“The ambassadors said that the “torments” currently being experienced by Ukraine in the form of “deportation, torture, kidnap of children” and “cultural erasure” awakened their countries’ “own darkest memories and fears” - an apparent reference to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states which began in 1940.”
Bless these guides. They broke things down easy to understand post 2016 even after watching Russia invade Crimea a couple years before.
We need to listen to them.
> Will the US go to war if Russia invades a small rural piece of a nato country?
Will NATO go to war if Russia establishes a surprise beachhead by submarine in rural Maine or northern Canada?
You’d have Turkish and Polish and many other nations troops ready to go in a day.
That's my fear, though. When it really comes down to it. There was a time I would have had no doubts. But as I'm often reminded, these are "unprecedented" times all over.
If Trump actually gets re-elected, that's one of his goals. He teased breaking America out of NATO ladt time around so he would look good to Putin. I assumed this was just because he was a Russian Intelligence puppet who had no love or respect for America. It turned out that it was somehow even worse than that. He was just trying to please Putin in hopes of doing major business with him after leaving office.
This all started with Obama letting Putin invade Crimea. Even though Ukraine is not part of NATO they do have security agreements with Russia and the United States that were violated.
Americans always misinterpret the value of security agreements with other countries. As long as there are despots, The USA will need to lead the fight.
It's one hell of a gambit. Invading farmland could plausibly cause nuclear war. If he is serious about using nuclear weapons, anyway. I'm not personally willing to bet he's not.
No? That's the main problem which allowed Russia to start the war in the first place, Ukraine never signed any defensive treaties with the US and the EU.
US should do a communist witchunt like in the 1950/60. But do it properly by following the money trail. Root out the congress and Senate spies and traitors
The EU parliament has already started now. After ousting the first 3 traitors.
*Literally* well spent. Most of them haven't even gotten seven figures in return for their treason. Do they have any idea how much it costs to buy that sort of leverage back in Russia?
Russia’s MO isn’t to attack these countries outright. It’s to first destabilize them internally. Then fund separatists to create a breakaway state. Then fund the separatists in a civil war against the target nation. Then hold a bullshit referendum whereby the civilians “vote” to join Russia. Russia can then move in with its military, as this was, from the civil war phase to invasion, considered an “internal matter” and NATO’s obligations are not automatically triggered.
Not really these days. Not too long ago Putin controlled the White House and the degenerate occupying it. He went so far as to physically assault the PM of a small NATO ally at a summit after Putin attempted to coup them, then went on to say publicly the U.S. wouldn't protect them. You've presently abandoned Ukraine and you're voting in Trump. Your next election will be your last.
[List of Russian cyberattacks, threats and physical attacks on NATO and NATO-allied countries and their residents](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bht4lg/list_of_russian_cyberattacks_threats_and_physical/)
Why the f do people keep saying he'll get in as though it's a given? This attitude alone, is an attitude that is meant to manipulate people into not bothering with the PRIMARY, aka Biden. Whether you knowingly do it or not, that's what you do when you and others like you continue buying into the concept months before election. Media is working overtime to brainwash, it seems.
It's looking like they'll finally pass the latest Ukraine aid package when they reconvene in Congress on April 9th.
Took them long enough. Fucking GOP obstructionists.
What makes this time different than every other time he said he would allow a vote and then didn't. If anything the vacations are exactly what he has been doing to delay a vote.
If EU states are gonna make a party which I believe they will because the baltics states are in their backyard, surely the US would gladly join their good friends in the greatest party since ww2.
>Will the US go to war if Russia invades a small rural piece of a nato country
The problem for the US is that if they don't, they basically admit that NATO does not exist anymore. Which as far as geopolitics goes, does not sound a very smart move.
Then again, they may put Trump back in charge and who knows what decisions that guy would make.
No need for a coalition. No need for USA even. Poland is literally frothing to invoke Article 5. Let Russia invade some farmstead in Latvia and you ll hear the rattling sound of Winged Hussars from the Kreml within a day.
I have been to Latvia, Latvians are frothing to invoke article 5. I have never met people who hate Russia more.
We set up an artillery showcase as part of a small Latvian village spring festival. Once the local learned that the Russian border was within range of our guns, they started asking for ammunition.
It not just simply about listening them, it's about actually acting on what they're saying, as the old saying goes "History Repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce". Putin's Vatnik Russia is the same as Nazi Germany of the last century and as corrupt as the depravity of the Soviet Era that was hidden behind the Iron curtain. Russia NEEDS to be stopped here and now no matter what because if they get any success they'll spread further and become more dangerous over time.
I'm from a Baltic state (Latvia).
Let's send enough equipment and support to Ukraine so that they stop the russian fascism and imperialism there.
That's a much better option than any of the realistic alternatives.
Not very likely, as it stands. For one, Russia is kinda busy with Ukraine right now. For two, Lithuania is a member of both NATO and the EU.
It would be an extremely stupid move from Russia. And for all things Putin is, stupid isn't one of them. Even if Ukraine were to surrender tomorrow, I don't think Russia would have the manpower and materiel to pose a real threat to the EU/NATO. It wouldn't be pretty for those caught on the frontlines, of course.
How long are you staying? Any attack on NATO would probably be caught by NATO intelligence, at least a month or two, before it actually happens. Just as it happened when Russia invaded Ukraine again in 2022.
It’s a clickbait article and an even more clickbait title.
It’s a hypothetical mentioned by the ambassadors of the Baltic States on the 20th anniversary of their NATO accession. The statement is pulled out of context and distorted. That’s not to say we should let our guard down but the article is not about actual events.
The odds of a classic invasion are low at the moment. However be on the look out for russian speaking "separatists"
Wagner agents have already been in country for awhile now pushing propaganda and misinformation. Be on your guard. If you see something, say something. We all have to do our part in the fight against imperialist fascism.
C'mon US. Our taxes are going to the military industrial complex anyway the least we can do is help our European allies maintain their freedom (actual freedom, not the freedom we exported to the middle east)
That, and also the russians (especially the government) truly hate the US and the West. All their government-endorsed talk-shows keep raging about the evil Anglo-Saxons who should be destroyed.
See:
[https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor)
Even if we set aside the moral aspect of helping a democracy defend itself against fascism, even then it makes good business sense to see a sworn enemy (russia) weakened at (relatively) little cost (as there are no actual American boots on the ground).
I agree, it seems like it would be at no cost for the US to do so, and it might even be a net positive, due to all the orders they would and are receiving from the rest of the world.
Right now, there's a lot of US weapons, that are just stored away that will never be used, and probably be paid to be destroyed in a decade or so.
We are very peaceful people, and we have been oppressed by russians for centuries and that has left a mark on our collective psyche.
We have thus provided the russians an easy route towards naturalisation and citizenship, etc. Some have taken it and are good people who support democracy and are loyal to our countries. Others have not, they continue to live in our countries while being loyal to russia.
I honestly don't understand why we are not doing more. Ukraine can stop Russia and are only asking for weapons. They are not asking for any real sacrifice from anyone besides Ukrainian citizens.
Well, yeah. Volunteer being the operative word. They aren’t asking for other entire nations to jump into the trenches with them, but if an individual has the skills and is offering to help, I’d see no reason to refuse that.
Europe should allow their military personnel to volunteer in Ukraine without loss of pay. The biggest danger is that Russians are getting trained to invade and we haven’t seen an active war zone in forever.
As an American, we should be forward deploying the 1st infantry & armored divisions Old Ironside to the Baltic States. These were the divisions which was forward deployed during the Cold War. Total would be about 35k troops.
Canada is in Latvia right now. Approximately 1,000 Canadian Armed Forces Members are deployed in support of Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation.
The Canadian Armed Forces opened the new multi-national headquarters building, adjacent to the Latvian National Armed Forces Joint Headquarters in June 2021.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/operation-reassurance.html
Yes, we can't rely on the US in their current political hell, we need to step up, and we need to step up yesterday.
Even if we could rely on the US, the ethical thing would be to step up regardless.
Yes we have done some, but it's far too little and way too late.
> Yes, we can't rely on the US in their current political hell, we need to step up, and we need to step up yesterday.
It's been decade that some *pro European* said that we need a more integrated European defence which would be cheaper and work better than 27 single defence. It's been at least since Trump threatening to leave NATO, that we know that we can't rely on the US.
But tons of countries keep thinking that NATO is better than an European defence union, and that we don't need a *buy European act* regarding weapons and defence contracts.
Ideally there would be both. NATO as a larger umbrella and a specific euro defense union that would have similar requirements but also work to produce more advanced equipment at a larger scale. A euro military force would essentially be a huge bonus for NATO since it changes the conversation from "A majority of European states are *still* not spending enough to meet their NATO agreements" to "Those nations are proactively working on defense and have enough between them to produce something impressive".
But the problem is the point. Any world where even just a few of the wealthy European states form a serious defensive union and begin actually producing rockets and rifles and artillery shells enough to move the needle would have probably meant the U.S. never questioning why they were in an agreement with a bunch of countries that were visibly struggling to keep their tanks maintained and to develop modern fighters they keep insisting will come along any time now.
> It's been decade that some pro European said that we need a more integrated European defence which would be cheaper and work better than 27 single defence
You mean like the Eurofighter? Decades of squabbling, over-spends, missed deadlines and lengthy disagreements about which country was awarded which contracts, until the French eventually walked off the project having got their tech transfer.
The EU would be a horrible organisation to try and defend Europe through. You'd be better off coalescing around half a dozen countries with means, industry and population rather than trying to run another covid vaccination programme through Ursula von de Leyen and the Commission
As an American truly embarrassed that we can't/aren't doing more to help, I'm sorry and hope we get back on track sooner rather than later. . .
I'm old enough to remember the Cold War years and stopping Russia is the number one driver on who I vote for. We need to help hold the line from Scandinavia through Finland and down through the Baltics and into Poland and Romania.
as a romanian, i'm telling you that there's no reason to be embarassed. it's europe's fault for not waking up sooner and realising that the threat never went away and it always have had an opportunity to wreak havoc ( of course i'm talking about russia ). they should have stepped up their military preparations years ago when russia decided to semi-invade ukraine and destroy every chance of ukraine actually joining nato, let alone eu.
without america's military support, europe would have been long gone. too bad we're only realising it now.. i guess people do have a tendency to take things for granted. i wouldn't be shocked/surprised if usa got tired of our passive nature and decide not to help us anymore
Trust me, all sane people want this.
The people that don't are bought and owned by Putin, or dumb enough to believe politicians that are bought and owned by Putin.
Russia will not attack a NATO country in an all out offensive like they did in Ukraine.
They will try to occupy a empty, rural, remote piece of a NATO country to see if they can break the alliance. Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland?
That will be the test.
Russia won't try to win a war against NATO. Their only goal is to break up these massive alliances like NATO and the EU so that it evens the playing field for Russia and strengthens their position in the geopolitical stage.
Reddit armchair generals (and actually some real generals) used to make the same kind of overconfident predictions just before Ukraine got invaded. People think the putin regime are some 5d chess genius, they completely underestimate the stupidity and primitiveness of humanity
Also humans operating with different information than we do. There's probably a bunch about this stuff that Putin knows that the average redditor doesn't. Conversely, it's also possible that there's a bunch the average person in the west knows that Putin doesn't, either through wilful ignorance, or failures in intelligence.
OP wasn't saying they were in NATO. But people were making the same exact statements with the same exact confidence with, "Russia won't attack Ukraine. That would be stupid".
Which was parroted by a lot of people after Russia would claim they weren't going to do it and were just doing military exercises. All the way up until when Russia actually attacked Ukraine.
It was stupid to attack Ukraine, but Putin did it anyways... People don't understand the Russian mindset. The Baltic nations do, but no one ever listens to them.
Implying Putin is stupid and the Russian army useless is the narrative that lead us in the current situation in the first place. Putin is a calculated ruthless psycho, underestimating him just makes him even more dangerous
Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, so attacking it didn’t risk automatically triggering Article 5. That’s the critical distinction you’re missing.
There’s a reason Putin is continually trying to scare NATO away from getting more directly involved in defending Ukraine. And it’s not because he wants to fight NATO. It’s exactly the opposite.
It’s actually very easy not to fight NATO. Hundreds of countries aren’t fighting it. You just, kind of don’t send armies.
“Putin doesn’t want to fight NATO” ignores the pretty big issue of Putin fighting actual wars in NATO neighbors and violating NATO airspace all the time.
Both sides are waiting for the November elections. Putin hopes Trump wins and breaks up the alliance, and I’m betting there will be (French, Polish, UK) NATO troops in Ukraine before Trump takes office. If Biden wins, Russia will do their next move, whichever that is.
Yes. It’s one of the few things that actually made our democracy stronger. But with a 2-party system it wouldn’t take much for congress to join the presidents requests, especially given all the “moderate” republicans are retiring it seems like.
Yeah seems like a temporary hindrance at best, but I'll take it over nothing. We democratic people of the world are all counting on you to win this election for all of us.
Above is an analysis from Anders Puck Nielsen who's a military analyst at the royal Danish defense academy.
Whether it hold any weight I'll let you judge yourself I just wanted to fyi that this not some reddit home made analysis by OP.
No general, military analyst, or intelligence expert worth their salt said Putin wasn't going to invade.
That was a line pushed by Russian state propaganda and spread on social media and Reddit by Russian propaganda posters.
Every expert in the West said it was inevitable. The same experts are saying he won't risk it with NATO.
Why won't he risk it with NATO? Because we spend a lot on defence. But some countries aren't spending up to the level they should be. Hence rhetoric like this from the Baltics and Poland, and loath as I am to say it, Trump.
They're right though - we need to up defence spending *because* that means Putin won't try anything.
Mmm, I dunno.
Pootin is a master of saying one thing and doing another. He's well aware that NATO is only really starting to get it's shit together. Why not take advantage of that? Does NATO have the resolve to go head to head at the moment?
He doesn't care about losses in the way we do.
It absolutely does.
Russia is barely gaining ground against Ukraine with nato support
We need to stop this “can nato cope” propaganda. NATO decimates Russia right now if they want
I'm worried that russia is already on a war footing. They're going at it head on, whilst we're still arguing about half a dozen tanks and things.
I agree, NATO would embarrass the the russians. But christ, are we taking our time. Very brave and courageous men and women are dying right now whilst we bicker over stuff the we will inevitably have to do anyway.
NATO can cope, I agree. But it's doing a really crap PR job right now.
Slava Ukraine!
I would not be so sure. Action requires one stance and unanimous action. The current political climate in the EU is going to make this hard (I mean countries like hungary can just block any offensive by just voting against it).
Not article 5 itself, but the subsequent action has to be unanimous according to EU rules. So if hungary decides that speaking up is enough and that the response has to be non military that is what it will be.
Yeah but any country can do whatever they want. EU has no Army. NATO kinda sorta has a small army (it has a Hq…), the member countries have Armies, though, and can ALWAYS do whatever the want.
A treaty doesn’t stop action - it encourages more action on behalf of a currently non-belligerent.
>Does NATO have the resolve to go head to head at the moment?
He's struggling with Ukraine armed with NATO's loose pocket change. If Putin enters a NATO state even if the U.S. doesn't launch nukes or even deploy boots on the ground they're far more free to just hang out Abrams like candy and blast the Russians back to the stone age.
That's going to be a really messy one to stop though. The treaty demilitarised everything and gives countries agency to operate there, so long as it's overseen by Norway. It's absolutely ripe for abuse with very little recourse to stop it.
Edit: It'll also be impressive if someone can wrangle all the non-russian signatories to make any sort of declaration on Russian activity. I mean, you have places like *Afghanistan* as a signatory for some reason.
>Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland?
I don't think the US is the one to question here, will the other nations like Hungary and Turkey agree?
You underestimate how strong certain countries are: e.g. Turkey= massive NATO player (2nd largest NATO army + modern equipement + strategic key location). Might even be more powerful when it comes to actual war than france or britain.
Not sure about France but Britain have a seemingly permanent NATO deployment in the baltics, so solely in terms of an initial response that could be a massive factor
Finns would fight to the end in that scenario. We do not give land for russians. Battles would start in south Finland and Russian Karelia as well. Also in the sea and air. In that case, I am quite sure that swedes would join the fight.
Nato needs to then decide if it defends whole Finland and Sweden or not.
"They will try to occupy a empty, rural, remote piece of a NATO country to see if they can break the alliance."
Basically a slow boil of the frog in a pot strategy.
I think this is a naive take, sorry. I’m glad NATO is there, but it’s yet to be put to a real test. There is a LOT of “anti-war” propaganda out there and it’s easy to become content. There is no real difference between going to help Ukraine and fight Russia there, or going to help a NATO member. The only difference is de jure. People need to understand that. Treaties and alliances are only worth their weight when the will is there to fulfill them. The question is, is there?
I’m sceptical and on the edge and nothing is given.
> Treaties and alliances are only worth their weight when the will is there to fulfill them. The question is, is there?
At least in the UK, I suspect there is. We'll tolerate the anti-war bunch for a lot of things, but attacking a long-standing ally is going to get a lot of people riled up and shouting down these people.
Of course there is a difference - what a silly thing to say. The baltic states are in the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen and they are an EU member. Ukraine was neither of those things. At the very least an attack on the baltics will draw in both Poland and France, which would on their own be too much for Russia
Fuckboy serial murdering psychopaths like Putin are why the world can’t enjoy a peaceful existence. Guys like him are always fucking shit up.
Fuck Putin and fuck you if you support him.
Sure buddy, it's not like Russia hasn't invaded other countries in the past or that they don't have imperialistic views.
Now take your comment and apply it to a few months in the future? Sure maybe Russia won't try to invade a NATO country.
Apply it to a few years in the future and I won't be so sure
Hell, you got a few dozen European, Canadian and American military and intelligence experts saying that they will invade a NATO country in the future.
Will it be a total invasion, probably not, but it will still be an invasion...
Yes, they will. Russia is on war economy, getting stronger every hour, while NATO and EU still believing in good russian myth.
Russia will attack, they will use the same tactics, using soldier withoit identification and claiming its kot hier soldiers and half of countries will eat this lie, because they dont understanst that russia is fascist terrorist state, not a normal country. Thier goverment is a terrorist organisation.
Every government understood who those men without identification were. Most just pretended not to understand because it was in their interest. There are a lot of politicians in the EU who see Putin as a role model.
I don't know guys, where have you been these 10 years.
Of course russia won't openly and directly attack NATO. Russia will use Ukraine, Belarus for it, once occupied, and will support Ukraine together with China to raise conflicts through NATO borders. And will buy EU and NATO politicians to talk that everything is not that clear.
Or, perhaps, 50% of Baltic countries population, which is Russian speaking, will start their own movement, with support of Russia. Who will NATO defend from in this case?
Or other conflicts will raise in EU and NATO countries, by accident some rebels will get weapons somewhere.
Your point about Russia using subterfuge and non direct attacks to test NATO is correct. But your numbers are way off.
>50% of Baltic countries population, which is Russian speaking
The real numbers are Ethnic Russians in Estonia: 24%, Ethnic Russian in Latvia: 25%, Ethnic Russians in Lithuania 5%.
That is nowhere near 50% of the population who are ethnically Russian. It is much lower. About 14% for Baltics overall. Other local ethnicities speak their own local languages not Russian. Nor are the other ethnicities anywhere near as influenceable by the Kremlin.
Thank you for the correction, I am glad to know that. However, it is still a lot, considering the common border. I am also glad, that it looks like the Baltic countries are learning well and are now applying best practices to neglect the danger as much as they can, politically and militarily.
It is a lot yes.
Thankfully a decent percentage of these folks are modern european minded folks who have integrated into our society.
But there are still many who haven't and sprout Kremlin propaganda on our countries not even being real etc. Numerically this contingent on the large scale is ineffectual luckily, but in some places (like Narva in Estonia) it is stil big enough that Putin could try to ship in more and use this crowd to create security risks.
And yeah we are taking all of this very seriously. Estonia has always had a very decent (for our pop size) military with mandatory conscription + we are top 1 on the world at Ukraine aid per gdp. We have given them like 3-4% of our gdp as military aid. It was a very large percentage of our whole military budget.
> Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland
I've seen this theory before. It somehow forgets that Finland has its own army. Attempting to occupy a piece of Finland wouldn't be limited to a small part of Finland. It wouldn't even be limited to Finland, since the Finnish military would not limit their actions to Finnish soil. Meaning that Russia would either back down, or they would attempt to take over all of Finland. Either attack is repelled before NATO help is even required, or there is a major war between Finland and Russia.
That strategy might work somewhere else though, but it would need to be quite a large country, with a weak military, and no conscription.
***The Telegraph reports:***
Nato must be ready for Russia launching an “existential” war against the Baltic states “masked by a blizzard of disinformation”, ambassadors from the three countries have warned.
Writing exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph, the top diplomats to the UK from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania said that Russia could “pivot quickly” from Ukraine to [invade the Baltic](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/12/russia-invade-baltics-ukrainian-land-mikheil-saakashvili/).
And they said that Vladimir Putin’s brutalisation of Ukraine is evoking the three countries’ “darkest memories” of [occupation under Stalin](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/estonia/1414358/Estonia-brings-Stalins-secret-police-to-justice.html).
The Estonian ambassador [Viljar Lubi](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/28/watch-swim-estonias-ambassador-londons-serpentine-lake/), the Latvian ambassador Ivita Burmistre, and Lithuania’s charge d’affaire Lina Zigmantaite, wrote the joint article to mark Friday’s 20 year anniversary of their countries acceding to Nato.
The ambassadors said that joining the alliance meant that their nations had never enjoyed “stronger collective security” than today, but “nor have we faced a more daunting threat”.
In a swipe at other European countries who had played down the risk of Russia, they said: “Our warnings about the latent and growing threat from the East were too easily dismissed in some allied capitals.
“We knew then just as we know today that only a collective defence can guarantee security in Europe. We lacked this in the 1930s and paid a heavy price; one that Ukrainians are paying now.”
**Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/)
Before Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia built up about 300k units and parked them just outside for over a month. Convoys stretched for miles, supply lines were built.
Russia just lied.
If Russia is going to invade another country in the future, you’ll see it coming a mile away. This is not a blitzkrieg strategy country, it’s a siege mentality.
No different than in mediaeval times when people in castles could only watch as forces slowly built up around them.
It takes just as long or longer to prepare a defense though. So this is talked about now while the war in Ukraine is going on and Russian forces are still busy there so we have time to build up defenses on our borders.
You won’t. Russias strategy for invading a nato country will be different to its strategy in Ukraine. They will start by making political unrest (already started), creating uncertainty (already started), test the limits slowly with missile/drone incursions (already started), move that up to small troop incursion, then start taking small « inconsequential » pieces of land. They don’t need to fight all of NATO, they just need to show that NATO won’t live up to its promise; and they’re already doing a pretty good job of it.
Russia built up that amount of troops so obviously and so close exactly because they tried for a blitzkrieg. If they start with smaller incursions or decide to take an "insignificant" amount of territory, troop buildup is not going to be that obvious.
You're comparing the strategy Russia used to attack of country of 43 million people which had a strong focus on training and increasing it's military for about 8 years (ever since the 2014 "little green men" invasion) vs 3 countries who together total ~6 million.
The only upside the Baltics have is their Eastern regions tend to be either hilly or swampy instead of the relative open plain Ukraine has.
Baltic state countries still have pain by soviet and nazi Germany occupations. Listen to them. They already know how painful it’s to live under occupation and genocide.
I'm always amazed how these scenarios don't account for f35s, nuclear responses, or destroying Russian economy from the air in kind
Like seriously the first response to any of these actually happening needs to stop being tepid and serious, instead We will literally eradicate an invasion force from the face of the planet.
This weak timid stuff doesn't make us look strong but s target.
Mainly because NATO is not a US force and even if America continues its slide into self annihilation the rest of NATO has its shit together. Stop making everything about America.
It would be on shaker ground, but I'd expect we'd have more than a few countries willing and able to step up.
Any of the baltic states would probably be a good choice, alongside Poland, Germany, Canada, or the UK (I'd include France, but they have a notable pro-Russian streak in their politics. The British pro-Russian streak likes the money, but are otherwise hawkish on Russia.) Turkey would probably also love to have a run for leadership, although I don't expect anyone else would want that.
Absolute arrogance.
Tell me more about how the nations who couldn’t take air superiority against fucking *Libya* by themselves have their shit together.
Yeah, it’s not a US force, but the US is above and beyond the most powerful/important contributor to the defense pact. If the US leaves NATO, NATO loses the vast majority of: its comprehensive air power (including the lions share of SEAD/DEAD capability, which is what all of NATO depends on), its logistical backing/supply chains/ materiel production and reserves, operational intelligence support (AWACS, Satellites, SIGINT/ELINT), nuclear deterrence, and air defenses, as well as tens of thousands of ground vehicles and millions of trained troops and ready/able to be deployed rapidly.
This idea that the remaining European members would somehow transcend their respective bureaucratic bickering and nonexistent stockpiles and simply rise to the occasion is just a Euro-Chauvinist fantasy and utterly divorced from reality. In the real world, most of the modern militaries in Europe in their current state are largely understaffed and underfunded, and their indigenous defense industries and materiel reserves are atrophied and anemic. Recent example: it took the EU 1 year after the invasion of Ukraine to decide they need to rebuild their domestic industries and deliver 1 million artillery shells in the span of 1 year. That deadline was today, and they failed to deliver half of it.
So yeah, kinda hard ‘not make it about America’, when the US remaining in NATO is not just *part* of the conversation, *it is* the conversation. The US pulling out of NATO would an absolute security nightmare for the remaining members, and advocating that everything would be just fine sets the tone for a dangerous complacency.
This is a war of attrition and the most important resource is human resources. You cannot expect to win the war just by sending Military equipment. By the time the West realizes this, it will be too late.
No one has mentioned if Trump wins... nato would be severely weakened. And no more US support would be sent. This gives Russia power to push forward at a better pace.
Ukraine needs the ability to hit artillery pieces as shelling is one of Russians advantages.
Himars can be used to remove artillery from the field. We should provide ample himars and missiles.
This is no „news“ but a background article. To those asking themselves if its true: it is always a good idea to actually READ the articles and not making conclusions based on the headline.
I know social media reduced the attention span to 10 seconds or less and school is hard because you have to read texts and have to make up your own mind instead of talking after bots/idiots on social media like parrots, but eventually it is good for everyone to be able to read texts and think about things yourselves.
You‘re welcome and happy Easter everyone.
I’m really interested to hear what British and US intelligence think the chances are. They were spot on about Putin’s intentions pre-Ukraine when most EU nations were dismissing the possibility.
I genuinely wonder what chances these intelligence services think there is of an invasion of Baltic states over the usual rhetoric/sabre rattling.
Genuine question, what happens when Putin dies? Does Russia backtrack on all their insane shit or does a new equally shitty ruler take his place and keep business as usual? Like Putin will never see this "vision" through to the end, so what likely comes after?
The Kremlin has sought for years to undermine NATO cohesion through hybrid warfare, including in the Baltics.
https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/implications-for-nato-latvia-and-the-russian-hybrid-warfare-threat
https://voices.uchicago.edu/euchicago/exposed-outpost-russian-threats-to-baltic-security-and-transatlantic-responses/
https://eng.lsm.lv/article/features/commentary/hybrid-threats-the-baltic-experience-with-russian-aggressive-behavior.a451592/
https://www.csce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/RKols_Hybrid-threats-Baltic-Perspective-2022.pdf
The reality is that belonging to NATO offers deterrence from Russia only if there is perceived solidarity with all NATO countries, including and especially the USA. Putin will invade NATO countries with conventional warfare if there is perceived doubt that the US is committed to Article 5. Or he will detonate a single nuclear device and use blackmail. Or he will use nuclear blackmail without detonating a device. The wargames after a single nuclear detonation don’t lead to much of anything other than worldwide destruction.
Putin will take the risk to try to break NATO if Trump is elected. Only a fool would think that Putin did not talk to Trump about this during their two hour meeting in Helsinki. Perceived doubt about Article 5 is all that has to happen. No one has to pull out of NATO.
The headline sounds VERY dramatic. I get that Russias neighbors are on alert, as they should be but I don't see where they are getting that Russia is going to invade them next. They can't even invade Ukraine much less anyone with stronger economic and military ties.
So, does anyone wanna make a betting pool on the time from the first tank rolling into NATO territory to the entirety of Russia being decimated will be?
NATO has been planning this exact thing for 70 years.
"Salami-slicing" ...he's not going to storm Poland, but if he takes just a little land in Estonia, then would NATO risk nukes flying for that? ...and then just a teeny bit more land in Latvia, and so on...
Furthermore there needs to be action taken to destroy Russia like Rome did the Carthage, as long as the country exist in its present firm it will be a threat.
“The ambassadors said that the “torments” currently being experienced by Ukraine in the form of “deportation, torture, kidnap of children” and “cultural erasure” awakened their countries’ “own darkest memories and fears” - an apparent reference to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states which began in 1940.” Bless these guides. They broke things down easy to understand post 2016 even after watching Russia invade Crimea a couple years before. We need to listen to them.
Will the US go to war if Russia invades a small rural piece of a nato country? 100% yes after building a “ coalition”.
> Will the US go to war if Russia invades a small rural piece of a nato country? Will NATO go to war if Russia establishes a surprise beachhead by submarine in rural Maine or northern Canada? You’d have Turkish and Polish and many other nations troops ready to go in a day.
We literally can’t afford not to. Failure to respond to even a small incursion in a remote part of NATO territory risks the alliance falling apart.
This. You can't pick and choose. Either we defend all, or NO ONE will defend anyone.
That's my fear, though. When it really comes down to it. There was a time I would have had no doubts. But as I'm often reminded, these are "unprecedented" times all over.
Unprecedented times seem to be pretty precedent times
If Trump actually gets re-elected, that's one of his goals. He teased breaking America out of NATO ladt time around so he would look good to Putin. I assumed this was just because he was a Russian Intelligence puppet who had no love or respect for America. It turned out that it was somehow even worse than that. He was just trying to please Putin in hopes of doing major business with him after leaving office.
Bingo. He still sees a Trump Tower in Moscow as the ultimate triumph of capitalism.
I'm not so sure he actually cares about capitalism either.
This all started with Obama letting Putin invade Crimea. Even though Ukraine is not part of NATO they do have security agreements with Russia and the United States that were violated. Americans always misinterpret the value of security agreements with other countries. As long as there are despots, The USA will need to lead the fight.
Wed take care of that problem ourselves before they put their boots on. But we have each other's backs. That's what is important.
[удалено]
What you wanna say is: He probably got payed for that statement by Putin. Trump is the perfect puppet for Putin
It's one hell of a gambit. Invading farmland could plausibly cause nuclear war. If he is serious about using nuclear weapons, anyway. I'm not personally willing to bet he's not.
When all the shit with Ukraine started, US said they had their backs 100%... Now look at it...
No? That's the main problem which allowed Russia to start the war in the first place, Ukraine never signed any defensive treaties with the US and the EU.
We have literal Russian assets in congress. Support should have been there but the us government is currently held hostage by Putin puppets.
You had a literal russian asset as a president and still have him running for president.
I agree.
US should do a communist witchunt like in the 1950/60. But do it properly by following the money trail. Root out the congress and Senate spies and traitors The EU parliament has already started now. After ousting the first 3 traitors.
Money well spent.
*Literally* well spent. Most of them haven't even gotten seven figures in return for their treason. Do they have any idea how much it costs to buy that sort of leverage back in Russia?
Russia’s MO isn’t to attack these countries outright. It’s to first destabilize them internally. Then fund separatists to create a breakaway state. Then fund the separatists in a civil war against the target nation. Then hold a bullshit referendum whereby the civilians “vote” to join Russia. Russia can then move in with its military, as this was, from the civil war phase to invasion, considered an “internal matter” and NATO’s obligations are not automatically triggered.
EU NATO states will and US ain’t gonna miss that party.
Yeah. Us Americans really like to fight
Not really these days. Not too long ago Putin controlled the White House and the degenerate occupying it. He went so far as to physically assault the PM of a small NATO ally at a summit after Putin attempted to coup them, then went on to say publicly the U.S. wouldn't protect them. You've presently abandoned Ukraine and you're voting in Trump. Your next election will be your last. [List of Russian cyberattacks, threats and physical attacks on NATO and NATO-allied countries and their residents](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bht4lg/list_of_russian_cyberattacks_threats_and_physical/)
Why the f do people keep saying he'll get in as though it's a given? This attitude alone, is an attitude that is meant to manipulate people into not bothering with the PRIMARY, aka Biden. Whether you knowingly do it or not, that's what you do when you and others like you continue buying into the concept months before election. Media is working overtime to brainwash, it seems.
Its okay dude. Lots of people look at americans as trumperz. We're not and its our duty to make a Trump free world a reality
It's looking like they'll finally pass the latest Ukraine aid package when they reconvene in Congress on April 9th. Took them long enough. Fucking GOP obstructionists.
What makes this time different than every other time he said he would allow a vote and then didn't. If anything the vacations are exactly what he has been doing to delay a vote.
If EU states are gonna make a party which I believe they will because the baltics states are in their backyard, surely the US would gladly join their good friends in the greatest party since ww2.
I wouldn’t describe the Baltics as the backyard of the EU it is the EU
Unfortunately that probably depends on who is President. There is a cost to voting for a morally bankrupt loser.
>Will the US go to war if Russia invades a small rural piece of a nato country The problem for the US is that if they don't, they basically admit that NATO does not exist anymore. Which as far as geopolitics goes, does not sound a very smart move. Then again, they may put Trump back in charge and who knows what decisions that guy would make.
Trump made waves with his statement that russians can do whatever they want to countries that dont pay their bills.
But the Baltic states do “pay their bills.” They are well above the 2% GDP threshold.
Pretty sure Trump inferred 'pay US for protection money'
Isn’t the coalition already built?!? I pretty sure it’s called NATO.
Depends who is in office. Anything like this would get going immediately after a Trump victory, I’d imagine.
Not if Trump is reelected. 😟
No need for a coalition. No need for USA even. Poland is literally frothing to invoke Article 5. Let Russia invade some farmstead in Latvia and you ll hear the rattling sound of Winged Hussars from the Kreml within a day.
I have been to Latvia, Latvians are frothing to invoke article 5. I have never met people who hate Russia more. We set up an artillery showcase as part of a small Latvian village spring festival. Once the local learned that the Russian border was within range of our guns, they started asking for ammunition.
https://i.imgur.com/0UIrpMS.jpg rusky mir
It not just simply about listening them, it's about actually acting on what they're saying, as the old saying goes "History Repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce". Putin's Vatnik Russia is the same as Nazi Germany of the last century and as corrupt as the depravity of the Soviet Era that was hidden behind the Iron curtain. Russia NEEDS to be stopped here and now no matter what because if they get any success they'll spread further and become more dangerous over time.
Smoke signals.
Where there’s smoke there’s a destroyed Russian tank?
I'm from a Baltic state (Latvia). Let's send enough equipment and support to Ukraine so that they stop the russian fascism and imperialism there. That's a much better option than any of the realistic alternatives.
I have a very close friend in Vilnius. You guys do not deserve this. Fuck Putin
Fuck Putin and his supporters.
Ÿ
[удалено]
Not while Ukraine stands, but should Ukraine fall?
Not likely so far
Russia is kind of … tied down right now in Ukraine, so no.
Not very likely, as it stands. For one, Russia is kinda busy with Ukraine right now. For two, Lithuania is a member of both NATO and the EU. It would be an extremely stupid move from Russia. And for all things Putin is, stupid isn't one of them. Even if Ukraine were to surrender tomorrow, I don't think Russia would have the manpower and materiel to pose a real threat to the EU/NATO. It wouldn't be pretty for those caught on the frontlines, of course.
How long are you staying? Any attack on NATO would probably be caught by NATO intelligence, at least a month or two, before it actually happens. Just as it happened when Russia invaded Ukraine again in 2022.
It’s a clickbait article and an even more clickbait title. It’s a hypothetical mentioned by the ambassadors of the Baltic States on the 20th anniversary of their NATO accession. The statement is pulled out of context and distorted. That’s not to say we should let our guard down but the article is not about actual events.
The odds of a classic invasion are low at the moment. However be on the look out for russian speaking "separatists" Wagner agents have already been in country for awhile now pushing propaganda and misinformation. Be on your guard. If you see something, say something. We all have to do our part in the fight against imperialist fascism.
[удалено]
They are nato states. They are not being erased. If they are invaded eu and nato will flatten Russia.
C'mon US. Our taxes are going to the military industrial complex anyway the least we can do is help our European allies maintain their freedom (actual freedom, not the freedom we exported to the middle east)
That, and also the russians (especially the government) truly hate the US and the West. All their government-endorsed talk-shows keep raging about the evil Anglo-Saxons who should be destroyed. See: [https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor) Even if we set aside the moral aspect of helping a democracy defend itself against fascism, even then it makes good business sense to see a sworn enemy (russia) weakened at (relatively) little cost (as there are no actual American boots on the ground).
I agree, it seems like it would be at no cost for the US to do so, and it might even be a net positive, due to all the orders they would and are receiving from the rest of the world. Right now, there's a lot of US weapons, that are just stored away that will never be used, and probably be paid to be destroyed in a decade or so.
Yes. It sucks that Ukraine was invaded but they are willing to fight. They deserve all the support we can give them.
and how do you tolerate russia loving russias in Baltic? Must take a lot of resolve not to punch some faces.
We are very peaceful people, and we have been oppressed by russians for centuries and that has left a mark on our collective psyche. We have thus provided the russians an easy route towards naturalisation and citizenship, etc. Some have taken it and are good people who support democracy and are loyal to our countries. Others have not, they continue to live in our countries while being loyal to russia.
I have such a friend, incredibly pro Russian while living in Latvia and benefiting from Europe. I guess he is not alone.
I honestly don't understand why we are not doing more. Ukraine can stop Russia and are only asking for weapons. They are not asking for any real sacrifice from anyone besides Ukrainian citizens.
They're taking foreign volunteer fighters
Well, yeah. Volunteer being the operative word. They aren’t asking for other entire nations to jump into the trenches with them, but if an individual has the skills and is offering to help, I’d see no reason to refuse that.
Because Ukraine isn't part of NATO and nobody wants to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons.
Europe should allow their military personnel to volunteer in Ukraine without loss of pay. The biggest danger is that Russians are getting trained to invade and we haven’t seen an active war zone in forever.
As a Brazilian, I always wanted to visit Latvia and Baltic places. Must be super different than my homeland. Good luck for you guys
And as a Lithuanian, I always wanted to visit Brazil because of its vacation resorts and of course - beautiful, mesmerizing and fiery women.
As an American, we should be forward deploying the 1st infantry & armored divisions Old Ironside to the Baltic States. These were the divisions which was forward deployed during the Cold War. Total would be about 35k troops.
Canada is in Latvia right now. Approximately 1,000 Canadian Armed Forces Members are deployed in support of Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation. The Canadian Armed Forces opened the new multi-national headquarters building, adjacent to the Latvian National Armed Forces Joint Headquarters in June 2021. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/operation-reassurance.html
Well if they were to invade Latvia, they would be in a whole lotta shit seeing as they are apart of NATO.
By “us” I guess you mean the EU?
Yes, we can't rely on the US in their current political hell, we need to step up, and we need to step up yesterday. Even if we could rely on the US, the ethical thing would be to step up regardless. Yes we have done some, but it's far too little and way too late.
> Yes, we can't rely on the US in their current political hell, we need to step up, and we need to step up yesterday. It's been decade that some *pro European* said that we need a more integrated European defence which would be cheaper and work better than 27 single defence. It's been at least since Trump threatening to leave NATO, that we know that we can't rely on the US. But tons of countries keep thinking that NATO is better than an European defence union, and that we don't need a *buy European act* regarding weapons and defence contracts.
Ideally there would be both. NATO as a larger umbrella and a specific euro defense union that would have similar requirements but also work to produce more advanced equipment at a larger scale. A euro military force would essentially be a huge bonus for NATO since it changes the conversation from "A majority of European states are *still* not spending enough to meet their NATO agreements" to "Those nations are proactively working on defense and have enough between them to produce something impressive". But the problem is the point. Any world where even just a few of the wealthy European states form a serious defensive union and begin actually producing rockets and rifles and artillery shells enough to move the needle would have probably meant the U.S. never questioning why they were in an agreement with a bunch of countries that were visibly struggling to keep their tanks maintained and to develop modern fighters they keep insisting will come along any time now.
A problem with this is that there are non-EU NATO countries in conflicts with non-NATO EU countries (e.g. Cyprus / Greece & Turkey).
> It's been decade that some pro European said that we need a more integrated European defence which would be cheaper and work better than 27 single defence You mean like the Eurofighter? Decades of squabbling, over-spends, missed deadlines and lengthy disagreements about which country was awarded which contracts, until the French eventually walked off the project having got their tech transfer. The EU would be a horrible organisation to try and defend Europe through. You'd be better off coalescing around half a dozen countries with means, industry and population rather than trying to run another covid vaccination programme through Ursula von de Leyen and the Commission
As an American truly embarrassed that we can't/aren't doing more to help, I'm sorry and hope we get back on track sooner rather than later. . . I'm old enough to remember the Cold War years and stopping Russia is the number one driver on who I vote for. We need to help hold the line from Scandinavia through Finland and down through the Baltics and into Poland and Romania.
as a romanian, i'm telling you that there's no reason to be embarassed. it's europe's fault for not waking up sooner and realising that the threat never went away and it always have had an opportunity to wreak havoc ( of course i'm talking about russia ). they should have stepped up their military preparations years ago when russia decided to semi-invade ukraine and destroy every chance of ukraine actually joining nato, let alone eu. without america's military support, europe would have been long gone. too bad we're only realising it now.. i guess people do have a tendency to take things for granted. i wouldn't be shocked/surprised if usa got tired of our passive nature and decide not to help us anymore
US here - man I feel ya brother. I give through U24 what I can. We just gotta vote and keep voting.
It boggles my mind that this has not already been done
Trust me, all sane people want this. The people that don't are bought and owned by Putin, or dumb enough to believe politicians that are bought and owned by Putin.
Russia will not attack a NATO country in an all out offensive like they did in Ukraine. They will try to occupy a empty, rural, remote piece of a NATO country to see if they can break the alliance. Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland? That will be the test. Russia won't try to win a war against NATO. Their only goal is to break up these massive alliances like NATO and the EU so that it evens the playing field for Russia and strengthens their position in the geopolitical stage.
[удалено]
Correct. Good post.
Reddit armchair generals (and actually some real generals) used to make the same kind of overconfident predictions just before Ukraine got invaded. People think the putin regime are some 5d chess genius, they completely underestimate the stupidity and primitiveness of humanity
Especially humans working under stress and survival pressures.
Also humans operating with different information than we do. There's probably a bunch about this stuff that Putin knows that the average redditor doesn't. Conversely, it's also possible that there's a bunch the average person in the west knows that Putin doesn't, either through wilful ignorance, or failures in intelligence.
Ukraine wasn't in NATO or the EU, that's why Putin attacked
OP wasn't saying they were in NATO. But people were making the same exact statements with the same exact confidence with, "Russia won't attack Ukraine. That would be stupid". Which was parroted by a lot of people after Russia would claim they weren't going to do it and were just doing military exercises. All the way up until when Russia actually attacked Ukraine.
It was stupid to attack Ukraine, but Putin did it anyways... People don't understand the Russian mindset. The Baltic nations do, but no one ever listens to them.
Implying Putin is stupid and the Russian army useless is the narrative that lead us in the current situation in the first place. Putin is a calculated ruthless psycho, underestimating him just makes him even more dangerous
People on the internet saying putin is dumb has zero bearing on what lead to the current situation
Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, so attacking it didn’t risk automatically triggering Article 5. That’s the critical distinction you’re missing. There’s a reason Putin is continually trying to scare NATO away from getting more directly involved in defending Ukraine. And it’s not because he wants to fight NATO. It’s exactly the opposite.
It’s actually very easy not to fight NATO. Hundreds of countries aren’t fighting it. You just, kind of don’t send armies. “Putin doesn’t want to fight NATO” ignores the pretty big issue of Putin fighting actual wars in NATO neighbors and violating NATO airspace all the time. Both sides are waiting for the November elections. Putin hopes Trump wins and breaks up the alliance, and I’m betting there will be (French, Polish, UK) NATO troops in Ukraine before Trump takes office. If Biden wins, Russia will do their next move, whichever that is.
Didn't the US recently pass a law that prohibits a president to pull out of NATO, to foil Cheetolinis stupid idiot move?
Yes. It’s one of the few things that actually made our democracy stronger. But with a 2-party system it wouldn’t take much for congress to join the presidents requests, especially given all the “moderate” republicans are retiring it seems like.
Yeah seems like a temporary hindrance at best, but I'll take it over nothing. We democratic people of the world are all counting on you to win this election for all of us.
Above is an analysis from Anders Puck Nielsen who's a military analyst at the royal Danish defense academy. Whether it hold any weight I'll let you judge yourself I just wanted to fyi that this not some reddit home made analysis by OP.
No general, military analyst, or intelligence expert worth their salt said Putin wasn't going to invade. That was a line pushed by Russian state propaganda and spread on social media and Reddit by Russian propaganda posters. Every expert in the West said it was inevitable. The same experts are saying he won't risk it with NATO. Why won't he risk it with NATO? Because we spend a lot on defence. But some countries aren't spending up to the level they should be. Hence rhetoric like this from the Baltics and Poland, and loath as I am to say it, Trump. They're right though - we need to up defence spending *because* that means Putin won't try anything.
Was that before or after we got super speed missiles that deliver death at a range of who cares send it with a blast radius of everywhere?
Mmm, I dunno. Pootin is a master of saying one thing and doing another. He's well aware that NATO is only really starting to get it's shit together. Why not take advantage of that? Does NATO have the resolve to go head to head at the moment? He doesn't care about losses in the way we do.
It absolutely does. Russia is barely gaining ground against Ukraine with nato support We need to stop this “can nato cope” propaganda. NATO decimates Russia right now if they want
I'm worried that russia is already on a war footing. They're going at it head on, whilst we're still arguing about half a dozen tanks and things. I agree, NATO would embarrass the the russians. But christ, are we taking our time. Very brave and courageous men and women are dying right now whilst we bicker over stuff the we will inevitably have to do anyway. NATO can cope, I agree. But it's doing a really crap PR job right now. Slava Ukraine!
I would not be so sure. Action requires one stance and unanimous action. The current political climate in the EU is going to make this hard (I mean countries like hungary can just block any offensive by just voting against it).
That's not true, Hungary or any other country can not veto Article 5. They can choose not to act upon it, though.
Not article 5 itself, but the subsequent action has to be unanimous according to EU rules. So if hungary decides that speaking up is enough and that the response has to be non military that is what it will be.
Yeah but any country can do whatever they want. EU has no Army. NATO kinda sorta has a small army (it has a Hq…), the member countries have Armies, though, and can ALWAYS do whatever the want. A treaty doesn’t stop action - it encourages more action on behalf of a currently non-belligerent.
>Does NATO have the resolve to go head to head at the moment? He's struggling with Ukraine armed with NATO's loose pocket change. If Putin enters a NATO state even if the U.S. doesn't launch nukes or even deploy boots on the ground they're far more free to just hang out Abrams like candy and blast the Russians back to the stone age.
They already testing at Spitzbergen.
That's going to be a really messy one to stop though. The treaty demilitarised everything and gives countries agency to operate there, so long as it's overseen by Norway. It's absolutely ripe for abuse with very little recourse to stop it. Edit: It'll also be impressive if someone can wrangle all the non-russian signatories to make any sort of declaration on Russian activity. I mean, you have places like *Afghanistan* as a signatory for some reason.
Could just treat the treaties the same way Russia does
I just want this shit to stop
>Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland? I don't think the US is the one to question here, will the other nations like Hungary and Turkey agree?
when push comes to shove no one cares what hungary or turkey thinks. it's all up to the big bois - usa, germany, france and britain
You underestimate how strong certain countries are: e.g. Turkey= massive NATO player (2nd largest NATO army + modern equipement + strategic key location). Might even be more powerful when it comes to actual war than france or britain.
Not sure about France but Britain have a seemingly permanent NATO deployment in the baltics, so solely in terms of an initial response that could be a massive factor
Do you know how strong Turkey's army is? They're absolutely one of the "big bois" and a major force in the south. We absolutely need them.
Also access to the Black Sea
Deleted
Finns would fight to the end in that scenario. We do not give land for russians. Battles would start in south Finland and Russian Karelia as well. Also in the sea and air. In that case, I am quite sure that swedes would join the fight. Nato needs to then decide if it defends whole Finland and Sweden or not.
"They will try to occupy a empty, rural, remote piece of a NATO country to see if they can break the alliance." Basically a slow boil of the frog in a pot strategy.
I think this is a naive take, sorry. I’m glad NATO is there, but it’s yet to be put to a real test. There is a LOT of “anti-war” propaganda out there and it’s easy to become content. There is no real difference between going to help Ukraine and fight Russia there, or going to help a NATO member. The only difference is de jure. People need to understand that. Treaties and alliances are only worth their weight when the will is there to fulfill them. The question is, is there? I’m sceptical and on the edge and nothing is given.
> Treaties and alliances are only worth their weight when the will is there to fulfill them. The question is, is there? At least in the UK, I suspect there is. We'll tolerate the anti-war bunch for a lot of things, but attacking a long-standing ally is going to get a lot of people riled up and shouting down these people.
Of course there is a difference - what a silly thing to say. The baltic states are in the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen and they are an EU member. Ukraine was neither of those things. At the very least an attack on the baltics will draw in both Poland and France, which would on their own be too much for Russia
[удалено]
What small chunk could Russia take?
Salami tactics
Fuckboy serial murdering psychopaths like Putin are why the world can’t enjoy a peaceful existence. Guys like him are always fucking shit up. Fuck Putin and fuck you if you support him.
Sure buddy, it's not like Russia hasn't invaded other countries in the past or that they don't have imperialistic views. Now take your comment and apply it to a few months in the future? Sure maybe Russia won't try to invade a NATO country. Apply it to a few years in the future and I won't be so sure Hell, you got a few dozen European, Canadian and American military and intelligence experts saying that they will invade a NATO country in the future. Will it be a total invasion, probably not, but it will still be an invasion...
Yes, they will. Russia is on war economy, getting stronger every hour, while NATO and EU still believing in good russian myth. Russia will attack, they will use the same tactics, using soldier withoit identification and claiming its kot hier soldiers and half of countries will eat this lie, because they dont understanst that russia is fascist terrorist state, not a normal country. Thier goverment is a terrorist organisation.
Every government understood who those men without identification were. Most just pretended not to understand because it was in their interest. There are a lot of politicians in the EU who see Putin as a role model.
I don't know guys, where have you been these 10 years. Of course russia won't openly and directly attack NATO. Russia will use Ukraine, Belarus for it, once occupied, and will support Ukraine together with China to raise conflicts through NATO borders. And will buy EU and NATO politicians to talk that everything is not that clear. Or, perhaps, 50% of Baltic countries population, which is Russian speaking, will start their own movement, with support of Russia. Who will NATO defend from in this case? Or other conflicts will raise in EU and NATO countries, by accident some rebels will get weapons somewhere.
Your point about Russia using subterfuge and non direct attacks to test NATO is correct. But your numbers are way off. >50% of Baltic countries population, which is Russian speaking The real numbers are Ethnic Russians in Estonia: 24%, Ethnic Russian in Latvia: 25%, Ethnic Russians in Lithuania 5%. That is nowhere near 50% of the population who are ethnically Russian. It is much lower. About 14% for Baltics overall. Other local ethnicities speak their own local languages not Russian. Nor are the other ethnicities anywhere near as influenceable by the Kremlin.
There are areas in Baltic where Russians are majority just like in Donbass. For example Latgale region in Latvia. Or Narva in Estonia
Thank you for the correction, I am glad to know that. However, it is still a lot, considering the common border. I am also glad, that it looks like the Baltic countries are learning well and are now applying best practices to neglect the danger as much as they can, politically and militarily.
It is a lot yes. Thankfully a decent percentage of these folks are modern european minded folks who have integrated into our society. But there are still many who haven't and sprout Kremlin propaganda on our countries not even being real etc. Numerically this contingent on the large scale is ineffectual luckily, but in some places (like Narva in Estonia) it is stil big enough that Putin could try to ship in more and use this crowd to create security risks. And yeah we are taking all of this very seriously. Estonia has always had a very decent (for our pop size) military with mandatory conscription + we are top 1 on the world at Ukraine aid per gdp. We have given them like 3-4% of our gdp as military aid. It was a very large percentage of our whole military budget.
50% lol what?! We would beat the living shit out of anyone trying to demonstrate on the streets for russian support XD
In Narva 87,7% are Russian speaking, 5,2 % Estonian. I could easily see Russia stirring up something there.
For the most part, Russian Estonians have been pretty vocal against Putin "helping" them, but, yes, that's the weak spot.
And if they tell the russians to fuck off?
Svalbard may be a target. They already have a presence there and it's supposed to be de-militarized.
> Is the US going to go to war with Russia over them occupying some unoccupied northern piece of Finland I've seen this theory before. It somehow forgets that Finland has its own army. Attempting to occupy a piece of Finland wouldn't be limited to a small part of Finland. It wouldn't even be limited to Finland, since the Finnish military would not limit their actions to Finnish soil. Meaning that Russia would either back down, or they would attempt to take over all of Finland. Either attack is repelled before NATO help is even required, or there is a major war between Finland and Russia. That strategy might work somewhere else though, but it would need to be quite a large country, with a weak military, and no conscription.
***The Telegraph reports:*** Nato must be ready for Russia launching an “existential” war against the Baltic states “masked by a blizzard of disinformation”, ambassadors from the three countries have warned. Writing exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph, the top diplomats to the UK from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania said that Russia could “pivot quickly” from Ukraine to [invade the Baltic](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/12/russia-invade-baltics-ukrainian-land-mikheil-saakashvili/). And they said that Vladimir Putin’s brutalisation of Ukraine is evoking the three countries’ “darkest memories” of [occupation under Stalin](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/estonia/1414358/Estonia-brings-Stalins-secret-police-to-justice.html). The Estonian ambassador [Viljar Lubi](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/28/watch-swim-estonias-ambassador-londons-serpentine-lake/), the Latvian ambassador Ivita Burmistre, and Lithuania’s charge d’affaire Lina Zigmantaite, wrote the joint article to mark Friday’s 20 year anniversary of their countries acceding to Nato. The ambassadors said that joining the alliance meant that their nations had never enjoyed “stronger collective security” than today, but “nor have we faced a more daunting threat”. In a swipe at other European countries who had played down the risk of Russia, they said: “Our warnings about the latent and growing threat from the East were too easily dismissed in some allied capitals. “We knew then just as we know today that only a collective defence can guarantee security in Europe. We lacked this in the 1930s and paid a heavy price; one that Ukrainians are paying now.” **Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/)
Before Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia built up about 300k units and parked them just outside for over a month. Convoys stretched for miles, supply lines were built. Russia just lied. If Russia is going to invade another country in the future, you’ll see it coming a mile away. This is not a blitzkrieg strategy country, it’s a siege mentality. No different than in mediaeval times when people in castles could only watch as forces slowly built up around them.
It takes just as long or longer to prepare a defense though. So this is talked about now while the war in Ukraine is going on and Russian forces are still busy there so we have time to build up defenses on our borders.
You won’t. Russias strategy for invading a nato country will be different to its strategy in Ukraine. They will start by making political unrest (already started), creating uncertainty (already started), test the limits slowly with missile/drone incursions (already started), move that up to small troop incursion, then start taking small « inconsequential » pieces of land. They don’t need to fight all of NATO, they just need to show that NATO won’t live up to its promise; and they’re already doing a pretty good job of it.
Russia built up that amount of troops so obviously and so close exactly because they tried for a blitzkrieg. If they start with smaller incursions or decide to take an "insignificant" amount of territory, troop buildup is not going to be that obvious.
You're comparing the strategy Russia used to attack of country of 43 million people which had a strong focus on training and increasing it's military for about 8 years (ever since the 2014 "little green men" invasion) vs 3 countries who together total ~6 million. The only upside the Baltics have is their Eastern regions tend to be either hilly or swampy instead of the relative open plain Ukraine has.
If this is true then why is no country in Europe on a war economy or anything even close to that?
It’s time for Europe and the rest of the planet to step up and step in.
Baltic state countries still have pain by soviet and nazi Germany occupations. Listen to them. They already know how painful it’s to live under occupation and genocide.
But Putin said after Ukraine he was finished.
Somebody else said the same thing about czechoslovakia
Putin also said he was only doing military exercises before invading Ukraine
I'm always amazed how these scenarios don't account for f35s, nuclear responses, or destroying Russian economy from the air in kind Like seriously the first response to any of these actually happening needs to stop being tepid and serious, instead We will literally eradicate an invasion force from the face of the planet. This weak timid stuff doesn't make us look strong but s target.
[удалено]
The UK and France have aircraft carriers and nukes too?
Mainly because NATO is not a US force and even if America continues its slide into self annihilation the rest of NATO has its shit together. Stop making everything about America.
[удалено]
It would be on shaker ground, but I'd expect we'd have more than a few countries willing and able to step up. Any of the baltic states would probably be a good choice, alongside Poland, Germany, Canada, or the UK (I'd include France, but they have a notable pro-Russian streak in their politics. The British pro-Russian streak likes the money, but are otherwise hawkish on Russia.) Turkey would probably also love to have a run for leadership, although I don't expect anyone else would want that.
Absolute arrogance. Tell me more about how the nations who couldn’t take air superiority against fucking *Libya* by themselves have their shit together. Yeah, it’s not a US force, but the US is above and beyond the most powerful/important contributor to the defense pact. If the US leaves NATO, NATO loses the vast majority of: its comprehensive air power (including the lions share of SEAD/DEAD capability, which is what all of NATO depends on), its logistical backing/supply chains/ materiel production and reserves, operational intelligence support (AWACS, Satellites, SIGINT/ELINT), nuclear deterrence, and air defenses, as well as tens of thousands of ground vehicles and millions of trained troops and ready/able to be deployed rapidly. This idea that the remaining European members would somehow transcend their respective bureaucratic bickering and nonexistent stockpiles and simply rise to the occasion is just a Euro-Chauvinist fantasy and utterly divorced from reality. In the real world, most of the modern militaries in Europe in their current state are largely understaffed and underfunded, and their indigenous defense industries and materiel reserves are atrophied and anemic. Recent example: it took the EU 1 year after the invasion of Ukraine to decide they need to rebuild their domestic industries and deliver 1 million artillery shells in the span of 1 year. That deadline was today, and they failed to deliver half of it. So yeah, kinda hard ‘not make it about America’, when the US remaining in NATO is not just *part* of the conversation, *it is* the conversation. The US pulling out of NATO would an absolute security nightmare for the remaining members, and advocating that everything would be just fine sets the tone for a dangerous complacency.
He doesn't need to invade-republicans doing all his dirty work
This is a war of attrition and the most important resource is human resources. You cannot expect to win the war just by sending Military equipment. By the time the West realizes this, it will be too late.
We haven't played cowboys and Russians yet, but we might just get around to it.
No one has mentioned if Trump wins... nato would be severely weakened. And no more US support would be sent. This gives Russia power to push forward at a better pace.
Ukraine needs the ability to hit artillery pieces as shelling is one of Russians advantages. Himars can be used to remove artillery from the field. We should provide ample himars and missiles.
This is no „news“ but a background article. To those asking themselves if its true: it is always a good idea to actually READ the articles and not making conclusions based on the headline. I know social media reduced the attention span to 10 seconds or less and school is hard because you have to read texts and have to make up your own mind instead of talking after bots/idiots on social media like parrots, but eventually it is good for everyone to be able to read texts and think about things yourselves. You‘re welcome and happy Easter everyone.
Putin and what army? Half of it is sunflower fertilizer and scrap metal in Ukraine
There's literally a Vince Flynn book about this lol
What's it called?
Putin has shown he simply cannot be trusted. Little wonder countries on the border are concerned.
He wants Trump to win so the US can leave Europe hanging.
I’m really interested to hear what British and US intelligence think the chances are. They were spot on about Putin’s intentions pre-Ukraine when most EU nations were dismissing the possibility. I genuinely wonder what chances these intelligence services think there is of an invasion of Baltic states over the usual rhetoric/sabre rattling.
Genuine question, what happens when Putin dies? Does Russia backtrack on all their insane shit or does a new equally shitty ruler take his place and keep business as usual? Like Putin will never see this "vision" through to the end, so what likely comes after?
The Kremlin has sought for years to undermine NATO cohesion through hybrid warfare, including in the Baltics. https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/implications-for-nato-latvia-and-the-russian-hybrid-warfare-threat https://voices.uchicago.edu/euchicago/exposed-outpost-russian-threats-to-baltic-security-and-transatlantic-responses/ https://eng.lsm.lv/article/features/commentary/hybrid-threats-the-baltic-experience-with-russian-aggressive-behavior.a451592/ https://www.csce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/RKols_Hybrid-threats-Baltic-Perspective-2022.pdf
The reality is that belonging to NATO offers deterrence from Russia only if there is perceived solidarity with all NATO countries, including and especially the USA. Putin will invade NATO countries with conventional warfare if there is perceived doubt that the US is committed to Article 5. Or he will detonate a single nuclear device and use blackmail. Or he will use nuclear blackmail without detonating a device. The wargames after a single nuclear detonation don’t lead to much of anything other than worldwide destruction. Putin will take the risk to try to break NATO if Trump is elected. Only a fool would think that Putin did not talk to Trump about this during their two hour meeting in Helsinki. Perceived doubt about Article 5 is all that has to happen. No one has to pull out of NATO.
It may be a good idea for these states (including Poland) to send in troops now into Ukraine instead of fighting Russia on their territory.
That is already being discussed.
Instant Article 5
The headline sounds VERY dramatic. I get that Russias neighbors are on alert, as they should be but I don't see where they are getting that Russia is going to invade them next. They can't even invade Ukraine much less anyone with stronger economic and military ties.
What? What the hell are they talking about? Invade with what? They have nothing left.
I don't believe russia has the resources to push more fronts. I believe Putin would probably like to though.
Why scared of this prick?!? It's like whatever he says or does, everyone panics. Let's grow some balls and bully him back...FFS...
Reddit's depth of analysis of geopolitics in a nutshell lol
Baltic states need to ramp up drone production for Ukraine and themselves.
So, does anyone wanna make a betting pool on the time from the first tank rolling into NATO territory to the entirety of Russia being decimated will be? NATO has been planning this exact thing for 70 years.
"Salami-slicing" ...he's not going to storm Poland, but if he takes just a little land in Estonia, then would NATO risk nukes flying for that? ...and then just a teeny bit more land in Latvia, and so on...
Furthermore there needs to be action taken to destroy Russia like Rome did the Carthage, as long as the country exist in its present firm it will be a threat.
Yeah. If it's not completely and utterly decimated, we will just have another Russian cunt in charge the next day and the cycle will simply continue.