I had to double check this was not an Onion article since it's full of FUD. Russia doesn't have the muscle now for a military attack on Europe when it's still stuck in Eastern Ukraine.
Plus, Russia is already attacking Europe and has been for a long time, except not militarily but electronically, politically and economically: gas distribution disruption, cyber attacks, intervening in elections, lobbying for fossil fuels and right wing parties, weaponizing migrants at EU borders, etc.
That's the kind of warfare Russia does in Europe and it's more effective than sending things that go boom as those can more easily be countered. Political destabilization is more difficult to counter.
This seems directed at the Trump campaign more than anything else. There are a number of stories popping up in the media at the moment that are essentially hitjobs against a Trump re-election.
You're correct, it is so directed. It's also from the Kyiv Independent, or at least that's what it says at the end of the article. We do have to evaluate it in that light.
I wouldn't call it a "hitjob". The article illustrates consequences of an aspect of Trump's foreign policy. Trump's (potential) foreign policy is something a US voter should evaluate, especially in light of the testimony during his first impeachment inquiry and trial.
Exactly. I think this article is scare mongering, probably part of a larger campaign to sow fear. The Russian army will take at least a decade to get to a point where it could pose an existential threat to the nato bloc. The scary problem is the lack of concern the Russian commanders have for their own young men’s lives. The border nato countries could see some woeful damage inflicted on them if any conflict did occur. But, I think the same logic that has prevented any nuclear escalation so far would apply in a conflict with nato. The doctrine of MAD would apply and so far Putin appears to be respecting this.
Russia had no military strength to take over Kyiv and yet it tried to do that. Intelligence tried to warn about that and most European governments ignored that.
The theory is that Russia has nothing to lose. Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO. If attacking the Baltic countries will not provoke immediate reaction from NATO, it would mean that NATO was empty promises.
Or maybe this warning is false. We have no way of knowing but it makes sense to be prepared for this eventuality.
>Russia had no military strength to take over Kyiv and yet it tried to do that.
If only there were prizes in war for trying instead of succeeding.
>Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO.
It's much easier to force NATO/EU breakdown through soft means like political destabilization. Direct military attacks only cause the blocks to strengthen: see the ascension of Sweden and Finland after the attack.
Ukraine and Baltic countries are not the same. This comparison is false.
No wonder the whole world went mad and demanded vaccine mandates for vaccine that does not even prevent the spread of infection. Too much reliance on “experts” that repeat mindlessly “vaccines good” instead of looking into details of a particular vaccine.
The important conclusion here is that Russia tried to influence the Baltic States by political destabilization (they had plans for Russia as a second official language, reducing importance of NATO) and it failed.
Russia seemed to have more success in Ukraine but ultimately they also failed when Ukraine appeared moving towards the West. That's why Russia ultimately decided to start a military operation, i.e., a war.
Of course, you could think that Russia would never dare to start a war with a NATO countries. Definitely the risk is lower. But we didn't believe it would start a war in Ukraine either. It is possible that any country can experience some kind of political destabilization (even without meddling by Russia) and they Russia could use the opportunity. So, it is important to be ready.
Russia's been attacking Europe for a long time now. Not all attacks are kinetic. From using Wagner to destabilize the middle east and Africa, leading to mass displacement of people towards Europe, to cyber and economic gambits.
well. it's not even the end of the year and we get the most bullshit loaded article of 2023. congratulations. russia that barely supports a military force in ukraine is going to attack europe. sure. as soon they do touch a nato country, their country will be insta-nuked into oblivion.
15 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadPlus, Russia is already attacking Europe and has been for a long time, except not militarily but electronically, politically and economically: gas distribution disruption, cyber attacks, intervening in elections, lobbying for fossil fuels and right wing parties, weaponizing migrants at EU borders, etc.
That's the kind of warfare Russia does in Europe and it's more effective than sending things that go boom as those can more easily be countered. Political destabilization is more difficult to counter.
I wouldn't call it a "hitjob". The article illustrates consequences of an aspect of Trump's foreign policy. Trump's (potential) foreign policy is something a US voter should evaluate, especially in light of the testimony during his first impeachment inquiry and trial.
The theory is that Russia has nothing to lose. Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO. If attacking the Baltic countries will not provoke immediate reaction from NATO, it would mean that NATO was empty promises.
Or maybe this warning is false. We have no way of knowing but it makes sense to be prepared for this eventuality.
If only there were prizes in war for trying instead of succeeding.
>Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO.
It's much easier to force NATO/EU breakdown through soft means like political destabilization. Direct military attacks only cause the blocks to strengthen: see the ascension of Sweden and Finland after the attack.
No wonder the whole world went mad and demanded vaccine mandates for vaccine that does not even prevent the spread of infection. Too much reliance on “experts” that repeat mindlessly “vaccines good” instead of looking into details of a particular vaccine.
Russia seemed to have more success in Ukraine but ultimately they also failed when Ukraine appeared moving towards the West. That's why Russia ultimately decided to start a military operation, i.e., a war.
Of course, you could think that Russia would never dare to start a war with a NATO countries. Definitely the risk is lower. But we didn't believe it would start a war in Ukraine either. It is possible that any country can experience some kind of political destabilization (even without meddling by Russia) and they Russia could use the opportunity. So, it is important to be ready.
I have read no serious analysis suggesting that such was created by anything but the NATO war against Libya.
Been there, done that.
Expensive food, expensive electricity and new multimillionaires having fun with "the russian danger"