The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
deleted by creator
How much can one bullet cost?
Meanwhile USA is fully prepared to comfort Russia.
Thankfully Russia can’t afford to stretch themselves much more. I implore them to try something it shouldn’t take much to fuck them at this point.
Why are you so willing to be thrown to the trenches? How is militarism a good position?
How is getting bullied without fighting back a good position?
How about engaging in deescalation by not pushing for military escalation against our neighbor? How about entering commercial relations with neighboring countries instead of antagonizing them?
Already tried that. We hoped that by buying massive amounts of Russian oil and gas they would see that peace is worth a lot more than war.
But they decided war anyways. And suddenly we had to find a replacement for all that energy.
Already tried that. We hoped that by buying massive amounts of Russian oil and gas they would see that peace is worth a lot more than war
And Russia responded to that positively. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, there were even negotiations to make Russia enter the European Union. Those hopes for Russia were shattered when Europe and the US kept interfering in its sphere of influence (Georgia, Ukraine, etc) through colour revolutions and propaganda. The culminating point where Russia saw there was no possibility was when in 2014, the democratically elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was removed by a US-sponsored colour revolution (see Victoria Nuland’s leaked phonecalls), that’s actually what triggered the invasion of Crimea. It was Russia’s way of saying “I cannot win the soft-power competition against the US, so if my only way to maintain a sphere of influence is through military power, so be it”.
If you still don’t believe allowing for a Russian “sphere of influence” is an important geopolitical item if we want worldwide peace, imagine how USA people and their government would react to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Peru entering a military alliance with Russia and China and started to import military material from said countries and have Chinese and/or Russian military bases. Last time something similar happened with Cuba, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
My brother in foreign affairs, Russia has been an aggressor of Ukraine it’s whole existence.
Ukraine signed an agreement which cited that it would give up nuclear warheads for protection by the USA against Russia.
That protection never happened. Crimea was taken. Chaos ensued on the borders. Then Russia struck their fucking capital.
AND YOU WANT US TO FUCKING TRADE WITH RUSSIA, lol… Surely that will fix everything.
We trade with USA, aggressor of half of the world, and Europe itself participated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya and Yugoslavia. Currently, the EU stance is to support the genocidal apartheid regime of Netanyahu. Why is Russian aggression worse and should be punished more than any other aggression?
Yeah, how about no escalation? No hybrid war tactics? No drones in foreign airspace? No threats to neighbouring countries?
Cool, I agree that all of those things should stop. How about we engage in actual negotiations with Russia instead of grinding down Ukrainian young men in trenches as a form of diplomacy?
Because appeaemt doesn’t work?
They’re not willing to engage in good faith. If they were they never would have started the “special operations” in the first place. Nor would they be asking to keep all of their gains in the war.
They were more than willing to engage in good faith from late 1990s to early 2010s, it’s the constant western meddling in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and other Russian sphere of influence countries, coupled with the expansion of NATO, that pushed Russia to isolation. Russia doesn’t have the economic or soft power to fight the US+EU in that field, so either US+EU accept Russia peacefully having its own sphere of influence, or Russia will naturally attempt to do so militarily.
The USA doesn’t need to militarily engage in Mexico because it already belongs to its sphere of influence, in Venezuela they don’t enjoy that so the natural response is to threaten with military invasion (as it’s doing now). It’s basic geopolitics.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
Those two things are not synonymous.
Romanian military are concerned it would take allies time to get to the front (I.e. it would take time for NATO to mobilise in the event of an unanticipated invasion of Romania). However firstly that doesn’t mean victory wouldn’t be ultimately achieved (allied forces had a bad time of it during the first part of the second world war, but ultimately were victorious) and secondly it assumes that Russia would be able to rally its forces (what forces) and initiate a surprise invasion despite Europe heavily monitoring Russian military activity. Which all seems unlikely.
I’m also unclear about why 260 km is considered an insurmountable distance. In an emergency that distance could be covered in a couple of hours, (I’m assuming that liberation forces and not required to obey the speed limit) presumably everyone would be going the other way in any case.
The tanks and howitzers are not at Bucharest and they can’t drive 200 km/h.
Yeah because the Russians aren’t going to invade. They would have to amass troops along the border we’d have some time.
it would really be something else if they fought them off successfully and the united states looked like pussies and assholes
They already do. US is currently the only country pushing for surrender (note, it’s not just Ukraine, peace plan forces stuff from US too, including industry help and money) while negotiating with terrorists. It will take a very long time for me to see US in the same light I used to. Imagine US surrendering to ISIS. Beyond humiliating.
it would really be something else if they fought them
No it wouldn’t be. Germany is suggesting forced conscription already, and so is France. I don’t want to see young men thrown into the meat grinder to satisfy the imperial wishes of either Europe or Russia
you raise a good point, and to be honest i haven’t figured out what the morally correct answer to this is.
In my opinion, the morally correct answer is to have a mild relation with Russia, consisting of trade and not much more. Europe would get access to a huge pool of resources to boost its industry, and stopping to antagonize our neighboring countries would help to drive down military tensions in the continent.
NATO was conceived as an anti-Soviet military pact, and any excuse for its usefulness expired after 1991. Now it’s just a military playground for US interests, keeping European money flowing to the Wunderwaffen of the USA Military Industrial Complex, and maintaining Yankee military bases in the continent.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation, they weren’t just minding their own fucking business
History began in 2022?
how do you suppose a mild relation with russia could be achieved in this scenario?
The way it was from the late 90s to the early 2010s: by allowing them to have their Russian sphere of influence (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan…) the same way US ans Germany enjoy their own.
And if Ukraine doesn’t want to be a part of that, then fuck them I guess?
I wish you had the same level of concern for Mexicans, Venezuelans, Argentinians, Guatemalans, Cubans, Hondurans and Puertorricans. As a western citizen you should be primarily concerned with the consequences on the sphere of influence of your country.
Let the comments here be a friendly reminder to people that they should block and boycott the .ml instance
Maybe I’m late to the party, but the biggest perpetrator I see here is from “reddthat.com” whatever that is.
I love how it occurs so naturally that by the time I come into a post that talks about Russia and Ukraine, half the posts are already limited and I can’t expand threads because people replying are ones I’ve already blocked in other posts for being absolutely developmentally challenged.
I missed the drama. This was the first Lemmy account I made. Is this server overrun with bots now?
So the .ml stands for Marxist Lenin… Just to get you started.
I love you got three angy downvotes for explaining this.
I’m sad there isn’t an appropriate gif of an “angry tankie” shaking his fist.
Most of them are bot accounts run from the Philippines anyway.
I thought it stood for militant left
In the spirit of inclusive leftism, I say it stands for both!
Not really, .ml stands for Mali domain. And just because someone believes in Marxist principle or communism isn’t a issue. Personally for me why I am wary of .ml domain is because often I do see people posting obvious Chinese and North Korean propoganda with shady source and wild claims and their refusal to accept criticism of China or other communist past and present regimes. Also they get really defensive and assume you are pro west or pro imperialism when you happen to criticize china for something and then their whole argument would be bashing the west when both are to fault.
The devs for Lemmy are Marxists and they setup lemmy.ml as the first lemmy instance. They chose .ml because for them it stands for Marxist-Leninist, despite what ICANN officially regards it as.
Also, like you point out. The instance pushes a lot of bizarre propaganda and dissent is often met with bans. From my observations, criticism of Russia or China can get you banned, presumably because these countries have a history of communism. Also, they even defend Putin and justify the invasion of Ukraine.
In my view, it’s one thing to be communist. It’s another to align yourself with the worst examples of it. Many communists distance themselves from the CCP and USSR, arguing that these were not real examples of communism. But, these folks in .ml seem to be defenders of it.
Many communists distance themselves from the CCP and USSR
Which is somewhat like being a nazi but distancing yourself from Nazi Germany.
Feels more like being a football fan and distancing yourself from FIFA.
I stand corrected.
deleted by creator
That is for the best. The US is a hostile power, and allowing it to embed enemy troops or sabotage NATO operations should not be permitted. Europe is better off without the traitorous Trump Regime.
It sucks that it has to be this way, but to deny the intent and nature of the current United States, is to invite disaster.
While it may make Nato less credible in terms of military assets and industrial capacity if the US were out, it would make Nato more defensible in moral terms if the whims of Donald Trump weren’t a cornerstone of the Alliance
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side.
This is discussed too rarely. Does anybody know of a source that makes a reliable comparison?
Well, France has the second or third largest/most powerful individual Navy in the world, and Russia has severely diminished trained personnel, so unless China enters it would be a one sided massacre in Europe’s favor.
Probably why Russia has worked so hard on the south of Ukraine to secure the sea border even losing territory in the north.
The issue is when China enters, and whose side they will be on. Does Xi Jinpooh see more profit in helping his cabal of friendly dictators or would he just carve out a slice of the Russia Pie?
I can’t see China wanting to get involved in the war. Wars are expensive, and the outcome is not guaranteed.
Besides China has improving relations with Europe, what is the point in risking that?
China is invading like 4 territories every day of the week and they attempted to covertly build a partially underground military citt in Beijing 10x the size of the US Pentagon, in addition to being the origin country of the vast majority of cyberattacks.
They vetoed the only Israel Palestine ceasefire agreement that the US would agree to last year and endorsed the bloodthirsty Trump admin, openly promoting him with their TikTok platform.
They bankroll North Korea and Iran.
If War incarnated on earth he would be taking notes from Pooh Bear.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, maybe War has incarnated, riding a RED horse.
Why would the navy be relevant? The war is about controlling the area that cannot be reached by ships.
Long range missiles and Fighter Jet deployments control modern warfare. The only way around it is a decentralized power structure bunkered down for infinite guerilla warfare, but Russia’s power structure is very much centralized.
Plus, if you can take the shores you can spread from their to cut off supply lines.
Nuclear submarine are part of the navy. So it’s an important asset, especially in the deterrence and strike game. We have good payload capabilities (all proportion garded) thanks to the navy. And projection force from our aircraft carrier is also a good asset.
If none of their ports work, I’d guess it would affect their war effort considerably. It also means stable supply lines by water and no worries about naval movements.
Only the former head of the US forces in NATO, Ben Hodges , has oftentimes said similar lines afaik, like here :
Europe should “quit whining” about the threats it faces and “act like the superpower” that it is, according to a former senior US army officer.
Generally, he’s quite confident about Europe defending itself.
But does that come from genuine analysis of Europe’s capabilities or the desire to redeploy American forces from Europe to other theaters?
deleted by creator
10 comments and the pro Russia bots are already here
Some of those kinds of comments are typically from terminally online Marxist-Leninists.
Such is life currently: hyperbolic questions in ironic comments like " have you proof about Ruzz agression, because the West…" etc.
Smh, about the contrast between their potential to embrace a grand selfdeception and the arrogant stubbornness to look away from the invasive destruction and killings Shahed drones cause on a daily bases for more than a thousand days.
“everyone i don’t agree with is a bot”
NATO/EU needs to start moving resources more into place. This will cause putin to have to move troops out of Ukraine to balance.
Even along the Ukrainian border, the Russian troops guarding the frontier are their least capable units full of troops typically serving their 1 year conscription. Putin knows that NATO lacks the capacity for a Sneak Attack. Unless Poland orders full mobilization, the Russians won’t move more than token forces to the border.
NATO won’t attack, but putin is paranoid. I doubt he’d be able to ignore a buildup of NATO troops on his doorstep. And NATO needs to deploy hordes of drones and drone defenses as practice anyway.
By US support, they just mean Trump telling them to do whatever Daddy Putin wants.
The US can go fuck itself with limited support!
That’s not really how NATO works, but I can understand the sentiment of imagining the USA refusing to enact the articles upon a member being attacked.
I didn’t think it was the sort of thing that could be refused? Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense? At least in my understanding, being a part of NATO at all legally requires each nation to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack on all of them. It specifically isn’t a “if you feel like it” rule, because that doesn’t have the scary MAD implications of Article 5.
If the US fails to honor NATO’s Article 5 then the rest of the world will worry the US won’t honor their defence packs.
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Are client states under the occupation of the US military. They aren’t worried the US might fall to act. They’re worried the US might act to remove their leaders and replace them with more pliant ones.
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Why would the US allow them to do so?
By that logic Germany and UK are too so the whole article is garbage
Germany, definitely. We’ve had that country inundated with bases for nearly a century
This is such a bizarre outlook on reality. You watch Russian TV a lot?
Brother, this isn’t Pravda
Again, very bizzare take. There are people in literally every country that wants foreign influence or bases out, that proves nothing and that number of people is very minimal compared to people who want them. The locals in Okinawa are one such example as the military presence is disturbing and soldiers are not known for ethics. I’m in one of your so claimed “occupied states”, and everyone’s thankful for the alliance (literally no one calls it occupation except Russian people living here who hate everyone who tries to defend themselves from the next invasion).
Random, but did you know an alternate name for Russians where I live is “occupiers”? If you say “occupiers”, literally everyone knows that means Russians.
There are people in literally every country that wants foreign influence or bases out, that proves nothing
You don’t think an enormous population of foreign military resulting in high rates of unprosecuted sexual violence and organized crime demonstrates anything about the state of politics in the host country?
So you believe people in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines at the highest levels of power just… want this for their people? Or do you think they’re so beaten down they don’t believe in their own capacity for self-defense?
Random, but did you know an alternate name for Russians where I live is “occupiers”?
I mean, you keep coming back to Russians, as though you think they’re a different species.
I guess you’d call them, what? Orks?
Is the violent occupation of conquered territory only a problem for you when the occupying army is Slavic?
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Many of them already do have nuclear weapons of their own. Also the US wouldn’t have any say in whether or not they produce nuclear weapons they could announce their preference but they have no ability to enforce it.
I think I didn’t really articulate it correctly, I am saying I sympathize with the French and other EU Generals for planning like this.
Trump doesn’t seem like a ‘respect the law’ sort of guy.
Well I know this is getting well away from the point here, but Congress declares war, not the President.
Congress declares war, not the President.
Congress has already authorized the President to deploy military units at the president’s discretion, per the AUMF which renews biannually under the NDAA
For sure, what I’m saying is that, if Article 5 gets invoked, Congress at least has the theoretical option to make a declaration of war. They’ve done it 11 times in US history so far, and I’d have to imagine that Article 5 being invoked would be about the strongest possible reason to make it 12.
And how exactly would they force the United States to do anything?
“Join Us or we’ll start a two front war to make you join us” is hardly a convincing argument.
Hey if there’s one thing I know, it’s that you can’t force the US to respect a treaty it’s signed, ever. It’s kinda our thing since the very beginning.
Why would Europe engage in a two front war with the United States when it could instead just ignore the United States?
The US military is highly distributed throughout the world. Other countries can stop allowing us to have bases on their soil and it will significantly weaken our military posture. They dont need to invade the US to do this.
Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense?
They aren’t self enforcing. Someone at the Pentagon actually has to give the order to mobilize
It would be better if the U.S. just waits a minute sees shat happens, and then congress votes to declare war and the executive branch would have to act based upon their vote or would be directly disobeying the legislature again. Congress declares war. Not the executive branch. And in the end we are the only country to enact article 5 in history, when 9/11 happened and NATO countries answered the call even though many probably did not wish too.
The thing here would be that unless Russis initiates the attack, it wouldn’t trigger article 5 and congress could just ignore it.
And a lot of people would like to ignore it even with the long term pitfalls, because all they care about is themselves and right this very second
Congress declares war. Not the executive branch
Congress authorized enormous discretion to the president under the NDAA and AUMF. There’s no actual need to declare war in the modern era.
Other than the part about it forcing the executive branch to act and holding all of them responsible for not upholding the laws written by the legislature. But congress wouldn’t likely do it.
Why do we fucking still Need to use military confrontation for everything?
Fr in this modern world with phones, internet and much more, why do we have to confront by sending young people in a year grinder?
I am ashamed of my species
Well because no amount of “phones internet and much more” is going to stop a foreign invading soldier with a gun from taking your shit and killing you, would be the very short answer.
Apperently yall havent got this isnt a realistic thing but a call on how war isnt that good you know?
ok, well if the point you were trying to make is “war isnt that good you know?” then hard agree from me, but that’s a serious motte-and-baily retreat from your original words wondering why we still sometimes need armed confrontation even in today’s world.
Aremed confrontation as in military, especially if the people dont want to be there fighting, Isnt good.
Unfortunately with some governments you cant treat in peace and the people Will Need to arm themselves and do stuff.
I still Think that in any case there should be the leasts deaths possibile
No one is arguing otherwise.
But your original question is why do we still need the military when we have smartphones, and of course the answer is because the existence of smartphones does not dissuade the likes of Putin, because why would it?
It was and example to show how we developedand how we progress but still do something as primitive as war
The funny thing is Russia should know full well how effective psyops are. They’re installing friendly far right assholes abusing the senility of boomers. They legitimately have a ton of countries on the path to destroy themselves. They could just… wait a decade and win.
“Everything in Europe is Russia’s fault” is not good analysis. Europe literally invented fascism the previous century, and it’s not just boomers voting far right, plenty of young men too. Europeans predominantly consume non-Russian social media such as Instagram, Facebook or Twitter (increasingly TikTok), and the far right surge is a radical response to a system which for the past 20 years has worsened peoples’ living conditions and has allowed no left-wing outlet for such tensions. The far right problem is NOT primarily manufactured by Russia but by our own governments’ inabilities to respond with anything else than austerity, austerity and more austerity.
They could just… wait a decade and win.
Is Putin going to be alive in a decade? He doesn’t give a shit about Russia, he only cares about his own glory. What good is controlling the world after he’s dead? He’d rather control Ukraine now and let the entire country crumble after he’s dead.
Russia should know full well … countries on the path to destroy themselves … wait a decade and win.
There is a growing division of the AfD in Germany between eastern and western oriented politicians. I am not sure if Russia can rely on controlling those parties in 10 years.
That’s because the hard rights world philosophy is based on hate. They invariably turn on each other. Hard right political parties are always in a transient state of existence.
Could that also be said about the divided left?
The left are divided because each individual has a different opinion of what their utopian society would look like. But no one pays any attention to them because they’re all crazy.
UH OH - you did a ‘leftism’ in the warmongering liberal instance. you get sentenced to several downvotes and a brainwashed accusation!
Warmongering in this case being defined as discussing the possibility of another nation state attacking them.
the situation in ukraine did not happen in a vacuum. there are reasons why russia decided to invade.
there is no logical explaination why russia would want to attack NATO and trigger article 5.
but hey as long as the fear exists we can watch line go up in rheinmetall, saab & dassault stocks so the capital of a stagnating empire can save itself.
there are reasons why russia decided to invade.
Yeah the reason being that they believe that Ukraine had little in the way of defence and that they would be able to get away with it. Hence why military posturing is necessary, to convince the Russians they wouldn’t be able to get away with it.
If some disaster took down Poland’s electrical and communication network Russia would be in there like a shot. Don’t try and claim otherwise they have form of taking advantage.
Yeah the reason being that they believe that Ukraine had little in the way of defence
This is bad analysis. You may disagree with the invasion and call it illegal while simultaneously understanding that NATO is a military alliance created specifically against the USSR and should have been dismantled (as was promised to former Soviet citizens during the dissolution of the country). NATO was never supposed to get to Poland, let alone Ukraine or Finland.
Add to that the Victoria Nuland leaked audios discussing which president the US would put in place during the Euromaidan in 2014, the anti-Russian policies the Ukrainian government has taken for the past decade towards ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and you have plenty more arguments than “Russia just wanted to invade Ukraine and spoil their economic and diplomatic relations with all of Europe just because Pootin bad”.
Again, you can still oppose and criticize the invasion, but try to do some realistic geopolitical analysis beyond the Lord of the Rings “Sauron is very evil and so are the Orcs”.
I don’t know what Nita was never supposed to get to Poland is supposed to mean. NATO was a defence pact to defend against any threat to its members, the idea was to prevent something like what happened in the first world war where everyone ended up fighting each other because of all of the complicated interrelations that had all been independently agreed.
The reason they ended up being butting heads with the USSR was the USSR was constantly interfering with Western affairs. Just as Russia is doing today.
NATO has a policy of never initiating an attack the only reason the military would ever enact would be if a threat was made against one of its member states.
There is zero reason for Russia to consider NATO a threat. But they clearly do so NATO has to defend itself that’s not fear-mongering that’s just being pragmatic.
My problem is your interpretation of NATO’s fairly logical response to a potential threat as seditious or part of some evil conspiracy on the part of the industrial military complex. Sure they’re benefiting from this but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re involvement isn’t partisan.
NATO expanding into Poland as per Wikipedia article on controversy of NATO expansion eastwards.
NATO was a defence pact
…which has historically been used to bomb considered enemy nations such as Yugoslavia or Libya.
the idea was to prevent something like what happened in the first world war where everyone ended up fighting each other
Not true. Per Wikipedia’s article on NATO: “Throughout the Cold War, NATO’s primary purpose was to deter and counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its satellite states, which formed the rival Warsaw Pact in 1955”.
NATO has a policy of never initiating an attack
Ask Libyans or Yugoslavians what they have to say about that. And that’s just official NATO interventions, without counting Iraq or Afghanistan, in which some but not all NATO members participated.
There is zero reason for Russia to consider NATO a threat.
This is absolutely delusional, it’s patently obvious that you have never talked to a Russian person, and I say this as a Spaniard. NATO has consistently been a formation hostile to Russia, and has for the longest time been carrying out “simulacrum exercises” in the Baltic sea and regions near Russia.
What a wild thing to say about supporting a sovereign nation in defending its borders.
“Preparing to confront Russia” (post title) is not supporting any nation in defending its borders.
Oh, and if you read even for 2 seconds past the headline what does it say? Does it say “The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone”? Does that sound like nations defending their borders or not like nations defending their borders?
deleted by creator
Warmongering… that sounds so unhinged in the current situation of the world.
Surely that’s always been what propaganda always said. “It’s not warmongering, my national propaganda tells me this is a defensive war!” has been used since WW1 by all sides, whether correct or incorrect.
Haaai :3 i already saw you a couple times herw on lemmy.
Yeah btw these fuckers are everywhere .
Ik Surprised no One told me to go kms yet
