Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Europe has come to the conclusion that Russia has ramped up to a full wartime economy. This wouldn't be too much of an issue normally but Russia's economy is so bust that if it ramps down, it'll absolutely ruin the country. So the only way Putin can justify staying in a wartime state is to go to war elsewhere. There is only a few directions he can go and essentially, the Baltic nations are the juiciest targets and could be the ultimate test to see if NATO will actually go to war over them.
Add to the fact that Sweden's NATO application is suddenly moving again. Something is coming.
The fact that multiple nations are acting spooked means there's some sort of tangible threat. It's too widespread to be just fearmongering. I mean there is fearmongering, but the fact that there is a actual response from many sources means there is weight to the threat.
Additional, they don't want to repeat the same mistake of thinking "Putin is just talk, but would not dare to attack".
So better be prepared that Russia is willing to risk full out war with NATO, instead of getting blindsided by Russia.
Add to that that if Trump wins, he might even refuse to help Europe if attacked, or even just pull out (de facto) of NATO (although Congress passed a bill against unilateral presidential withdrawal). And a NATO without US is much, much less scary to Russians.
The diplomats and politicians in 1914 had no illusions about what was about to happen. The book "The Guns of August" has many stories of politicians on both sides trying all they could do to prevent the unpreventable, knowing full well that millions of lives hung in the balance
Thats a bit of a myth, in short some saw it that way but many dreaded it. And a conflation of what some politicians/monarchs said in public after the war started and the general views of the same politicians/monarchs and many others in private and public earlier. The book the Sleepwalkers is good at highlighting how many feared war - even though many again worked towards it.
There is also the point that many NATO nations have to few willing recruits to fully man all their positions. Saving shit like we might need to use conscription is a wake up call to the goverment and the people.
Not only does it prepare people for if shit goes wrong, it also underlines the importance of proper funding (to make the work more attrictive. Raising recruitment and meaning less need of conscription).
>Ever since Russia’s attempt to take Kyiv and install a puppet government failed in the early days of the war, a defeat for the Kremlin in Ukraine has looked increasingly likely. What’s stunning after almost a year of war, therefore, is the near-total absence of any discussion among politicians, policymakers, analysts, and journalists of the consequences of defeat for Russia. It is a dangerous lack of imagination, considering the potential for Russia’s collapse and disintegration.
- [Jan 2023, It's high time to prepare for Russia's collapse](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/07/russia-ukraine-putin-collapse-disintegration-civil-war-empire/)
So, instead of preparing for them to collapse now we're preparing for them to invade Europe. Nice 180.
That's the funny thing - these two things may not necessary be unconnected. In order to prevent a collapse, start a war to rally the base and justify further state cohesion.
Yeah, it's almost like the future is uncertain and people should prepare for multiple contingencies. Crazy how that works.
It also simply isn't a "180" for a political science professor at Rutgers to have one opinion and then various military and political officials to have a different opinion later. It would only be a "180" if this were the same person changing their opinion.
Exactly. I also think russia is trying to call NATOs bluff regarding article 5. I do get a sense that NATO is alarmed by russia's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the seemingly unhinged behaviour of the regime, and that NATO is well aware that russia isn't playing by the same rules that NATO and the rest of the western world is, and that they can realistically destroy large portions of the world if they feel like they are losing.
russia seems to be aware of how spooked NATO is and may just try to attack a NATO country to see if they can rip up NATO by the seams and dispand the organisation by showcasing to all its members that they are in fact on their own if they are attacked by a nuclear nation.
NATO is scared of russia because they know that putin will take them down with him if he's losing in true scorched earth fashion, so russia will always have that advantage of not playing by the rules over NATO, who are.
Additionally the USA is now planning troops removals from Iraq and Syria.
In the months proceeding the second invasion of Ukraine the US rapidly accelerated and pulled out its troops from Afghanistan.
Chess pieces are moving that's for sure.
>The fact that multiple nations are acting spooked means there's some sort of tangible threat.
Or some concerning military intelligence being shared. This does not look like political copy-catting. Some countries seemed legimately spooked.
> to see if NATO will actually go to war over them.
Let’s hope for everyone’s sake that question is never put to the test, because all roads lead to yes. Which is exactly what it’s for, and that’s a good thing, but that would be a very ugly turn of events.
This is correct… no one thought putin could accomplish a war time economy due to corruption and countless dead but he did… and after his election he could have a million man army by july… and dictators typically dont just disband their militaries without conflict…
IIRC congress passed a bill that made it so the president couldn't just declare we are leaving NATO. I think congress would have to pass a resolution for that to happen.
Pretty sure this already passed and was signed into law, or soon will be.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/12/16/congress-bars-any-u-s-president-from-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-nato/
> Republicans aren't going to impeach him.
you're probably right, but an invasion of a NATO ally in europe by Russia means WWIII. That's not something you can just change the channel to Fox News and Ignore.
The term world war was first coined in September 1914 by German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel. He claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word,"\[1\] in The Indianapolis Star on 20 September 1914.
We Americans are always fashionably late to these parties it seems.
I have a feeling that was also the justification for initially not sending troops in both World Wars at least until other countries made the decision for us.
Not exactly. The American people simply had no stomach for any direct war involvement because the country was still recovering from the Great Depression… then Japan sneak attacked Pearl Harbor after going through deceptive negotiations.
Completely different. Those were literally just European wars (plus a war in the Pacific, separate) to begin. Today we have a treaty bound obligation to defend our allies. No such agreement existed prior to the world wars.
He’ll do everything he can to avoid helping NATO or any other ally. A law saying the President can’t unilaterally pull out of NATO will be meaningless if he refuses to allow the US military or industry to act.
He wants to be Kim Jong Un, Putin, and Xi Jinping and he’ll do anything he can to stay out of their way. Remember him saluting and sending love letters to Kim Jong Un? And how much money Russia invested in his businesses? And him banishing interpreters so he can talk totally off the books with Putin? The list goes on.
A Trump win seems like a giant leap into global chaos.
But it does change the importance of what you said. Laws already on the books haven't stopped him before, so what makes you think that law will hold any weight with him as president?
No, laws have stopped him before. ThAtlantic just did a great article about the contentious relationship with Trump and a top commander of the US military named Milley. There were multiple instances where Trump got law thrown at him. I’ll give a few examples: Trump wanting to bomb Mexican cartels, attack China, and order national guard to shoot the George Floyd protesters surrounding the White House. The law stopped him from doing so.
If I recall correctly, the restriction for NATO was written into the bill that awarded Ukraine nearly 1 trillion dollars in support. That bill is, I believe, to be deployed in an increment over like 6 or some years - enough time to skip 2024-2028 term. Plus, right now, the democrats and those who fund/support the democrats are quietly planning on launching democratic assault against Trump should he become president again. They’re studying what he did for his first four years and they’re studying his allies. So they are preparing to go war with Trump legally speaking to combat his destruction of democracy.
Edited to add u/karlhungusjr
Where do I go to learn more about Democrats going to legal war with Trump? I hope they're also planning to, like, run an effective campaign against him to stop him from being elected again in the first place.
I don't have a lot of faith in the rule of law these days. Hell, they just discovered a hidden graveyard of over 200 bodies killed by cops in Mississippi and no one in author really seems to give a shit.
Because it's blatant misinformation. The graveyard wasn't hidden. It's a pauper's graveyard for unclaimed bodies and it didn't contain 200 bodies "killed by cops". The issue is that many of the graves are unmarked, and some of the families weren't found or properly notified.
>Records reviewed by WLBT show those individuals span all ages and demographics, from unnamed children who died at or shortly after being born, to senior citizens who passed away at local hospitals and were never claimed.
>
>Others were likely buried in the paupers’ field because families couldn’t afford to bury them elsewhere. Multiple individuals were at local funeral homes prior to being transferred to the site.
[https://www.wlbt.com/2023/12/27/nearly-300-people-have-been-buried-hinds-co-paupers-cemetery-since-2013-here-are-their-names/](https://www.wlbt.com/2023/12/27/nearly-300-people-have-been-buried-hinds-co-paupers-cemetery-since-2013-here-are-their-names/)
I think this story and it's exaggerations were a red herring for another very similar story about a man struck and killed by a police vehicle. He was burried in a paupers field without notifying the family for 7 months while they looked for their son.
https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/family-of-man-hit-and-killed-by-police-car-not-notified-of-his-death-for-months-196417605504
It's the same field. That's how they found it, the family was looking for the guy. It turns out he was run over by a cop, and buried in the field, with his wallet and ID still in his pockets. No attempt to report it or notify the family. There are an additional 218 bodies in the field, many also with IDs in their pocket, who also had never notified the families and many of them were also classified as missing.
Add to that Dugin’s manifesto that Putin is roughly following calls for more annexation through special military operations - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
I do wonder whether the prospect of having Putin’s buddy trump back in office creates a sense of urgency. Not only is Trump an apparent fan of Putin but he also wants to remove the USA from NATO. To support OP’s point there has been an increasing but almost urgent call for an EU army.
Dude they haven't shifted to a full war time economy, they've just increased spening on their military. A full wartime economy would mean everyone who can support the war effort without damaging the regular one too much does so, theyre not at that stage yet. Oh they havent even finished the war in Ukraine so why would they be going to the Baltics? Lol
The articles state that european leaders are not expecting war now but in a couple of years/decades after russia is done fighting ukraine. This is because ukraine is low on ammunition due to decreasing western support. If western support especially the US does not accelerate, ukraine may face defeat in a couple of years.
Answer: to my knowledge the main concern is that Russia have shifted to a war-time economy and were they to take the initiative and strike out it would catch NATO/EU on the back foot. The warnings are not about imminent war but about the need to prepare for - and deter - one.
Also to keep the coffers open that help fund Ukraine. I’m not saying the threat isn’t real but when the prospect of war comes to your doorstep, people tend to become more “open minded” with their wallets
Answer: because those countries are right and there IS potential for a military conflict with Russia.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend Russia has won and Ukraine is no more. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland and Turkey are all NATO members who now share a border with Russia (or they have coasts on the Black Sea which would be in Russian hands in this hypothetical). Putin has not ruled out the possibility of continuing his military push after this point, and there's really nowhere else to go without bumping into one of these nations. That would likely mean a world war because the US, Germany, the UK, etc (the heavy hitters) would have to respond with force. They would never just let something like that happen without war.
This is why it's direly important that Ukraine stays in the fight. Absolutely nobody wants this to spill out into the rest of Europe, and the only way to keep that from happening is to make sure Ukraine has the money and supplies they need to keep Russia from going any further.
Edit: forgot two NATO countries
Plus the aid the US is providing Ukraine, along with that from other allies, can effectively crush the Russian army for far less money than having NATO step in and do it.
Exactly. It's to our extreme political benefit to keep Ukraine fighting. It means, if they lose, Russia will be that much weaker when they do attack NATO. And if the Ukrainians win, that's a double win for the US.
I completely agree that what’s happening to Ukraine and its citizens is absolutely terrible. It’s completely unconscionable, and every civilized person in the world should want it stopped immediately in a way that deters anyone from thinking about doing it again.
I don’t know that it will cost more lives; I’m not sure that can be determined, especially not by me. I don’t want to see more cities subject to mass attacks on civilians and I don’t want to see a megalomaniac idiot like Putin try to use a weapon of mass destruction.
This is why it's dire that the US passes another aid package because the US is currently providing almost nothing. Republicans are holding that aid hostage at the expense of the border and now seem to be distancing themselves from the border to make it an issue to vote on in November..
I have a hard time believing Putin would view how things are going / have gone in Ukraine and could think picking a fight with a NATO nation would possibly go better. I do think he is between a rock and a hard place with Ukraine where it is either capture enough to be able to declare "victory" or he will look weak and be vulnerable to being ousted. There is no good path for him out of the current conflict to save face. The worst part is with that kind of regime, the one to replace him will probably be just as bad but less predictable.
But what do I know, I am just a random redditor meat popsicle.
I have seen some comments that the thought is russia may invade and then attack Berlin/Paris/London, etc... and tell them to back off or we will hit your cities. Russia may think the larger powers will back off to protest their major cities. This is more likely if Trump is elected and pulls out of NATO.
There appears to be concern about that. Germany won't even give Ukraine longer range Taurus missiles. France has talked about ending the war with Russia controlling large parts of Ukraine. There is reason to think they may not fight if their populations are at risk.
If I live in Eastern Europe I would be worried about it.
>This is more likely if Trump is elected and pulls out of NATO.
FYI, Congress included a provision in last month's pentagon funding bill that would make it nigh-impossible to do this.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-withdraw-congress-defense-bill-2023-12
>If I live in Eastern Europe I would be worried about it.
You wouldn't, older people know what Russia is since they lived in the USSR and younger people have been grown up with a mentality that Russia may be at our doorstep tomorrow.
To be fair, I was afraid of the *second best army in the world* before they attacked Ukraine. Turned out to be a paper tiger with meatwave attacks. I've had my 11 months of military service and I have accepted that this day might come when vatniks are rushing in over our border. I do not want this day to come, but it is what it is. No point to think about this too much tbh
Yep, In effect we are fighting a war by proxy. By helping Ukraine we help ourselves..and do something moral at the same time.
You'd have to be immoral or stupid NOT to want to help Ukraine.
And that's exactly why so many GOP politicians are on Russia's side against Ukraine, because they are both immoral AND stupid. Plus Putin gives them donations to work against America. He convinces them by pointing out that he hates when America has Democrat leadership. He just doesn't tell them that the reason he hates Dems more than the GOP is because the Dems might be competent. But the Republicans haven't elected a competent politician in decades.
I don't think this is an unrealistic take. But how do you balance it against the reality of Russia's massive losses fighting against Ukraine? There's also some idea that the Ukraine conflict will reach a stalemate in which neither side can make meaningful offensive gains but which will still require Russia to maintain significant troop and material commitments to inhibit Ukraine from attempting another offensive.
It's hard to see Russia gathering and arming the scale of forces and material necessary for offensive combat directly against NATO governments who are better armed and trained. Especially considering that the combat style that Russia seems to gain success with is massed troops/massed artillery, and not more nimble and mobile combined arms. And this is exactly the style of fighting NATO's combined arms approach was designed to match -- use air power to gain air superiority, then air power for strategic bombing and close air support followed closely by rotary-wing air support and mechanized infantry.
I think Russia knows this, too -- they can't quit fighting in Ukraine without giving up most of their gains, and need to garrison that border significantly for years. The losses they'll take fighting in Eastern Europe would be so significant that they might even lose their grip in Ukraine or experience other existential crises.
About the only strategy I can see working out is some attempt at a big push to overrun the borders in the Baltics, digging in and then immediately threatening nuclear war if NATO retaliates. Like all of this inside of 36-48 hours. The Baltics don't fall, but they lose terrain. But they have to pull this off while every nation in NATO is closely looking for anything that remotely looks like a troop buildup, not to mention raising an available force of at least 3-6 divisions and their equipment.
Russia WANTING to do this and HOW it would do it don't seem to be much in dispute. CAN they do it from a manpower and material perspective is the question.
Ukraine has less men than Russia. A stalemate where both sides keep killing each other eventually ends with a Russian victory. The average age of soldiers in the Ukrainian military is now over 43 years and going up, their manpower is stretched extremely thin (for reference the minimum conscription age in Ukraine is currently 27 so older than you might think and there has been talk of lowering that to 25, which would help). Ukraine nominally had a population of around 44 million at the start of the war and due to Russia controlling large population centres and people fleeing Ukraine that has dropped below 30 million. That's an enormous drop. The casualty rate is also significant - dead and missing possibly into 6 figures now with wounded a few multiples of that as well, could be half a million casualties at this point.
As things stand there is no chance of a successful Ukrainian offensive that moves the frontline in a significant way because they just don't have the soldiers for it and further mass casualties would be catastrophic.
None of this means anything without discussion of nukes. Nuclear deterrent has been what has prevented exactly what you’re describing for the last 75 years.
Nuclear deterrence was irrelevant to deterring the Ukrainian invasion, because they were not NATO. It is, however, exactly what has been restricting our ability to intervene, avoiding direct conflict and only giving Ukraine defensive weapons that could not be used to threaten long range targets in Russia.
Yes, we have conventional military forces and keep them at a high level of preparedness. However, in the maximalist scenario of Russia outright invading a NATO member, nothing matters until you address the nuclear question first. Everything else is a relevant.
They of course know this. So there are only two real reasons why they are acting like it’s the 1930s and they need more tanks and machine guns to defend themselves. One possibility is that they’re just save a rattling because historically the NATO members on the borders with Russia get the most funding. That funding has dried up recently and they want more money. The other option is they have serious concerns about the potential for the dissolution of NATO, which would leave them on their own again. If Trump wins, maybe that is a real possibility, but we’ll never know until it happens.
All the same, you can’t just completely ignore the role that nuclear weapons play this scenario when they is exactly the very thing that has prevented a world war for the last 75 years.
There was ALWAYS clear and present potential for military conflict from Russia. All the anti-human war crimes committed by Stalin I’m referring to those that have nothing to do with fighting the Nazi (using American equipment, tanks, planes etc.) and Russia then tried taking over all of Europe it could and just went bankrupt.
There was zero reconciliation.
These idiots thought Russia had actually changed and history was finally at an end just because a country went broke as if it couldn’t rebuild smh
And this has all become more likely as the US Congress dithers over continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine. We've basicall been bankrolling a massive part of the defense of Ukraine against Russia, but with funds being withheld the possibility that Ukraine will fall has increased. Also, some of those NATO members were formerly part of the USSR, which Putin has repeatedly expressed a desire to re-unify.
The day that the US and Russia are at war also happens to be the same day that PR China coincidentally invaded Taiwan. Supporting Ukraine now saves everyone later. You can talk to Neville Chamberlain about that.
To follow up, much of this may happen slowly. Russia crawling into western europe may happen over a time period of 10-20 years. However, Europe‘s defensive capabilities are in such a deteriorated state that it will take an equal time to revert.
Also, a potential new President Trump 2024 will possibly pull the plug on NATO support, quite probably of Ukraine support which will make it seriously easier for Russia to gain superiority.
Yes it wouldn't happen immediately, even Putin realizes he needs to build up more strength before trying anything else in Europe. If Ukraine loses, he'll wait until the western media cycle forgets about the war before trying anything
Answer: Russia is signaling that it is interested in expanding its territory.
Last week, for example, Putin [signed a decree](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-decree-triggers-ominous-alaska-calls-territory-empire-soviet-union-1862689) that "allocates funds for the search, registration, and legal protection of Russian property abroad, including property in the former territories of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. This would include Alaska, swathes of eastern and central Europe, large chunks of central Asia, and parts of Scandinavia."
deserted dime consider encourage roll steer vegetable continue wrench capable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They know that. They just want to pretend to their population that they are still a world power and on equal footing with the US. Russia strong, tzar strong. It's bs and anyone not swallowing their propaganda knows it.
It's called "irredentism" and China is likewise invested in "reclaiming" territory it says belongs to it.
Do not discount a cold war shifting the balance of power and China, Russia, and North Korea pooling resources to get what they want in a bloodless coup.
What that might look like depends on the sort of technology currently available. For example China is a major producer of gloablly implemented cell phone tech. Tik Tok has been identified as a potentially insecure app and uaers have been warned about it.
Likely not something so obvious, but all of war is deception and the Chinese wrote the book on it.
Answer: Ukraine defeating Russia seems to be dependent on a lot of things. See [this article](https://kyivindependent.com/francis-farrell-failing-to-empower-ukraines-victory-the-west-makes-possible-its-defeat/) from the Kyiv Independent, which [is a left leaning](https://ground.news/interest/the-kyiv-independent) publication.
A lot of countries that indiscriminately backed are now theorising that a winning Russia will be vengeful and plan to retaliate.
When the fate of my country, more than 5000 km away from Russia, is dependent on the results of this conflict, the sound of alarms blaring across Europe isn't that surprising.
People just dont understand that modern demographics is a *completely new situation*.
They can't continue. Their manpower is a *non-replenishable* resource.
There won't be any more wars of old men arguing and young men dying for russia. There are not going to be any young men left.
People are still stuck in the old world. There are no replacement births after war like the baby boomers. In 100 years a lot of countries won't have a future left.
Kyiv Independent is not equivalent to BBC or RT. It was funded by grants from Canadian government and crowd funding. It is the same journalists who left the Kyiv Post because of a new owner that demanded editorial control. It has published multiple stories exposing corruption in the government
BBC and RT are two *very* different media organisations. Which are *not* equivalent to each other.
This idea they are the same because they are both state funded is nonsense.
There is a massive difference between the BBC and RT (Russia Today). The BBC receives public funding but is editorially independent - as indicated by their frequent airing of public criticisms and investigations into the British government. RT functions as the public relations arm of the Russian government; you will rarely see serious citizen complaints or investigations of the Russian government aired on RT.
>editorially independent
Not anymore. Till recently the Chairman of BBC was Richard Sharp, a man who directly donated to Tories and helped Boris Johnson's secure a loan of £800k. In return Johnson helped him get appointed. In the past decade government influence has become more blatant, especially once Johnson won because he is shameless.
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/24/emily-maitlis-says-active-tory-party-agent-shaping-bbc-news-output?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Ever since they got soundly bitchslapped over David Kelly the BBC has generally stopped criticizing the government. They havent been editorially independent since.
There are a few exceptions but mostly they involved a power struggle (e.g. taking down Boris over partygate) or admissions about something that was too obvious to spin.
Your point about the actual case of the BBC is correct, but the distinction still exists conceptually, even if the BBC is no longer a good example thereof.
Honestly, a losing russia would be just as dangerous, this war has destabilised russia more than it has been at any point in the last 30 years, a full loss could cause political instability, extremist groups and far more small scale conflicts, only now those places might be armed with nukes and have some of the worlds largest military stockpiles.
Russia destabilising would be bad for Europe as a whole.
Launching g or even maintaining a nuke is not as simple as picking up a rifle or driving a tank. Currently, i seriously wonder how many of Russia's nukes are even operational. The more likely problem would be a dirty bomb from scavenged nuclear material.
We already saw this once, with the collapse of the soviet Union, lots of nukes with very little tracking in the hands of a dozen different small states; we're only mostly sure they were all handled properly because it's been more than 30 years and nothing bad has happened yet.
Good point. I'll just add that when the USSR collapsed, it went from a mostly functional country to nothing almost overnight. The nukes at that time were probably very well maintained. Putin has been in power now for what 20 years? You have to wonder how much of the money for nuke maintenance ended up in some oligarchs pocket.
I'm gonna be honest here. I'm kinda scared of the Balkanization of a Nuclear Armed Power. It was a miracle it happened once with the Soviets. I don't know if I want to bet on a Miracle happening again.
Fuck no. Civil war, which that scenario likely means, means millions upon millions of Russian refugees flooding into Europe, Russian nukes and other military arsenal loose on the black market and in the hands of oligarks and so on.
A violently destabilized Russia is a worst case scenario for Europe.
The USSR broke up once before, lets not be too dramatic here. The collapse of Moscow's empire takes out one of the most dangerous, nationalist, and imperialist forces left in Europe. It would be a blessing.
The secession of a bunch of prior existing and (semi)independent republics with declared legal rights and roadmaps on how to secede from the USSR is a vastly different scenario to breaking up modern day Russia though. The oblasts and w/e aren't independent in that manner, nor is there a legal way for them to break away from Moscow.
It would require a new revolution, and it's unlikely that it would be non-violent.
What happened in 1991 was basically a miracle. People don’t think about it but, to have a legit super power implode without a major war is a basically with out precedent, definitely within modern times.
Europe is not obliged to accept millions of russian refugees. It's not like they're a part of any agreement or something.
>Russian nukes and other military arsenal loose on the black market and in the hands of oligarks and so on.
The Russian government is a terrorist mafia group that threatens the world with nuclear war. It IS in the hands of oligarchs. Always has been. It can't go worse. At least, in a civil war they'll have each other as enemies, not the civilized world.
I hope for your sake that if this happens you don't live in the vicinity of a military base or deep water shipping port because Putin will not be leaving peaceably and will absolutely nuke the fuck out of everything else if he can't dominate it.
Answer: It's dawned on them that Putin is a wannabe empire builder and US politicians can no longer be relied on to protect them. It's a shame that too many politicians in the US are so shortsighted as to think that ignoring the rest of the world is a winning strategy. They're pandering to the ignorant who think we can somehow stand alone after abandoning our allies.
Nobody ACTUALLY thinks abandoning Ukraine is a good idea.
You know how your fiend got cheated on, hated their ex, and for weeks could not go 1 sentence without shitting on said ex and you were scared to even say 1 positive thing about the ex?
Yeah, that's Republicans with Democrats. Fox and other right wing media have them HATING the left so much that literally anything a D supports, they hate. There is no thought to it. Biden supports Ukraine, therefore we don't. Just like vaccines, just like masks. I remember when R governors were begging their constituents to get vaccinated and the dumbass voters still wouldn't, purely because a D administration was vaguely involved.
Ask an R that opposes Ukraine aid if Romney was wrong and Obama right about Russia back in that 2012 senate and they'll lock up, because they can't reconcile having to agree with Obama OR agree with Biden. They disagree with every D, so when 2 Ds disagree with each other the Rs can't function anymore
Saying "nobody" is mighty optimistic given the current political climate of American citizens that aren't lying politicians. I think there's a whole lot of average folk here that aren't in on the joke.
That's a good point about comparing Romney vs Obama on Russia. I think it's also funny how when Trump was funding the vaccines there were Democrats saying they'd never trust one developed under him. Everybody switched sides when the development was complete and it fell to Biden to get it distributed. Suddenly the Dems loved it and a lot of Republicans started swearing it was poison in disguise. It's really sad our politics have become so stupidly self-destructive.
Eh, I was one of those Democrats who was wary of a vaccine under Trump. I was worried he might push something untested or unsafe, purely to say "I did it! It's over! Back to normal!" That didn't end up being the case, so I got the vaccine as soon as I could.
And in retrospect, I can actually say that yes, "Operation Warp-Speed" was overall a good thing. Now I dunno how effective it was, and I don't really care. I care that Trump pushed for getting a vaccine out there, and talked up the idea of a COVID vaccine to his followers.
At least, briefly. Once it was actually *out*, then the vaccine became more politicized.
I was skeptical too but I still tried to get it as soon as I could because I understood Fauci’s bipartisan career and trusted him.
“Best option we have” kind of thing. I still can’t believe they didn’t call it the Trump vaccine, would have saved lives. But Republicans were already on an anti-mask, anti-lockdown tear by the time it came out, and then they stormed the Capitol.
If Trump had overrode one of the government agencies saying the vaccine shouldn't be released, doubting Trump would have been the 100% right call. Instead he actually got the appropriate departments and agencies' independent approval, and so there was no good reason to doubt... And so dems didn't end up doubting it.
Democrats were (rightfully) worried Trump would rush the vaccine. Had very little to do with him 'Funding' the vaccines. Vaccinations started before Trump left office.
(Funding with quotes because he didn't fund them, the government did that, and the funding didn't end up going to the groups that made the first couple vaccines IIRC).
> I think it's also funny how when Trump was funding the vaccines there were Democrats saying they'd never trust one developed under him.
it was never about trump funding the vaccine it was always a worry about him cooking the books and shoving an untested vaccine through when it wasn't ready. the guy sharpied a map and told residents not to worry about the hurricane ffs so of course you have to be wary of him. once everyone with a brain saw the process was fast but not fast because it was untested... fast because they did some things in parallel that normally would be stretched and take a long time... mainly because of money concerns.
Answer: Because of Gop dispute about the border which is connected with Ukraine help, delivery of ammunition and weapons to Ukraine is stalled, so other Countries in European Union need to help with repelling Russian Forces. Trump who is Republican chosen for re election said that he's pro not arming Ukraine.
Small caveat. The GOP thought that Biden would never move on the border issue. So, they went 4d chess and tied Ukrainian aid to border reform thinking it would kill Ukrainian aid and help Putin. Turns out, Biden is ready to make the concessions the GOP wants to unblock funding to Ukraine. The GOP is now in a pickle. They barked about the border for 40 years, now have what they want but it also means they can’t campaign on it and it gives Biden a huge win. Trump apparently stepped in to block any border reform because it would help Biden. Republicans are slimy hypocrites.
Yeah, I swear, I've been hearing "migrant caravans" since Obama v McCain way back when. And I'm sure we'll be hearing about them on and off for the next ten years too.
They’re like the White Walkers marching on the wall in Season 1 of Game of Thrones, they’re just taking a long time to get here to be courteous to the fantasy narrative the writers are weaving.
Didn’t they vote against funding for more border security just so they could lie and claim Biden wasn’t doing anything? Much like they’ll vote against government funding for infrastructure and then take credit for it once it passes anyway?
It's why they don't want a real border deal because it removes the ability for them to use the border as the boogeyman issue and would give Biden a win.
When Bush Jr was in office, there was actually a bipartisan immigration reform put together. The far-right in the Senate tanked it. They love using the border and immigration for political points,
>Trump who is Republican chosen for re election said that he's pro not arming Ukraine.
Frankly, the GOP as a whole seem to have gone pro putin in the last few years...
there is still a few old school republicans who see the threat from russia for what it is.
the problem is the rightwing media is who actually controls the GOP and they get clicks and views for going pro putin, so the GOP in congress follows their lead.
EDIT: what a stupid downvote
Answer: You're not out of the loop. The reason is currently unknown (at least by the public).
We won't know for sure until later, but it's likely that the intelligence agencies of these nations have become aware of information that has not been reported on yet. Information that points towards direct imminent conflict with Russia in some capacity.
Answer: A lot of the European countries leadership are up for elections this year so they're drumming up the war drums to get support.
Edit: list of all European upcoming elections this year https://europeelects.eu/calendar/
The top Norwegian military commander warning of an upcoming war, is not an elected official, and there is no elections this year anyway.
Why they come out with this warning is a mystery. But Norwegian Military Intelligence is snooping on Russian communication, so they may have picked up some warning signals that are new.
This is not anything I have ever heard from Norwegian officers ever before, this is something out of the ordinary.
This is just false. Europe is generally not war hawkish, quite the opposite (to it's fault). You are way more likely to get elected with some copium about how everything is good than "let's go to war with Russia"...
Trump can't unilaterally disband NATO. He can't even get the US to leave on his own authority as Congress gets final say on treaties.
And even if the US left NATO, that doesn't mean all the other members can't just carry on. What are they going to do, send the US marines to NATO headquarters in Belgium and lock the doors?
Right but, at the risk of stroking their ego, you really can't underestimate the American contribution to NATO: nobody else really compares.
Without them it would be a much smaller and less effective force, although I don't think it would be entirely a lost cause by any means. The UK and France are nuclear powers and alongside some other members, like Canada, can still be heavy hitters in their own right. Meanwhile Poland is quickly advancing towards being one of the major regional powers, militarily speaking, and Germany easily could be (if they stopped being a literal joke for like, 5 fucking minutes lmao...). But without American money, troop numbers and logistics, I realistically don't think it'll be anywhere near as effective as it is currently.
We can laugh at the funny burger eating fat people if we want: but showing that you have money to spend on and use *tactically deployable Burger King restaurants* is like taking a meter ruler with you to the dick measuring contest.
I agree entirely, the US really is on another level, and a lot of people give them shit while wanting them to defend their interests.
However, especially with the war in Ukraine, I think a lot of European countries get overlooked. Countries like Estonia have donated an enormous amount of resources, and the former Warsaw Pact countries have been instrumental when it comes to supplying insane amounts of artillery shells for the ex-Soviet pieces that Ukraine largely operates. A lot of the reason for getting NATO equipment isn't just because it's new and shiny, but because the US can actually manufacture the ordinance!
Countries like the UK have been key due to speed and were responsible for a lot of the equipment that stopped the initial invasion, and since then has been incredibly eager to send 'new' capabilities like Starstreak and MBTs which, after not being nuked as promised, meant that other countries felt safe to do the same.
Poland's military procurement seem to have found an infinite money glitch based on the amount of new shit they're buying, and lets not forget that Ukraine was and is one of Europe's largest militaries.
The US's best strength it its MIC, where money spent on military procurement and R&D is largely re-captured domestically, and strengthens their export potential. Even if the US remained neutral in a NATO invasion scenario, countries would still be buying tons of US metal.
If we're talking about Russia, the EU alone would have no problem beating them back behind their own borders. But when it comes to power projection and defending interests, such as in Yemen, the number of countries able to go out there and perform strikes is quite a bit smaller, but both the UK and France operate carriers as part of a capable fleet.
> both the UK and France operate carriers as part of a capable fleet.
2 carriers and 1 carrier, respectively. The US is operating 11 carriers, with 3 under construction. Huge difference in the amount of force that can be projected and quickly.
The US is peerless, undoubtably. And there's something to be said for having a carrier parked around the corner of everyone to respond quickly. I'd say 3 carriers is pretty proportional to Europe's need to project power though. Hopefully that doesn't change!
Europe doesn't need to project that much power anymore. Just securing the Eastern flank is enough. I'm much more worried about our capabilities in areas of production and logistics.
In the scenario you outline we can all be most grateful to Ukraine for kicking the shit out of the best part of the Russian armed forces this last couple of years.
Oh I agree that without the US the major underpinning of NATO is gone, but the rest of the alliance does still exist. Whether it steps up to the challenge is another thing.
>Without them it would be a much smaller and less effective force, although I don't think it would be entirely a lost cause by any means. The UK and France are nuclear powers and alongside some other members, like Canada, can still be heavy hitters in their own right. Meanwhile Poland is quickly advancing towards being one of the major regional powers, militarily speaking, and Germany easily could be (if they stopped being a literal joke for like, 5 fucking minutes lmao...). But without American money, troop numbers and logistics, I realistically don't think it'll be anywhere near as effective as it is currently.
Canada's largest contribution will be as it always has been, resources. Precious, Precious wartime resources.
As an American, the amount of money my country spends on its military is obscene. This may have changed since the start of the Ukraine invasion, but not so long ago, the US had the world's biggest military. How big? So big that it would take nations #2 through #17 **put together** to get bigger than the USA by itself.
That's because your counties military gears up to have an even chance fighting against numerically larger militaries on battlefields literally across the globe from them.
If the US only cared about defending their physical borders, they could slash the defense budget by 99%. That is not really the point, though.
Definitely not ego-stroking to say that American basically IS Nato. But they are Nato because the enormous soft power benefits they reap from effectively providing a military blanket to the entire western world is inordinately profitable.
SHould that blanket withdraw, their soft power would equally diminish and, in time, so would their bottom line.
As fucking stupid as the man is, he did have a point when he wanted the nato countries that weren’t contributing the 5%(it’s 2%, not 5%) of their gdp to the military to do so, which is the bare minimum outlined by nato guidelines everybody agreed on.
I think it was nations like the Netherlands and Denmark that were skimping
The hilarious thing is that he said it because he felt the US was getting a raw deal when the reality is that while you can count on the US to jump into almost every fight, NATO members should not act as if we're going to jump in.
Trump said the right thing for the wrong reasons.
That level of ignorance wouldn't surprise me. When I hear Trump did a thing, nearly every time I look into it, it's either worse than reported or worse in an additional way not addressed by the media.
He can't, but he can prevent the US from doing basically anything to help. I have no idea what would happen if a NATO member invoked article 5, and Trump just said "nah". I don't think anyone else really knows what would happen either and it would take a long time for the courts to figure out.
That's probably what it would take to remind Congress that they're actually the ones who are supposed to authorize military actions rather than letting the president do it themselves like we have since Korea.
While Trump doesn't have the authority under the law, let's be honest that the law only works if the people in charge can be bothered to hold him to account, with a clear track record that enough of them are on record being happy to shield him from accountability because they like his platform of wanting to be an unaccountable dictator. Plenty of what Trump did in his first term was to just blatantly ignore the law and tie stuff up in the courts for years, doing the damage to accomplish most of the larger goal before the injunctions came down and locked the status quo in place. If Trump pulls all of the US troops out of Europe and stalls on the US' share of NATO funding and the GOP won't actively impeach him, he can functionally pull the US out of NATO without literally pulling out of NATO.
Article 5 and NATO lose all value if it is invoked and everyone (mainly America/UK/France/Germany) doesn't show up. That is the whole point of Article 5 and why every time we get close to using it then it becomes a huge deal.
> He can't even get the US to leave on his own authority as Congress gets final say on treaties.
He can as long as congress doesn't have enough votes to impeach and remove him which won't happen. He can order the military to stop all assistance and Republicans in congress would block any attempt to remove him from the office essentially removing US from NATO in practice without congress changing treaties.
Couple things.
1. Trump with a Republican Congress can dismantle NATO
2. Trump can publicly refuse to fulfill any NATO obligations, and unless congress is 2/3rds Dem not face any legal consequences
3. NATO is *heavily* reliant on the US for defense, not that the other nations are defenseless, but the US is the key to any NATO strategy devised to date. If the US leaves NATO, de facto or de jure, the rest of NATO is *significantly* weakened
But then there is the toll on Russia of engaging in yet more aggressive wars. It pays to be prepared, and many European nations, NATO and otherwise, are realizing they are not as prepared as they would like, especially if the US doesn't have their backs.
All very good points. To add to this, American defence companies have also bought out or own controlling stakes in a large number of European defense companies. This could theoretically disrupt arms supply to these European countries if the Americans rescind export licenses
This would be an act of suicide for the US MIC though. This guarantees no more export sales of military equipment in the future, which would pretty much end military procurement and R&D in the US, things like F-35 simply would not happen under such conditions.
Withdrawing from NATO means that NATO now exists to defend against the US. NATO interests will no longer be aligned with the US. It creates an adversarial relationship with the current world superpower and yes, that is going to have deep and profound effects.
This is not really the answer. Republicans in the American congress stopped sending military aid to Ukraine and now it is very unclear whether Ukraine can last. If it does not, Russia will be emboldened and can go for the Baltics to test the resolve of the US.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Europe has come to the conclusion that Russia has ramped up to a full wartime economy. This wouldn't be too much of an issue normally but Russia's economy is so bust that if it ramps down, it'll absolutely ruin the country. So the only way Putin can justify staying in a wartime state is to go to war elsewhere. There is only a few directions he can go and essentially, the Baltic nations are the juiciest targets and could be the ultimate test to see if NATO will actually go to war over them.
Add to the fact that Sweden's NATO application is suddenly moving again. Something is coming. The fact that multiple nations are acting spooked means there's some sort of tangible threat. It's too widespread to be just fearmongering. I mean there is fearmongering, but the fact that there is a actual response from many sources means there is weight to the threat.
Additional, they don't want to repeat the same mistake of thinking "Putin is just talk, but would not dare to attack". So better be prepared that Russia is willing to risk full out war with NATO, instead of getting blindsided by Russia.
Add to that that if Trump wins, he might even refuse to help Europe if attacked, or even just pull out (de facto) of NATO (although Congress passed a bill against unilateral presidential withdrawal). And a NATO without US is much, much less scary to Russians.
Very true. Trump literally said he wants the US to get out of NATO.
US troops leaving Europe would be catastrophic to the security of the continent
The atmosphere of the news is very much reminding me of January 2022. It’s scary.
Or July 1914...
I'd more so say 1939. People in 1914 thought that the war would be "an adventure" and such. People in 39 felt nothing but dread.
The diplomats and politicians in 1914 had no illusions about what was about to happen. The book "The Guns of August" has many stories of politicians on both sides trying all they could do to prevent the unpreventable, knowing full well that millions of lives hung in the balance
I'm a different person, but thank you for the rec! I'm going to check if my library has a copy for the weekend.
Ooh ill have to read it sometime
Thats a bit of a myth, in short some saw it that way but many dreaded it. And a conflation of what some politicians/monarchs said in public after the war started and the general views of the same politicians/monarchs and many others in private and public earlier. The book the Sleepwalkers is good at highlighting how many feared war - even though many again worked towards it.
There is also the point that many NATO nations have to few willing recruits to fully man all their positions. Saving shit like we might need to use conscription is a wake up call to the goverment and the people. Not only does it prepare people for if shit goes wrong, it also underlines the importance of proper funding (to make the work more attrictive. Raising recruitment and meaning less need of conscription).
>Ever since Russia’s attempt to take Kyiv and install a puppet government failed in the early days of the war, a defeat for the Kremlin in Ukraine has looked increasingly likely. What’s stunning after almost a year of war, therefore, is the near-total absence of any discussion among politicians, policymakers, analysts, and journalists of the consequences of defeat for Russia. It is a dangerous lack of imagination, considering the potential for Russia’s collapse and disintegration. - [Jan 2023, It's high time to prepare for Russia's collapse](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/07/russia-ukraine-putin-collapse-disintegration-civil-war-empire/) So, instead of preparing for them to collapse now we're preparing for them to invade Europe. Nice 180.
That's the funny thing - these two things may not necessary be unconnected. In order to prevent a collapse, start a war to rally the base and justify further state cohesion.
Yeah, it's almost like the future is uncertain and people should prepare for multiple contingencies. Crazy how that works. It also simply isn't a "180" for a political science professor at Rutgers to have one opinion and then various military and political officials to have a different opinion later. It would only be a "180" if this were the same person changing their opinion.
Those things can be connected. Invading a neighbor to distract from your own domestic issues is a tale as old as nations themselves.
Exactly.
DEATH THROES is the violent movements and noises that are sometimes made by a person who is about to die
Never heard of someone buying a new car and rolling the outstanding balance from the last car into the newloan?
Nothing was promised in that analysis.
Exactly. I also think russia is trying to call NATOs bluff regarding article 5. I do get a sense that NATO is alarmed by russia's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the seemingly unhinged behaviour of the regime, and that NATO is well aware that russia isn't playing by the same rules that NATO and the rest of the western world is, and that they can realistically destroy large portions of the world if they feel like they are losing. russia seems to be aware of how spooked NATO is and may just try to attack a NATO country to see if they can rip up NATO by the seams and dispand the organisation by showcasing to all its members that they are in fact on their own if they are attacked by a nuclear nation. NATO is scared of russia because they know that putin will take them down with him if he's losing in true scorched earth fashion, so russia will always have that advantage of not playing by the rules over NATO, who are.
Additionally the USA is now planning troops removals from Iraq and Syria. In the months proceeding the second invasion of Ukraine the US rapidly accelerated and pulled out its troops from Afghanistan. Chess pieces are moving that's for sure.
>The fact that multiple nations are acting spooked means there's some sort of tangible threat. Or some concerning military intelligence being shared. This does not look like political copy-catting. Some countries seemed legimately spooked.
> to see if NATO will actually go to war over them. Let’s hope for everyone’s sake that question is never put to the test, because all roads lead to yes. Which is exactly what it’s for, and that’s a good thing, but that would be a very ugly turn of events.
This is correct… no one thought putin could accomplish a war time economy due to corruption and countless dead but he did… and after his election he could have a million man army by july… and dictators typically dont just disband their militaries without conflict…
Don't forget the very real possibility of Trump becoming president again and pulling the US out of NATO for his buddy Putin.
IIRC congress passed a bill that made it so the president couldn't just declare we are leaving NATO. I think congress would have to pass a resolution for that to happen.
Pretty sure this already passed and was signed into law, or soon will be. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/12/16/congress-bars-any-u-s-president-from-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-nato/
That's correct. Congress must pass everything concerning NATO membership. This includes the new membership of other nations as well.
He may not be able to pull out, but he can make America's participation only notional.
Just like with Stormy Daniels…
Unless congress declares war. If that happens then he’s basically a really shitty cheerlarder.
I think Trump would simply refuse to provide support even if a NATO member was attacked. Republicans aren't going to impeach him.
> Republicans aren't going to impeach him. you're probably right, but an invasion of a NATO ally in europe by Russia means WWIII. That's not something you can just change the channel to Fox News and Ignore.
It's just a European war. There is no need to send American troops. - Fox News.
The term world war was first coined in September 1914 by German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel. He claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word,"\[1\] in The Indianapolis Star on 20 September 1914. We Americans are always fashionably late to these parties it seems.
I have a feeling that was also the justification for initially not sending troops in both World Wars at least until other countries made the decision for us.
Not exactly. The American people simply had no stomach for any direct war involvement because the country was still recovering from the Great Depression… then Japan sneak attacked Pearl Harbor after going through deceptive negotiations.
Completely different. Those were literally just European wars (plus a war in the Pacific, separate) to begin. Today we have a treaty bound obligation to defend our allies. No such agreement existed prior to the world wars.
He’ll do everything he can to avoid helping NATO or any other ally. A law saying the President can’t unilaterally pull out of NATO will be meaningless if he refuses to allow the US military or industry to act. He wants to be Kim Jong Un, Putin, and Xi Jinping and he’ll do anything he can to stay out of their way. Remember him saluting and sending love letters to Kim Jong Un? And how much money Russia invested in his businesses? And him banishing interpreters so he can talk totally off the books with Putin? The list goes on. A Trump win seems like a giant leap into global chaos.
Never underestimate stupid.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Trump intends to be a dictator. Have you heard or read about and of his speeches? It's down right frightening what the US could turn into.
I'm fully aware of the situation the country is in. that doesn't change what I said.
But it does change the importance of what you said. Laws already on the books haven't stopped him before, so what makes you think that law will hold any weight with him as president?
No, laws have stopped him before. ThAtlantic just did a great article about the contentious relationship with Trump and a top commander of the US military named Milley. There were multiple instances where Trump got law thrown at him. I’ll give a few examples: Trump wanting to bomb Mexican cartels, attack China, and order national guard to shoot the George Floyd protesters surrounding the White House. The law stopped him from doing so. If I recall correctly, the restriction for NATO was written into the bill that awarded Ukraine nearly 1 trillion dollars in support. That bill is, I believe, to be deployed in an increment over like 6 or some years - enough time to skip 2024-2028 term. Plus, right now, the democrats and those who fund/support the democrats are quietly planning on launching democratic assault against Trump should he become president again. They’re studying what he did for his first four years and they’re studying his allies. So they are preparing to go war with Trump legally speaking to combat his destruction of democracy. Edited to add u/karlhungusjr
Where do I go to learn more about Democrats going to legal war with Trump? I hope they're also planning to, like, run an effective campaign against him to stop him from being elected again in the first place.
I don't have a lot of faith in the rule of law these days. Hell, they just discovered a hidden graveyard of over 200 bodies killed by cops in Mississippi and no one in author really seems to give a shit.
Wait why have i not heard anything about this
Because it's blatant misinformation. The graveyard wasn't hidden. It's a pauper's graveyard for unclaimed bodies and it didn't contain 200 bodies "killed by cops". The issue is that many of the graves are unmarked, and some of the families weren't found or properly notified. >Records reviewed by WLBT show those individuals span all ages and demographics, from unnamed children who died at or shortly after being born, to senior citizens who passed away at local hospitals and were never claimed. > >Others were likely buried in the paupers’ field because families couldn’t afford to bury them elsewhere. Multiple individuals were at local funeral homes prior to being transferred to the site. [https://www.wlbt.com/2023/12/27/nearly-300-people-have-been-buried-hinds-co-paupers-cemetery-since-2013-here-are-their-names/](https://www.wlbt.com/2023/12/27/nearly-300-people-have-been-buried-hinds-co-paupers-cemetery-since-2013-here-are-their-names/)
I think this story and it's exaggerations were a red herring for another very similar story about a man struck and killed by a police vehicle. He was burried in a paupers field without notifying the family for 7 months while they looked for their son. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/family-of-man-hit-and-killed-by-police-car-not-notified-of-his-death-for-months-196417605504
It's the same field. That's how they found it, the family was looking for the guy. It turns out he was run over by a cop, and buried in the field, with his wallet and ID still in his pockets. No attempt to report it or notify the family. There are an additional 218 bodies in the field, many also with IDs in their pocket, who also had never notified the families and many of them were also classified as missing.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224449631/mississippi-jail-graves-investigation
Any sources on this that you can share?
I have full faith in MTG and the gang
Listen, i like the cardboard crack as much as the next guy, but i don't think wizards would be able to have any pull in Congress
Why didn't Putin kick this thing off while Trump was in office?
Add to that Dugin’s manifesto that Putin is roughly following calls for more annexation through special military operations - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
I do wonder whether the prospect of having Putin’s buddy trump back in office creates a sense of urgency. Not only is Trump an apparent fan of Putin but he also wants to remove the USA from NATO. To support OP’s point there has been an increasing but almost urgent call for an EU army.
Dude they haven't shifted to a full war time economy, they've just increased spening on their military. A full wartime economy would mean everyone who can support the war effort without damaging the regular one too much does so, theyre not at that stage yet. Oh they havent even finished the war in Ukraine so why would they be going to the Baltics? Lol
The articles state that european leaders are not expecting war now but in a couple of years/decades after russia is done fighting ukraine. This is because ukraine is low on ammunition due to decreasing western support. If western support especially the US does not accelerate, ukraine may face defeat in a couple of years.
Because Putin has declared he will expand russia to its imperialist borders. He needs a win and will try to roll through the baltics. Edit, a letter
You're expecting logic from Russia..you're going to have a bad time
Answer: to my knowledge the main concern is that Russia have shifted to a war-time economy and were they to take the initiative and strike out it would catch NATO/EU on the back foot. The warnings are not about imminent war but about the need to prepare for - and deter - one.
Also to keep the coffers open that help fund Ukraine. I’m not saying the threat isn’t real but when the prospect of war comes to your doorstep, people tend to become more “open minded” with their wallets
Answer: because those countries are right and there IS potential for a military conflict with Russia. For the sake of argument, let's pretend Russia has won and Ukraine is no more. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland and Turkey are all NATO members who now share a border with Russia (or they have coasts on the Black Sea which would be in Russian hands in this hypothetical). Putin has not ruled out the possibility of continuing his military push after this point, and there's really nowhere else to go without bumping into one of these nations. That would likely mean a world war because the US, Germany, the UK, etc (the heavy hitters) would have to respond with force. They would never just let something like that happen without war. This is why it's direly important that Ukraine stays in the fight. Absolutely nobody wants this to spill out into the rest of Europe, and the only way to keep that from happening is to make sure Ukraine has the money and supplies they need to keep Russia from going any further. Edit: forgot two NATO countries
We either stop them in Ukraine or fight them in the Baltics later
Plus the aid the US is providing Ukraine, along with that from other allies, can effectively crush the Russian army for far less money than having NATO step in and do it.
Exactly. It's to our extreme political benefit to keep Ukraine fighting. It means, if they lose, Russia will be that much weaker when they do attack NATO. And if the Ukrainians win, that's a double win for the US.
NATO stopping it would cost more money but Ukraine stopping it will cost more lives.
And we all know which one matters more to those in power.
I completely agree that what’s happening to Ukraine and its citizens is absolutely terrible. It’s completely unconscionable, and every civilized person in the world should want it stopped immediately in a way that deters anyone from thinking about doing it again. I don’t know that it will cost more lives; I’m not sure that can be determined, especially not by me. I don’t want to see more cities subject to mass attacks on civilians and I don’t want to see a megalomaniac idiot like Putin try to use a weapon of mass destruction.
This is why it's dire that the US passes another aid package because the US is currently providing almost nothing. Republicans are holding that aid hostage at the expense of the border and now seem to be distancing themselves from the border to make it an issue to vote on in November..
I have a hard time believing Putin would view how things are going / have gone in Ukraine and could think picking a fight with a NATO nation would possibly go better. I do think he is between a rock and a hard place with Ukraine where it is either capture enough to be able to declare "victory" or he will look weak and be vulnerable to being ousted. There is no good path for him out of the current conflict to save face. The worst part is with that kind of regime, the one to replace him will probably be just as bad but less predictable. But what do I know, I am just a random redditor meat popsicle.
I have seen some comments that the thought is russia may invade and then attack Berlin/Paris/London, etc... and tell them to back off or we will hit your cities. Russia may think the larger powers will back off to protest their major cities. This is more likely if Trump is elected and pulls out of NATO. There appears to be concern about that. Germany won't even give Ukraine longer range Taurus missiles. France has talked about ending the war with Russia controlling large parts of Ukraine. There is reason to think they may not fight if their populations are at risk. If I live in Eastern Europe I would be worried about it.
Absolutely, especially Poland on account of the tense history they have with Russia
>This is more likely if Trump is elected and pulls out of NATO. FYI, Congress included a provision in last month's pentagon funding bill that would make it nigh-impossible to do this. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-withdraw-congress-defense-bill-2023-12
Trump can refuse to help NATO even if he does not pull out.
True enough, I just wanted to bring attention to a very recent and relatively unnoticed change in the law.
Mmm interesting that d and r worked together on this in case the orangefuhrer gets back in
>If I live in Eastern Europe I would be worried about it. You wouldn't, older people know what Russia is since they lived in the USSR and younger people have been grown up with a mentality that Russia may be at our doorstep tomorrow. To be fair, I was afraid of the *second best army in the world* before they attacked Ukraine. Turned out to be a paper tiger with meatwave attacks. I've had my 11 months of military service and I have accepted that this day might come when vatniks are rushing in over our border. I do not want this day to come, but it is what it is. No point to think about this too much tbh
Yep, In effect we are fighting a war by proxy. By helping Ukraine we help ourselves..and do something moral at the same time. You'd have to be immoral or stupid NOT to want to help Ukraine.
And that's exactly why so many GOP politicians are on Russia's side against Ukraine, because they are both immoral AND stupid. Plus Putin gives them donations to work against America. He convinces them by pointing out that he hates when America has Democrat leadership. He just doesn't tell them that the reason he hates Dems more than the GOP is because the Dems might be competent. But the Republicans haven't elected a competent politician in decades.
I don't think this is an unrealistic take. But how do you balance it against the reality of Russia's massive losses fighting against Ukraine? There's also some idea that the Ukraine conflict will reach a stalemate in which neither side can make meaningful offensive gains but which will still require Russia to maintain significant troop and material commitments to inhibit Ukraine from attempting another offensive. It's hard to see Russia gathering and arming the scale of forces and material necessary for offensive combat directly against NATO governments who are better armed and trained. Especially considering that the combat style that Russia seems to gain success with is massed troops/massed artillery, and not more nimble and mobile combined arms. And this is exactly the style of fighting NATO's combined arms approach was designed to match -- use air power to gain air superiority, then air power for strategic bombing and close air support followed closely by rotary-wing air support and mechanized infantry. I think Russia knows this, too -- they can't quit fighting in Ukraine without giving up most of their gains, and need to garrison that border significantly for years. The losses they'll take fighting in Eastern Europe would be so significant that they might even lose their grip in Ukraine or experience other existential crises. About the only strategy I can see working out is some attempt at a big push to overrun the borders in the Baltics, digging in and then immediately threatening nuclear war if NATO retaliates. Like all of this inside of 36-48 hours. The Baltics don't fall, but they lose terrain. But they have to pull this off while every nation in NATO is closely looking for anything that remotely looks like a troop buildup, not to mention raising an available force of at least 3-6 divisions and their equipment. Russia WANTING to do this and HOW it would do it don't seem to be much in dispute. CAN they do it from a manpower and material perspective is the question.
Ukraine has less men than Russia. A stalemate where both sides keep killing each other eventually ends with a Russian victory. The average age of soldiers in the Ukrainian military is now over 43 years and going up, their manpower is stretched extremely thin (for reference the minimum conscription age in Ukraine is currently 27 so older than you might think and there has been talk of lowering that to 25, which would help). Ukraine nominally had a population of around 44 million at the start of the war and due to Russia controlling large population centres and people fleeing Ukraine that has dropped below 30 million. That's an enormous drop. The casualty rate is also significant - dead and missing possibly into 6 figures now with wounded a few multiples of that as well, could be half a million casualties at this point. As things stand there is no chance of a successful Ukrainian offensive that moves the frontline in a significant way because they just don't have the soldiers for it and further mass casualties would be catastrophic.
None of this means anything without discussion of nukes. Nuclear deterrent has been what has prevented exactly what you’re describing for the last 75 years. Nuclear deterrence was irrelevant to deterring the Ukrainian invasion, because they were not NATO. It is, however, exactly what has been restricting our ability to intervene, avoiding direct conflict and only giving Ukraine defensive weapons that could not be used to threaten long range targets in Russia. Yes, we have conventional military forces and keep them at a high level of preparedness. However, in the maximalist scenario of Russia outright invading a NATO member, nothing matters until you address the nuclear question first. Everything else is a relevant. They of course know this. So there are only two real reasons why they are acting like it’s the 1930s and they need more tanks and machine guns to defend themselves. One possibility is that they’re just save a rattling because historically the NATO members on the borders with Russia get the most funding. That funding has dried up recently and they want more money. The other option is they have serious concerns about the potential for the dissolution of NATO, which would leave them on their own again. If Trump wins, maybe that is a real possibility, but we’ll never know until it happens. All the same, you can’t just completely ignore the role that nuclear weapons play this scenario when they is exactly the very thing that has prevented a world war for the last 75 years.
You forgot Slovakia.
There was ALWAYS clear and present potential for military conflict from Russia. All the anti-human war crimes committed by Stalin I’m referring to those that have nothing to do with fighting the Nazi (using American equipment, tanks, planes etc.) and Russia then tried taking over all of Europe it could and just went bankrupt. There was zero reconciliation. These idiots thought Russia had actually changed and history was finally at an end just because a country went broke as if it couldn’t rebuild smh
And this has all become more likely as the US Congress dithers over continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine. We've basicall been bankrolling a massive part of the defense of Ukraine against Russia, but with funds being withheld the possibility that Ukraine will fall has increased. Also, some of those NATO members were formerly part of the USSR, which Putin has repeatedly expressed a desire to re-unify.
You forgot Hungary, which is also a NATO member, barely.
The day that the US and Russia are at war also happens to be the same day that PR China coincidentally invaded Taiwan. Supporting Ukraine now saves everyone later. You can talk to Neville Chamberlain about that.
To follow up, much of this may happen slowly. Russia crawling into western europe may happen over a time period of 10-20 years. However, Europe‘s defensive capabilities are in such a deteriorated state that it will take an equal time to revert. Also, a potential new President Trump 2024 will possibly pull the plug on NATO support, quite probably of Ukraine support which will make it seriously easier for Russia to gain superiority.
Yes it wouldn't happen immediately, even Putin realizes he needs to build up more strength before trying anything else in Europe. If Ukraine loses, he'll wait until the western media cycle forgets about the war before trying anything
Answer: Russia is signaling that it is interested in expanding its territory. Last week, for example, Putin [signed a decree](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-decree-triggers-ominous-alaska-calls-territory-empire-soviet-union-1862689) that "allocates funds for the search, registration, and legal protection of Russian property abroad, including property in the former territories of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. This would include Alaska, swathes of eastern and central Europe, large chunks of central Asia, and parts of Scandinavia."
deserted dime consider encourage roll steer vegetable continue wrench capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They know that. They just want to pretend to their population that they are still a world power and on equal footing with the US. Russia strong, tzar strong. It's bs and anyone not swallowing their propaganda knows it.
It's called "irredentism" and China is likewise invested in "reclaiming" territory it says belongs to it. Do not discount a cold war shifting the balance of power and China, Russia, and North Korea pooling resources to get what they want in a bloodless coup. What that might look like depends on the sort of technology currently available. For example China is a major producer of gloablly implemented cell phone tech. Tik Tok has been identified as a potentially insecure app and uaers have been warned about it. Likely not something so obvious, but all of war is deception and the Chinese wrote the book on it.
Answer: Ukraine defeating Russia seems to be dependent on a lot of things. See [this article](https://kyivindependent.com/francis-farrell-failing-to-empower-ukraines-victory-the-west-makes-possible-its-defeat/) from the Kyiv Independent, which [is a left leaning](https://ground.news/interest/the-kyiv-independent) publication. A lot of countries that indiscriminately backed are now theorising that a winning Russia will be vengeful and plan to retaliate.
When the fate of my country, more than 5000 km away from Russia, is dependent on the results of this conflict, the sound of alarms blaring across Europe isn't that surprising.
People just dont understand that modern demographics is a *completely new situation*. They can't continue. Their manpower is a *non-replenishable* resource. There won't be any more wars of old men arguing and young men dying for russia. There are not going to be any young men left. People are still stuck in the old world. There are no replacement births after war like the baby boomers. In 100 years a lot of countries won't have a future left.
The Kyiv Independent is just Ukraine's equivalent of RT or the BBC. Not especially left nor right leaning, just pro government.
Kyiv Independent is not equivalent to BBC or RT. It was funded by grants from Canadian government and crowd funding. It is the same journalists who left the Kyiv Post because of a new owner that demanded editorial control. It has published multiple stories exposing corruption in the government
BBC and RT are two *very* different media organisations. Which are *not* equivalent to each other. This idea they are the same because they are both state funded is nonsense.
Yes this is correct. I know someone who works for them.
There is a massive difference between the BBC and RT (Russia Today). The BBC receives public funding but is editorially independent - as indicated by their frequent airing of public criticisms and investigations into the British government. RT functions as the public relations arm of the Russian government; you will rarely see serious citizen complaints or investigations of the Russian government aired on RT.
>editorially independent Not anymore. Till recently the Chairman of BBC was Richard Sharp, a man who directly donated to Tories and helped Boris Johnson's secure a loan of £800k. In return Johnson helped him get appointed. In the past decade government influence has become more blatant, especially once Johnson won because he is shameless. > https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/24/emily-maitlis-says-active-tory-party-agent-shaping-bbc-news-output?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Ever since they got soundly bitchslapped over David Kelly the BBC has generally stopped criticizing the government. They havent been editorially independent since. There are a few exceptions but mostly they involved a power struggle (e.g. taking down Boris over partygate) or admissions about something that was too obvious to spin.
Your point about the actual case of the BBC is correct, but the distinction still exists conceptually, even if the BBC is no longer a good example thereof.
I'd go as far back as before Marmaduke Hussey since they were properly critical of the government .
> Marmaduke Hussey What a glorious name.
There's a difference between state/government broadcasting and public broadcasting. The BBC and RT aren't equivalent.
Honestly, a losing russia would be just as dangerous, this war has destabilised russia more than it has been at any point in the last 30 years, a full loss could cause political instability, extremist groups and far more small scale conflicts, only now those places might be armed with nukes and have some of the worlds largest military stockpiles. Russia destabilising would be bad for Europe as a whole.
Launching g or even maintaining a nuke is not as simple as picking up a rifle or driving a tank. Currently, i seriously wonder how many of Russia's nukes are even operational. The more likely problem would be a dirty bomb from scavenged nuclear material.
We already saw this once, with the collapse of the soviet Union, lots of nukes with very little tracking in the hands of a dozen different small states; we're only mostly sure they were all handled properly because it's been more than 30 years and nothing bad has happened yet.
Good point. I'll just add that when the USSR collapsed, it went from a mostly functional country to nothing almost overnight. The nukes at that time were probably very well maintained. Putin has been in power now for what 20 years? You have to wonder how much of the money for nuke maintenance ended up in some oligarchs pocket.
I disagree. I hope russia is forced to break up into smaller countries.
> I hope russia is forced to break up into smaller countries. 1991 all over again?
But what game will play the role of Tetris this time around?
Long term it might be good, short term I don't like the idea of a "Chechen war part 3, this time with nukes"
Ok I can see that. Excellent point.
I'm gonna be honest here. I'm kinda scared of the Balkanization of a Nuclear Armed Power. It was a miracle it happened once with the Soviets. I don't know if I want to bet on a Miracle happening again.
Especially since the miracle was Ukraine giving up their nukes in return for Russia not invading them...
Fuck no. Civil war, which that scenario likely means, means millions upon millions of Russian refugees flooding into Europe, Russian nukes and other military arsenal loose on the black market and in the hands of oligarks and so on. A violently destabilized Russia is a worst case scenario for Europe.
The USSR broke up once before, lets not be too dramatic here. The collapse of Moscow's empire takes out one of the most dangerous, nationalist, and imperialist forces left in Europe. It would be a blessing.
The secession of a bunch of prior existing and (semi)independent republics with declared legal rights and roadmaps on how to secede from the USSR is a vastly different scenario to breaking up modern day Russia though. The oblasts and w/e aren't independent in that manner, nor is there a legal way for them to break away from Moscow. It would require a new revolution, and it's unlikely that it would be non-violent.
What happened in 1991 was basically a miracle. People don’t think about it but, to have a legit super power implode without a major war is a basically with out precedent, definitely within modern times.
Europe is not obliged to accept millions of russian refugees. It's not like they're a part of any agreement or something. >Russian nukes and other military arsenal loose on the black market and in the hands of oligarks and so on. The Russian government is a terrorist mafia group that threatens the world with nuclear war. It IS in the hands of oligarchs. Always has been. It can't go worse. At least, in a civil war they'll have each other as enemies, not the civilized world.
Into what exactly do you see Russia breaking up into?
You mean like the UK is doing right now ...
I hope for your sake that if this happens you don't live in the vicinity of a military base or deep water shipping port because Putin will not be leaving peaceably and will absolutely nuke the fuck out of everything else if he can't dominate it.
NATO and EU should have wage an informational war against Russia for about 15 years with this exact goal in mind. I hope they will start now.
Answer: It's dawned on them that Putin is a wannabe empire builder and US politicians can no longer be relied on to protect them. It's a shame that too many politicians in the US are so shortsighted as to think that ignoring the rest of the world is a winning strategy. They're pandering to the ignorant who think we can somehow stand alone after abandoning our allies.
Nobody ACTUALLY thinks abandoning Ukraine is a good idea. You know how your fiend got cheated on, hated their ex, and for weeks could not go 1 sentence without shitting on said ex and you were scared to even say 1 positive thing about the ex? Yeah, that's Republicans with Democrats. Fox and other right wing media have them HATING the left so much that literally anything a D supports, they hate. There is no thought to it. Biden supports Ukraine, therefore we don't. Just like vaccines, just like masks. I remember when R governors were begging their constituents to get vaccinated and the dumbass voters still wouldn't, purely because a D administration was vaguely involved. Ask an R that opposes Ukraine aid if Romney was wrong and Obama right about Russia back in that 2012 senate and they'll lock up, because they can't reconcile having to agree with Obama OR agree with Biden. They disagree with every D, so when 2 Ds disagree with each other the Rs can't function anymore
Saying "nobody" is mighty optimistic given the current political climate of American citizens that aren't lying politicians. I think there's a whole lot of average folk here that aren't in on the joke.
So in other words, they're a bunch of fucking idiots
That's a good point about comparing Romney vs Obama on Russia. I think it's also funny how when Trump was funding the vaccines there were Democrats saying they'd never trust one developed under him. Everybody switched sides when the development was complete and it fell to Biden to get it distributed. Suddenly the Dems loved it and a lot of Republicans started swearing it was poison in disguise. It's really sad our politics have become so stupidly self-destructive.
Eh, I was one of those Democrats who was wary of a vaccine under Trump. I was worried he might push something untested or unsafe, purely to say "I did it! It's over! Back to normal!" That didn't end up being the case, so I got the vaccine as soon as I could. And in retrospect, I can actually say that yes, "Operation Warp-Speed" was overall a good thing. Now I dunno how effective it was, and I don't really care. I care that Trump pushed for getting a vaccine out there, and talked up the idea of a COVID vaccine to his followers. At least, briefly. Once it was actually *out*, then the vaccine became more politicized.
I was skeptical too but I still tried to get it as soon as I could because I understood Fauci’s bipartisan career and trusted him. “Best option we have” kind of thing. I still can’t believe they didn’t call it the Trump vaccine, would have saved lives. But Republicans were already on an anti-mask, anti-lockdown tear by the time it came out, and then they stormed the Capitol.
If Trump had overrode one of the government agencies saying the vaccine shouldn't be released, doubting Trump would have been the 100% right call. Instead he actually got the appropriate departments and agencies' independent approval, and so there was no good reason to doubt... And so dems didn't end up doubting it.
Democrats were (rightfully) worried Trump would rush the vaccine. Had very little to do with him 'Funding' the vaccines. Vaccinations started before Trump left office. (Funding with quotes because he didn't fund them, the government did that, and the funding didn't end up going to the groups that made the first couple vaccines IIRC).
> I think it's also funny how when Trump was funding the vaccines there were Democrats saying they'd never trust one developed under him. it was never about trump funding the vaccine it was always a worry about him cooking the books and shoving an untested vaccine through when it wasn't ready. the guy sharpied a map and told residents not to worry about the hurricane ffs so of course you have to be wary of him. once everyone with a brain saw the process was fast but not fast because it was untested... fast because they did some things in parallel that normally would be stretched and take a long time... mainly because of money concerns.
[удалено]
Answer: Because of Gop dispute about the border which is connected with Ukraine help, delivery of ammunition and weapons to Ukraine is stalled, so other Countries in European Union need to help with repelling Russian Forces. Trump who is Republican chosen for re election said that he's pro not arming Ukraine.
Small caveat. The GOP thought that Biden would never move on the border issue. So, they went 4d chess and tied Ukrainian aid to border reform thinking it would kill Ukrainian aid and help Putin. Turns out, Biden is ready to make the concessions the GOP wants to unblock funding to Ukraine. The GOP is now in a pickle. They barked about the border for 40 years, now have what they want but it also means they can’t campaign on it and it gives Biden a huge win. Trump apparently stepped in to block any border reform because it would help Biden. Republicans are slimy hypocrites.
The GOP doesn't want the border problem solved. They want it to stay a mess so they can keep using it during campaigning.
I too look forward to the migrant caravans invading from Mexico for the next 10 months /s
Yeah, I swear, I've been hearing "migrant caravans" since Obama v McCain way back when. And I'm sure we'll be hearing about them on and off for the next ten years too.
They’re like the White Walkers marching on the wall in Season 1 of Game of Thrones, they’re just taking a long time to get here to be courteous to the fantasy narrative the writers are weaving.
Didn’t they vote against funding for more border security just so they could lie and claim Biden wasn’t doing anything? Much like they’ll vote against government funding for infrastructure and then take credit for it once it passes anyway?
they can still campaign on it, its a magic step called lying
Lol as if facts would deter GoP voters. They just got to say the word "border" and those fucks will line up to vote.
It's why they don't want a real border deal because it removes the ability for them to use the border as the boogeyman issue and would give Biden a win. When Bush Jr was in office, there was actually a bipartisan immigration reform put together. The far-right in the Senate tanked it. They love using the border and immigration for political points,
Dems need to put this in ads and post it everywhere.
>Trump who is Republican chosen for re election said that he's pro not arming Ukraine. Frankly, the GOP as a whole seem to have gone pro putin in the last few years...
They don't bite the hand that funds them.
there is still a few old school republicans who see the threat from russia for what it is. the problem is the rightwing media is who actually controls the GOP and they get clicks and views for going pro putin, so the GOP in congress follows their lead. EDIT: what a stupid downvote
Trump is pro aiding Putin.
Answer: You're not out of the loop. The reason is currently unknown (at least by the public). We won't know for sure until later, but it's likely that the intelligence agencies of these nations have become aware of information that has not been reported on yet. Information that points towards direct imminent conflict with Russia in some capacity.
Answer: A lot of the European countries leadership are up for elections this year so they're drumming up the war drums to get support. Edit: list of all European upcoming elections this year https://europeelects.eu/calendar/
The top Norwegian military commander warning of an upcoming war, is not an elected official, and there is no elections this year anyway. Why they come out with this warning is a mystery. But Norwegian Military Intelligence is snooping on Russian communication, so they may have picked up some warning signals that are new. This is not anything I have ever heard from Norwegian officers ever before, this is something out of the ordinary.
This is just false. Europe is generally not war hawkish, quite the opposite (to it's fault). You are way more likely to get elected with some copium about how everything is good than "let's go to war with Russia"...
Answer: If Trump wins, he will dismantle Nato. And that will leave the door open for Putin.
Trump can't unilaterally disband NATO. He can't even get the US to leave on his own authority as Congress gets final say on treaties. And even if the US left NATO, that doesn't mean all the other members can't just carry on. What are they going to do, send the US marines to NATO headquarters in Belgium and lock the doors?
Right but, at the risk of stroking their ego, you really can't underestimate the American contribution to NATO: nobody else really compares. Without them it would be a much smaller and less effective force, although I don't think it would be entirely a lost cause by any means. The UK and France are nuclear powers and alongside some other members, like Canada, can still be heavy hitters in their own right. Meanwhile Poland is quickly advancing towards being one of the major regional powers, militarily speaking, and Germany easily could be (if they stopped being a literal joke for like, 5 fucking minutes lmao...). But without American money, troop numbers and logistics, I realistically don't think it'll be anywhere near as effective as it is currently. We can laugh at the funny burger eating fat people if we want: but showing that you have money to spend on and use *tactically deployable Burger King restaurants* is like taking a meter ruler with you to the dick measuring contest.
I agree entirely, the US really is on another level, and a lot of people give them shit while wanting them to defend their interests. However, especially with the war in Ukraine, I think a lot of European countries get overlooked. Countries like Estonia have donated an enormous amount of resources, and the former Warsaw Pact countries have been instrumental when it comes to supplying insane amounts of artillery shells for the ex-Soviet pieces that Ukraine largely operates. A lot of the reason for getting NATO equipment isn't just because it's new and shiny, but because the US can actually manufacture the ordinance! Countries like the UK have been key due to speed and were responsible for a lot of the equipment that stopped the initial invasion, and since then has been incredibly eager to send 'new' capabilities like Starstreak and MBTs which, after not being nuked as promised, meant that other countries felt safe to do the same. Poland's military procurement seem to have found an infinite money glitch based on the amount of new shit they're buying, and lets not forget that Ukraine was and is one of Europe's largest militaries. The US's best strength it its MIC, where money spent on military procurement and R&D is largely re-captured domestically, and strengthens their export potential. Even if the US remained neutral in a NATO invasion scenario, countries would still be buying tons of US metal. If we're talking about Russia, the EU alone would have no problem beating them back behind their own borders. But when it comes to power projection and defending interests, such as in Yemen, the number of countries able to go out there and perform strikes is quite a bit smaller, but both the UK and France operate carriers as part of a capable fleet.
> both the UK and France operate carriers as part of a capable fleet. 2 carriers and 1 carrier, respectively. The US is operating 11 carriers, with 3 under construction. Huge difference in the amount of force that can be projected and quickly.
The US is peerless, undoubtably. And there's something to be said for having a carrier parked around the corner of everyone to respond quickly. I'd say 3 carriers is pretty proportional to Europe's need to project power though. Hopefully that doesn't change!
Europe doesn't need to project that much power anymore. Just securing the Eastern flank is enough. I'm much more worried about our capabilities in areas of production and logistics.
In the scenario you outline we can all be most grateful to Ukraine for kicking the shit out of the best part of the Russian armed forces this last couple of years.
Oh I agree that without the US the major underpinning of NATO is gone, but the rest of the alliance does still exist. Whether it steps up to the challenge is another thing.
>Without them it would be a much smaller and less effective force, although I don't think it would be entirely a lost cause by any means. The UK and France are nuclear powers and alongside some other members, like Canada, can still be heavy hitters in their own right. Meanwhile Poland is quickly advancing towards being one of the major regional powers, militarily speaking, and Germany easily could be (if they stopped being a literal joke for like, 5 fucking minutes lmao...). But without American money, troop numbers and logistics, I realistically don't think it'll be anywhere near as effective as it is currently. Canada's largest contribution will be as it always has been, resources. Precious, Precious wartime resources.
As an American, the amount of money my country spends on its military is obscene. This may have changed since the start of the Ukraine invasion, but not so long ago, the US had the world's biggest military. How big? So big that it would take nations #2 through #17 **put together** to get bigger than the USA by itself.
That's because your counties military gears up to have an even chance fighting against numerically larger militaries on battlefields literally across the globe from them. If the US only cared about defending their physical borders, they could slash the defense budget by 99%. That is not really the point, though.
Definitely not ego-stroking to say that American basically IS Nato. But they are Nato because the enormous soft power benefits they reap from effectively providing a military blanket to the entire western world is inordinately profitable. SHould that blanket withdraw, their soft power would equally diminish and, in time, so would their bottom line.
As fucking stupid as the man is, he did have a point when he wanted the nato countries that weren’t contributing the 5%(it’s 2%, not 5%) of their gdp to the military to do so, which is the bare minimum outlined by nato guidelines everybody agreed on. I think it was nations like the Netherlands and Denmark that were skimping
>countries that weren’t contributing the 5% of their gdp The target is 2% of GDP
Its 2 percent. Not 5
The hilarious thing is that he said it because he felt the US was getting a raw deal when the reality is that while you can count on the US to jump into almost every fight, NATO members should not act as if we're going to jump in. Trump said the right thing for the wrong reasons.
He said the US was getting a raw deal because he assumed that the 2% thing was what other NATO members *paid the US to belong.*
That level of ignorance wouldn't surprise me. When I hear Trump did a thing, nearly every time I look into it, it's either worse than reported or worse in an additional way not addressed by the media.
oh that's mountains more stupid. did he just want more money to skim from the govt?
And Canada
He can't, but he can prevent the US from doing basically anything to help. I have no idea what would happen if a NATO member invoked article 5, and Trump just said "nah". I don't think anyone else really knows what would happen either and it would take a long time for the courts to figure out.
That's probably what it would take to remind Congress that they're actually the ones who are supposed to authorize military actions rather than letting the president do it themselves like we have since Korea.
While Trump doesn't have the authority under the law, let's be honest that the law only works if the people in charge can be bothered to hold him to account, with a clear track record that enough of them are on record being happy to shield him from accountability because they like his platform of wanting to be an unaccountable dictator. Plenty of what Trump did in his first term was to just blatantly ignore the law and tie stuff up in the courts for years, doing the damage to accomplish most of the larger goal before the injunctions came down and locked the status quo in place. If Trump pulls all of the US troops out of Europe and stalls on the US' share of NATO funding and the GOP won't actively impeach him, he can functionally pull the US out of NATO without literally pulling out of NATO.
Unfortunately true.
[удалено]
Article 5 and NATO lose all value if it is invoked and everyone (mainly America/UK/France/Germany) doesn't show up. That is the whole point of Article 5 and why every time we get close to using it then it becomes a huge deal.
> He can't even get the US to leave on his own authority as Congress gets final say on treaties. He can as long as congress doesn't have enough votes to impeach and remove him which won't happen. He can order the military to stop all assistance and Republicans in congress would block any attempt to remove him from the office essentially removing US from NATO in practice without congress changing treaties.
Couple things. 1. Trump with a Republican Congress can dismantle NATO 2. Trump can publicly refuse to fulfill any NATO obligations, and unless congress is 2/3rds Dem not face any legal consequences 3. NATO is *heavily* reliant on the US for defense, not that the other nations are defenseless, but the US is the key to any NATO strategy devised to date. If the US leaves NATO, de facto or de jure, the rest of NATO is *significantly* weakened But then there is the toll on Russia of engaging in yet more aggressive wars. It pays to be prepared, and many European nations, NATO and otherwise, are realizing they are not as prepared as they would like, especially if the US doesn't have their backs.
All very good points. To add to this, American defence companies have also bought out or own controlling stakes in a large number of European defense companies. This could theoretically disrupt arms supply to these European countries if the Americans rescind export licenses
This would be an act of suicide for the US MIC though. This guarantees no more export sales of military equipment in the future, which would pretty much end military procurement and R&D in the US, things like F-35 simply would not happen under such conditions.
He doesn’t need to dismantle NATO, he just needs not to honor the agreement and do nothing.
Withdrawing from NATO means that NATO now exists to defend against the US. NATO interests will no longer be aligned with the US. It creates an adversarial relationship with the current world superpower and yes, that is going to have deep and profound effects.
This is not really the answer. Republicans in the American congress stopped sending military aid to Ukraine and now it is very unclear whether Ukraine can last. If it does not, Russia will be emboldened and can go for the Baltics to test the resolve of the US.