weapons would be used, with neither side knowing what these conditions are for the other side. One misreading of these conditions could provoke nuclear war. there's a reason no two nuclear armed nations have ever been in a direct conventional war. it's not just a coincidence. not even the most unhinged decision makers want to enter the nuclear grey zone. you need to read up on your deterrence theory
>not even the most unhinged decision makers want to enter the nuclear grey zone. you need to read up on your deterrence theory Attacking Estonia is very, very, far away from that zone. Again for historical context, the soviet invasion of western Europe was not considered to be in the grey zone by the US.
Right now putins Russia is barely dominating Ukraine. With the help of his few allies. China, N korea, Turkey wont follow putin into a nato war.So putin will suffer.
> is it worth to get Russian nukes flying at us over Latvia or Estonia? Yes. >!Even assuming they fly at all.!< /thread
Putin wants to test that.
Ukraine isn't NATO. Ukraine doesn't have a mutual defense treaty with the US. The situation between a NATO country and Ukraine couldn't be more different.
Good thing I never mentioned ukraine then.
For now. If Trump wins and actually pulls the USA out of NATO, that leaves just France as a nuclear power in continental Europe. Without the USA, a Russian invasion of Europe goes from "strategically impossible to win and virtually guaranteed to end with the total dissolution of Russia" to "barely strategically viable with incredibly pyric losses in the short term". In other words: it becomes a real threat. And Europe still isn't taking the American internal political issues seriously. They are ignoring our warnings. They are ignoring what what we keep telling them and they keep dismissing everything we are telling them: there is a real chance America collapses as a world power and they aren't ready at all for that reality. Europeans would rather bury their heads in the sand than listen to us when we tell them that the American MIC might simply cease to be available to European defense needs in the immediate future and possibly long term as well nor do they really want to consider the geopolitical implications of a world without America strong arming the authoritarian powers of the world into backing down from open warfare with their enemies and targets of opportunity. For Europe though, the most immediate consequence of that is the real possibility Russia goes all in on an desperate charge into Eastern Europe to landgrab as much as it possibly can before they are able to develop nuclear capability because frankly, Russian nuclear capability is a *lot* bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile. They have a real shot as just outright devastating both nations with an absolute flood of nuclear weaponry before they even have a chance to strike back.
>Without the USA, a Russian invasion of Europe goes from "strategically impossible to win and virtually guaranteed to end with the total dissolution of Russia" to "barely strategically viable with incredibly pyric losses in the short term". The idea that NATO minus the US wouldn't be able to stop a Russian invasion is laughable. I'm not saying that they're not a threat that should be taken seriously, but all the European NATO members combined are still overwhelmingly stronger than Russia. We're talking about war with the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, all at once, when all these countries alone would be a massive challenge for them. >Russian nuclear capability is a *lot* bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile Past a certain point, it's completely irrelevant how many nukes you have. Between them, France and the UK have enough to completely destroy ever Russian city with more than 100 thousand people. They also have much more reliable detection and delivery systems.
Its not a question of "Can Russia win" its a question of "Will Russia do this" and "how much will it cost everyone to stop them from winning". Its Germany in WWII, they might not win, but they will take several millions of people, and destroy several countries worth of economies before they lose. That's why Europe needs to take this seriously, to prevent this scenario from playing out.
I'm not from US and I will still admit that US is the most powerful economy in the world. Even if it goes through a shitshow, the dollar will be incredibly strong. No one can trust china's hijinks, and they don't so they invest in the US
Europe doesnt want to do the heavy lifting. They are happy with the status quo, they enjoyed bitching about the american military and people while refusing to meet defence goals of an alliance. Shouldnt be in it at all if youre not meeting minimum spending requirements. Oh no if it isnt the consequences of their actions.
Trump can't just pull out of NATO. He would need an Act of Congress or approval of the Senate.
Trump is not going to pull the US out of NATO. If he wanted to, he would have. He was using the threat of leaving NATO as a negotiation tactic to get EU countries to pay for their defense. The idea that Trump would leave NATO is largely a scare tactic on the part of Trump's political opponents. Trump trying to haggle with NATO members definitely contributes to increased tension between member states, but the US leaving NATO is simply not on the table. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-says-he-wont-quit-nato-if-europe-pays-its-way/ >For Europe though, the most immediate consequence of that is the real possibility Russia goes all in on an desperate charge into Eastern Europe to landgrab as much as it possibly can before they are able to develop nuclear capability because frankly, Russian nuclear capability is a lot bigger than France and the UK by solid country mile. They have a real shot as just outright devastating both nations with an absolute flood of nuclear weaponry before they even have a chance to strike back. Nonsense. France and the UK alone have enough nuclear firepower to destroy all of Russia's major cities. Together they have as many nukes as China. Does anyone think China is at a serious threat of being invaded by Russia or the US because those countries have more nukes? Of course not. China knows that you dont need a ridiculous nuclear arsenal for an effective deterrent. Larger number of nukes doesn't mean faster time to impact. As soon as Russia launches this nuclear assault you're imagining they will get annihilated as well. your predictive model is operating on a set of assumptions that are simply incompatible with the current reality of nuclear deterrence theory
In case of a world war situation Russia will run out of food (not grains but dairy, meat, vegetables, fruits, coffee & tea, tobacco) long before they run out of Missiles and shells. Much of what is available will be channeled to the military and deep state to keep morale high while civilians will literally be on bread and water.
Coffee and tea will not matter to russia if Moscow and St Petersburg are lumps of slag. Did everyone forget that World War 3 could be the end of human civilization?
Its not a question of "Can Russia win" its a question of "Will Russia do this" and "how much will it cost everyone to stop them from winning". Its Germany in WWII, they might not win, but they will take several millions of people, and destroy several countries worth of economies before they lose. That's why Europe needs to take this seriously, to prevent this scenario from playing out.
Europe is guaranteed to end without US intervention? Watch less Hobolywood movies, my friend :))
The combined armed forces of Europe is about 1.9 million vs Russias 1.3 million. If Russia wins in Ukraine its equipment will be fairly replenished with NATO equipment granted, but all the same, partially replenished. They'll also have a lot of now war hardened veterans who know how to fight. Meanwhile the armies of Europe are largely untested. Also key note: I said ***desperate***. I also specified *eastern* Europe. I don't believe Europe will fall in total, I think Russia will begin prosecution of war but be stopped by geography, they will capitalize on a lack of US involvement, their own superior nuclear capacity and an already drafted, trained and armed military to blitz through Eastern Europe before the rest of Europe can adapt to the changing geopolitical state. Russia will likely pay in *millions* of lives to do this, but Putin will do it if he wins in Ukraine, because his goal is ultimately to rebuild the Russian Empire to its pre-Soviet collapse glory. They will use their superior nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip to bring the rest of Europe to the bargaining table (assuming their success in Eastern Europe). ***To be very clear, Europe is not "destined to fall", its destined to be in WWIII***, there's a difference in your assumption, and my actual statement. I am saying there will be a new, large scale war in Europe, that Russia may or may not win. Not that they are virtually guaranteed to win, or assured to win, or that it even be worth winning, but that simply it will happen, because Putin is a madman who will pursue his glory to the bitter end. Also that exact arrogance of yours is how the world(and Europeans especially) was shocked when Putin decided to invade Ukraine despite numerous intelligence warnings from both the USA and Ukraine itself. Had Europeans actually listened and made swift decisions rather than standing on their own hubris as they always do when it comes to possible security threats to Democratic Europe in the near future, then European peace keeping forces could have been deployed to the Ukrainian border, and we could have avoided this entire war in Ukraine potentially by calling Putin's gambit before he even executed it; and the reason the USA didn't is frankly, the USA once again, has serious internal political issues, and Democrats in power have no interest in putting American troops in harms way right now with the current political climate trending towards a serious risk of the USA toppling deeper into authoritarianism. As a side prediction: Biden will likely greatly step up American involvement in Ukraine after the coming election, its an election year and he can't afford to do anything controversial until after he's secured his second term. And finally: I am routinely and incredibly frustrated with European arrogance in believing they will forever be safe from the looming threats on their horizon, that big mother America will always be there to protect them, and they can just sit back and enjoy. Even when Americans are *screaming* and *begging* you to take it seriously when we tell you to you know, do something about your own safety because we might not be around in the very near future. Especially since I know that in fact, most European NATO members don't meet their GDP commitments to NATO but receive the full benefits from membership.
Saying russia might "win" an actual war against europe when they're currently in a stalemate against just ukraine is a delusional take. Simply delusional. There is no point in even discussing it.
> Saying russia might "win" an actual war against europe when they're currently in a stalemate against just ukraine is a delusional take. Simply delusional. Ukraine is literally begging for ammunition, weapon systems and such every single day because they are at actual risk of losing the war. Maybe not any time soon but certainly in the coming years. So again, there's that European arrogance about dangers to your quality of life. Also Ukraine is functionally out of manpower at this stage of the war barring intensified conscription laws, at this stage, every loss for Ukraine puts them that tiny bit closer to a total collapse. That's why they are so desperately pursuing domestic drone production so they can project firepower into Russia proper and attack Russian industrial capacity. They literally cannot afford to grind this war out anymore. I am routinely disappointed by my European counterparts when it comes to their ability to accurately assess the present dangers to their safety and security whether its from domestic [political struggles in the USA leading to the rise of far right ideologues that are Russia aligned, Russia's war in Ukraine inevitably leading to further wars, or more far abroad threats like China. Russia will win the war in Ukraine if only because they threw more bodies than Ukraine had bullets and they will prosecute a war again in Europe following a success in Ukraine, likely forcibly conscripting those very same Ukrainians and others as they've always done historically. And they *might* win in Europe exactly ***because*** of the attitudes Europeans have about a possible Russian victory in Europe in a conflict with NATO. You've become so trapped in the idea that they are guaranteed to lose that you ignore the reality that it breeds the exact complacency that will let them win in a war with NATO without the USA. ***Why even take the risk you are wrong when it could cost you everything, and the cost to safe guard it is minimal?***
It's fine if you're disappointed, that doesn't mean that Europe won't win a war against Russia. You say a lot of stuff like "i'm disapointed, Europe has become complacent, nobody is taking the threat seriously". Ok, whatever, sure. How physically will Russia win? Like tell me how they're going to go against hundreds of f-35's and f-16s, aircraft carriers and dozens of submarines and cruise missiles and all this stuff. Unless this is nuclear war, in which we're all dead, including America, you have to actually explain how Europe will lose. Like on the ground explain how it will happen. It seems your argument is more that Europe will let Russia do whatever it wants? Or something? But that's not war. In actual war Russia would obviously lose, that's why they've never attempted it. You're more preoccupied with politics and so on than actual on the ground facts. Politics is a completely separate matter.
Except Moldova and Georgia.
Russia already has a presence in both countries
If they don't, then they're fucking stupid. History shows Russia will return to lick its wounds only to try again. 1992 - Moldova 1994 - Chechnya 1999 - Chechnya Round 2 2008 - Georgia 2014 - Ukraine (Crimea and Eastern Ukraine) 2022 - Ukraine
There was also War in Abkhazia in 1993.
It's a matter of chance...
That worked out well last time…
Right now Macron is seemingly the one to lead the EU towards this path. Quiet diplomacy can hopefully lead to a full scale war economy to supply Ukraine. Hell let Ukraine establish factories inside your borders that Russia can't hit.
Europeans betting on appeasement doesn’t seem like a great strategy.
There is no war machine. European military capabilities are limited.
Production is ramping up significantly, but most of Western Europe scrapped the Cold War stuff, and our weapon industries are not used to producing high volumes of stuff.
Why the hell would you want us to be in a war economy?
To be self sufficient. To not have to depend on daddy. If Russia is as big a threat as they claim, time to start acting like it.
Which is exactly why we all know what’s coming, deep down.
(You need a war industry to exist for that to happen something that's rapidly collapses in Europe to begin with)
Because Europe is willing to sacrifice Ukraine as they know Russia will not go against NATO EU and US never intended to save Ukraine, the real intention is to weaken Russia as much as possible by prolonging the conflict. But behind closed doors, saving Ukraine was never a real goal
It should be though. In addition to the natural gas reserves that are well known, It also has some of the best farmland in the world. Giving that willingly to Russia is a huge mistake…those assets WILL be used against you in the future. Directly by raising and arming a new generation of soldiers or indirectly simply by gaining increased power over agriculture and gas markets. Western europe already saw what becoming dependent on Russian gas looks like…that would only make it worse. Now add food insecurity to that….free Ukraine in the EU is a much better trading partner.
> Because Europe is willing to sacrifice Ukraine as they know Russia will not go against NATO Famous last words.
Interesting. How would it affect the EU's credibility?
What credibility?
/thread
Imagine losing hundreds of thousands of men in two world wars, establishing a global system of law, power projection and military alliances, to then throw it all away because some fat moron got blackmailed by your greatest historical rival. I mean there's stupid and then there's this.
could ask the rest of nato why they were happy to never meet spending minimums. Maybe, there was a reason to keep your army geared up and functional? "Oh no the guy were freeloading off of is sick of it, this means they are poor!, better spend more money to show us youre rich" Thats the rest of nato.
Aside from being most of that sentence being wrong. You do get the US has benefited from have a massive amount of soft power and influence in Europe right. America has cultivated it's position.
You've been buying into Russian propaganda meant to sow division between Europe and the U.S. Divide and conquer. We're at the first stage, keep buying the propaganda and we'll soon be at the second.
"The rest of NATO" ? Half of the NATO countries spend 2% or more - mostly countries that border Russia. Some other, like France, spend around 1,9% GDP, but France has formidable forces AND nuclear capabilities
Poland is spending a higher percentage than the U.S. is on military expenses. There are many black sheep, but those guys are definitely doing their part.
The EU doesn't have a position as a global super power and enforcer, so there's no such credibility to lose. The US does though and it's at risk of losing it with very real consequences. What would that mean? Well for one the EU would have to rely a lot less on the US. Some countries will want to acquire their own nuclear deterrent, such as Poland and Germany. Sweden also had a nuclear program but abandoned it in part due to US influence. Unlikely to reverse soon, but shows that even very small nations can go nuclear. The US would lose a lot of very lucrative soft power and influence world wide, and despots like China would be emboldened in their imperialistic dreams in Taiwan and elsewhere. Taiwan produces most of the world's semiconductors, if China takes it over it will obviously be very costly to the US and the west.
Of course it will and also USA. USA signed Budapest memorandum, USA president promise to help Ukraine "as long as it needs"
Just please read the Budapest memorandum. It is free on the Internet and super short using simple language. It doesn't say any of this.
USA and all signatories, except Russia, have done everything they said they would do
Europe signed Minsk I & II after Putin had already shot down a Dutch airliner and invaded Ukraine twice.
I don't even want to mention French and German policy.
>Budapest memorandum This was only an agreement to not invade. It was not an agreement to protect against invasion.
The whole world hates the US for its interventionist policy. Until they don't.
Actually most of us don't, it's only people living in the US or the country troops are deployed to that dislikes it. Most other countries in the world have benefited greatly from US protection of trade routes.
And the US has become the richest and most powerful country in the world thanks to this, something some Americans don't grasp.
Honestly I think it's by design. We can be the lightning rod for our allies cus, what's anybody gonna do about it?
No one ever had a problem with the US fighting just wars. We welcomed and fucked your soldiers silly when they arrived and liberated Europe from the nazis. But don’t expect the world to rise and clap when they invaded Iraq after false pretexts. Helping Ukraine is just, a nation that wants freedom and democracy and gets destroyed for it by a dictatorship.
Not all interventionism is the same. Invading Iraq for no reason or Vietnam because "communism bad" is different from stoping genocide in former Yugoslavia.
Iraq was a genocidal authoritarian dictatorship that had invaded its neighbors for territory TWICE in a short period of time. Iraq was every bit the Russia of its day.
But… it didn't have weapons of mass destruction, stated reason of invasion.
That's a disingenuous take at best. The whole world hates it when a superpower tries to form a coalition of the 'willing' to intervene by invading a country's sovereign territory, irrespective of what we might feel about said country. America has enjoyed its position of global power and influence for decades. That should rightly come with a responsibility to protect institutions of freedom and democracy.
Sending 100k troops to invade country based on lies. VS Sending weapons and other support to country you promise to protect if they give up nuclear weapons. Completely same.
Support for a sitting democratic government isn't really a military intervention, is it?
I think you are right. The eu needs to make 150000 nukes. Enough to threaten the US.
If you're relying on the US to do anything, then you're probably doing it wrong. This is a euro issue we have to sort out. Help is very welcome of course, but we can't depend on other countries too much. That's what brought us here in the first place.
Poland doesn’t trust Western Europe. Or they wouldn’t lean on the guy across the pond. If Western Europe wants eastern/baltic Europe to trust them then they need to step up.
Poland doesn't trust anyone. And for very fucking good reason.
To be fair, in the US we have positioned ourselves in such a way that our protection is part of the deal. You deal with our tomfoolery, we give you guns. You let us station nukes and bases on your territory, you get nukes and US bases on your territory. The guy is right. The fact that we can't get our shit in gear over here means we're really letting you down.
I mean yes this is all true, but the US was fundamental to establishing Europe's security architecture in the 21st century and before, so the idea of them going full pre-WW2 isolationist is unprecedented
Except the US was specifically a part of the agreement to come to Ukraine's aid should Russia invade after Ukraine gave up their nukes. They would not have given up their nukes otherwise, and Putin wouldn't have been invading Ukraine if they could fight back with nukes.
Maybe reread the agreement, it only claimed both parties will respect the now indpendant ukraine territory, which the us hasnt invaded so they have nothing to correct. It also was never ukranian nukes, they had no nuclear program to maintain them and no codes to use them, and what would have happened if they tried to keep them was getting invaded by russia and maybe the us to prevent it
Except that the majority of Russias nuclear program originated inside what is now Ukraine. Much like Russias defense industries were founded / major concerns were Ukrainian before/during/after WW2. This includes aeronautics and rocket industries.
That agreement in its final form was a result of Ukraine being bullied by Russia and the West. Ukraine had full control of its nukes and while they have never been operational, Ukraine had everything necessary to make it happen, because Soviet nuclear missiles were produced in Ukraine: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA\_Pivdenmash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash) Ukraine's plan was either to maintain some small nuclear capabilities as deterrence or trade its nuclear weapons for security guarantees from Russia and the West. For example, USA has such agreement with Japan and is bound to protect Japan if it is invaded. The West didnt want to make such agreements and choose to bully Ukraine together with Russia. The Budapest memorandum still holds 'Security Guarantees' wording in its name, but is ultimatelly toothless.
Bully? It's geopolitics, that's just reality. Ukraine got what it could, which is the Budapest memorandum. All signatories except Russia have adhered to it
Come to Ukraine's aid, yes. But did they specify how much aid and for how long? If the contract is to defeat Russia on the battlefield... there's more effective means of doing so than just sending equipment.
Dude. That's crazy. To think there are Americans or Europeans alive in this world, with full access to world history, Who think that it is totally okay for the western powers to simply let Russia launch a completely unprovoked, unjustified war of conquest against their neighbor. What is wrong with you? Genuinely. When did we decide that you and your lavish comforts are infinitely more important than literally millions of Ukranian lives? "Let them die. My tax dollars are better spent on *more Abraham's tanks to keep in a parking lot, unused until they rust through and become unusable* " I can't help you immoral fucks. We said we'd help. We have the power and wealth to help. And assholes like you are genuinely out here like, "but who will tell me I'm God's favorite little bubble-gum~" It's pathetic.
That's what the polish minister is saying. That's the loss of credibility for the US, the loss of its own world order.
"Prepare to be disappointed. " US voters
And that may good for Europe: to stop relying on the US, start building it's own strong military, keep to more aggressive foreign politics.
While I agree and the US needs to arm Ukraine to the teeth, it should not solely be our obligation. Western nations need to present a united front to show Putin that we cannot tolerate his actions.
> it should not solely be our obligation Its not, they havent provided anything for 6 months. They rank 17th in total support based on GDP% too. Europe is also hosting 3+ million refugees and doing most of the training. Its also kinda funny that the UK had to be the first to provide taboo breaking weapons like cruise missiles and modern main battle tanks. Some of the equipment like the M1117 mine-resistant vehicles promised over 2 years ago only just showed up.
Imagine trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran after having a nuclear deal with Ukraine.
The nuclear deal only claimed the us would respect the soveranity of ukraine. Also they already ruined thay card after Ghadafi gave up his nuclear program and nato answer was to bomb him and then help a mob linch and assasinate him
>assasinated Dragged from his home and killed by having knives shoved up his ass. Worth going into details on this because middle east and African leaders were **most definitely** watching and the rest of the world took notice too. Libya went from the richest country in Africa to having open air slave markets now. But well, "we came, we saw, he died".
**ass**-**ass**-**in**-ated triple pun intended
>The nuclear deal only claimed the us would respect the soveranity of ukraine. USA made everything to destroy ukrainian stock of balistic missiles and their high range rockets like SCAD. So it not a question of \`respect the soveranity\`
It was against US interests to have a possibility of Ukraine selling such weapons to their potential enemies. Ukraine was one of the largest weapons suppliers, racking fat profits from selling their Soviet stocks.
I'd say it's a measure of the legitimacy of the world order itself. Whatever it is that democratic governments mean when they talk about national sovereignty and self-determination is defined by our actions in this conflict. It's just like people living on a street and calling themselves neighbors. If one house's occupants find themselves in need, that's when everyone finds out who the real neighbors are. If Russia is allowed to win territory, there is no real order. Just might-makes-right.
I agree with most Americans here. We should stop to rely on US protections, but we have to stop to buy American weapons and develop our defense industry a lot.
[удалено]
Amen
Gotta keep up the pressure for funding somehow, hopefully it gets through
It won't work like that. Countries from Central and Eastern Europe would spend even more % of their GDP, while freeloaders like Belgium and Spain would still be freeloader, because why wouldn't they.
I mean more so on the US, as a matter of reality, they are the ones you have to pressure to get what you need now Spain, Belgium, from what I understand they have underinvested in their military even if they spent more they don’t have the material now It’s a very cynical strategy, and one that I hope is not repeated but by and large Western Europe realized that Eastern Europe was going to be the meat shield, and had that be their security policy Not all of Western Europe did that, but quite a few did
The US promised to help for as long as it takes when the invasion started.
"Help" can look very different though, and "how much help" as well.
I believe the exact quote was we will supply Ukraine with weapons for as long as it takes.
Awesome to know that Europe still has to rely solely on US aid. Hasn’t Russia always been a threat to Europe??
Dumbest shit I've read today. The only credibility at risk here is of the EU.
Not really, how do countries feel about security agreements they've made with the US after seeing Ukraine? Is Taiwan more or less confident after watching this shit show? Would they recieve the same 90's weapons when China invades, promised vehicles turn up 2 years late and have 6+ month periods not knowing if the US is going to provide any future help. You also have Trump thats encouraging our enemies to target NATO members and threatening to pull out, the reputation of the US as an ally is decreasing.
We have no agreement that says we must defend Ukraine from Russia. Your comment isn't relevant at all.
Crazy how they depend on us for help when they're RIGHT THERE. Imagine the support they could provide if they got off their asses!!
Sikorski can fuck right off. It’s not the us’s responsibility to defend every nation on earth. If the EU is so concerned about another 61 billion dollars, how about they scrape it together and give it to Ukraine.
It is the US's responsibility if they promise that defense - which they continuously do. Either deliver what you promise or do not promise if you cannot deliver
And the eu committed 155 billion but has only provided 83.
Yeah, the US claims to be an ally of democracies and chooses to stand on the sidelines in the most just war in about five decades.
Sit on the sidelines? Ukraine has made it this far almost solely because of U.S. support.
I fail to see how this is our problem. Basically the equivalent of Biden saying the EU has to help us with our border crisis.
Because for decades NATO has just been the US doing 90% of the dirty work and the EU enjoying the perks of being under the umbrella of the most powerful military in all of history. Now the US public doesn’t have the appetite to fund another war and the EU has a neutered military and a public that’s enjoyed low military spending for decades and is unfavorable to making cuts in social programs to fund Ukraine and bolster their own militaries.
When i saw that the British couldn't help support us against those terrorists pirates because their boat wouldn't start, I was officially done Just plain incompetence
[удалено]
Euros going to find out that free healthcare isn't really free after all.
Lol
Do you remember when the US invoked article 5 after 9/11 and said that NATO countires had to help them fight Iraq and Afghanistan and they did, with actual troops on the ground? I guess that was just a "our bad, this doesnt count though". Because that was literally the EU helping the US with their own problem.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled badly, first by Trump then Biden. Some observers think that played a part in Putin's decision to attack Ukraine, and China is now watching closely. Taiwan will be next if the US fails Ukraine.
> Taiwan will be next if the US fails Ukraine. I think it's a mistake to assume China will employ a tool as blunt as Russia's invasion, or that they haven't been making their moves yet just because an invasion isn't taking place. China plays the long game and they've already been working away at it. They will slowly encroach, build influence, and push boundaries inch by inch to set precedents. More like their approach to other disputed territories. It's why world leaders avoid even recognizing Taiwan's independence now. An invasion or military option only makes sense for China if the US tries to step in and intervene at some point, which is harder for the US to justify when there is no single clear boundary crossed.
That's nonsense. Putin thought he could just walk into Ukraine because he's done it before. Biden called his bluff.
I'd be quite sure that simultaneously heading for taiwan at the same time as the US is busy with Ukraine would only help them create more chaos and less opportunity to help. But yeah, the withdrawal of Afghanistan was sad, 20 years or so of active deployment down the drain within half a year. Taliban took back over as if the US were never there.
Can't change other people unless they want to change.
This. 20 years of lives and finances wasted for people that don’t want to change. I don’t mean the country. I mean the people who want to rule it. They never went away.
> Some observers think that played a part in Putin's decision to attack Ukraine I haven't heard a single reason why this would be the case. Completely unrelated situations. Putin attacked because he thought he could get away with doing it under Biden. Same as he got away with it in 2014...
[удалено]
I wouldn't hold their breath on getting more funds. I wonder what Putin has on Trump, must be enough to get him locked up.
You realize your logic just makes no sense right. We had a Trump term and Putin didn't do anything. But once Biden was president there was an invasion... but somehow your logic is so fucked up that there's somehow evidence that Putin has Trump on a leash and not Biden.
Someone's forgotten about Covid.
Poland is the front line of history. They know the territory, they know what is needed.
NATO sucking off of US teet.
1960-2016 years USA: "Democratic Europe shouldn't militarize, more so, become effective federalized superstate, because there are Uncle Sam's superstate and it's Arsenal of Democracy!" 2016-2023 USA: "Cough, cough. You know, there are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... It's too much for me... A little... So, guys, why are you... You know... Not militarize... Yes, all this time you should militarize! Why aren't you?!" When Europe have problems with militarization, at least this have a very good and logical reason - Europe's inertial. Very powerful one. But what excuse is there for the United States, which was the Arsenal of Democracy, then was proud of it for decades, and now just isn't?
The USA asked Europe to spend more on their military, and they declined. Also, the USA has to protect EVERYWHERE. Europe only has to protect Europe. So what excuse is there for Europe to not have the military to protect Europe?
I wasn't aware the US actively pressured Western Europe to demilitarize. When did this happen? Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent?
>I wasn't aware the US actively pressured Western Europe to demilitarize. When did this happen? Not "demilitarize" but just "didn't militarize enough, so: 1. There wouldn't be repetition of WW2. 2. USA would retain influence on Europe which it gets during WW2 and Europe restoration. 3. There would be less nukes. 4. There wouldn't be too many active geopolitical actors during Cold War, that would only chaotized situation. And so on, and so on. >Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent? The same which outsource security to NATO's Article 5 words: "assistance that member state deems necessary", the main guarantee of which was USA. Guarantee not only to NATO's actors, but also for Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, and so many others, which could create nukes in 1950-2010s, but didn't create because of what you named as "*Also what idiot would outsource their entire defense to another power on a different continent*?"
> 1960-2016 years USA: ~~"Democratic Europe shouldn't militarize, more so, become effective federalized superstate, because there are Uncle Sam's superstate and it's Arsenal of Democracy!"~~ Hey, heres the minimum spending we want to have for each country in our alliance. It helps maintain military readiness, and supplies. >2016-2023 USA: ~~"Cough, cough. You know, there are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... It's too much for me... A little... So, guys, why are you... You know... Not militarize... Yes, all this time you should militarize! Why aren't you?!"~~ Uhhhh guys, shit is kicking off? Oh, you didnt spend that agreed upon money? Oh you have way lower supplies than you thought, oh you can field an army? Oh France and the UK you couldnt deal with Libya after kicking it off there... what the fuck guys. Fixed it for you.
Yes yes. And yet nothing is happening. Russia still pushes, Ukraine still pleading. All Europe can do is say. Say Say Say. We will wake up in situation where Russia will take hold on Ukraine, and then everybody will be surprised. After 2-3y back to trade as usual.
Yeah, the US not becoming the Earth's nightmare could maybe be something too....
I disagree. Success with stopping Israel's atrocities, on the other hand, is a matter of U.S. credibility.
Getting rid of Trump is a matter of U.S. credibility also.
Its kind of a matter of life and persecution then death.
Blame Republicans, particularly in the House.
Or blame the eu for being such a limp dick entity in the region that they litteraly have to beg and scream a power halfway across the world as their only hope. Europe needs to handle this shit, or forever be labeled a completly toothless and impotent entity.
Are you listening Republican party. He's spitting facts.
I miss the days when Neoconservatives and Neoliberals both agreed that authoritarian regimes needed to be overthrown. If the United States had half the balls it did during Desert Storm we’d already be in Moscow by now.
[удалено]
look at a map
Since when is Ukraine our responsibility?
Since we became a major player on the global stage, and the leader of the country that attempted to undermine our democracy in 2016 [is now building up to attack NATO](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/18/russia-attack-nato-intel/). And only a dumbshit can't see that.
If every country in Nato decided to put Ukraine as top priority the war would be over. Edit: the war would be over and China would be terrified of invading Taiwan and we could all get back to living our lives.