841–850 of 1001 posts
I think the commenters here relying on a more robust response if Putin invades a NATO country are being overly optimistic. Let's be honest with ourselves and recognize that without the US NATO is no match for Russia. Fragmented, with small and outdated armed forces, the Russian army would quickly roll over any resistance. Can you imagine a Republican president committing US troops to the defence of Lithuania in the c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. Why? Of course they would. And yes we would all die. It's the other way around - a NATO country wouldn't be attacked by Russia because yes, NATO would attack back.
>because yes, NATO would attack back That's what it says on paper, yes. That's the theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with hypersonic missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.
Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word.
We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you.
I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we could. We cowardly hide under the umbrella of french nuclear deterrence, yet chose not to get our hands dirty and take the responsibility on ourselves
It's not clear they had a choice. The west was scared shitless of nuclear proliferation in ex-soviet republics, and would probably not have lifted a finger about the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily . Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way U…
>Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
European countries have not neglected anything. The current state of things is by design. Europe used to be full of empires waging destructive wars all over the world. After two world wars, people had had enough. The predecessors of the EU were created to tame the former empires. To make them mutually dependent and act like ordinary countries. It worked, and Western Europe has enjoyed a lifetime of peace, which is un…
First of all, I suppose I need to say that I'm European, living in a country with a very tiny military force. I understand why Germany, in particular, does not want to be a strong military power anymore. Britain and France seem less reluctant, probably taking some pride from standing up to Hitler in 1939, and this contributing to them seeing their armed forces primarily as defensive instruments. (Disregarding their l…
One thing to remember in all of these assessments is that Russia has the GDP of Canada, with almost 5x the population. Okay, they have lots of nukes, but maintaining and securing those are very expensive. Russia in 2022 is not the USSR of the '80s. It is not the Germany of the late '30s. They cannot take and hold Ukraine with the forces they've deployed, against an ongoing insurgency. Putin cannot cross the border in…
It will of course never happen, since China is the one enabling this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily . Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way U…
>Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".
The situations in 1939 and 2022 are only similar insofar as we are talking about the same country. Everything else is different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scary thing is if NATO decide to get involved, and it turns into war between NATO and Russia, then the security of the Baltic States plummets. Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is gone. Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes of Belarus bussing migrants across the bor…
NATO is a defensive alliance, so there has to be a provocation for them to act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians. Mercenaries don’t really count.
That's part of the thinking here, right? Mercenaries don't count, a jet that maybe violated airspace doesn't count, ... What's the line, then? It's clearly not "no military action at all" as we're told right now. Maybe drive a few SAM setups over the border from Poland and take shots? Like, this very moment, there are tons of NATO ISR assets in the air monitoring Russian movements and very likely relaying that inform…
You missed my point a little bit. Of course mercenaries count when invading, but they don't count when you terminate them. Because you're shooting at mercenaries, not the Russian Army.
It takes no political or diplomatic capital at all to brand Russian mercenaries "enemy combatants" and then to promptly terminate them. It would be a little bit different if it were actual Russian soldiers.