All this talk of EU and NATO countries needing to spend more on defense to counter the imminent Russian threat is obviously not the real motivation behind increased spending.
If one were to imagine such a world, for the sake of useless navel gazing, what else would need to be true for Russia to not only want to use military force to annex or occupy or even conduct limited air strikes on a NATO member or one of their allies but be confident that it’s military could meaningfully conduct such a massive operation while defnding from the inevitable retaliation from the entire west?
Idk I’m baked at work and can’t really understand why people are so easily sold on this idea that Russia is about to conduct full scale war on Europe
it’s a species of
, not quite the same.the only strategic reason for Russia to strike west is if these territories are used (more openly) as launch pads for attacks on russian territory and troops. NATO preparing for Russian aggression outside Ukraine is essentially telegraphing that the final phase of Ukraine-War-Planning is to allow “Ukraine” to retaliate against Russian advances from the safety of NATO borders and air defences.
To be clear there’s a million grain heap of insane Eurolibs that have convinced themselves Putler will do so just for ‘fascism’ and evil; but just because they are the loudest voice we should believe NATO generals when they say they’re designing a legitimacy framework for WW3 on the continent. the only way they’ll be arrested is defeat in other theaters depleting their capacity enough, or political changes in the west.
oh and will they succeed? Baltics are toast within a week, Poland will get a black eye but even with a comprehensive Russian mobilization Europe has a lot of bodies and a couple experienced units that can stall the advance before it gets too far. i mean assuming Europe jumps right in, any measure of hesitation and the Russians are fighting hollowed-out heaps of conscripts with days of ammo for weeks/months, who knows how far they’ll punt em
There is a small part of me that knows that even EU countries are too paranoid about each other to commit too hard. After all, historically, every single time one of them ever fights Russia (barring WWII) they may fight Russia to a draw, but then end up getting their teeth kicked in by another European power.
That said, I don’t think Russia has the morale or internal justification going on enough to make something like that palatable to the Russian populace, without a previous invasion. Even though Russia is an oligarchy, much like our oligarchy, it does require popular buy in to do this kind of stuff.
You never know, the EU leaders might be requesting aid from Poutine to deal with the riots after December price hikes.
This is the secret ending no one had foreseen.
This is the secret ending no one had foreseen.
Holy Alliance 2
France is the only serious military force in western europe. Germany in the “working on it” stage but I’m not sure how that’s progressing. hopefully melenchon gets elected and averts ww3 for the time being!
fr, i’m not sure even the suicidally fascist germans would go full-tilt without France’s nukes, soldiers, and functioning arms industry behind them. all power to melenchon, genocide illimité on le heap de penne and horizon/en marche
In total, all EU countries have about 2.5 million men under arms, which exceeds Russia‘s forces by about a million. And this is without any war time mobilisation or conscription. Add to that the Turkish military, which by virtue of multiple defence agreements would be aiding the European forces, and the Russian military is so far outmatched that there is no way in hell that the Russian Federation would ever dare strike anywhere west of Ukraine. The only “advantage” Russia has over a combined European army is a greater nuclear arsenal, but considering France has Overkill capacities, too, that particular point is moot. In a war of attrition, Europe, considering it has more than triple the population and contains economic powerhouses like Germany and France, would also be able to sustain such a campaign for far longer. And considering the slugfest the Ukraine war turned into, this scenario is more than likely, at least under the premise of war breaking out at all.
Russia has myriad short-term tactical advantages that could be parlayed into a war-plan:
-No peer experience in Eastern Europe
-Lack of materiel because it was sent to Ukraine and not replaced (an enormous heap of ammo, ‘obsolete’ vehicles, missiles, etc etc. was sent to Ukraine under the premise of “modernization” of NATO forces, but mere grains of replacements from the US, UK, FR and ROK have actually materialized)
-Distance of potent NATO forces (France, US)
And if there’s any doubt and delay in entry of Europe at large–that 2.5 million under arms is just paper. Would Turkey actually move troops from around Syria and Kurdistan if it’s not under attack? Will France abandon its toe-hold in Françafrique? Will/can the US perform the logistical task of moving and supplying those European troops? Sweden and Finland have impressive numbers but how are they getting stuck in? Crossing the Baltic? Invading Karelia?
I know it’s terrifying to admit but there’s a quite plausible case for a(n imagined) brief supporting thrust against NATO to force the collapse and capitulation of Ukraine, if (as I posited in the OP) Ukraine is only holding on due to NATO defending it.
Annexation of Transnistria or Abkhazia is about the furthest extent possible. Neither Georgia nor Moldova is a NATO member.
I don’t think anyone but perhaps particularly rabid Baltic fascists genuinely thinks there’s any realistic chance of military occupation.
warm water port?
This is a really interesting question to me because it parallels the question of “how are you going to Defend The Revolution™?” Just in the framing of this question you’ve laid out how it should be approached.
No doubt, European liberals irrationally see themselves as under existential threat from an outside power that wants to crush them regardless of the expense or payoff.
Considering how long and grindy the Ukraine war has been, I’d say they would probably have trouble directly attacking anyone that anybody cares about.
Land connection to Kaliningrad Oblast?
Current NATO armies are such a shitshow that Russia would have a decent shot for military victory, but you can’t just defeat geography and logistics so the invasion of entire Europe is not very feasible.
Idk I’m baked at work and can’t really understand why people are so easily sold on this idea that Russia is about to conduct full scale war on Europe
Fascism need enemy and reality be damned, after two centuries of russophobia Russia is just Bad, inside of that statement everything goes. Although it is really kind of shocking how far that can go:
Maybe if they bit into a NATO member and it didn’t provoke them it would make every subsequent meeting with Russia slightly more Russia favored because they’re scared. Then he keeps pushing a little further each time he wants a good trade deal. Each time it doesn’t provoke them makes it that much less likely the next one will. Russian would be the first country to benefit from a multipolar geopolitical world.
What would he want with the occupied territory I’m not sure. My attention span wasn’t good enough to even know what blood was telling Tucker Carlson about Ukraine and that would have been my entry into Russian history
2 reasons:
-
Russian Ultra Nationalism- some people say/think Putin is trying to rebuild the Russian empire which ofc includes the baltics, moldova, finland, and parts of poland
-
Liberal Geopolitics states that “open” and “closed” countries are fated to fight each other as they represent ideological threats to each other. (This is what fukayama meant by the end of history, there were no more “closed” countries left)
-
