Weird how these accidents has started happening so often...
The European countries needs to stop being so soft.
The European countries needs to stop being so soft.
Not condemning the aggressor over and over make us look soft, indeed.
Or is it "somebody else" who has to show a backbone and take action?
For example to donate to organizations that actively support the war effort or to put pressure on the politicians to do more.
But reality is reality and they have done nothing. They will never do anything voluntarily either – for any cause.
They have much, much more power than regular people, so sometimes the best thing one can do is force more reaction from our politicians.
And it's also working; without the amount of outcry we've had I'm sure the politicians would've done even less.
You read it as I want more bloodshed?
Some of us still live in democracies.
Europe is a case of being crippled by assistance, like a man who uses an electric wheelchair until his leg muscles atrophy. They've leaned on US security guarantees so long that most countries have no functioning deterrent (look up the German air force sometime if you want to be sad).
Good times create weak people.
Weak people create hard times.
The question is if it can overcome the next phase without another Adolf or war.
Hard times create strong people.<benevolent> not really. we bougth a ton of USA weapons and also our soldiers died in USA started wars, it was an alliance and now USA just betrayed us , the blood and money we sacrificed was for nothing, I hope the cheap eggs from Trump satisfies MAGA idiots for this international betrayal .
Like which? Most of the rich European countries are bunch of limp dick pussies with no backbone to defend themselves or to stand up for their values.
Christ can people stop with this stupid quote? And could we stop using fiction as argument about real world too?
Then why is Europe such a weak limp-dick pussy?
>Christ can people stop with this stupid quote? And could we stop using fiction as argument about real world too?
It's not a stupid quote when it's history. While history doesn't repeat itself, it does rhyme.
> I have several issues with this quote from the manosphere. The manosphere was infested with both Russians and Ukrainians who were busy "preparing for the big war" with lifting etc. since at least 2014. Now they are in a trench warfare and barely make any progress in either direction. Could it be that talking up war for so many years leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy? The people doing most of the talking of course are "public intellectuals" who tell others to go lift and prepare for war. TV commentators on the Russian side, Lindsey Graham and a couple of RedPill folks on the Ukrainian side. Now the weak EU leaders who barely have 20-30% public support have a big mouth and tell others to go to the gym (metaphorically).
In a thread full of hatred and calls for more senseless violence and calls to sink all ships etc.
I don't know if wealth makes us weaker, but it apparently don't make us less prone to be manipulated by emotions.
It was an unprovoked aggression from the Russia, made because Russia wants to annex territories. Full stop. That current American or whatever leadership sees annexation and expansive wars as a cool thing is unrelated to that.
And for that matter, Canada did not started issues between US and Canada either. It is purely American made aggression.
Meanwhile, people calling for "sinking all the ships" that have nothing to do with that, can freely spread warmongering from the comfort of their distant continent? And on top of that pretend to have the moral upper hand??
You're mentally ill and making stuff up. Seek help please.
(as a side note, here's a good rule: don't say to someone over the internet something you wouldn't dare say in person)
This whole thread is a joke right? The US is the one who just elevated the modern day Hitler to world leader and is now cheering him on as he collaborates with the Russia to commit genocide in Ukraine, and the Israelis to commit genocide in Gaza.
Why do so many people resort to that argument, as if they can predict what would happen if Europe went to war.
You can choose what that point is, but it's weird not to expect enemies to continually test where your line is, and walk you right up to it.
I'm not sure what you expect to see here?
Let's assume for a second armed conflict is the "natural" next step.
Either you are willing to get into an armed conflict over it or not. If you aren't, and they are willing to accept everything other than armed conflict (sanctions, etc), why should they care at all what you think or do? They already know you won't escalate past a certain point. As long as they are willing to accept how far you are willing to escalate, ....
In the end, people monitor actions, not words.
You edged them during your whole cold war thing & now you got a headache and want the neighbours to take care of it.
I'm totally unsure why this is directed at me.
But, at some point there is a limit. If the EU does choose, as you call it, kinetic war, Russia will be toast. They cannot win a conventional war against a far larger economy. Just like Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia.
Also increase Sanctions even more. We still have Banks like the Austrian Raiffeisenkasse that operate in Russia.
It became newsworthy and a part of the zeitgeist so every incident is heavily reported on now, making it seem like there has been a big uptick when this stuff has always been happening.
As to those countries being soft, this is happening in international waters and they have been seizing ships. Not sure how much more they are supposed to do. Anti-ship missiles?
Frankly, the EU is guilty of neglect in this respect for years. Poland, for example, had been urging things like more energy solidarity since it joined the EU, something Germany consistently shot down or waved away. Mustard after the meal in some ways.
A stronger response will require more defense investment to counter hybrid warfare.
Identifying your actual enemy is obviously step 1, and getting this right might be harder than you'd think.
Look at Nord Stream 2...
If else, Russians see any restraint by the enemy as a sign of weakness and an excuse to escalate even more.
“You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
It may give them pretext
But when they want to escalate, any convenient pretext they can fabricate will be spewed out
Appeasement ONLY encourages aggressors. They can ignore any statements and rhetoric and correctly conclude: "I did X, no real consequences, therefore I can do more X".
The ONLY language they understand is force or consequences with real cost to them. Vladimir Lenin said it very clearly:
>>"We probe with bayonets. Where we find steel we withdraw, where we find mush we press on."
When delaying reciprocal action, the cost for the next round ALWAYS increases.
Delaying response is a fools' game.
Democracies always play that fools' game because for any one politician, it is easier to kick the can down the road with bad reasoning like you posted.
But when the situation finally becomes unavoidable, it is a deep serious problem. Here we are.
It's really just the Imperialist Autocrats' standard playbook, and it is little different from the schoolyard bully — "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is up for grabs".
They all just keep aggressing until they get hurt, then they find someone else to harass and steal from.
What’s the answer?
The key is that the measure must cost the aggressor more than they gain, and of course be reasonably proportional.
Plus, even if we stick to your irrelevant requirement, response is better. It is less bad to have no subsea cabling for everyone vs making no response and ending up with only the aggressors having subsea cabling.
But of course you can't /know/ the outcome beforehand, which is what makes it a high-stakes game. The only thing you know is that if you keep doing nothing they'll have no reason to stop.
What do you suggest?
Even more non-credible: Use the nuclear-armed version with a small nuclear warhead
But just a few weeks ago us Swedes released a ship that was pretty obviously acting with malicious intent because of limited research or due to incompetence.
I'd like that to stop.
If there is never any consequence for action we are left with only anarchy.
The "language that Russia understand" option: "If you do this one more time, ships going to/from your harbors won't be allowed through the straits anymore, IDGAF what international law says". Should it happen again, inform any such ship that they're not allowed passage and will be fired upon if they try. If they try, follow through.
Won't happen, at least not in any meaningful form.
Baltics or Poland are existentially threatened by Russia, Spain or even Germany are not, even if Russia can do a limited damage to them. What is supposed to create "unity" in that regard? What would force Spain to contribute as much as, let's say, Finland? We can see even now, with all these US threats, not every NATO country was willing to increase its spending on military. And even more importantly, who is going to command such EU army? Commission?
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
Poland and Russia have opposing interests. Period. Russia wants to be a part of Europe, Poland doesn't want Russia to be a part of Europe. Poland wants to be sovereign country that keeps growing economically, Russia doesn't want that. Russia doesn't need to invade Poland, it is enough to "reshape the European Security Architecture", reduce Polish chances to develop and growth etc.
Doubtful.
Europe is not limited to EU or shared Western values of human rights and democracy.
Of course, Ukraine was willing to undergo the required reforms. Russia and Putin is far too proud and suspicious of the West to do that.
The last few years have seen the talking heads on right-wing news TV become actual politicians with real power.
Dunno if that same pathway to power exists in Russia but it sure does in the US.
Putin did on one of St.Petersburg conferences, but you are right there are no serious politicians in Russia.
Nukes are but a one thing, useful only in specific circumstances, but not sufficient. It is unrealistic to expect France using nukes if Russia attacks Lithuania, for example. Stakes are not justifying such escalation.
European countries lack conventional means: UAV, artillery, missiles. And soldiers.
Well, seems like some in Europe have doubts about it.
We could be a lot stronger with the same amount of money invested through economies-of-scale.
We can either take the chance to become a superpower or we will be taken over by aggressive countries like Russia.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
Imagine Europe if Hitler had been hanged in 1939!
There is no need for anything more, nor are the institutions really designed for a single president / general to direct everyone in a conflict. Putting in place all the capabilities to work together in a conflict should be done however.
What? I'm pretty sure he said that.
Yeah, here it is: 'Army of Europe' needed to challenge Russia, says Zelensky
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
They can cause an enormous amount of lifes to be lost, but winning against nevermind steamrolling EU is farfetched.
And by rickety, I mean political cohesion.