[flagged]
I'm sure that's untrue and it's been explained to you many times, but: because they're border states, just like Belarus and, yes, Ukraine. A "buffer" if you prefer.
The "Russian population" in Ukraine was enough to be used as a pretense for an attack by Putin, who believes a large Russian minority somehow makes the territory his. The ethnically Russian populations in Latvia and Estonia are, percentage-wise, larger than that of Ukraine.
Putin's an avowed fan of Alexandr Dugin, so you could look at his writings for some hints, but I'm not sure Putin draws the lines in precisely the same way. It helps to remember that Putin's also a psychopath.
Putin has not been able to conquer the whole of Ukraine after 3 years, but somehow, suddenly, he will be able to conquer all of the Baltic states without breaking a sweat?
So which is it? Is the Russian army fighting with shovels or are they a ferocious horde that is unstoppable? Those two things cannot be true at the same time.
I am getting tired of people parroting this narrative. If Putin could conquer Ukraine, he would have done so by now. Yet according to you this means is able to conquer more countries when his army can't even hold on to a full one.
No offense, but that makes zero sense.
Also, we don't have unified army. So as painful as it is, it is most likely Baltic states would have to fend of with their military (and due to population, well, they can't - even if they are bringing conscription back), maybe Poland and Finland. Maybe. And then you'd have to coordinate what to do next between all national militaries.
And what would stop a Frenchman or Portuguese to say Why die for Vilnius?
:\
Estonia has had conscription for our whole independence from russia, and we don't intend to go back to russia. Lithuania also has conscription and Latvia started it again last year.
Estonia also has the Defence League, a voluntary organisation which offers trainings and will support our defence forces.
Finland and Poland also have conscription.
... but it got reinstated yesterday.
However, I don’t know how useful it is to compare it like that 1:1. The problem with Trump is that apparently he doesn’t believe that the US has strong (or even any) interests in containing Russia’s imperialist drive and geopolitical gains, and to the contrary is needlessly giving up a lot of bargaining power to Russia.
Russia has zero interest in stopping the war, except to their own conditions, which includes installing a Russia-friendly government in Kiev (what they call “denazification”). They have expressed that many times.
Right now, Russia needs to rebuild their military as much as they can, and get their real economy back in shape.
My prediction is that IF Ukraine is being forced into a shitty peace agreement, Russia will spend the next 3-4 years rebuilding everything they can, and then when Trump has 6 months left, they'll go all-inn on Ukraine. Trump is effectively in his lame duck period, no republicans want to campaign on entering a huge war, and while democrats might campaign on defending Ukraine - it will not be a popular issue among regular voters.
Then, if Russia manages to do that, other countries will be on the chopping block years later.
I simply do not believe Russia has the manpower, or political backing to do a mobilization required to invade the Baltics. Even if this would be the right moment to do it, with a completely neutered USA.
If NATO help is not coming it is over quite quickly.
You have to remember that Ukraine has/had 40 million population, Baltics has about 7 million.
We also do not have the miles of mined out defenses that Ukraine has had since 2014.
We do have 2000 strong NATO brigades on rotation, a few rotating F-35 from western Europe, some Himars I think.
If unthinkable happens and NATO chooses not to defend the Baltics it is over.
Why are the Baltics not fortified as well as Gaza? Why haven't you spent the past 3 years mining the ever-living fuck out of your border with Russia? Why can't 7 million Baltic citizens hold your territory for 72 hours, when 7 million Lebanese are able to bog down the heavily-mechanized IDF for weeks? Now I will admit that terrain is a HUGE factor, but the seeming total unpreparedness of Europeans to invest in the defense of their own homeland communicates a ton to me....none of it positive.
And, Russia would give you a breather of 1-2 years after the fall of Ukraine in order to build up their stocks.
I'd say you guys should have started building yesterday. Like what the heck to wait for? This isn't some temporary blip but permanent course of direction.
Want to avoid having thousands of sleeper agents with double citizenship causing mayhem before invasion? Revoke it all for dual citizens that won't revoke their russian one, its time to pick side.
Putin will find it much easier to wage war in Europe if Trump pulls out and takes the USA into isolationism (so abandoning the western democracies).
And he will find it much easier to do this if he starts before Europe has a chance to re-arm.
That is the logic you fail to see.
It still does not explain how he is supposed to do that while he is bogged down in Ukraine.
You answer doe not provide any shred of evidence that is what his plans are. You are just speculating.
Opening multiple fronts in a war when you are not making progress does not make any sense. Putin is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed but I am pretty sure that even he knows that.
Finally, France and the UK both have nukes and are the allies of the Baltic states so an attack is highly unlikely unless the MAD doctrine is broken.
One must have their head in the sand to think otherwise.
And with whose weapons and support do you think they managed to do that? Not to mention the US had been helping to train the Ukrainian army since 2014.
Anyone who has paid attention to the Ukraine war this far already understands what past, present, and future assurances of military support mean for deterrence.
Your comment suggests a level of ignorance or naivety either on the part of the author or the reader.
I am asking a legitimate question.
Your contention is that even though the war is at best a stalemate and has revealed that Russia is at best a paper tiger, we should now believe that somehow it has the strength to invade all the Baltic states?
I am sorry to say but this is a fantasy that is not supported by the facts of the situation that we have seen in the last 3 years.
Now, you are free to disagree and that is fine but that should not stop us to ask questions about these matters.
At best your question was uninformed to the point that it constitutes provocation, at worst it was deliberate disinformation.
I’ll repeat: Russia appears weak because the Ukrainians have received so much military backing from the US and the rest of Europe. It’s a stalemate because others stepped in to stop them.
And furthermore, Russia’s rate of ammo production is higher than Europe’s, their army is larger than Ukraine’s, and their leaders have no limits on how many people they throw into the meat grinder.
Regarding Putin’s attempted restoration of the USSR, even if they’re unable to hold other Balkan countries, that process will result in horrific bloodshed. The US stepping away from defending NATO countries only emboldens Russia to try.
If my attitude puts you off from dialog, then might I politely suggest you educate yourself more on these topics before engaging? You seem more than eager to jump into dialog with others about this topic to push your singular viewpoint, so I’m sure you can direct some of that energy toward broadening your understanding of recent world events.
Here we go again with the condescending attitude.
> your singular viewpoint
I don't push a singular viewpoint. I asked a question which other people have answered. Some people agreed and others disagreed. Each to their own. This is how a healthy debate works.
> At best your question was uninformed to the point that it constitutes provocation, at worst it was deliberate disinformation.
Asking a question about a major event and having a debate with other people is now considered a provocation? May I suggest you take a step back and rethink how you interact with other people if you think truly that this is the case.
Questioning things is good. Asking questions when we don't know the answer about something should be encouraged. That's how we learn and that is how we grow.
You have decided that you are right and that I am wrong. That's your right but that shouldn't stop people from asking questions that you deem to be provocative.
I have had many debates with plenty of people on this forum, some heated debates even, but I can say that you are definitely not someone I am interested in engaging with anymore.
Goo day to you.