As poor of a state that is Europe's various armies, I'd be very surprised if EU couldn't take on Russia even without the US (who FWIW recently reiterated their commitment to the defense of Europe). Russia's advanced SAMs, radars, and Navy have seriously deteriorated. Their main capability left is submarines and mass Shahed drones whose range can't reach much of Europe.
If Russia's jets can't operate over Ukraine they won't do much in Europe except self-defense of their own homeland.
China on the other hand is a very very serious opponent...
Russia's advanced SAMs and radars are getting clapped by one of the poorest nations in Europe. We're at almost four years of full scale war and the worlds no. 2 military has not been able to get air superiority over a small airforce of cold war left overs. Just the airforces of the Nordic countries alone would run rings around the russian airforce and their air defence.
GP is talking about the invasion of Ukraine, taking place just beyond the EU eastern border, and very much shaking up the European security situation, and the EU and its member states are visibly having to "deal with it", diplomatically, economically and in terms of their practical defense postures. That's what they meant with "at the border", and not a literal invasion of the EU.
(Edited for a less confrontational beginning of the first sentence.)
> As a European, who created this situation? Russia?
Russia. After the US completely rolled over for their demands not to provide NATO membership action plans to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, because, as Russia claimed, that would be destabilizing. Which Russia followed immediately with an invasion of Georgia in 2008. Then, as soon as Ukraine threw off the Russian-aligned government that had taken power while that was going on, Ukraine in 2014, taking Crimea and invading parts of Eastern Ukraine with both Russian reular forces and Russia-paid mercenaries, which is what turned Ukraine back to seeking NATO membership.
> Problem is. As a European, who created this situation? Russia? Or the US?
I'm not going to argue with you about how Russia was forced to invade Ukraine and commit atrocities there or whatever you're hinting at, my dear fellow European.
Also, stop shifting the discussion and leave your apologetic narratives where they belong.
Imagine if Europe hadn't compromised itself with energy dependency on a dictator and was able to stand up against the 2014 invasion. The situation was created at home.
Invasion doesn't have to mean they plan to roll tanks all the way to Paris.
Have you realized Russian agents blew up a train in Poland this week, after some weeks prior flying planes and drones into NATO airspace and disrupting air travel in Denmark with drones started from shadow fleet tankers. The grounds for further action are being tested as we speak.
Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland. Countries parts of which Putin painted rightfully Russian territories in his speeches. I wouldn't bet a lot on that not happening, especially if the geopolitical situation deteriorates in favor of Putin.
Given the pained debate here by Western Europeans over the semantics of “Europe” and Ukraine’s relationship therewith, it’s very unlikely NATO would act and that’s precisely what the Russians would bet on.
What would Russia hope to gain? How does this compare to alternative naratives? Assuming we both lack real insider infirmatiin, whixh reasonably is more credible?
Reversal of what Russia sees as a great injustice. The 2021 ultimatum[1] issued on the eve of the war can be summed up as a return to the Europe of 1989 with everything that it entails.
Then it should have chosen not to invade and occupy large parts of Ukraine in 2014. And then escalate with an even bigger invasion in 2022. Not launching a war of aggression is, like, the easiest thing in the world to do.
> instead of the slow, safe, low-casualty taking of territory
I don't know what is considered "low-casualty" for Russia, but the last reports I saw they were approaching 250,000 dead soldiers in Ukraine since 2022. That is just an astronomical number.
USA only had 60,000 killed in Vietnam and that is considered a national catastrophe.
As poor of a state that is Europe's various armies, I'd be very surprised if EU couldn't take on Russia even without the US (who FWIW recently reiterated their commitment to the defense of Europe). Russia's advanced SAMs, radars, and Navy have seriously deteriorated. Their main capability left is submarines and mass Shahed drones whose range can't reach much of Europe.
If Russia's jets can't operate over Ukraine they won't do much in Europe except self-defense of their own homeland.
China on the other hand is a very very serious opponent...
Russia's advanced SAMs and radars are getting clapped by one of the poorest nations in Europe. We're at almost four years of full scale war and the worlds no. 2 military has not been able to get air superiority over a small airforce of cold war left overs. Just the airforces of the Nordic countries alone would run rings around the russian airforce and their air defence.
GP is talking about the invasion of Ukraine, taking place just beyond the EU eastern border, and very much shaking up the European security situation, and the EU and its member states are visibly having to "deal with it", diplomatically, economically and in terms of their practical defense postures. That's what they meant with "at the border", and not a literal invasion of the EU.
(Edited for a less confrontational beginning of the first sentence.)
[flagged]
> As a European, who created this situation? Russia?
Russia. After the US completely rolled over for their demands not to provide NATO membership action plans to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, because, as Russia claimed, that would be destabilizing. Which Russia followed immediately with an invasion of Georgia in 2008. Then, as soon as Ukraine threw off the Russian-aligned government that had taken power while that was going on, Ukraine in 2014, taking Crimea and invading parts of Eastern Ukraine with both Russian reular forces and Russia-paid mercenaries, which is what turned Ukraine back to seeking NATO membership.
> Problem is. As a European, who created this situation? Russia? Or the US?
I'm not going to argue with you about how Russia was forced to invade Ukraine and commit atrocities there or whatever you're hinting at, my dear fellow European.
Also, stop shifting the discussion and leave your apologetic narratives where they belong.
Russia.
Russia failed to create a convincing casus belli to the rest of the world and seen as the indisputable aggressor pretty much everywhere.
Imagine if Europe hadn't compromised itself with energy dependency on a dictator and was able to stand up against the 2014 invasion. The situation was created at home.
Reversal: The US created it by not nuking Russia off the face of the planet decades ago.
As another European: Yes?
Invasion doesn't have to mean they plan to roll tanks all the way to Paris.
Have you realized Russian agents blew up a train in Poland this week, after some weeks prior flying planes and drones into NATO airspace and disrupting air travel in Denmark with drones started from shadow fleet tankers. The grounds for further action are being tested as we speak.
Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland. Countries parts of which Putin painted rightfully Russian territories in his speeches. I wouldn't bet a lot on that not happening, especially if the geopolitical situation deteriorates in favor of Putin.
> Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland.
So invasion means a full war with NATO?
Given the pained debate here by Western Europeans over the semantics of “Europe” and Ukraine’s relationship therewith, it’s very unlikely NATO would act and that’s precisely what the Russians would bet on.
4 replies →
What would Russia hope to gain? How does this compare to alternative naratives? Assuming we both lack real insider infirmatiin, whixh reasonably is more credible?
> What would Russia hope to gain?
Reversal of what Russia sees as a great injustice. The 2021 ultimatum[1] issued on the eve of the war can be summed up as a return to the Europe of 1989 with everything that it entails.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO
Yeah it's all very dumb. The rest of Europe is protected by no less then three state nuclear triads. Ukraine was not.
[flagged]
> Russia didn't even want to be in Ukraine at all
Then it should have chosen not to invade and occupy large parts of Ukraine in 2014. And then escalate with an even bigger invasion in 2022. Not launching a war of aggression is, like, the easiest thing in the world to do.
[flagged]
2 replies →
> instead of the slow, safe, low-casualty taking of territory
I don't know what is considered "low-casualty" for Russia, but the last reports I saw they were approaching 250,000 dead soldiers in Ukraine since 2022. That is just an astronomical number.
USA only had 60,000 killed in Vietnam and that is considered a national catastrophe.
> The Ukrainians can always jut bail out of this fight
Putin can end the war immediately whenever he wants.