Joint Declaration by Ministers of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, UK
auswaertiges-amt.de
auswaertiges-amt.de
They just want the US to get off their backs so they can go back to building nord stream 3, there is no 4D chess being played here.
Industry depended on cheap gas from russia - that was a terrible idea. They closed their nuclear plants, so now they are dependent on expensive energy imports from france and the us, which decimates their industrial efficiancy. Demographics are terrible, which is terrible for everything. Now they don't want to even defend europe along with their european partners... germans just can't stop hurting themselves.
I hope this also helps with morale in Ukraine.
> Joint Declaration by the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in Warsaw
For those blocked: https://archive.md/16A71
Finland and Germany on the severed undersea cable in the Baltic Sea
This is really interesting to me.
I'm wondering what a systematic approach to combat fake news, foreign interference, and other social media abuse would look like.
that phenomenon that we already know will entail large amounts of vile propaganda and in-bad-faith trolling is called by most esteemed intellectuals "a cold war", and if anybody notes that "bombs are falling", he must be replied that "yes, that is how cold wars work: big entities do not send armies and missiles in each other's territory, but hell may be let loose in territories of other nations".
It is much more productive to add that one line that clarifies the hit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/world/europe/finland-misi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://www.nyti...
You can't stop a war if you are only allowed to defend. That's not how ANY fight work in ANY field.
Actually plenty of wars have been won in exactly this way.
Extremely basic logic, in fact.
You were asked which war was won purely by defence
to which you answered "WWII"
when you were asked about D-day, you said that "Nearly every war has both offensive and defensive phases."
which as you'll agree is not "won purely by defence".
thus, I put it to you again, that your original statement was bollocks.
I never said it was won purely by defense.
Only that you might want to take a closer look at its various subcampaigns -- several of which (including the Winter War, the Battle of Britain -- and the entire Eastern Front campaign) were effectively fought and won entirely defensively. (Yes, the latter campaign eventually moved outside of the USSR's borders; but that was long after it was effectively won while still well inside the defender's territory).
Plenty of other wars have been won entirely defensively as well of course (including nearly all the colonial and neocolonial campaigns that were eventually lost, up through Vietnam and both of the recent Afghanistan occupations). Oh, and somebody mentioned that other major war in Europe in the same century as well.
I only picked WW 2 because it's everbody's favorite. As for it being, as a whole, simply defensive -- sorry, but that wasn't what I meant to say. All apologies.
most of EU countries can barely pass a budget without deficit, can't see them actually cutting things to move budget to defense
It's either huge deficits or impossible policies that won't pass by any parliament
Ain't that a joke. So first these people spent like 35 years deindustrializing away the old manufacturing sectors away, and then with the regulatory perpetual machine known as European Union they spent decades strangling any and all novel industries to death in their cribs. Not to mention the ever increasing tax burden this virtue signalling lunacy places on the populace. Now that it turns out that paper shuffling does not in fact produce anything physically tangible, they wish to wave a magic wand and somehow conjure an industrial base into existence that had taken previously taken well over half a century of careful cultivation to bring into being.
>enhance resilience to cognitive warfare and hybrid threats in Europe, also through the relevant EU mechanisms, and promote the resilience of our societies, Cool, so more regulations against freedom of speech then? It wouldn't do at all if young people wondered as to why there hasn't been any tangible economic growth for the last 15 years, or why they can't ever own a home like their parents or grandparents did. After all, asking those kind of questions is a threat to our European Union's democratic values.
"We'll buy more Lockheed Martin gear, please don't dismantle NATO"
Great news. Europe deserves lasting peace!
sic pacem para bellum(You seem to have written something that would resemble, "If this is peace, let's go to war...")
Along with Trump's blow and bluster on the issue - don't forget he'll be in charge in just a month or so.
It seems some kind of campaign is in progress, and anyone taking the news at face value at the moment is probably being manipulated.
1. There’s no hard commitment to NATO budget targets. Until Germany spends at least 2% for a decade on rebuilding it’s military, those are just words. Next coalition may change it any time.
2. There’s zero chance there will be a peace anywhere close to what’s desired by Ukraine or that Ukraine will be the sole party to negotiations. NATO has already lost this war because it was too slow, indecisive and weak. Again empty words and everyone understands that.
3. EU is nowhere close in military integration and economic flexibility to match the threat, even with that declaration. For example I cannot imagine IG Metall agreeing to work in three shifts to boost production of shells or drones.
What is really necessary is to admit that USA cannot guarantee anyone anything, this war is lost and partitioning of Ukraine now will save lives. EU has to build its own union army with nuclear deterrence, fast-track admission of the remaining part of Ukraine and put there its own military (maybe in violation of the peace treaty).
Or accept that we have a bigger goal than democracy in Eastern Europe and work with Putin on climate change and global security, hoping that he will die soon anyway and things will get easier if next president won’t have KGB background.
Ah, classic talking point. Just bend over when your country gets attacked by Russia and hope for the best... Yeah, maybe that does not work so well.
To many in the world, a few more raped Ukrainians are just the cost of doing business in their status quo.
Every single person on Earth with means is choosing sides between good and evil. To those who have any spiritual development, it is obvious who is on which side. The others weave their illogic to continue justifying how they lie to themselves, no matter what it costs to others.
There’s no reason to think that Ukraine can do it for a long time at the moment. They are already overpowered and slowly losing positions. Every month of war results in tens of thousands of casualties on both sides. Hoping for the miracle will just defer the inevitable.
Yes, a few people on annexed regions are going to suffer, that will be mostly active political opposition. How many of them will die? You can check statistics on Russian political prisoners. If the peace treaty is signed, there will be no more cannon fodder on either side. Prisoners? Yes. Not a lot.
Attack through Belarus against Poland and the Baltics is indeed the most likely scenario after Ukraine should fall. Most military leaders in Eastern Europe forecast that the recovery period will be between 5 to 8 years, pessimistic estimations go as low as 2 years. After that, hundreds of thousands of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians will die between NATO forces in Europe and Russian barrier troops forcing them westwards, just like God knows how many thousands of people from Eastern Ukraine have already fallen in a forced fight against their compatriots.
Russians do not offer Ukrainians peace, but a chance to be in the next pool of cannon fodder. Depriving Russians of this pool of conscripts is a vital European security interest, which aligns well with Ukrainians' desire to be free and not live under Russian boot again.
Russia is not creeping westwards. This is a false generalization of their strategy in Ukraine, which is not to expand westwards, but merely to retain control over periphery. They did a huge miscalculation in Ukraine due to corruption in intelligence services, but they are not idiots to start WW3.
> Why should Russia stop if you validate their strategy? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Shall I repeat the same argument about capabilities or you will just re-read my comment?
The current invasion of Ukraine, plus open threats to the Baltics/Poland and random assassinations / acts of sabotage == "creeping westwards", is my take.
But they are not idiots to start WW3.
Right, but evidently its regime is stupid/irrational/petty/jealous enough to grab whatever leverage it think it can get away with, as long as it thinks it will fall just short of starting WW3.
They did a huge miscalculation in Ukraine due to corruption in intelligence services,
"Due to its the current president's authoritarian management style and relentlessly ideological worldview" would be a better description of the root cause of the current situation, in my view.
The intelligence services were also corrupt, but this is the inevitable outcome of the circumstances just described. Not a key driving factor, in itself.
Well, if that’s the take, it is very far from “Russia will attack NATO”.
> Due to its the current president's authoritarian management style and relentlessly ideological worldview
This is correct but irrelevant. He would not attack if he could anticipate the consequences. He will not attack NATO, exactly because he understands what’s going to happen next.
It probably won't, but the whole point is that the current regime is definitely gaslighting the West in regard to its intent (and so therefore it must be treated as a credible threat). And if NATO/EU starts to crumble a few years down (not likely, but if it does) that would raise the probability of some form attack quite substantially.
The very fact that you and I are having a cold, sober discussion about what was once (at least from 1989-2014) more or less unthinkable -- in itself amounts to a form of westward "creep".
This is correct but irrelevant. He would not attack if he could anticipate the consequences.
Again I disagree, because I think his main blinders were primarily ideological / egotistical (and the simple fact that anyone with a differing opinion or assessment was probably too terrified to tell him so), and not the result of simply being fed bad information.
Recall that many of Putin's spiritual compatriots in the West -- both those who concocted all the supposed "reasons" for the 2003 Iraq invasion; and the vastly greater number who passively went along with the obvious, plain-as-day insanity because it seemed "the thing to do", I guess -- also tried to claim afterwards that they were "misled" by faulty intelligence.
My own take is that, if one is taken under the spell of such sophistry and nonsense -- ultimately, it happens through one's own volition.
This is a speculation that leads to even more speculative possibilities. Quite a big distance from alarmist comments „if Ukraine falls they will come to us“. Definitely a topic for NATO analysts, but for us mostly science fiction. Why aren’t we talking about more probable scenarios?
> My own take is that, if one is taken under the spell of such sophistry and nonsense -- ultimately, it happens through one's own volition.
Fully agree on that, yet this is not explaining why would Putin attack NATO.
This is not a generalization, but a fact. Four regions of Ukraine have been officially annexed into Russian Federation. These oblasts include major cities like Zaporizhzhia, population 700k, which Russia never even held during the war nor does control now. Russia is literally, in both physical and legal terms, pushing their border westwards using the kind of violence not seen in Europe since the WWII.
> Shall I repeat the same argument about capabilities or you will just re-read my comment?
Shall I repeat the publicly shared assessments of many European militaries that Russia would be ready to attack in 5 to 8 years after Ukrainian defeat?
Generalization is to assume that they have any interest in going further based on this fact.
> Shall I repeat the publicly shared assessments of many European militaries that Russia would be ready to attack in 5 to 8 years after Ukrainian defeat?
Yes, sure. But please don’t confuse the potential with intent. Russia can occupy Baltics or cut through Poland to Kaliningrad, but they are well aware of NATO capabilities and won’t risk nuclear war for nothing. Those assessments in no way are saying that such attack is imminent, only that NATO needs good deterrence and being able to defend borders long enough until reinforcements arrive. That’s the main purpose — to ensure that the alliance still have a purpose and can deliver on it.
Russia is expanding itself westward by force and that's a fact. That it will stop at Ukraine is your speculation and not an observable fact, and it's not even a reasonable assumption given the history and current Russian rhetoric. By your own admission, Russia is prone to "huge miscalculations", which is exactly what its neighbors fear.
> But please don’t confuse the potential with intent.
Such semantic games are not very interesting. The only reason why anyone speaks about deterrence is because Russia needs to be deterred from invading its western neighbors. Russia is the sole purpose why the entire Northern Europe has militaries at all, why we spend billions each year trying to teach every young man survival and combat skills, still demand new apartment buildings to provide air raid shelters, fortify military facilities against nuclear blasts, and do many other things at a great cost.
The 2022 invasion was also far beyond Russia's capabilities, yet its regime took that action anyway.
Based on its recent behavior -- there's no reason to believe that the current regime in Moscow will in general act rationally. And every reason to believe it will not.
They fight for a certain vision of ethnic state that was not even shared by majority of its population before 2014.
You are greatly mistaken in this assessment. Talk to any Ukrainian. They may have different opinions about the 2019 Language Law for example. But none of that stuff has anything to do with the current war, or why they are fighting. The just want their perpetual occupier to leave, and to leave them alone, once and for all.
It's really extremely, extremely simple.
That decision was based on bad intelligence. Not comparable to situation with NATO which is well-studied by Russian analysts.
> The just want their perpetual occupier to leave
If that was that simple they could implement Russian vision of Minsk agreements or accept non-alignment and the war would stop. But they are fighting for freedom of choosing a specific vision for their country. And that’s a different narrative.
Alas, that seems very doubtful. By all indications, Putin is going to demand not just non-alignment, but permanent cessation of sovereignty on the territories he's currently sitting on.
Armenia, gerogia, moldova, crimea
Who is next, latvia?
What are you talking about?
What I meant is that prior to the events of 2014 which changed the balance, there was major political division between east and west of Ukraine, and pro-Russian parties controlled the government in 2010-2014. The pro-Western faction won, pro-Russian factions continued to have some support until 2022. Current vision is pro-NATO, pro-EU and rejects neutrality, non-alignment or pro-Russian alignment, but that’s basically it. I’m not sure if typical Ukrainian voter does fully understand the implications of such choices (especially given that prospects of joining either bloc are rather distant).
Nobody has to die anymore if Russia just stops attacking Ukraine. I know it's hard to believe but it's that easy in the end. They started it, they can end it right here and right now.
Or maybe you need to come out of that cloud castle down to Earth and have a meaningful conversation instead of hollow moralizing?
According to current Potus shooting at russian hardware would be an escalation. US forbade NATO from shooting down russian drones/missiles crossing NATO territory.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-drone-romania-...
>deployed F-16 warplanes to monitor its airspace and issued text alerts
https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-confirms-russian-dro...
>Two Finnish Air Force F-18 jets were dispatched from a Romanian air base during the night to monitor the situation
https://www.twz.com/nato-fighters-scrambled-as-russian-drone...
>“were identified by the German crews, including by visual contact, without an order from NATO to shoot them down,”
Monitor, monitor, dont shoot.
How about a cover up for russian KH-22 nuclear capable cruise missile crashing 300km deep inside NATO. It flew half way to Berlin before malfunctioning.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/military-object-found-p...
Officially it wasnt even spotted by NATO radars, unofficially Airforce was told to stand down and not even look for it. Was found by accident by a civil 6 months later. Purely coincidentally few weeks after this incident Germany got very eager to sent Poland a Patriot system.
Remember: Ukraine is fighting for nothing less than survival. Sun Tzu said to not put your enemy on death ground, but it takes a measure of sanity to follow such sound advice. And sanity is not a part of Putin's modus operandi, in case you haven't noticed.
And being German, you are no doubt familiar with letting other people die so long as it's not your people, right? Or are you Jewish, per chance?
Have you forgotten how important it is for others to rally for the defence of the innocent, or do you just not care? Who needs a miracle when there are compassionate, selfless human beings who have a heart that cares? Is there even a word in German for that concept?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-e...
Sending a couple of guys to poison an ex-KGB guy and his daughter in Britain is just one example.
That article said Russia wanted "security concessions". In the words of Benoit Blanc, "That's a bunch of hooey!" Russia's crippled Soviet fail-state is just a butt-hurt former dictatorial regime that lost their ability to strong-arm a huge chunk of the world with their sh_tty domestic policies.
Look, people can concoct any sort of batsh_t crazy reasons to do anything, especially if they have no empathy or compassion in their heart.
The soul that forgoes compassion has sown a bitter seed, my friend, whose reaping is just a matter of time.
Putin, like Stalin, had all the wealth he could want, but never had a shred of happiness. You shouldn't mistake worldly success for happiness.
Slava ukrainii.
Why not? They already did in the past for car production, for example.
If liberty is on the line, and the russian threat becomes tangible to the common people, then there will be more than enough factory workers willing to work overtime, I very much think so.
Will it? russia will kill and torture even more of war prisoners, and conscript remaining Ukrainian children to fight in Moldova/Baltics/Poland in 5 years https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/14/europe/ukrainian-teenager...
What are your assumptions, those that would enable a scenario in which the invader decided to retreat? It seems like a scenario that cannot just spawn from the current chessboard.
I suggest you elect a few important commentators and check their writings.
You should make an idea of the motivations that brought to action, and read the future possibilities in view of the motivations (still playing actively in the game) and the current results on all sides, including the military, the political and the geopolitical.
“What kind of war?”
“Russia is fighting NATO.”
“Are you serious?”
“Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.”
“So how’s it going?”
“Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.”
“And what about NATO?”
“What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”
after a few black eyes fighting the Little Green Men, the AFU leaned hard on NATO assistance for training and armament.
it's why the Ukrainians held out against Russia, and why Russia struggled so much -- they thought they were fighting the 2015 AFU, not the 2022 AFU.
You mean, the chessboard on which we gave up our nuclear weapons under the promise from the US, the UK, and Russia that our territorial integrity will be respected?[1]
The "chess move" that directly led to this invasion, according to the US president that pushed for it?[2]
Dare I suggest, the scenario in which Russia retreats is the US holding up to its own promises, for once. For nuclear-non-proliferation's sake, if anything.
Even setting that aside, the war is not sustainable for Russia.
Russia is begging Iran and North Korea for help, getting both ammo, weapons, and people to fight the war with from them. Russia relied on NK artillery for a year, Iranian drones for two years. 10K North Korean soldiers are already on the battlefield, 100K more to come.
Ask yourself what price Russia is paying for that.
Realize that Russia ran out of resources to get that ammo and cannon fodder (and cannons) in Russia.
So, one assumption that enables the scenario is actual, real, enforced SANCTIONS on Russia.
- Cut off Gazprom from SWIFT. The share of Russian gas in the EU dropped to as low as 8% last year, the EU doesn't need Russian gas specifically. That share has since doubled. Put a stop to it.
- Make anyone who's helping Russia pay more than what they can get from Russia in exchange for it.
Iran is sending rockets and drones? Iran gets its nuclear weapon research facilities destroyed. Israel is gladly doing that task already. Would be neat if the West got its head out of its collective ass and stopped dunking on Israel in the UN for its own survival's sake.
NK is sending soldiers? Oops they're all dead (getting within Tomahawk range was unwise). Also NK gets a blockade, and any entity that helps them break it gets sanctioned to hell and back. China can feed them at that price.
Speaking of China, any entity that deals with Russia or NK there should be eliminated from participating in global markets. Simple as.
The West has one leverage over that Dictators Anonymous club: ECONOMIC OUTPUT. They have more people, and they don't care about lives. They have more nukes, together, and they make more artillery shells, together.
But on their own, they don't have the resources to fight that war. All the resources went into sustaining autocracies.
The CRINK (China, Russia, Iran, NK) are waging a war because they got fat on beneficial relationships with the West, that they've been rewarded with on the expectation that they would appreciate access to the global economy and the benefits that come with it, and don't do anything to risk losing it -
- like invading a European nation, say.
The expectation didn't pay off. The solution is simple: take that access back.
Stop rewarding bad actors. The West paid them upfront, they didn't hold up their end of the deal.
Russia can go back to its Iron Curtain planned economy. The West was fine without Russia then, it will be fine now.
China can go back to its Cultural Revolution planned economy. The West was fine without China then, the West can manage now. Doesn't need to happen in a day either. Start with cutting off any individual entities in China that touch Russia or NK.
North Korea can go back to figuring out how to feed its own population, rather than making ammo and meat waves for Russia.
Iran can go back to pre-Trump-presidency days. They're the only ones in the club that were pre-emptively punished, which gave the Ayatollahs all the excuses. Bring Obama's deal back, on the condition that all ties with Russia and Arab proxies are cut. Should they reject it, more FO will be delivered as a consequence of the many instances of FA they committed in the past years (including their role in Oct 7th attack).
So, that's some thoughts, for a start.
That's before we get to getting Ukraine some real military assistance. Not even talking "boots on the ground".
Look at what Poland got since 2022. Now imagine what Ukraine could do if it was able to put orders for thousands of HIMARS launchers instead of a dozen it got in 2022. What Ukraine could do with hundreds of F-35 jets instead of a dozen of F-16. What Ukraine could do with hundreds of ATACMS rockets.
What Ukraine could do with the thousands of Abrams tanks, designed to fight the Russian tanks, that the US has rusting in storage and will, in all likelihood, never use, nor have a need for - instead of the dozen it eventually got.
Ukraine could have had all of that in 2022. And if it did, the war would've stopped then.
Ukraine was given none of that gear over the fears that it would push Russia to use nukes. The reality shows that bullies are emboldened by appeasement, and reconsider when met with strength. Military assistance to Ukraine, even in modest amounts, kept the Russian nuclear threat at bay.
So, plenty of scenarios.
The collective will to make them happen isn't plentiful though.
And this is why Russia is getting ahead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-ukraine-war-russia-nuc...
Look at the root post I replied to...
Edit: again for clarity: consider if somebody came and said "Well, Beijing could just forget about Taiwan". It does not stand up alone, right? The poster should be requested what assumptions made such expression seem plausible.
Being: "they have a choice to stop the bulk of ongoing costs of the war to Russian Federation at any moment, a choice that Ukraine does not have" - with the implicit assumption that the costs of the war to Russia are understood by everyone, and that the cost of withdrawal is significantly smaller.
Of course this ignores the cost of withdrawal to Putin, whose citizens (80% of whom want the war to continue) will have a lot of questions in that case.
Like, what did all the people die for. And why did you withdraw when we were winning, when 4 out 5 of us wanted the fight to go on.
Putin, like any dictator, is beholden to the overall vibe of his populace, because that's the only mandate to power that he actually has.
Democratically elected leaders have the power to decree "do as I say, that's the will of the people; elect someone else next time if you disagree".
Putin can't say that, because there are no elections in the social contract.
Russian leaders only leave the throne by abdication, coup, or death.
The only exception in their 850-year history was Nikita Khruschev, who was officially removed from power after he, himself, dismantled Stalin's cult of personality and brought on reforms that made such removal possible.
He was a Ukrainian.
We need, first and foremost, a guarantee that if the war stops today, that Russia will not launch an invasion for the third time in a few years.
This war didn't start in 2022. They invaded in 2014, and "peace" was negotiated in Minsk. Worked out swimmingly.
There are several ways we can get this guarantee:
-A complete withdrawal and de-nuclearization of Russia, plus referendums held in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Syberia, Yakutia and other Moscow-controlled Republics in the Federation on whether the people there want to continue being a part on Moscow's imperial ambitions, or choose independence.
Side note: Tatarstan had such a referendum in 1992. It would be great if its results were, at last, honored.
Return of occupied territories is a means to an end. The end is peace. If Russia gets rewarded in any way for its invasion with acceptance of its territorial gains, they WILL do it again; the calculus is that simple.
-Alternatively, NATO and EU membership and/or any sort of multilateral security agreement (not a promise) that would guarantee us boots-on-the-ground assistance in case of another invasion, backed by something more than a piece of paper.
Say, NATO stations ammo depots, rockets, warplanes in Ukraine in sealed warehouses, and we promise not to take and use any of that stuff as long as NATO holds up to its own promises.
-Ukraine develops nuclear weapons
That's about all I can think of. Everything else has been tried before. The war started in 2014, and the invasion in 2022 took place after all the nuke-fearing pearl-clutchers suggested was already done.
Funny thing, the only thing that makes Russia use nuclear weapons more likely is impunity, which is exactly what that sort of people is asking for. They are bringing their own doom, and are pulling us along with it.
Trying to, in any case. We won't go. With or without them.
And "why would something that was put in motion stop, the roots remaining unchanged".
Because the cost of keeping them is way too high, generally. Like, historically, even when someone wins a war they often end up pulling out anyway.
if it's a choice between all of Crimea or an hours drive worth of greater Kursk it's no contest; the Russians aren't going to give up the jewel of the Black Sea for a small chunk of Kursk.
totally fucking tiny, and no strategic value, unless hunting wales becomes useful again.
And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing.
And anyway, Germany still doesn't want to provide their long-distance missiles. The US is still blocking other countries from supplying planes (like the Swedish AWACS). The West is barely doing the minimum.
More could be done, of course, just give it another year maybe. And in the meantime insist that the weapons aren't going to make a difference anyway. It will come true if you say it for long enough.
Yes, that's what's being reported and I can understand that you want some more steps to escalate and not remove all limitations at once.
That's what would happen in a democratic nation where "power" and the decisions it's made can be challenged and re-evaluated.
But that's not what happens in totalitarian states, like Russia is right now.
People keep saying that, and more keeps being done without direct involvement of NATO military. Among the things that Ukraine has asked for that have not yet occurred that do not involve direct involvement of NATO military is transfer of Tomahawk missiles, with about 5 times the range of ATACMS. There’s a whole lot of reasons that hasn’t happened, and its probably not going to, but it is certainly illustrative that there are unused options that do not involve direct NATO involvement.
On the other hand, 20 years in Afghanistan led to less than 2,000 US soldiers dead, and I think Russian passed that many many times over already.
about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10.
by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10.
by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
Afghanistan was absolutely being funded and armed by Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan -- the Russians basically pushed as many angry Chechens to head there, both to hammer the US, but also to get them out of RUS and killed or captured. There was the infamous shipment of .50 cal sniper rifles from China to the AFG that only got stopped because Dutch intelligence decided to doublecheck a few trivial details. 20 years of such incidents.
On the subject of being able to read OSINT tier speculations and statistics, credible-ish sources suggest that Ukraine has been taking 50% or less casualties -- at one point even as low as 1:6 as they were getting pushed out of Bakhmut. Still, I'd be willing to guess as high as 400k, maybe even 500k casualties. WIA to KIA ratio is probably better than the Russians, too, but nowhere near US numbers of 10%.
Exactly—so now imagine how much worse it would have gone for the US had the Taliban been armed and funded by 50 countries.
Of course, the Taliban were being armed and funded by other countries. But probably not 50.
From the perspective of "Europe", what actually changed, compared to 2015? Sure, Russia gained some territory, ressources, potential conscripts.
Their army gained valuable combat experience. But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? I'd argue: Absolutely not.
Russia is not only weakened by their losses of soldiers and materiel, but their non-military options are also greatly degraded-- instead of freely shopping for South Korean battle tanks (=> Poland), they have to make do with North Korean conscripts...
They basically played their whole hand to gain control of another country, but that control comes at a price; Even when the armed conflict is completely stopped, the price for the Ukraine is not yet paid-- switching out from a war-economy will hurt Russia, keeping the Ukraine under control is gonna be another constant drain and their may be significant obligations toward the allies that probably did not help solely out of their belief in the cause (North Korea, Iran).
Meanwhile, European powers got to observe everything as it played out, even got their own weapon systems battle tested "for free". They are forewarned, and arming up accordingly.
I'm honestly fairly confident that if Russia picked an actual battle with Poland alone (no help from any other European nation) in the next decade, that they would walk away with a bloody nose...
So, cynically talking-- "the Wests" plans are affected very little, no matter how this whole disaster plays out...
You just "hand wave away" gaining territory the size of the 2nd biggest country in Europe after Russia, Trillions in resources and 40 million people (a 30% increase in "Russian" population). I think you may be slightly undervaluing these things lol.
And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago?
- Russia will have gained a huge amount of combat experience.
- Russia will also have learned from fighting against a force using NATO equipment.
- Russia will have gained the immense wealth of Ukraine's natural resources.
- Russia will have increased their population by about 30% (+/- based on refugee point below)
- Russia will have basically doubled the size of their border with Poland (counting Belarus as part of Russia because why not)
- Russia will have added borders with 4 more European countries (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova)
- Russia has likely rooted out some of the corruption that plagued the military before/during this invasion as it would have become more apparent.
- Russia will have built up domestic production of weapons as much as they can (taking sanctions into account)
- Russia will have been emboldened by its "success" in conquering Ukraine.
- Russia will have seen how slow/scared the West was to respond to their invasion and encourage more "asymmetric" warfare in preparation for the next country (aka "the price of eggs are too high, we can't afford to save <insert country with Russian border here>)
- Russia will VERY likely have increased the amount of Ukrainian refugees to the rest of Europe by 100s of 1000s, possibly even millions. Further stretching the resources of those countries and feeding into the previous point in regards to the cost of intervening "next time".
All this, combined with a US President openly making disparaging remarks about NATO, but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?
Ok...
No. What I believe is that engaging the Ukraine cost them much more than they would gain even by a convincing victory tomorrow, leaving them less of a threat to Europe than 10 years ago. Could they overcome this and become a bigger threat in a decade or so, thanks to Ukrainian ressources? Certainly! But the whole thing could also just crumble on Putins death in that same timeframe, could only guess about outcomes so distant.
But even having conquered the Ukraine would not really give them military strength immediately, the opposite, really, because Russia would need to commit military just to keep order there (consider Chechnya for reference: that might have become a net-gain for Russia like 15 years after the first war, and it was like 20 times smaller i.e. easier to "digest").
Furthermore, a lot of "soft power" that Russia had was basically spent on the Ukraine (i.e. price of sanctions, gas-dependence etc.), and is getting less relevant and valuable with ever year.
> but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?
This is not what I said. I said Russia is less of a threat, not that Europe should be less worried about it. It has become a bigger and bigger threat since 2000. European concern was basically zero (even after the Crimea affair) and is still arguably too low. European nations were basically treating Russia like an improving, slightly flawed democracy.
But it is an imperialistic kleptocracy instead, but that is now obvious which is also unhelpful for Russia.
If ukraine goes, then they start on the edges of poland, latvia, estonia, finland next.
Russia's regime has already made statements threatening or questioning the borders of Poland and the Baltic states, in addition to numerous other threatening moves it has made in recent years -- including Medvedev's recent threat to turn Kyiv into a "lump of lead", which would no doubt have direct consequences for Europe.
For more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834
So to answer your question: "Yes".
one should also remember they have a piece of doctrine called "escalate to de-escalate" - which also involves a strange framework for the interpretation of statements. This also makes the trolling confusing to the decrypter.
In my view, talking shit and murdering a few hundred civilians is not "threathening a nation", the same way Ukraine is not threatening Russia (as a nation) right now.
Being able to install a puppet government would be a big threat. Economical control (=> like gas) would be a smaller one. Complete military conquest would be the biggest one.
All of the above look now actually less likely than 10 years ago to me (judging with hindsight).
We certainly are.
In my view, "talking shit" about invading additional countries, while actually engaged in a large-scale invasion of a neighboring country (on top of a centuries-long history of actually invading and occupying those countries) cannot be interpreted as anything other than directly threatening those nations.
I'm not saying that they are harmless (being a nuclear power, obviously!), but I strongly believe that they are less of a threat to EU-nations than they were 10 years ago-- they basically played their whole hand in the Ukraine, collected some experience, lost some equipment, threw away and ruined countless lifes, and now, pretty much regardless of what happens in the next years, they are in a weaker position and less of a threat to any european country than 10 years ago.
Then eventually they will run out of Kim Jong Un’s munitions as soldiers.
Concretely, with the West maintaining its existing approach, given the current material trajectory on both sides, and not assuming radical changes in political orientation in any major Western country? No, not likely.
Concretely, given the actual recent US election results and the likely impact on US and NATO-qua-NATO policy, assuming no other changes? Yes, again.
Concretely, given that outher regional states have agency and their likely response to NATO faltering at US direction, when they were already displeased with NATO not being more supportive given their perceived individual risk from Russian expansionism… Well, that’s really the key thing and, frankly, I think that the there are lots of directions things could go that could be very surprising to people whose view off the situation has been that the only entities with agency in this situation are the US, Russia, and maybe Ukraine.
If the US tried to force a negotiated cease fire, there is a real risk that Poland or the Baltic states become direct parties to the conflict.
Once the war becomes a direct war between multi-party alliances, controlling the scope of the conflict would be impossible.
Yeah, I think it is underappreciated how much of the present NATO approach (including US policy, but not exclusively that) has been about doing enough to reassure NATO’s eastern flank members who see this conflict as nearly as existential as it is for Ukraine, even if the threat to them is slightly more temporally distant, rather than the kind of relatively remote geopolitical influence game that some American (and probably even Western European) observers see it as. If – given the election results, we probably have to admit this has become a “when” – the US commitment falters, they will have a new calculus in trying to assure that Russia lacks either the means or the inclination to turn on them next…
It'd help the conversation if you just said what you're thinking, rather than these leading questions.
That's just its propaganda.
In fact it has given up, surrendered and gone home with its tail between its legs in countless wars which, like the current one, were not in the least existential to it and were in fact completely optional.
Nobody in this thread has said or implied that that is anybody's main plan.
Such things are unthinkable. None of that will happen.
Not that fast. Pay for the damage, and hand over Herr Putler to try for war crimes.
I wonder what the body-language experts say about their body language when they got out of the off-the-record face-to-face meeting they had in (IIRC) Finland.
No notes of that meeting were kept. How the hell can the president be able to not keep a record of their meeting with an adversarial power's president?
How many of Russia's ~5k nukes are these countries willing to take hits from in order to protect Ukraine?
Country division amongst the superpowers political spheres was acceptable in the early cold war as both sides maintained large conventional armies capable of waging a painful non-nuclear war, and both sides were hesitant to engage in a conflict larger than the one they had just exited (WW2).
Accepting that a nuclear power can perform any action they want to except against another nuclear power is a dangerous road. The more likely outcome of which is that neither side makes the launch decision.
But war is a racket.
If you expect Russia to be willing to find an agreement that does not restrict Ukraine's freedom or take its territories, you are wrong, or such a war would have never begun in the first place.
There just exist some cases which you cannot argue in good faith (inb4: yes, Russia is obviously not the only one and yes, West also supports and supported many indefensible atrocities but no, it just doesn't follow that the West should let Putin get away just because of this).
The current situation is Russia cant fully mobilize its population (hence NK). Russia is going all in to the extent it can with what it has, hoping to either break Ukraine will or sue for more favorable peace id guess. Allowing longer term weapons for Ukraine is a gamble by west that it slows Russia again (bleeding them out faster) without impacting russian support (eg raising viability of full russian mobilization). Thats my guesses anyways.
yeah, we should just let Putin take Ukraine then when they come from Moldova we should let genocide that country too because nukes and cheap gas, and when they come from Poland and Baltics we should also let him have it, Putin has nukes and Westerners can just watch Netflix to feel better.
I understand that it is normal to be egotistical, but Putin took parts of Georgia, took Crimea , started separatists movement in Ukraine, it is obvious that just bending over and letting Putin screw you in the ass will not be enough, he will want more, you need to hit him in the balls.
Meanwhile EU citizens are getting poorer, industry moves away from Germany and the geopolitical situation gets worse. The audacity of these ministers to claim that "their" security policy has worked is unparalleled. Merkel warned of NATO expansion, now incompetent war mongers like Baerbock, Habeck, Scholz (and Merz in the opposition) claim they have the solutions while the world is burning.
Their pensions are safe. The future of the EU economy and the citizen's pensions are not.
I fail to understand how would the permission to attack Russia with long range weapons would benefit any other than the arms dealing elite.
Russia is not going away, nato is not going away.
The only option is peace.
And let's remember that attacking Ukraine was utterly illegal, without a semblance of moral justification, and carried out utterly barbarically.
If the west had not flirted with Ukraine, so many lives wouldn't have been sacrificed.
Would Ukraine be a drone state of Russia ? Probably. It is naive to think that a tiny country next to a superpower can be independent.
Is the current outcome more favourable for anyone, including the Ukrainians ?
I am sorry you cannot view this in a detached, logical manner.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
It's hard to take people like you seriously if you claim these 2 conflicts are western attempts to conquer. Care to elaborate?
It's kinda insane that the stuff that used to be reserved to be screamed by unkempt people at street corners is "mainstream" on the Internet nowadays...