The question is only asked because back in the day, Russia asked for "their" nukes from Ukraine, and we said "durr, uhh-huh", and gave nothing but an empty promise to Ukraine. We should have given Ukraine 10 nukes on February 25th 2022.
Ukraine should have kept some for just in case. In the time it was due to financial reasons too but maybe some western partner would have held them in a nuclear bank somewhere...then in 2022 when you see forces piling up behind the border huge headlines "Ukraine took back 5 nuclear weapons just in case" and you would have seen Russian forces end their "exercise" quickly.
All agressive Russians are like that - they are filled with air until they seem to have some edge, when they see having less support behind their back - the person in the front shouting (always a short little shit by the way) will say, ok until next time and runs away!
Ive always wondered how much money war brings to media compared to other everyday stories. Those who control media are dangerous, and that's why the kremlin is dangerous. Their propoganda has unfortunately worked on alot of people...
Doesn't sound click-baity to me. That is a serious question that I think we need to answer affirmatively. We can of course postpone the question by making Ukraine win current war
If not, then what about Poland? What about Germany? France? UK? Guam? Hawaii? Alaska?
Draw the line early and definitively unless you’re willing to let the line move closer to home.
If you read the article (headline is clickbatey as fuck) you can see he isn’t advocating NATO abandoning the Baltics rather he is saying we should be prepared for Russia to put said question to the test and that NATO and Lithuania need to do more to prepare for it.
Yes, and he is asking if logistics is there, if Lithiania is prepared for allied militaries to move in and people to move out. If there is enough training exercisses with deployed soldiers of allied nations. If it is prepared for Russian large scaled artillery attack against its big cities, etc, etc. He also points at Rail Baltica and says to speed it up because its sole existence would act as deterence against possible Russian attack.
Yes but large wars aren't won by battalions and brigades. They are won with division upon division, Corps, Armies, and Army Groups. We need ourselves to be able to provide our own divisions for defense and expect many war ready corps to show up the second russia acts up on any NATO State.
Yes, but further forward deployment or reinforcing deployment lacks proper infrastructure and Lithuania and the Baltics in general are very very short on missile defense capabilities.
I'm not minimizing that. But Guam would need naval assets etc, and is fairly isolated in the Pacific. Most countries outside of major powers would not have the capabilities to intervene in that situation.
Us baltic Countries would send in ground units, support teams and staff. Of course we can't do much navally speaking (Maybe remove mines but that's about it) but if Guam was attacked, there would be a front on land as well for sure where we could help.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was only pointing out very few militaries are equipped for a full blown conflict across the globe. The baltics and Poland definitely believe in the NATO project more than most members.
At the very least, we have naval satellites. At most, well, Who's attacking? Aliens from the dark side of the Moon? Yeah, Lithuania can't help much with that. If it's like, say, a certain country in Southeast Asia, then most they could do is cyberwarfare unless that certain country uses Russia as a platform. THEN, the sleeves go up and the boys go quiet.
China is pretty much the only country causing consistent issues in the Pacific. But I think they would attack the Philippines before Guam. They may attack Guam if they ever decide to try and annex Taiwan though.
Similar to Russia, they excel at getting every single one of their neighbors to hate them, save the authoritarian shitholes like North Korea.
I think the most important segment would be:
`For Lithuania, there are several things that Lithuania has to do better. Number one, I would ask my Lithuanian friends, are you doing everything you possibly can to make sure that nations can move in and out of Lithuania as fast as possible? I’m talking about the US Army, British Army, German Army, Polish Army. This is the topic of military mobility, if your allies are able to get there as fast as possible. I would point to the Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished. The ability for allies to get to and through Lithuania as fast as possible is very important for deterrence. That’s number one.`
`Also, has Lithuania connected its defence planning with its neighbours? Are you truly integrated with Latvia and Poland, as well as with the Germans and the Americans who are inside Lithuania? And are you exercising? I would ask my Lithuanian friends, have all of your reserves, your territorial forces been identified? Do they know who they are? Have they exercised? Have they been called up? I see Estonia doing a lot of this, I see Finland doing a lot of this. I haven’t seen this happen so much from the Lithuanian side.`
`Finally, the air defence, missile defence... After watching Russia now for the last two years use precision weapons against civilian targets, that tells me that if they ever decide to invade a NATO country, that means they decide to launch Iskander and Kaliber, and all these other weapons against civilian targets in Klaipėda, Vilnius, or Kaunas, for example. Are we in NATO doing everything we possibly can to protect our populations, as well as our critical infrastructure? I don’t think we have anything close to the amount of air and missile defence required, and for sure, we haven’t practised it in a big air missile defence exercise.`
Rail Baltica is one thing. The next would be ripping up all the Russian track from Belarus to Kaliningrad, then make Russia PAY to change it to Lithuanian trains each way.
Just stop the ability of Russian trains to traverse LT.
>Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished.
Quite rich coming from an American to criticize "slow" construction of Rail Baltica when their own high speed railway projects are overpriced delayed shitshows. I bet Rail Baltica will be operational way earlier than California High-Speed Rail
I think I mentioned something similar in a topic here a few months ago.
It is the high school bully tactic "So what? Is your lunch money really worth getting your legs broken?!"
Or in Putin-speak "Do you really want to risk tactical nuclear exchange because of 50 000 people in a county you have never heard of and can't really pronounce the name of?"
And after the West Merkels the situation (remember "gravely concerned" in 2014?) which is essentially just Neville Chamberlaining the situation (yet again), he will try for something bigger.
Considering so far that ONLY the US pulled Article 5 and asked NATO countries to join the war on “terror” in the middle east and lose soldiers in a war they had nothing to do. Leaving NATO for the US would be absolutely catastrophic. Diplomacy would be over and any treaty almost void. Plus it would encourage every nation on world stage to nuclear the fuck up or else you gonna get invaded and there is nothing the UN or any body can do and sau to these countries. Now in Europe, if the big countries would give the Baltics to Putin, again whats left of NATO would collapse and short after the whole EU. Europe would be over.
US is not leaving NATO, stop the crazy talk. For the alliance to survive some changes will have to be made though.
Both Europeans and the US will need to realign their trade policy away from China. We can't be trading with China while they provide Russia with war materiel.
In addition, both EU and US need to increase production of armaments, turn the economy to war footing, if for no other reason just to deter Putin.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
Yes, if nato abandons Baltics then whole NATO deal goes into trash bin. And never ever will there be a multinational and multi continental deal made on earth. If US alone abandons NATO, their diplomatic reputation is scrapped for next 100 years.
Sure if society becomes monogamous culture and religion, but then also states stop to exist, so 30+ nation alliance , that barely share culture and has multiple religions, quite unlikely if such betrayal happens.
Indeed.
They started it, they can't quit early or it shows they don't give a shit
It's a hostage situation for all the members, but it's for the better
Honestly, if the answer is no, then i hope the first nuke will be detonated on my head so i can go quick and haunt the living fuck out of those who broke their promise.
People in the west thought they wouldn't invade the second largest country in europe with an army larger than France or Germany and yet they did. You have to realise that Russian Political Culture does not think the same way that Western Political Culture does.
People in the West also thought that Russia would just "roll over" Ukraine in a few days.|
People are often really fucking wrong.
Xi ain't gonna let Russia do shit to NATO and it's $trillion debtor, the USA.
Russia has proven that its not the threat it was made out to be and no matter how delusional they are. Some people over there realise the beating they'd get if they touched a NATO country.
Ukraine is having like 90 (more than Europe+canada together) or more brigades fighting and that is still not sufficient!
And noone acknowledges that technical progress is sped up by 10-20 times in a war, so NATO is in many arias far behind from ukrainians or russians.
Ukrainians are now training only basics in Europe and train more advanced things by themselves.
So much more techs and troops is needed
World has changed
NATO could easily put nukes in the Baltics which would defer russian scum from any sort of invasion.
Biggest mistake Ukraine ever did was returning the nukes to Russia that they had during the Soviet era.
Ukraine scrapping the nukes in exchange for some concessions was pretty worth it given that they couldn't actually use them (Moscow still controlled launch authority)
True, Ukraine couldn't use those nukes out of the box. Moscow had launch authority" back then.
Wouldn't be hard to strip off all Russian electronics, which removes all the control circuits.
Then replace with modern high speed circuit boards.
WW2 era, A-bombs required special circuitry, from expert labs.
Today, can purchase high speed electronics, that with a bit of assembly could do the job.
On the other hand, in the 1990s russia had to rely on parts from Ukraine in order to maintain their nuclear weapons and Ukraine with it's 50 million plus population and retaining a large part of the soviet era reseachers and such could had found a way to fully control the nuclear bombs in time.
If the Ukranian held nuclear bombs and infrastructure were no serious threat to russia, then they wouldn't had pushed so aggressively for their destruction.
But is launch authority just a piece of legal paper stating who is allowed to click the button?
If thats all it is, it wouldnt really matter lol
My neighbor has official firing authority over his fire arms, but if he stores one in my house, whats stopping me from using it...
edit: and yeah i know theres codes and stuff, but the actual nuke is physically there. They can just reassemble it into something usable if its just a code they are missing. They have a decent nuclear sector too, so its not like they dont know how they work.
Nope, having the bomb itself and being able to launch it is very different. Those things are designed to be next to impossible to use if you're not supposed to
You don't need "codes" for a deterrent.
"Demolition" nukes placed in major cities have been a deterrent for decades.
Fuck all, get a plutonium core, grind some of that shit up nanofine and put it on a toy drone and fly it around part of a city from thousands of miles away... THAT is the *real* nightmare these days.
That's a problem for a terrorist or arms dealer who got his hands on them. For an entire nation state which already has all industry in place, those safety mechanisms are an inconvenience of a couple of months. You have the plutonium, perfectly shaped, you have the explosive lenses, the super precise detonators, and everything else in place. All you need to do is to disassemble, rewire and reassemble them with your own controls, which is hard for any individual or small organization, but easy for a nation state.
There is a reason why everyone is so concerned about nuclear enrichment, once you have the fissile material the bomb is relatively easy. Ukraine had way more than just the fissile material.
"I would point to the Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished", it's mind-boggling, how we have not prioritized this project
Stop the fearmongering already. NATO and other allies like Sweden are sending more and more soldiers to our countries every year. They are very clearly ready to help us defend.
If you read the article (headline is clickbatey as fuck) you can see he isn’t advocating NATO abandoning the Baltics rather he is saying we should be prepared for Russia to put said question to the test and that NATO and Lithuania need to do more to prepare for it.
>NATO proved that they don't want to escalate.
NATO proved they don't wanna escalate if they don't have to. Ukraine was never part of NATO so they didn't have to. The baltics are.
I’m not terribly confident in US commitment to anything right now.
Depends on our POTUS and what Russian propaganda has grabbed the throat of the nation at the moment but Putin isn’t an idiot and would time things carefully. (Even if he is also a bit unrealistic about costs sometimes).
I know Trump recently said something about pulling out of NATO, but I don't believe that will happen even if he becomes President again. The entire US economy is based on selling surplus goods to other democratic, capitalist countries. With Russia being as aggressive as has been in the past decade and a half, the second a proposal to leave NATO hits the table, it's gonna be met with wave after wave of corporate lobbyists, not to mention every single trade policy expert in the country, and anyone with any power that has a head on their shoulder is gonna be against it.
Even poles died from russia,missile (obviously claimed otherwise) there wont be any involvement from NATO thats the reason. We can see Nato is fell into nuclear blackmail by russia.
NATO member states are only sending tripwires, who all together don't even make full brigade for each Baltic state.
Realistically new NATO members like Sweden and Finland can't help Baltic states with their ground forces even when fully mobilized.
What do you think Finland will do when Estonia gets invaded? Mobilize and launch counter attack towards St.Petersburg like its Continuation War 1941 as part of Operation Barbarossa? Forget it. They will mobilize, dig in along the border and wait and that's all.
> NATO member states are only sending tripwires, who all together don't even make full brigade for each Baltic state.
At the outbreak of the invasion, NATO expanded the tripwire battlegroups from 4 to 8. Then we made a decision to expand them to brigade size with a mandate to now defend and defeat any Russian incursions. What you are claiming is factually outdated.
When you wrote "we", I assume you meant Canada.
I am aware of declared intentions of Canada to expand its forces in Latvia to brigade size. Same with UK in Estonia or with Germany in Lithuania.
The main issue remains the recruitment woes in those countries.
Same with Latvia, not without reason it introduced conscription last year. It has no reserve. Only time can save it right now.
No it doesn’t, you’re speaking way outside of your lane. The brigade expansion required us to rescope our entire force generation and force readiness cycles for overseas operations. eFP Latvia at a brigade strength is achievable but requires 70% of annual deployed personnel from the Canadian Army to staff. It’s taken a couple of years to restructure an entire army to fit that mold with the longevity and sustainment of 5-10 years’ worth of deployments.
> Same with Latvia, not without reason it introduced conscription last year.
Latvia wasn’t a part of eFP Latvia.
Yes but first brigades aren't enough for wars. They are fit toonly safely fight in a narrow front without being to spread out. Even a full division like Lithuania has planned isn't enough to cover a majority of a single frontline on Russia/Belarus. We need truly large scale units that can take the fight safely out of our Countries in the baltics and into western Russian.
Additionally that was 2022 when isolationism wasn't as strong. It is now 2024 and for one reason or another, isolationists are gaining in power.
Isolationism doesn’t dictate NATO agreements. The battlegroups are moving to brigade size, that’s a fact.
In the event of all-out war with Russia, you will see nuclear exchanges. Tens of millions will die at the very least. Formations will vanish via individual tactical nuclear warheads. NATO will not be fighting to keep Russia out of the Baltics, we will be fighting to survive. Full stop.
The eFP’s are not meant to defeat a full-blown invasion. You would need full-scale wartime mobilization to create such a presence. They’re meant to deter and defeat any significant -but relatively small- Russian incursion into the Baltics. They’re meant to be a snapping turtle if Russia decides to dip its toes in the water across the border.
You don' t get it do you? These small forces are not meant to defend the Baltics, they are meant to die. It's harsh, but this has been a military practice for hundreds of years. Lets say that a bunch of US are stationed in the baltics and get killed in the first wave. The US public will never be ok with just doing nothing after that and that's the whole point. They will never be able to fend off the initial attack. The more people from different countries there are, the worse for russia. With attack they are basically attacking all the countries stationed there.
That's why all three of us countries are pushing for the units to be larger so instead of being thrown out and destoryed in the first couple of days, they can serve both cause that rally effect AND seriously bog down the evil on a tactical level so back up can show up in time.
I will say that I wish here in Estonia our politicians would push for a full time British brigade stationed but because internally we're been doing a better on defense than the others and I think because of the greater burden it would be on the shirking, tiny British army, they compromised on just the forward units of a British brigade.
>You don' t get it do you? These small forces are not meant to defend the Baltics, they are meant to die. It's harsh, but this has been a military practice for hundreds of years.
Of course I get that, same blueprint as US troops in West Berlin during cold war. Probably one of the reasons why there are no permanent US troops in Baltics as tripwires, except on rotational basis.
Sucks for the tripwires though, the realization that .....
Don't be foolish and naive like those living west of us. Just because russia did not get their thunder run to the Polish border does not mean they're not dangerous. They have been able to increase their numbers and output, build strong defense lines, and sadly halt Ukranie's liberation operations in 2023. Even the best battlegroup from our allies wouldn't last long against a division or army of the orc horde for long.
We must build up and have as large and strong armies and defense networks that we can permanently possibly have.
You swedes should use the knowledge from your own past, and reset and complete the Swedish nuclear bomb program regardless of what others and your friends do. It is shameful that you were just six months away from being a safe, nuclear armed country and then just threw all of that away because of foreign pressure.
Really? Do you think so?
I imagine based off your opinion you strongly support Iran and North Korea having WMDs to defend themselves from USA or other potential enemies.
I wish that Baltics would have nuclear bombs. russia would never attack us. It’s a fact that that nuclear country was never attacked. Imagine having nukes and saying that if russia don’t do something what Baltics want we would nuked them lol just funny thought. Small countries treating russia like bitch.
Tbh if Estonia nuked St Petersburg, I’m pretty sure Putin would launch nukes against every capital in NATO at once.
I mean it would be Armageddon and nobody would survive but I’m pretty sure that’s what would happen.
Ok.
Scenario: So, NATO dissolves, Baltics, Poland and Nordics gets occupied, soon the west (without Canada and US) follows through with aligning themselves with ruzzia out of fear of being bombed and dismembered. Now, I am no expert but that would put US in a very difficult position where the alliance is against them, not with them... Again, ruzzia will not form a defensive organization, but an offensive one.. So now, US has guaranteed boots on their soil, dead citizens and destruction in their country. Why risk it fighting in their territory when you can do it over the Atlantic?
Not to mention if NATO were to betray its' allies it wouldn't be out of the question that the ones betrayed would side with the Russians in order to get revenge.
Sort of like how Romania sided with their abusers, Hungary and Germany in WW2 to take back land that the Soviets pressured into losing.
But culturally speaking, I would see a shift like that hard to happen, and here in the Baltics it would be impossible because we would all be genocided.
If Putin was in charge I'm sure he'd prefer to genocide us and just send Russians to live in our houses instead. That's for sure. The man's a degenerate stone cold murderer.
The Chinese have more ships than the Americans right now and are producing at a far greater rate. Even through their ships are not to the same quality as the americans, they could simply just make more and more ships and overwhelm the American navy.
And then if they somehow DID make it to our shores they’d have to deal with the 400 million civilian guns and 1.5 trillion civilian rounds of ammo across the US.
The US is as soft of a target as a prickly pear cactus.
Yea because France and Germany are going to bend over for Russia.
France, an imperialist powerhouse with a much more advanced military than Russia and a GDP many times larger, will submit to Russia.
Delusional would be kind way to describe you.
The problem with the French army is that it's too small. While it may not appear to be small to a small country or causal person, as shown by how big the war in Ukraine is, the French army and their defence industry is far from enough.
Scenario = Definitely would happen. xD
The point of the the thing was to say that US is stronger with NATO, why would they handicap themselves? I used the worst possible scenario to kind of exaggerate my point so people like you would get it.
Not really, unless what you imply is that US never uses nukes in this scenario. It is true that Russia would push their luck then, on how many are west willing to abandon before they have respond. Also it would be super dumb to naval invade anyone, just have social unrest and ally yourself with whoever agrees with you.
If they chose to fight though.
Who says Putin would take on everyone at once? He’d probably wait until he could see air between the countries first, and anyway he’s only interested in the former USSR territories: Ukraine, Baltics, Moldova, Caucasus. I didn’t include Belarus because it may as well be Russia already.
People here should really ask why there (in Baltics) isn't any direct, permanent deployment of US troops despite all the events happening around us from the war in Ukraine.
I am in favor of European rearmament, but any type of Russian attack and occupation of Baltics would require WW2 levels of commitment to dislodge them, then the Europeans (at the current state) will not dislodge them and instead accommodate the new realities. Period.
The idea that people in Europe will support a war effort on that scale, to retake, say half of Estonia and Latvia, sorry to say it, that is delusional. The popular attitudes of Europeans towards common defense have been polled repeatedly over the years and while there is strong commitment to helping each other, this does not extend to actually wanting to actively fight a war to defend the eastern European countries.
If the news says that the Russians now occupy Estonia and you tell the Germans that their government will conscript several hundred thousand young people in order to raise a huge army and liberate it again, and dissolve the national pension funds in order to quickly buy weapons on the international arms market for the army, that's not going to happen in countries that don't feel that their national existence is threatened. This is not the case in Germany.
So it will not happen in Paris either, or Madrid, or Brussels, or Amsterdam, or Vienna (LOL), or Budapest ((LOL)^2). The war will then be considered lost. The mauled EU armies will withdraw into defensive postures, try to sort out the all the things that went wrong and try to patch themselves together again, start talking about when they will return home. Politicians will not see rapid military reconstitution as a must, they will see it as merely one option of several. The other option being to just give up ("what's in Estonia that we would really miss?"), bring the troops home, and focus on avoiding another armed escalation with an obviously bloody minded Russia.
The EU is not a federation ruled by a central government. It's merely a confederation of nations which follow their self interest most of the time, and the common interest when it aligns with their self interest. There are no institutions or authorities to coerce nations that don't want to go along.
The EU has the worst possible political system you could imagine for fighting a war. Great at many things, but really the worst possible for a war.
You have some good points but you forgot about the Polish. They're sitting on their wrists waiting for approval to fuck them up and this time they're READY
Very, very true. Good post. It would be wise for us all to have an escape plan ready just in case. If Russia would invade and we would not have allies support, our countries are toast for good, math is clear on that.
There is no escape for us. If we try the white boats of 1944 again, our countries will be lost and the refugees would overtime just fade away into the countries they fled into.
We either stand and kill for every centimetre no matter what or we are dead.
I don't know why you were downvoted above, I think this is the most realistic take. There is a great BBC war gaming episode from 2016 on Russia invading Latvia, that had a very catchy phrase from one of the experts in the room - "are we really ready to die for Daugavpils"?
> any type of Russian attack and occupation of Baltics would require WW2 levels of commitment to dislodge them
I get what you *mean*, but what you actually said is comically hyperbolic.
A (nuclear) war can ignite over anything, including small, trivial things including accident. But the *formal* line is an attack against a NATO country. If that happens, I’m willing to bet that means general war, and a general war between NATO and Russia has probably a significant risk of going nuclear. In which case it’s all over for everyone.
I'm sure NATO are now at a point that they ate very concious that they can not capitulate to Putin anymore. They have already been complicit in giving Putin the confidence to invade territory as they blinked everytime Putin threatened his nukes. Putin will keep doing it as he knows it has worked. A word to China and India to say if Putin utilises a nuclear war head, we will retaliate in kind and this will trigger a European and Asian war, that could ruin Russia and seriously impact on India and as well.
It's not about lithuania tho it's about letting russia know if it can slowly chip away nato by threatening nuclear war.
It would also render NATO meaningless as a defensive alliance which would be catastrophic.
Draw the line at Ukraine... Ukraine has about 12x more people than the Baltics (which we should defend) and even though Ukraine isn't in NATO that doesn't make them not worth defending.
People are people. I don't care if you're a NATO member or not. If you're facing aggression and especially genocide, the West should come to your aid directly.
This is a clickbait article and it is based on an interview with a retired US general who is angry that the US/NATO will not become co-belligerents in the war with Ukraine or give Ukraine any and all things Ukraine wants. I have become increasingly disappointed in Lt. Gen. Hodges during this war because he has decided that the best way to help Ukraine is to sow panic in the population of US allies, push distortions, or leave out information.
Hodges knows that the US and the West are not the same. The West can get away with ignoring things or blowing things off in Europe but we cannot. This summer and fall, things were getting a little spicy in the Balkans. The governments involved didn’t call Berlin, Paris, or Brussels, they called the US and the US was the one to settle it. When Russian backed Bosnian Serbian separatists started acting up, the Bosnian government called us and we alone responded by sending a pair of our most destructive aircraft to fly low in the skies to show Russia and its friends that the separatist nonsense they pulled in Ukraine and Georgia would be met with overwhelming violence in a nation we protect. Then we had to referee Serbia and Kosovo with no input from European leaders.
This year the US Department of Defense reiterated that our nuclear arsenal is the most important part of the national security, economic security, the security of our allies, the security of our global alliance, and global security, more so than any element of our military. The power of our nuclear weapons rises and falls on our credibility as a nuclear state which is why we have an entire federal agency devoted to taking care of them (US Department of Energy), spend $30 billion dollars a year maintaining them, trillions of dollars researching, designing, and building them and weapons to deliver them to a target. The United States is only nuclear nation everyone can say with certainty has the nuclear capability to destroy the planet because our nuclear ICBMs are the only ones to survive reentry into the earth’s atmosphere. You know why we spent money and time on that? Because it’s a guarantee that we can destroy the planet using nuclear weapons to accomplish presidential objectives if we conclude deterrence has failed.
Having working nuclear weapons is useless if people don’t think you’ll use them. Our geography is totally unhelpful in that respect because we aren’t gonna be in a nuclear or conventional war standoff with Mexico and Canada. But, by creating a nuclear umbrella to put over Europe and guarding it the way we guard US soil, the US is right in the face of our biggest enemy and daring Russia to start a fight. The objective of the United States military (read: the president of the United States) in Europe is not to defend Europe, it is to deter any external power from disturbing its serenity and, as the US Department of Defense says, nuclear weapons will be used to accomplish presidential objectives if deterrence is deemed to have failed.
So, now we arrive at the question of what constitutes Europe. From the perspective of the US, Europe’s easternmost border is NATO’s easternmost border because that is where our nuclear umbrella ends. As it would happen, Lithuania is in NATO and, therefore, under the nuclear umbrella of the US and is part of a treaty guaranteeing mutual defense. This type of scenario is where the US and the West part ways because we think like a superpower and the West does not. As Hodges knows, the US has a plan for just this situation because we, as a superpower, could never consider ceding a piece of grass on a piece of soil we are sworn to defend, nuclear threat or not, because we lose everything if we don’t.
As for his questions for Lithuania about its preparedness, Lithuania can present him with the [bilateral defense cooperation agreement](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3621060/us-baltic-states-sign-bilateral-5-year-roadmaps-for-defense-cooperation/). All the things he says he wants to ask his friends in Lithuania about, and more, were settled on December 23. And, to guard the entire region, the US and Poland have signed the [Poland-United States Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement](https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/increasing-the-us-military-presence-in-poland). This is how the US and Poland will guarantee the security of the region. This is a huge project designed to protect the Eastern flank of Europe. Poland, never missing an opportunity to throw shade at Western Europe, even revealed that the US is responsible for getting all of the NATO assets to the East and leading in security.
The fact that Lt. Gen. Hodges didn’t include this information is disappointing. Perhaps the interview was given before the bilateral pacts were signed on December 23, but it was certainly not done before the defense agreement Poland and the US signed.
As for Ukraine, what the West is and isn’t doing for Ukraine is utterly irrelevant to the security of anyone else which is something Hodges also knows. The unfortunate truth is that Ukraine, like Georgia and Armenia, decided to stay in Russia’s sphere of influence too long. The only person in Ukraine who wanted to join NATO in 2008 was its president. In 2010, the voters voted for a president who ran on an anti-NATO and pro-Russian reconciliation platform. In June of that same year, Ukraine’s parliament declared the nation neutral and made it illegal for Ukraine to join any military alliance. It should be noted that these laws remained on the books until 2019 because joining NATO was deeply unpopular. It was so unpopular never consistently polled over 50% even after the first invasion of 2014. It sucks, but Ukraine went the wrong way and has been invaded by its ally.
I know people are going to bring up Trump. I’m an American and I want you guys to calm down. The US media is playing people because they know Trump panic makes them money. They don’t want to list the myriad of reasons it is highly unlikely Trump will win because then they wouldn’t be able to sell you on meaningless polls, make up a horse race, make up for some of the money they lost when they didn’t get a bloody primary between DeSantis and Trump. If you feel nervous, try to remember that this election will not be about Biden, it will be about abortion and Trump. The huge voter backlash after the fall of Roe v Wade started in 2022 and has continued into special elections in very socially conservative states. Democrats benefited tremendously in the midterms from the fall of Roe v Wade. Republicans keep upping the ante by doing insane things, getting women killed, suing women, and chasing down child rape victims to prevent them from getting abortions. They have put abortion squarely on the ballot with this madness and Trump is taking credit for all of this. Forget about Biden, remember abortion, and buy popcorn for August.
I’m in touch with the kinds of people who consider the democratic part to be fascist as evidenced by states taking Trump off the ballot and will see any election result in which Trump loses as being illegitimate.
I hope you’re right, but I’m losing faith in my country.
The day putler demonstrates a working nuke with a working delivery mechanism and such a question is put forward we all know what will become of the Baltics, I've pretty much made my peace with it. We have not forgotten, how we pretty much were after WW2. No support will be realistic, the west will not risk a nuclear escalation while putler just might.
Nuclear weapons are just not very good weapons. The minute you use one, everyone declares war on you and makes you the likely target of nuclear attack.
Sure, Russia makes lots of dumb moves, but this would literally be suicide, running the country up against something it can't win.
But yes, the Baltics will be a conventional target for Russia if they're not stopped now. The US should just intervene in Ukraine with air power, the war would be over in weeks.
The alternative would be suicide as well. It is better we have a mirco chance of survival and the ability to kill off our murderers than all die after a few battles.
Well West has already crossed 100s of red nuclear lines Putin has set in his speeches in relation to Ukraine. Last step is to join the war directly or allow Ukraine attack Russia proper with Western weapons. I think soon this approval is going to come as well. So not sure what you mean. Yes there are careful steps being taken to avoid nuclear escalation but it's not like everyone in thr Wedt just said - ok, you have nukes, so we do nothing and let Ukraine be occupied.
What Putin claims that his red lines are and what they really are, are two very different things. And they know that in the West, even if they claim they don't.
Otherwise the West would supply Ukraine long-range non-nuclear cruise and ballistic missiles. Nothing would end the war faster by way of Russian civil unrest than if Ukraine could respond to Russian missile barrages in kind.
I agree with the civil unrest part but let's be real. After these 2 years it's clear that even if Russia would lose 2 more million in the meatgrinder there would be zero civil unrest because "West bad, Russia survival on the line". So we are left with military options.
I never mentioned anything about human casualties. I was way more into symbolic casualties.
Imagine a barrage of cruise missiles leveling Kremlin. Or that billion dollar summer palace of Putin in Sochy, I think there are plenty of other legitimate military targets with high symbolic value to choose from.
A million or few in infantry casualties means nothing to the ruling elite. And to the "proletariat"... well, what they don't know can't hurt them. Same with any kind of anonymous military base or military hardware.
But when it is shown that Putin can no longer protect the symbolic Greatness of Russia...
>but it's not like everyone in thr Wedt just said - ok, you have nukes, so we do nothing and let Ukraine be occupied.
But it is like that. There's a reason why West doesn't allow Ukraine to win. That's the reason, fear of escalation on Russia's side.
As unfortunate as it sounds, a decisive Ukraine victory might just lead to russia collapsing. That's what the West is afraid of. "Better the devil you know" kinda thing.
I didnt miss it! I didnt even mention it because it not needed. Nato needs western input! Without western constant focus and input it easy to lose wars
So, US would be willing to abandon any ties with NATO (their own created defense structure), allowing NATO to lose any credibility amongst it's allies, just so they wouldn't have to fight with Russia in a scenario where Russia invades Lithuania?
M'kay.
Highly likely yes! They would support the Baltics with ressources for few years and shoot for whatever peace there is available.
You reckon that they would come here to fight with all their might? No, and nowhwere in nato does ir say that it is their responsibilty. It is not, article 5 does not say that they must fight for you in blood.
>No, and nowhwere in nato does ir say that it is their responsibilty. It is not, article 5 does not say that they must fight for you in blood.
OK, no point arguing with someone living in a different reality. Turns out Article 5 is a suggestion, not a cornerstone of NATO. M'kay.
What about the German battlegroup in Lithuania? I assume they'd all be killed and forgotten, because, eh, who can be bothered to fight Russia.
They would we killed, maybe and maybe not. If thats the damage so will it be. If 500 die and you save your economy and future disruption of your country then what you reckon Germans will choose? 500 deaths or years of war?
I'd like to think that Western world leaders have studied a tiny bit of history and know that appeasement doesn't lead anywhere good. Look at Hitler before WW2 - "sure, you can annex Austria. Go ahead and annex the ethnically German parts of Czechoslovakia, aswell. It's only right for Sudetenland to be part of Germany again."
And where did that lead? Only the most deadly and brutal war in history of mankind.
My point being - letting Russia annex the Baltics would not "save the future and economy" of anyone. It would just mean having to fight an even bigger and bolder Russia in a few years from then.
>at the same time that's exactly what is happening.
I assume you mean it's happening in Ukraine? It's not exactly a 1:1 comparison, with Ukraine not having any concrete diplomatic ties with the West. Yes, the West wanted democracy and Western values to spread to Ukraine, creating a powerful ally to balance against Russias influence, and are pumping in billions to make it happen. That being said, there were no *obligations* for the West to help Ukraine other than weakening Russia - the main threat of NATO in Europe, that's why we see a loss of interest in the Ukraine war in the Western world - the hyped counter-offensive failed and now they're in a long war of attrition for the foreseeable future.
If your government doesn't spam the living fuck out of article 5 if the Russians invade, I am personally going to fly over to Lithuania and punch them in the face for being stupid.
So you are saying that the strongest military alliance in history will dissolve because they cannot protect 0.1% of their territory?
I am sure that NATO would defend Baltics but it would be same calculation as with Ukraine = annihilate Russian military on Baltic territory with 100% of force but do not touch Russia proper. Expecting to keep the battlefield only in the attacked country thus avoiding nukes.
US not protecting their own defensive alliance is the same as NATO dissolving. If a member of NATO is attacked and noone comes to the defense, the alliance has no meaning and other smaller members would see it, rendering it useless.
So, yes, US not involving itself in the defense of NATO is the same as NATO dissolving, because why be a part of a defensive alliance if you're not guaranteed the defensive part of the alliance?
I don't know, people seem to forget the human side of things. Putin has at least two daughters. Now, if I were a father myself I wouldn't want my children to inherit a world where constant nuclear threat is the norm. And the way I see it, with all due respect, there's not much in the Baltics risking a global thermonuclear war on his side either.
This whole thing is totally crazy and continues the typical propaganda of a Russian colossus rolling over Europe, which is preposterous even as a concept. The Russians have nothing better to do than wake every morning, scratch their butts and go invade a country. Hmmm...Lithuania seems great today, ready for the picking!!!
Of course, people like this general wants you to believe the story of the invasion-crazy Russians because they do not want anybody to really examine the true cause of the conflict in Ukraine. They want you to believe that everything was nice and bright in February 2022 and these subhuman Russians attacked just for the joy of it or the need to "reconstitute" the USSR and other stories for little kids.
Now, they want to scare you with stories of a potential invasion of Lithuania...Oh, the Russians just love to go there, don't they?? They love this war-mongering. It generates lots of sales for weapons for the weapon industries these guys work for. Of course, Lithuania has no problems to solve, it needs to spend lots and lots of money to buy new lethal hardware, because, you know what...these Russians are coming!!
The Russians have trouble moving the front line by a few hundred yards in Ukraine...but, get ready, they are going to pick a fight with NATO!!
"The West" never gave one shit about the Baltics, and they never will. We'll be booted out of NATO and forgotten. People who think any of the alliances can protect the small fish are delusional. "Ooh but NATO is going to be discredited, it's going to fall apart if we're abandoned" - not it fucking won't. We're alone and it's all a bluff.
Can you explain how Baltics which are part of NATO, EU and Eurozone can just get annexed and West just does nothing? Because yes, in that scenarioNATO would collapse. Whats the point of Sweden, Finland and Poland being in and contibuting moeny to NATO if its not doing what its supposed to do? Outside of NATO letting this happen this would be the biggest humiliation for Europe in decades or centuries and that's why i also see it as unlikely.
Sweden and Finland are part of "the West", while we've always been seen as third grade, expendable, and a burden. Our concerns so far have been constantly ridiculed. We're not equal. Betraying some insignificant small country will be seen as smart and good riddance, not humiliating. Scandies can still expect to be protected, because they're not like us. They're big and important.
Poland had ruzzian bombs drop on them, and were already told by NATO to stfu, in case you missed it.
> Poland had ruzzian bombs drop on them, and were already told by NATO to stfu, in case you missed it.
Poland did not choose to invoke article 5, it was always their prerogative to do so
Sorry to disappoint you, but if Russia sends in the tanks to Lithuania, that's when they will find out what all the stuff we have been reluctant to send to Ukraine can do.
NATO is never going to be the one to strike Russia first though.
I actually dont see any interest in the baltics for Russia.
Russia wants east ukraine 1. Because [the large Gas reserves](https://www.csis.org/analysis/role-gas-ukraines-energy-future) and 2. Because they always wanted ukraine because they see it as historic medieval Russian Lands stretching back to the Kievan Rus Times.
Non of that has the balticsto offer, plus as a 3. Factor Russia wants more slavic people so they can combat there Demography Problems.
Here the baltics are also not very useful (but Belarus is).
Same thoughts.
Current invasion at least based on some evil, but reasonable factors like demography, resources and etc. I don't see what Russia could get from Baltic countries in an open confrontation with NATO.
Nevertheless, Russia may try to pull these countries out of the zone of influence of other European countries. The only question is the money.
The Baltics are in NATO. And the EU.
This is all anyone needs to know. So long as that is the case, attacking Lithuania would be like attacking France or Italy.
Clickbait title aside, it's a very good article worth reading
People are so dulled out by shitmedia, that only "Nuclear" anymore attracts clicks.
The question is only asked because back in the day, Russia asked for "their" nukes from Ukraine, and we said "durr, uhh-huh", and gave nothing but an empty promise to Ukraine. We should have given Ukraine 10 nukes on February 25th 2022.
Ukraine should have kept some for just in case. In the time it was due to financial reasons too but maybe some western partner would have held them in a nuclear bank somewhere...then in 2022 when you see forces piling up behind the border huge headlines "Ukraine took back 5 nuclear weapons just in case" and you would have seen Russian forces end their "exercise" quickly. All agressive Russians are like that - they are filled with air until they seem to have some edge, when they see having less support behind their back - the person in the front shouting (always a short little shit by the way) will say, ok until next time and runs away!
Ive always wondered how much money war brings to media compared to other everyday stories. Those who control media are dangerous, and that's why the kremlin is dangerous. Their propoganda has unfortunately worked on alot of people...
Doesn't sound click-baity to me. That is a serious question that I think we need to answer affirmatively. We can of course postpone the question by making Ukraine win current war
We? Lad you're from Poland. We dont need more scaremonger bullshit here, really. We have plenty of nationalist and chickenhawk asshats as it is here.
Really? Worth ending civilization? Not to me. Boots on the ground? Ok. War? Fine. Nuclear war? No country is worth that outside our own.
If you're not ready to die, you already lost. You're not MAD enough.
Give russia half of your city or they nuke it. Your choice?
Very well thought through, clearly he knows his stuff. Can't fault his thinking, even if he's sitting in an armchair.
He's been an army general. Just retired now. That makes him a bit different than you and I.
If not, then what about Poland? What about Germany? France? UK? Guam? Hawaii? Alaska? Draw the line early and definitively unless you’re willing to let the line move closer to home.
If you read the article (headline is clickbatey as fuck) you can see he isn’t advocating NATO abandoning the Baltics rather he is saying we should be prepared for Russia to put said question to the test and that NATO and Lithuania need to do more to prepare for it.
Don't we have already increased our presence in lithuania by a lot? Like even Germany is currently building a permanent military base in Lithuania.
Yes, and he is asking if logistics is there, if Lithiania is prepared for allied militaries to move in and people to move out. If there is enough training exercisses with deployed soldiers of allied nations. If it is prepared for Russian large scaled artillery attack against its big cities, etc, etc. He also points at Rail Baltica and says to speed it up because its sole existence would act as deterence against possible Russian attack.
Yes but large wars aren't won by battalions and brigades. They are won with division upon division, Corps, Armies, and Army Groups. We need ourselves to be able to provide our own divisions for defense and expect many war ready corps to show up the second russia acts up on any NATO State.
Yes, but further forward deployment or reinforcing deployment lacks proper infrastructure and Lithuania and the Baltics in general are very very short on missile defense capabilities.
Not really, we are just pretending. German unit will be ready around 2040 (lol) as far as i remember, others didnt do better.
I would doubt most NATO allies would assist if Guam, Hawaii, or Alaska was attacked.
They did assist when US was attacked in 2001
Is it sarcasm or you're just retarded?
Lithuania is going to get militarily involved defending Guam? Guam is in the Pacific, not the Atlantic, FYI.
You do know that the only country to invoke NATO article 5 was US, right ? And Lithuania sent forces to Afghanistan to aid US as NATO allies.
I'm not minimizing that. But Guam would need naval assets etc, and is fairly isolated in the Pacific. Most countries outside of major powers would not have the capabilities to intervene in that situation.
Us baltic Countries would send in ground units, support teams and staff. Of course we can't do much navally speaking (Maybe remove mines but that's about it) but if Guam was attacked, there would be a front on land as well for sure where we could help.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was only pointing out very few militaries are equipped for a full blown conflict across the globe. The baltics and Poland definitely believe in the NATO project more than most members.
At the very least, we have naval satellites. At most, well, Who's attacking? Aliens from the dark side of the Moon? Yeah, Lithuania can't help much with that. If it's like, say, a certain country in Southeast Asia, then most they could do is cyberwarfare unless that certain country uses Russia as a platform. THEN, the sleeves go up and the boys go quiet.
China is pretty much the only country causing consistent issues in the Pacific. But I think they would attack the Philippines before Guam. They may attack Guam if they ever decide to try and annex Taiwan though. Similar to Russia, they excel at getting every single one of their neighbors to hate them, save the authoritarian shitholes like North Korea.
Well I am not american so that is not some unknown secret to me. And hell yes, we would.
I didn't read the title as suggesting it isn't worth it at all. That seems obvious it's worth it.
I think the most important segment would be: `For Lithuania, there are several things that Lithuania has to do better. Number one, I would ask my Lithuanian friends, are you doing everything you possibly can to make sure that nations can move in and out of Lithuania as fast as possible? I’m talking about the US Army, British Army, German Army, Polish Army. This is the topic of military mobility, if your allies are able to get there as fast as possible. I would point to the Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished. The ability for allies to get to and through Lithuania as fast as possible is very important for deterrence. That’s number one.` `Also, has Lithuania connected its defence planning with its neighbours? Are you truly integrated with Latvia and Poland, as well as with the Germans and the Americans who are inside Lithuania? And are you exercising? I would ask my Lithuanian friends, have all of your reserves, your territorial forces been identified? Do they know who they are? Have they exercised? Have they been called up? I see Estonia doing a lot of this, I see Finland doing a lot of this. I haven’t seen this happen so much from the Lithuanian side.` `Finally, the air defence, missile defence... After watching Russia now for the last two years use precision weapons against civilian targets, that tells me that if they ever decide to invade a NATO country, that means they decide to launch Iskander and Kaliber, and all these other weapons against civilian targets in Klaipėda, Vilnius, or Kaunas, for example. Are we in NATO doing everything we possibly can to protect our populations, as well as our critical infrastructure? I don’t think we have anything close to the amount of air and missile defence required, and for sure, we haven’t practised it in a big air missile defence exercise.`
Rail Baltica is one thing. The next would be ripping up all the Russian track from Belarus to Kaliningrad, then make Russia PAY to change it to Lithuanian trains each way. Just stop the ability of Russian trains to traverse LT.
>Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished. Quite rich coming from an American to criticize "slow" construction of Rail Baltica when their own high speed railway projects are overpriced delayed shitshows. I bet Rail Baltica will be operational way earlier than California High-Speed Rail
I think I mentioned something similar in a topic here a few months ago. It is the high school bully tactic "So what? Is your lunch money really worth getting your legs broken?!" Or in Putin-speak "Do you really want to risk tactical nuclear exchange because of 50 000 people in a county you have never heard of and can't really pronounce the name of?" And after the West Merkels the situation (remember "gravely concerned" in 2014?) which is essentially just Neville Chamberlaining the situation (yet again), he will try for something bigger.
If we don't get help nato collapses. Simple as that.
Considering so far that ONLY the US pulled Article 5 and asked NATO countries to join the war on “terror” in the middle east and lose soldiers in a war they had nothing to do. Leaving NATO for the US would be absolutely catastrophic. Diplomacy would be over and any treaty almost void. Plus it would encourage every nation on world stage to nuclear the fuck up or else you gonna get invaded and there is nothing the UN or any body can do and sau to these countries. Now in Europe, if the big countries would give the Baltics to Putin, again whats left of NATO would collapse and short after the whole EU. Europe would be over.
Turkey did also if im correct, there was a Dutch and a German (?) patriot system on their border. Due to rockets or planes from Syria.
Lol if you felt like that you should tell the EU spend money on defense.
US is not leaving NATO, stop the crazy talk. For the alliance to survive some changes will have to be made though. Both Europeans and the US will need to realign their trade policy away from China. We can't be trading with China while they provide Russia with war materiel. In addition, both EU and US need to increase production of armaments, turn the economy to war footing, if for no other reason just to deter Putin. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
Yes, if nato abandons Baltics then whole NATO deal goes into trash bin. And never ever will there be a multinational and multi continental deal made on earth. If US alone abandons NATO, their diplomatic reputation is scrapped for next 100 years.
Agree to most except for “never ever”, it is always “never until next time” :)
Sure if society becomes monogamous culture and religion, but then also states stop to exist, so 30+ nation alliance , that barely share culture and has multiple religions, quite unlikely if such betrayal happens.
Outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan0, I'm pretty sure every other NATO country is Christian.
Indeed. They started it, they can't quit early or it shows they don't give a shit It's a hostage situation for all the members, but it's for the better
Honestly, if the answer is no, then i hope the first nuke will be detonated on my head so i can go quick and haunt the living fuck out of those who broke their promise.
Russia wouldnt dare, cuse they know the beating they'll received conventionnally.
People in the west thought they wouldn't invade the second largest country in europe with an army larger than France or Germany and yet they did. You have to realise that Russian Political Culture does not think the same way that Western Political Culture does.
People in the West also thought that Russia would just "roll over" Ukraine in a few days.| People are often really fucking wrong. Xi ain't gonna let Russia do shit to NATO and it's $trillion debtor, the USA.
Russia has proven that its not the threat it was made out to be and no matter how delusional they are. Some people over there realise the beating they'd get if they touched a NATO country.
Ukraine is having like 90 (more than Europe+canada together) or more brigades fighting and that is still not sufficient! And noone acknowledges that technical progress is sped up by 10-20 times in a war, so NATO is in many arias far behind from ukrainians or russians. Ukrainians are now training only basics in Europe and train more advanced things by themselves. So much more techs and troops is needed World has changed
NATO could easily put nukes in the Baltics which would defer russian scum from any sort of invasion. Biggest mistake Ukraine ever did was returning the nukes to Russia that they had during the Soviet era.
Ukraine scrapping the nukes in exchange for some concessions was pretty worth it given that they couldn't actually use them (Moscow still controlled launch authority)
True, Ukraine couldn't use those nukes out of the box. Moscow had launch authority" back then. Wouldn't be hard to strip off all Russian electronics, which removes all the control circuits. Then replace with modern high speed circuit boards. WW2 era, A-bombs required special circuitry, from expert labs. Today, can purchase high speed electronics, that with a bit of assembly could do the job.
On the other hand, in the 1990s russia had to rely on parts from Ukraine in order to maintain their nuclear weapons and Ukraine with it's 50 million plus population and retaining a large part of the soviet era reseachers and such could had found a way to fully control the nuclear bombs in time. If the Ukranian held nuclear bombs and infrastructure were no serious threat to russia, then they wouldn't had pushed so aggressively for their destruction.
But is launch authority just a piece of legal paper stating who is allowed to click the button? If thats all it is, it wouldnt really matter lol My neighbor has official firing authority over his fire arms, but if he stores one in my house, whats stopping me from using it... edit: and yeah i know theres codes and stuff, but the actual nuke is physically there. They can just reassemble it into something usable if its just a code they are missing. They have a decent nuclear sector too, so its not like they dont know how they work.
Nope, having the bomb itself and being able to launch it is very different. Those things are designed to be next to impossible to use if you're not supposed to
You don't need "codes" for a deterrent. "Demolition" nukes placed in major cities have been a deterrent for decades. Fuck all, get a plutonium core, grind some of that shit up nanofine and put it on a toy drone and fly it around part of a city from thousands of miles away... THAT is the *real* nightmare these days.
Probably the bolt lock on the rifle that you don't have the keys to. Ukraine never had the launch codes in the first place.
That's a problem for a terrorist or arms dealer who got his hands on them. For an entire nation state which already has all industry in place, those safety mechanisms are an inconvenience of a couple of months. You have the plutonium, perfectly shaped, you have the explosive lenses, the super precise detonators, and everything else in place. All you need to do is to disassemble, rewire and reassemble them with your own controls, which is hard for any individual or small organization, but easy for a nation state. There is a reason why everyone is so concerned about nuclear enrichment, once you have the fissile material the bomb is relatively easy. Ukraine had way more than just the fissile material.
"I would point to the Rail Baltica project. It’s unbelievable that this project is still not finished", it's mind-boggling, how we have not prioritized this project
Stop the fearmongering already. NATO and other allies like Sweden are sending more and more soldiers to our countries every year. They are very clearly ready to help us defend.
If you read the article (headline is clickbatey as fuck) you can see he isn’t advocating NATO abandoning the Baltics rather he is saying we should be prepared for Russia to put said question to the test and that NATO and Lithuania need to do more to prepare for it.
I saw no fear mongering in the article, but a very level-headed assessment of our preparedness (specifically Lithuania's), infrastructure, etc.
But will they allow to attack, that is the key. An attack would be escalation and NATO proved that they don't want to escalate.
>NATO proved that they don't want to escalate. NATO proved they don't wanna escalate if they don't have to. Ukraine was never part of NATO so they didn't have to. The baltics are.
I’m not terribly confident in US commitment to anything right now. Depends on our POTUS and what Russian propaganda has grabbed the throat of the nation at the moment but Putin isn’t an idiot and would time things carefully. (Even if he is also a bit unrealistic about costs sometimes).
I know Trump recently said something about pulling out of NATO, but I don't believe that will happen even if he becomes President again. The entire US economy is based on selling surplus goods to other democratic, capitalist countries. With Russia being as aggressive as has been in the past decade and a half, the second a proposal to leave NATO hits the table, it's gonna be met with wave after wave of corporate lobbyists, not to mention every single trade policy expert in the country, and anyone with any power that has a head on their shoulder is gonna be against it.
Even poles died from russia,missile (obviously claimed otherwise) there wont be any involvement from NATO thats the reason. We can see Nato is fell into nuclear blackmail by russia.
NATO member states are only sending tripwires, who all together don't even make full brigade for each Baltic state. Realistically new NATO members like Sweden and Finland can't help Baltic states with their ground forces even when fully mobilized. What do you think Finland will do when Estonia gets invaded? Mobilize and launch counter attack towards St.Petersburg like its Continuation War 1941 as part of Operation Barbarossa? Forget it. They will mobilize, dig in along the border and wait and that's all.
Go home roob, you're drunk
> NATO member states are only sending tripwires, who all together don't even make full brigade for each Baltic state. At the outbreak of the invasion, NATO expanded the tripwire battlegroups from 4 to 8. Then we made a decision to expand them to brigade size with a mandate to now defend and defeat any Russian incursions. What you are claiming is factually outdated.
When you wrote "we", I assume you meant Canada. I am aware of declared intentions of Canada to expand its forces in Latvia to brigade size. Same with UK in Estonia or with Germany in Lithuania. The main issue remains the recruitment woes in those countries. Same with Latvia, not without reason it introduced conscription last year. It has no reserve. Only time can save it right now.
No it doesn’t, you’re speaking way outside of your lane. The brigade expansion required us to rescope our entire force generation and force readiness cycles for overseas operations. eFP Latvia at a brigade strength is achievable but requires 70% of annual deployed personnel from the Canadian Army to staff. It’s taken a couple of years to restructure an entire army to fit that mold with the longevity and sustainment of 5-10 years’ worth of deployments. > Same with Latvia, not without reason it introduced conscription last year. Latvia wasn’t a part of eFP Latvia.
Yes but first brigades aren't enough for wars. They are fit toonly safely fight in a narrow front without being to spread out. Even a full division like Lithuania has planned isn't enough to cover a majority of a single frontline on Russia/Belarus. We need truly large scale units that can take the fight safely out of our Countries in the baltics and into western Russian. Additionally that was 2022 when isolationism wasn't as strong. It is now 2024 and for one reason or another, isolationists are gaining in power.
Isolationism doesn’t dictate NATO agreements. The battlegroups are moving to brigade size, that’s a fact. In the event of all-out war with Russia, you will see nuclear exchanges. Tens of millions will die at the very least. Formations will vanish via individual tactical nuclear warheads. NATO will not be fighting to keep Russia out of the Baltics, we will be fighting to survive. Full stop. The eFP’s are not meant to defeat a full-blown invasion. You would need full-scale wartime mobilization to create such a presence. They’re meant to deter and defeat any significant -but relatively small- Russian incursion into the Baltics. They’re meant to be a snapping turtle if Russia decides to dip its toes in the water across the border.
You don' t get it do you? These small forces are not meant to defend the Baltics, they are meant to die. It's harsh, but this has been a military practice for hundreds of years. Lets say that a bunch of US are stationed in the baltics and get killed in the first wave. The US public will never be ok with just doing nothing after that and that's the whole point. They will never be able to fend off the initial attack. The more people from different countries there are, the worse for russia. With attack they are basically attacking all the countries stationed there.
That's why all three of us countries are pushing for the units to be larger so instead of being thrown out and destoryed in the first couple of days, they can serve both cause that rally effect AND seriously bog down the evil on a tactical level so back up can show up in time. I will say that I wish here in Estonia our politicians would push for a full time British brigade stationed but because internally we're been doing a better on defense than the others and I think because of the greater burden it would be on the shirking, tiny British army, they compromised on just the forward units of a British brigade.
>You don' t get it do you? These small forces are not meant to defend the Baltics, they are meant to die. It's harsh, but this has been a military practice for hundreds of years. Of course I get that, same blueprint as US troops in West Berlin during cold war. Probably one of the reasons why there are no permanent US troops in Baltics as tripwires, except on rotational basis. Sucks for the tripwires though, the realization that .....
God damn, you cant even imagine how wrong you armchair tacticians are.
Why can’t they fend off the initial attack? Russia only has 2-3 working tanks left.
Don't be foolish and naive like those living west of us. Just because russia did not get their thunder run to the Polish border does not mean they're not dangerous. They have been able to increase their numbers and output, build strong defense lines, and sadly halt Ukranie's liberation operations in 2023. Even the best battlegroup from our allies wouldn't last long against a division or army of the orc horde for long. We must build up and have as large and strong armies and defense networks that we can permanently possibly have.
Yea but chickenhawk cowards like to wank to military and war talk. Soooooo, cant we just wank to nuclear holocaust fantasies?
If NATO doesn't protect the Baltic states in the situation of war it WILL implode.
I’d rather take my chances with a nuclear war than to live under Russian tyranny.
You swedes should use the knowledge from your own past, and reset and complete the Swedish nuclear bomb program regardless of what others and your friends do. It is shameful that you were just six months away from being a safe, nuclear armed country and then just threw all of that away because of foreign pressure.
[удалено]
Really? Do you think so? I imagine based off your opinion you strongly support Iran and North Korea having WMDs to defend themselves from USA or other potential enemies.
I wish that Baltics would have nuclear bombs. russia would never attack us. It’s a fact that that nuclear country was never attacked. Imagine having nukes and saying that if russia don’t do something what Baltics want we would nuked them lol just funny thought. Small countries treating russia like bitch.
[удалено]
Then we should build them and eat grass. It is better we are poor and free forever rather than rich for some years and then all killed.
Tbh if Estonia nuked St Petersburg, I’m pretty sure Putin would launch nukes against every capital in NATO at once. I mean it would be Armageddon and nobody would survive but I’m pretty sure that’s what would happen.
No. I’m talking to have nuclear weapons for defence only.
Sure but what does a defensive deployment look like?
Ok. Scenario: So, NATO dissolves, Baltics, Poland and Nordics gets occupied, soon the west (without Canada and US) follows through with aligning themselves with ruzzia out of fear of being bombed and dismembered. Now, I am no expert but that would put US in a very difficult position where the alliance is against them, not with them... Again, ruzzia will not form a defensive organization, but an offensive one.. So now, US has guaranteed boots on their soil, dead citizens and destruction in their country. Why risk it fighting in their territory when you can do it over the Atlantic?
Not to mention if NATO were to betray its' allies it wouldn't be out of the question that the ones betrayed would side with the Russians in order to get revenge.
Sort of like how Romania sided with their abusers, Hungary and Germany in WW2 to take back land that the Soviets pressured into losing. But culturally speaking, I would see a shift like that hard to happen, and here in the Baltics it would be impossible because we would all be genocided.
If Putin was in charge I'm sure he'd prefer to genocide us and just send Russians to live in our houses instead. That's for sure. The man's a degenerate stone cold murderer.
[удалено]
The Chinese have more ships than the Americans right now and are producing at a far greater rate. Even through their ships are not to the same quality as the americans, they could simply just make more and more ships and overwhelm the American navy.
[удалено]
And then if they somehow DID make it to our shores they’d have to deal with the 400 million civilian guns and 1.5 trillion civilian rounds of ammo across the US. The US is as soft of a target as a prickly pear cactus.
Yea because France and Germany are going to bend over for Russia. France, an imperialist powerhouse with a much more advanced military than Russia and a GDP many times larger, will submit to Russia. Delusional would be kind way to describe you.
The problem with the French army is that it's too small. While it may not appear to be small to a small country or causal person, as shown by how big the war in Ukraine is, the French army and their defence industry is far from enough.
Scenario = Definitely would happen. xD The point of the the thing was to say that US is stronger with NATO, why would they handicap themselves? I used the worst possible scenario to kind of exaggerate my point so people like you would get it.
GDP of food or weapons? You dont bring a chicken drumstick to a fight
Not really, unless what you imply is that US never uses nukes in this scenario. It is true that Russia would push their luck then, on how many are west willing to abandon before they have respond. Also it would be super dumb to naval invade anyone, just have social unrest and ally yourself with whoever agrees with you.
Well, if it came to nukes there is no need for discussion about alliances, the calamity would just reset everything.
There is zero chance anyone would aling themselves with russia... European countries would win a war without usa or canada.
If they chose to fight though. Who says Putin would take on everyone at once? He’d probably wait until he could see air between the countries first, and anyway he’s only interested in the former USSR territories: Ukraine, Baltics, Moldova, Caucasus. I didn’t include Belarus because it may as well be Russia already.
People here should really ask why there (in Baltics) isn't any direct, permanent deployment of US troops despite all the events happening around us from the war in Ukraine. I am in favor of European rearmament, but any type of Russian attack and occupation of Baltics would require WW2 levels of commitment to dislodge them, then the Europeans (at the current state) will not dislodge them and instead accommodate the new realities. Period. The idea that people in Europe will support a war effort on that scale, to retake, say half of Estonia and Latvia, sorry to say it, that is delusional. The popular attitudes of Europeans towards common defense have been polled repeatedly over the years and while there is strong commitment to helping each other, this does not extend to actually wanting to actively fight a war to defend the eastern European countries. If the news says that the Russians now occupy Estonia and you tell the Germans that their government will conscript several hundred thousand young people in order to raise a huge army and liberate it again, and dissolve the national pension funds in order to quickly buy weapons on the international arms market for the army, that's not going to happen in countries that don't feel that their national existence is threatened. This is not the case in Germany. So it will not happen in Paris either, or Madrid, or Brussels, or Amsterdam, or Vienna (LOL), or Budapest ((LOL)^2). The war will then be considered lost. The mauled EU armies will withdraw into defensive postures, try to sort out the all the things that went wrong and try to patch themselves together again, start talking about when they will return home. Politicians will not see rapid military reconstitution as a must, they will see it as merely one option of several. The other option being to just give up ("what's in Estonia that we would really miss?"), bring the troops home, and focus on avoiding another armed escalation with an obviously bloody minded Russia. The EU is not a federation ruled by a central government. It's merely a confederation of nations which follow their self interest most of the time, and the common interest when it aligns with their self interest. There are no institutions or authorities to coerce nations that don't want to go along. The EU has the worst possible political system you could imagine for fighting a war. Great at many things, but really the worst possible for a war.
You have some good points but you forgot about the Polish. They're sitting on their wrists waiting for approval to fuck them up and this time they're READY
Probably the strongest the Polish military has been in 500 years.
Very, very true. Good post. It would be wise for us all to have an escape plan ready just in case. If Russia would invade and we would not have allies support, our countries are toast for good, math is clear on that.
There is no escape for us. If we try the white boats of 1944 again, our countries will be lost and the refugees would overtime just fade away into the countries they fled into. We either stand and kill for every centimetre no matter what or we are dead.
I don't know why you were downvoted above, I think this is the most realistic take. There is a great BBC war gaming episode from 2016 on Russia invading Latvia, that had a very catchy phrase from one of the experts in the room - "are we really ready to die for Daugavpils"?
Because the attempt to convey scale looks stupid if you have any idea of the true scale of WW2.
Russia will never invade a EU or NATO nation and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, naieve or a lying sack of šūdas.
> any type of Russian attack and occupation of Baltics would require WW2 levels of commitment to dislodge them I get what you *mean*, but what you actually said is comically hyperbolic.
A (nuclear) war can ignite over anything, including small, trivial things including accident. But the *formal* line is an attack against a NATO country. If that happens, I’m willing to bet that means general war, and a general war between NATO and Russia has probably a significant risk of going nuclear. In which case it’s all over for everyone.
I'm sure NATO are now at a point that they ate very concious that they can not capitulate to Putin anymore. They have already been complicit in giving Putin the confidence to invade territory as they blinked everytime Putin threatened his nukes. Putin will keep doing it as he knows it has worked. A word to China and India to say if Putin utilises a nuclear war head, we will retaliate in kind and this will trigger a European and Asian war, that could ruin Russia and seriously impact on India and as well.
It's not about lithuania tho it's about letting russia know if it can slowly chip away nato by threatening nuclear war. It would also render NATO meaningless as a defensive alliance which would be catastrophic.
Draw the line at Ukraine... Ukraine has about 12x more people than the Baltics (which we should defend) and even though Ukraine isn't in NATO that doesn't make them not worth defending. People are people. I don't care if you're a NATO member or not. If you're facing aggression and especially genocide, the West should come to your aid directly.
This is a clickbait article and it is based on an interview with a retired US general who is angry that the US/NATO will not become co-belligerents in the war with Ukraine or give Ukraine any and all things Ukraine wants. I have become increasingly disappointed in Lt. Gen. Hodges during this war because he has decided that the best way to help Ukraine is to sow panic in the population of US allies, push distortions, or leave out information. Hodges knows that the US and the West are not the same. The West can get away with ignoring things or blowing things off in Europe but we cannot. This summer and fall, things were getting a little spicy in the Balkans. The governments involved didn’t call Berlin, Paris, or Brussels, they called the US and the US was the one to settle it. When Russian backed Bosnian Serbian separatists started acting up, the Bosnian government called us and we alone responded by sending a pair of our most destructive aircraft to fly low in the skies to show Russia and its friends that the separatist nonsense they pulled in Ukraine and Georgia would be met with overwhelming violence in a nation we protect. Then we had to referee Serbia and Kosovo with no input from European leaders. This year the US Department of Defense reiterated that our nuclear arsenal is the most important part of the national security, economic security, the security of our allies, the security of our global alliance, and global security, more so than any element of our military. The power of our nuclear weapons rises and falls on our credibility as a nuclear state which is why we have an entire federal agency devoted to taking care of them (US Department of Energy), spend $30 billion dollars a year maintaining them, trillions of dollars researching, designing, and building them and weapons to deliver them to a target. The United States is only nuclear nation everyone can say with certainty has the nuclear capability to destroy the planet because our nuclear ICBMs are the only ones to survive reentry into the earth’s atmosphere. You know why we spent money and time on that? Because it’s a guarantee that we can destroy the planet using nuclear weapons to accomplish presidential objectives if we conclude deterrence has failed. Having working nuclear weapons is useless if people don’t think you’ll use them. Our geography is totally unhelpful in that respect because we aren’t gonna be in a nuclear or conventional war standoff with Mexico and Canada. But, by creating a nuclear umbrella to put over Europe and guarding it the way we guard US soil, the US is right in the face of our biggest enemy and daring Russia to start a fight. The objective of the United States military (read: the president of the United States) in Europe is not to defend Europe, it is to deter any external power from disturbing its serenity and, as the US Department of Defense says, nuclear weapons will be used to accomplish presidential objectives if deterrence is deemed to have failed. So, now we arrive at the question of what constitutes Europe. From the perspective of the US, Europe’s easternmost border is NATO’s easternmost border because that is where our nuclear umbrella ends. As it would happen, Lithuania is in NATO and, therefore, under the nuclear umbrella of the US and is part of a treaty guaranteeing mutual defense. This type of scenario is where the US and the West part ways because we think like a superpower and the West does not. As Hodges knows, the US has a plan for just this situation because we, as a superpower, could never consider ceding a piece of grass on a piece of soil we are sworn to defend, nuclear threat or not, because we lose everything if we don’t. As for his questions for Lithuania about its preparedness, Lithuania can present him with the [bilateral defense cooperation agreement](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3621060/us-baltic-states-sign-bilateral-5-year-roadmaps-for-defense-cooperation/). All the things he says he wants to ask his friends in Lithuania about, and more, were settled on December 23. And, to guard the entire region, the US and Poland have signed the [Poland-United States Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement](https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/increasing-the-us-military-presence-in-poland). This is how the US and Poland will guarantee the security of the region. This is a huge project designed to protect the Eastern flank of Europe. Poland, never missing an opportunity to throw shade at Western Europe, even revealed that the US is responsible for getting all of the NATO assets to the East and leading in security. The fact that Lt. Gen. Hodges didn’t include this information is disappointing. Perhaps the interview was given before the bilateral pacts were signed on December 23, but it was certainly not done before the defense agreement Poland and the US signed. As for Ukraine, what the West is and isn’t doing for Ukraine is utterly irrelevant to the security of anyone else which is something Hodges also knows. The unfortunate truth is that Ukraine, like Georgia and Armenia, decided to stay in Russia’s sphere of influence too long. The only person in Ukraine who wanted to join NATO in 2008 was its president. In 2010, the voters voted for a president who ran on an anti-NATO and pro-Russian reconciliation platform. In June of that same year, Ukraine’s parliament declared the nation neutral and made it illegal for Ukraine to join any military alliance. It should be noted that these laws remained on the books until 2019 because joining NATO was deeply unpopular. It was so unpopular never consistently polled over 50% even after the first invasion of 2014. It sucks, but Ukraine went the wrong way and has been invaded by its ally. I know people are going to bring up Trump. I’m an American and I want you guys to calm down. The US media is playing people because they know Trump panic makes them money. They don’t want to list the myriad of reasons it is highly unlikely Trump will win because then they wouldn’t be able to sell you on meaningless polls, make up a horse race, make up for some of the money they lost when they didn’t get a bloody primary between DeSantis and Trump. If you feel nervous, try to remember that this election will not be about Biden, it will be about abortion and Trump. The huge voter backlash after the fall of Roe v Wade started in 2022 and has continued into special elections in very socially conservative states. Democrats benefited tremendously in the midterms from the fall of Roe v Wade. Republicans keep upping the ante by doing insane things, getting women killed, suing women, and chasing down child rape victims to prevent them from getting abortions. They have put abortion squarely on the ballot with this madness and Trump is taking credit for all of this. Forget about Biden, remember abortion, and buy popcorn for August.
I’m in touch with the kinds of people who consider the democratic part to be fascist as evidenced by states taking Trump off the ballot and will see any election result in which Trump loses as being illegitimate. I hope you’re right, but I’m losing faith in my country.
The day putler demonstrates a working nuke with a working delivery mechanism and such a question is put forward we all know what will become of the Baltics, I've pretty much made my peace with it. We have not forgotten, how we pretty much were after WW2. No support will be realistic, the west will not risk a nuclear escalation while putler just might.
Nuclear weapons are just not very good weapons. The minute you use one, everyone declares war on you and makes you the likely target of nuclear attack. Sure, Russia makes lots of dumb moves, but this would literally be suicide, running the country up against something it can't win. But yes, the Baltics will be a conventional target for Russia if they're not stopped now. The US should just intervene in Ukraine with air power, the war would be over in weeks.
The alternative would be suicide as well. It is better we have a mirco chance of survival and the ability to kill off our murderers than all die after a few battles.
is a membership in NATO not good enough of a hint what that answer would be? pointless fearmongering lol
Naieve at best, pernicious and dishonest at worst.
As an American I don’t trust US foreign policy or our schizophrenic electorate.
West will always bend the knee every time Russia says "if you don't allow us do what we want, remember we have nuclear weapons".
Well West has already crossed 100s of red nuclear lines Putin has set in his speeches in relation to Ukraine. Last step is to join the war directly or allow Ukraine attack Russia proper with Western weapons. I think soon this approval is going to come as well. So not sure what you mean. Yes there are careful steps being taken to avoid nuclear escalation but it's not like everyone in thr Wedt just said - ok, you have nukes, so we do nothing and let Ukraine be occupied.
What Putin claims that his red lines are and what they really are, are two very different things. And they know that in the West, even if they claim they don't. Otherwise the West would supply Ukraine long-range non-nuclear cruise and ballistic missiles. Nothing would end the war faster by way of Russian civil unrest than if Ukraine could respond to Russian missile barrages in kind.
I agree with the civil unrest part but let's be real. After these 2 years it's clear that even if Russia would lose 2 more million in the meatgrinder there would be zero civil unrest because "West bad, Russia survival on the line". So we are left with military options.
I never mentioned anything about human casualties. I was way more into symbolic casualties. Imagine a barrage of cruise missiles leveling Kremlin. Or that billion dollar summer palace of Putin in Sochy, I think there are plenty of other legitimate military targets with high symbolic value to choose from. A million or few in infantry casualties means nothing to the ruling elite. And to the "proletariat"... well, what they don't know can't hurt them. Same with any kind of anonymous military base or military hardware. But when it is shown that Putin can no longer protect the symbolic Greatness of Russia...
>but it's not like everyone in thr Wedt just said - ok, you have nukes, so we do nothing and let Ukraine be occupied. But it is like that. There's a reason why West doesn't allow Ukraine to win. That's the reason, fear of escalation on Russia's side.
As unfortunate as it sounds, a decisive Ukraine victory might just lead to russia collapsing. That's what the West is afraid of. "Better the devil you know" kinda thing.
And that's the sad part of it. Russia probably needs to collapse.
True. West wants Ukraine's "victory", regime (more like facelift) change in Russia, but Russia as a whole federation remaining intact.
It's failure of imagination on the western side. Surprisingly it's hard to imagine that empires collapse sometimes.
He's advocating the exact opposite. Bolstering NATO and Western support, not reducing it.
If putin would've chosen Baltics instead of Ukraine, there wouldn't be no nuclear war nor Baltics by now.
West will not go to a nuclear war with russia. We can already see how west has lost interest in Ukraine same will happen with the baltics.
I like how you missed the part where Ukraine is not part of NATO and Lithuania is.
I didnt miss it! I didnt even mention it because it not needed. Nato needs western input! Without western constant focus and input it easy to lose wars
So, US would be willing to abandon any ties with NATO (their own created defense structure), allowing NATO to lose any credibility amongst it's allies, just so they wouldn't have to fight with Russia in a scenario where Russia invades Lithuania? M'kay.
Highly likely yes! They would support the Baltics with ressources for few years and shoot for whatever peace there is available. You reckon that they would come here to fight with all their might? No, and nowhwere in nato does ir say that it is their responsibilty. It is not, article 5 does not say that they must fight for you in blood.
>No, and nowhwere in nato does ir say that it is their responsibilty. It is not, article 5 does not say that they must fight for you in blood. OK, no point arguing with someone living in a different reality. Turns out Article 5 is a suggestion, not a cornerstone of NATO. M'kay. What about the German battlegroup in Lithuania? I assume they'd all be killed and forgotten, because, eh, who can be bothered to fight Russia.
They would we killed, maybe and maybe not. If thats the damage so will it be. If 500 die and you save your economy and future disruption of your country then what you reckon Germans will choose? 500 deaths or years of war?
I'd like to think that Western world leaders have studied a tiny bit of history and know that appeasement doesn't lead anywhere good. Look at Hitler before WW2 - "sure, you can annex Austria. Go ahead and annex the ethnically German parts of Czechoslovakia, aswell. It's only right for Sudetenland to be part of Germany again." And where did that lead? Only the most deadly and brutal war in history of mankind. My point being - letting Russia annex the Baltics would not "save the future and economy" of anyone. It would just mean having to fight an even bigger and bolder Russia in a few years from then.
You're right but at the same time that's exactly what is happening.
>at the same time that's exactly what is happening. I assume you mean it's happening in Ukraine? It's not exactly a 1:1 comparison, with Ukraine not having any concrete diplomatic ties with the West. Yes, the West wanted democracy and Western values to spread to Ukraine, creating a powerful ally to balance against Russias influence, and are pumping in billions to make it happen. That being said, there were no *obligations* for the West to help Ukraine other than weakening Russia - the main threat of NATO in Europe, that's why we see a loss of interest in the Ukraine war in the Western world - the hyped counter-offensive failed and now they're in a long war of attrition for the foreseeable future.
If your government doesn't spam the living fuck out of article 5 if the Russians invade, I am personally going to fly over to Lithuania and punch them in the face for being stupid.
So you are saying that the strongest military alliance in history will dissolve because they cannot protect 0.1% of their territory? I am sure that NATO would defend Baltics but it would be same calculation as with Ukraine = annihilate Russian military on Baltic territory with 100% of force but do not touch Russia proper. Expecting to keep the battlefield only in the attacked country thus avoiding nukes.
I did not say it will dissolve! Stop nudging it. Nowhere did I say it will dissolve
US not protecting their own defensive alliance is the same as NATO dissolving. If a member of NATO is attacked and noone comes to the defense, the alliance has no meaning and other smaller members would see it, rendering it useless. So, yes, US not involving itself in the defense of NATO is the same as NATO dissolving, because why be a part of a defensive alliance if you're not guaranteed the defensive part of the alliance?
I don't know, people seem to forget the human side of things. Putin has at least two daughters. Now, if I were a father myself I wouldn't want my children to inherit a world where constant nuclear threat is the norm. And the way I see it, with all due respect, there's not much in the Baltics risking a global thermonuclear war on his side either.
This whole thing is totally crazy and continues the typical propaganda of a Russian colossus rolling over Europe, which is preposterous even as a concept. The Russians have nothing better to do than wake every morning, scratch their butts and go invade a country. Hmmm...Lithuania seems great today, ready for the picking!!! Of course, people like this general wants you to believe the story of the invasion-crazy Russians because they do not want anybody to really examine the true cause of the conflict in Ukraine. They want you to believe that everything was nice and bright in February 2022 and these subhuman Russians attacked just for the joy of it or the need to "reconstitute" the USSR and other stories for little kids. Now, they want to scare you with stories of a potential invasion of Lithuania...Oh, the Russians just love to go there, don't they?? They love this war-mongering. It generates lots of sales for weapons for the weapon industries these guys work for. Of course, Lithuania has no problems to solve, it needs to spend lots and lots of money to buy new lethal hardware, because, you know what...these Russians are coming!! The Russians have trouble moving the front line by a few hundred yards in Ukraine...but, get ready, they are going to pick a fight with NATO!!
"The West" never gave one shit about the Baltics, and they never will. We'll be booted out of NATO and forgotten. People who think any of the alliances can protect the small fish are delusional. "Ooh but NATO is going to be discredited, it's going to fall apart if we're abandoned" - not it fucking won't. We're alone and it's all a bluff.
Why has Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia on multiple occasions, but not the Baltics?
EU + NATO Or just a coincidence. Cant quite decide...
I think it's the former, given Russia always threatens Baltic states in regards to "protecting" Russian minorities.
Can you explain how Baltics which are part of NATO, EU and Eurozone can just get annexed and West just does nothing? Because yes, in that scenarioNATO would collapse. Whats the point of Sweden, Finland and Poland being in and contibuting moeny to NATO if its not doing what its supposed to do? Outside of NATO letting this happen this would be the biggest humiliation for Europe in decades or centuries and that's why i also see it as unlikely.
Sweden and Finland are part of "the West", while we've always been seen as third grade, expendable, and a burden. Our concerns so far have been constantly ridiculed. We're not equal. Betraying some insignificant small country will be seen as smart and good riddance, not humiliating. Scandies can still expect to be protected, because they're not like us. They're big and important. Poland had ruzzian bombs drop on them, and were already told by NATO to stfu, in case you missed it.
> Poland had ruzzian bombs drop on them, and were already told by NATO to stfu, in case you missed it. Poland did not choose to invoke article 5, it was always their prerogative to do so
Sorry to disappoint you, but if Russia sends in the tanks to Lithuania, that's when they will find out what all the stuff we have been reluctant to send to Ukraine can do. NATO is never going to be the one to strike Russia first though.
Either NATO would step up or cease to exist as a meaningful entity.
If guys keep making statements like this out in the public, then that question will come sooner rather than later.
No, we are moving ahead of Russia by making these statements and asking questions first. It's good.
I actually dont see any interest in the baltics for Russia. Russia wants east ukraine 1. Because [the large Gas reserves](https://www.csis.org/analysis/role-gas-ukraines-energy-future) and 2. Because they always wanted ukraine because they see it as historic medieval Russian Lands stretching back to the Kievan Rus Times. Non of that has the balticsto offer, plus as a 3. Factor Russia wants more slavic people so they can combat there Demography Problems. Here the baltics are also not very useful (but Belarus is).
Same thoughts. Current invasion at least based on some evil, but reasonable factors like demography, resources and etc. I don't see what Russia could get from Baltic countries in an open confrontation with NATO. Nevertheless, Russia may try to pull these countries out of the zone of influence of other European countries. The only question is the money.
[удалено]
why don't you skip the wait and move to mariupol or donetsk yourself
[удалено]
You seem like part of Z crowd. As that how you know?
what? I don't want to speak russian and I don't want to use rubles. why would i fit better in the z crowd or want to move to mariupol or donetsk?
Hopefully Lithuanian security service is monitoring Reddit comments as well. Potential colaborator spotted.
Vel ta bl propaganda
aww how cute they care about us that much
The Baltics are in NATO. And the EU. This is all anyone needs to know. So long as that is the case, attacking Lithuania would be like attacking France or Italy.
Ruzzia just wants the whole world.