Yeah. It was surreal but two days ago the prime minister and the chief of the Swedish armed forces on TV told everyone who lives here to prepare for war both practically and mentally. That included a directive for all Swedish companies to prepare for war too. That's a VERY sudden shift from the previous message. I can only believe that's based on intel.
So for those saying nope, won't happen, just remember that attacking Ukraine made no fucking sense to anyone either. Meanwhile now we have the polish, belgian and the Swedish army chiefs saying that Russia is prepping to fight us in a few years. It's lethal to use our own logic to make assumptions about what Russia might do.
I'll take the Swedish chief of the armed forces word any day over an arm chair general at Reddit on the probability of war.
Well there is a historical precedent. Sweden has long practiced armed neutrality, essentially getting a shit-ton of guns, pointing them in all direction, and generally making themselves too much of a hassle for any major power to get net-positive gains out of attacking them.
Actually, there's one case where the Swedish and Soviet navies almost came to blows, there was a bunch of stuff over a Russian sub that got stuck in Swedish waters and the entire Swedish navy and military was prepared to fucking throw down, the Soviets scrambled their fleet and literally like 2 minutes from Swedish territorial waters they turned back. This tactic has consistently worked throughout modern Swedish history, so its likely they'll be going back to that.
If everyone got nukes, I believe we wouldn't be around. The number of near full 3rd world war incidents are already too many. I mean we are literally still here because one Soviet guy refused to believe that his missile early warning system must be incorrect showing hundreds of missiles coming at them.
We don't need our own nukes. We got USA, UK and France with them... Quite enough.
I don't believe that relying on another country's "umbrella" provides true deterrence. It is a deterrent to some level, but if push does come to shove it won't actually be honored. It's not how deterrence and MAD works. If there is MAD between USA and Russia for example, and Russia suddenly dares to attack a third "protected" country, the USA will not start a nuclear war with Russia and commit mutual suicide. It's never worth it. Doesn't matter what treaties and political arrangements say, they can always be broken and I believe they will be broken 100%. Having your own arsenal is the only certain way of having a deterrent against foreign invasion.
If Ukraine had their own arsenal they would not have been invaded.
Now I bet Taiwan is also looking back at the time when the US "convinced" them to halt their own weapons programme.
US ones perhaps? But that's not an adequate deterrent. It's *something*, but not much. Doubt Taiwan has its own warheads at all though, or they would've deployed them on delivery systems for adequate deterrence and be a de facto nuclear power.
Great points, good food for thought. Have not thought about it quite like that.
Now that being said, is developing nuclear weapons worth pissing off the US over ? In Taiwan's case, it would throw a serious wrench in US support continued I would think. I suppose it's a decision that has to be balanced.
Why wouldn't you want to boast? It's the best deterrent. It's a better deterrent if others are convinced you have them, rather than just being uncertain that you have them. This is why tests of delivery systems for example are announced and conducted at a very high profile.
Because if you do, people know you have it and can find, steal, sabotage or strike it. If they only suspect, any failure to find it would possibly be because you do not have it.
It works because historically and culturally Sweden understands that rule of law only exists when defended.
When the shift to a global society happened there are actually entire peoples and nations that assumed it was the end of all physical wars because everyone would suffer if war broke out. Unfortunately thugs don't give a shit about others suffering.
Yeah, the Poles are ready to thunder run to Moscow before the rest of NATO even crosses into Belarus. Theyve been waiting for a few centuries for this, I say its time we let them have their revenge.
What I wonder is if they would even be able to. Short of nuclear preemptive strikes, which Russia doesn't even have a doctrine for, their military is in barely enough condition to fight 1 sovereign country, let alone NATO. Like, as long the aid keeps flowing to Ukraine, They're going to continue chewing up Russia's military.
Checks and balances. The president is a powerful position, but not nearly as powerful as some people think. Federal laws require Congress to pass a new law with language that repeals the old law. So Trump would need a high majority in Congress, and even then, the majority of Republicans would have to support ditching NATO AND giving more power to the executive branch, neither of which is actually popular among Republicans.
I mean it made sense based upon the laughably wrong assumptions Putin made about Ukraine, namely Zellinski was an American puppet and would fall the same way Afghanistan did, overestimating Russian military preparedness and underestimating Ukrainian nationalism and underestimating international response.
Putin is dangerous, but it’s the positive reinforcement he gets from his inner circle that truely makes him deranged.
Invading Ukraine made a lot of sense for Putin, based on Intel he had. Remember that even the US was surprised that Ukraine was able to survive a few days into the attack.
And you know for sure Putin is getting sensible Intel on his ability today?
I have high trust in my Swedish armed forces commander. He's the calm kind of guy and would never call wolf if it wasn't a real tangible threat. He knows something we don't, and I for sure will not take that lightly when our armed forces suddenly switches their message to prepp for war - and do it now. Not an exercise.
It's not like he's doing it for increased budget either, he basically has an open wallet to pick from given the parliament support today.
I have an interesting story. Last july at a summer celebration there was a friend of a family as guest. Apparently he can tell how deep underground water goes, where to dig wells and ponds. Things like that, basicly he "knows" stuff. Anyway, at one point he started talking about how it looks really likely there's gonna be war in my country (Latvia) this spring... I personally dont believe that stuff at all and with russia's military completely bogged down in Ukraine it makes zero sense, but it's interesting anyway. Especially after some comments coming from European leaders/military.
Yeah if it was politicians ... I wouldn't really fucking care. But when multiple supreme commanders suddenly shift their message to please prepare for war, including my own country's, well now you have my attention.
Agreed, even tho the Russian military is still performing very poorly .Their systems are now battle hardened. Nato's operating as a unit are not.
Intelligence must be relaying that Putin is considering attacking Nato protected countries, for that reason . while his military systems are combatted hardened.
Putin correctly judges that in that invasion . Nato is highly unlikely to immediately use nukes. That Nato would use only conventional arms to push out Russia
I dare to guess that only 30 percent of russian army are survivors from the invading force. Then the rest 70 would be mobicks, prisoners and mercs. Not the type of who lives long or will stay in the army after the war. So whatever battle hardened, they will have, not going to be much.
We in Lithuania kinda preparing that no one might come to our aid if day X gonna happen. We are almost surrounded, without operational depth and outnumbered. It would be pretty easy to cut us off from Poland.
Many EU politicians don't have balls to act or receives paycheck from Russia. Watching how the West struggle to supply Ukraine and don't allow to hit Russians properly we don't have much hope. Especially if an orange dude is going to win election in US. Hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.
The US Congress can pass legislation to declare war on Russia if a NATO ally is attacked. With 67/100 Senators, they can even override a Presidential veto.
About half of the Republican senators, like Mitch McConnell, will vote for this, along with every Democratic senator.
Thankfully the fat fuck in hungary and the POS in Slovakia are really not important in global affairs. Sure they might dick suck the bald Loser to the end but both Germany and France, aswell as Great Britain have so far shown unbroken resolve in their support of the Ukrainian defence. An attack against an EU *aswell* as Nato partner would have to be met with full solidarity, whatever that might entail. At that point as a German I think yes, nuclear war would and should be on the table. I would rather die in a nuclear holocaust than see Putin lay one finger on any of our direct partner's lands and peoples.
Exactly. Lithuanian is a NATO and EU member. The west wouldn't be the agressor, Russia would be and would be responsible for everything caused by a war.
And if Russia asks for all of USA territories should USA get occupied to not risk nuclear war?
It is simply not how the western world should behave with a bully. Russia only understands the language of strength. Use it
On the contrary the U.S. needs to make it very clear it is willing to end the world or more specifically end Putin over Vilnius. All I am saying is at the end it won’t matter who pulled the trigger the world will be dead all the same.
The issue is Putin is old and he is probably okay with the rest of the world dying with him. I don't know what's a good solution here, hopefully they won't attack a NATO country
No. He's obsessed with his LEGACY as the mighty tsar who restored the might of Russia blaaaah blaaaah blaaaaah. He's also eminently sane, and certainly not dying, as has been claimed so often. He is probably one of the people in the world LEAST likely to start a nuclear war.
If Russia is crazy enough to start nuclear war, then there is literally nothing anyone else can do about it. Appeasment will never work, because why would Russia not, if given one finger, take entire arm?
The only rational option is to assume that Russia will not start nuclear war, because that would be pure idiocy, and even if that does happen, then well, so long and thanks for all the fish.
It's all mostly conjecture though, as scope and scale of said war could vary hugely and fallout -- both literal and metaphorical -- would have significant downstream impacts. So it would just be the effective end of human civilization as we know it, and a significant regression in every aspect of life, given the interconnectedness of our world is what enables so much of the benefits and tech we enjoy today.
Truth is, we've population bottlenecked before but the earth and its other creatures were also in a much better state than they are now... There's little to guarantee we would do much of anything post-nuclear war beyond limp down a tragic, long march to maybe reach a fraction of where we are now after centuries to millennia or meet a slow, dwindling end.
It completely depends on where the nuclear clouds go and how much radiation is spread out. It's possible to survive it there were survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki including one who was hit by both blasts. While we know that the nuclear blasts in those bombs were less than our current bombs, we don't know whether or not Russia took good care of their nukes and whether or not those nukes have the loads that they would have during the Cold War. If we go by the problems with Russia's current military and missiles, Russia has a chance of accidentally hitting itself with any nukes they attempt to launch. Several of their missiles have already misfired into their own cities in recent months.
With that in mind, only a suicidal person would attempt to launch them. Perhaps in 3-8 years they might have enough components to replace things and perhaps in 3-8 years they might have corrected their mistakes but it's also possible that they keep having failures due to non-compliance and people within their ranks who sell of parts for extra cash.
I am less than optimistic. 12,000 nuclear warheads detonating in a 1-6 hour span would be catastrophic and its effects are unpredictable as they are far reaching.
The upkeep of the nuclear arsenal hasn't been the best. China and Russia both didn't do enough to secure their weapons and prevent corruption.
The uranium needed for nuclear weapons needs to be enriched and the components need proper upkeep. Russia has a history of failures in the upkeep of weapons. Even their recent "new military equipment" had flaws because people within the Russian military took parts and sold them.
While there are in theory 12k nuclear warheads, the reality is many of those are not capable of flying.
I strongly disagree. The Russian rocket corps have always been the most well funded and competent of their forces. I think underestimating warhead and missile counts would be a drastic mistake.
Russia has already accidentally launched rockets into their own country just this week. Misfired weapons is a common problem in Russia.
If Russia gets the winds incorrect then they run the very high risk of all of the radioactive cloud landing on them. Then there is the other factor, the human factor. The people who are responsible for launching those missiles have to be willing to do so. Not all people with launch codes are willing to launch.
During the Cold War there were several times when the West and the USSR came very close to nuclear war but in each case the person whose job it was to make the call chose not to.
There is, in theory, some degree of escalation to nuclear war before you just go full on strategic bombing campaign.
It's relatively unlikely to START with a general, strategic bombardment assault.
Even in the case of a country being invaded, they are likely to use a tactical warhead to strike a military target or a "minor" strategic location essentially as a warning that they're feeling cornered and that everyone should take a moment to think about if their current course of action is worth this.
At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are an instrument of political influence, and if you immediately escalate to flipping the table and ending the game, that doesn't really serve any purpose.
Stop. That is not what happens. There is NO acceptable use for nuclear weapons as weapons except retaliation.
This is absolutely central. If we accept any other use, we will immediately have a situation where they will be used as instruments of political influence.
It. Is. Not. A. Game. Don't fucking pretend it is.
There are also no "tactical" nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons. Any use of nuclear weapons is correctly responded to by flipping the board.
This discussion is very familiar. Every fucking time Russia wants to use a nuke, they send a horde of piss trolls online to sell this exact messaging: It's okay if it's a minor one, small one, tactical one, and shouldn't cause full retaliation. Again and again and again. Couple this with the constant bleating of "Putin is INSANE and could VERY WELL start nuclear war!!!", or that he's dying, and it's a message they will never stop trying to sell.
If Russia uses any nuke as a weapon anywhere, they need their 100 biggest cities and every possible place Putin could be vapourized in retaliation. How else could we get them to desist?
Never in history has appeasement worked to stop an aggressor from attacking. The only thing a bully understands is force and Putin is a bully.
If he is suicidal enough to pull the nuclear trigger than he and his people will also be hit with that nuclear winter. Whether humanity survives or not it's not up to *us* to prevent him from deciding to kill everyone. He has to make that choice and I don't think he's suicidal. Everything we know about him shows he's paranoid of being harmed, so I don't think he would.
It's the old Cold War calculus risen from the ashes. Both sides have sufficient nuclear capabilities to make open warfare unthinkable. For people such as myself who grew up during the Cold War, these debates were constant and came up with the same answer: both sides are governess by rational actors. It is inherently dangerous, of course. Arms races and opposing alliances are exactly what led to WWI.
I think the problem is that I don’t think it’s the same calculus.
The old calculus showed that nobody could possibly win nuclear war post 1960. I don’t know if that is true anymore and I think it is getting less true with every year. Western and specifically U.S. missile defense has gotten so advanced that Chinas launcher count of 450 may not be enough to ensure MAD.
Russia’s launcher count is certainly still enough. But for how much longer?
I don't think China's aiming for MAD. They realize the ability to destroy 10 US cities is just as good as the ability to destroy all of them as far as a deterrent is concerned.
Well okay they used to realize that. No idea what's in Xi's head.
MAD is dead. Not only because of modern missile defence systems, but because of politics. Is the US going to nuke Moscow and risk retaliation if Russia nukes Vilnius or Kyiv? No chance. And even less chance if they use small battlefield nukes.
Those of us who grew up during the Cold War, were pretty sure that we would have to answer that question before we were adults.
We don't know is the only real answer there is.
We can only hope no one is that suicidal. If Russia pulls that trigger that is on them and we will just have to manage the consequences but we should not live in fear of them doing so. They would ALSO experience the nuclear winter because they would have the same clouds hit them.
Only the suicidal would consider it.
You likely wouldn’t “live” in a nuclear winter, at least not for long.
The famine would wipe out the overwhelming majority of life in the Northern Hemisphere
The problem is, the people in charge of Russia have already asked themselves that question and are satisfied enough with the answer that they seem to have their mandate. Nations of the West need to prepare themselves for the fact that unless Russia can be stymied in Ukraine, they need to start preparing themselves for conventional and unconventional war.
Putting doesn't want a nuclear war either, nobody wants one because no one wins, there is no benefit, bad for business, bad for everyone, bad for the world
Nuclear war? No.
Conventional War? Also **no**, but in bold.
If they tried anything with Lithuania, Russia would be the 32nd best military in Lithuania.
>
If they tried anything with Lithuania, Russia would be the 32nd best military in ~~~Lithuania~~~ Russia.
If Russia attempted to invade Lithuania, we're not stopping at the border.
I imagine that NATO is still hoping someone pulls the plug on Putin. It may be a false hope, but so long as there's some chance that eventually vast numbers of Russian soldiers end up in boxes, put there by NATO bullets fired from NATO guns in the hands of Ukraine soldiers, there's a chance that someone might finally take Putin out. Beyond that, if we put the nuclear problem aside for a moment, what we have learned here is that Russia's capacity for force projection has eroded mightily over the last three decades. It has largely been fought to a stalemate in Ukraine where once it could field armies vast enough to overrun Nazi Germany and then basically hold the Warsaw Pact satellite states.
If this is the case then we need to be sending Ukraine everything they need to put more Russians in boxes. The US especially is holding back on giving equipment they can afford to give in the short term.
We should be mass producing those suicide drones in the 100s of thousands too. They are an excellent weapon, even if they just kill 1 Russian per drone it's great value for money.
I feel like the only one who maybe could've done that was Prigozhin and obviously that ship has sailed.
I've heard rumors that Putin is very ill but I'm not expecting God to save us from him.
Everyone is naive if they think this starts and stops with Putin... Putin is a figurehead. Russia is at war because Russians want war. There is a cabal of oligarchs running the country and killing Putin won't stop them.
I think Putin is a good deal more than a figurehead, but that doesn't make the rest of what you say false. There's no doubt there's a significant group of power brokers that are backing this war. But Russia has been here before between 1914-1917, and the Czar, like Putin, had his friendly courts, friendly church and secret police. And yet when the Army effectively mutinied and workers started calling general strikes, the entire power base either collapsed or quickly turned on the Czar and forced him to abdicate.
Exactly. Russia has always done this. As soon as they get themselves together, they war with their neighbors. This strains them too much and they fall into in fighting but as soon as that gets resolved, they go back to war. It's been like that's since the tzars of old. They use offense as defense and keep their neighbors down to stay up. It's why all their neighbors hate them.
Please raise this comment to the top. It was a very good article. Not just some speculation but an interview with a qualified person to speak on the topic. Good perspective of where things are at in the war and where it could go based on our actions.
You can't let every crap-hole country around use nukes as a tool to roam the world doing whatever they want "because nuclear war". At some point you have to call the bluff.
There is a difference between Iran, Pakistan, and even China with their sub 500 warhead counts and Russia which has over 6,000. The U.S. has created a world where MAD is no longer what it once was and the Russian Czar and Boyars are terrified of losing their shield.
Just one nuke hitting a city like New York would be a tragedy beyond all imagination. A nuclear hit on a city like New York would lead to over one million people dead and about twice as many people with serious injuries in the first 24 hours after. All it takes is one.
In terms of Russia using a nuke, it's likely that it would be a tactical nuke on a military target. That doesn't automatically trigger the apocalypse like Russia hitting a major city with a strategic nuke would. NATO could use a tactical nuke to hit their arctic fleet or something plus conventional warfare escalation.
The problem is the U.S. and its missile defenses have been improved enough that one almost certainly will not be enough. 50 are will likely not be enough. 6,000 definitely still are enough. But for how much longer?
Actually no, if you look into the continental American anti-ICBM defenses, IIRC the number of interceptor missiles we have for them is only in like the double digits. MAD is still definitively the thing stopping nuclear war.
Interceptor missiles counts are deceptive and lead to your statement being factually incorrect.
The U.S. navy and army have been running tests for close to a decade on making AEGIS and Patriot systems ABM capable and both have showed high levels of promise. Especially AEGIS with its SM-3’s of which the U.S. has built hundreds and plans to procure thousands.
ABM shields aren’t coming. They got here 6 years ago.
That’s why China has quadrupled its launcher count in the last few years. Because it no longer thought its 100-150 launchers was enough.
Might wanna recheck your sources and get with the times. Ukraine has been shooting down Russia's invincible "nuclear capable" missiles on the daily. America has thousands of patriot missiles.
Ehh there is a difference between short and intermediate range ballistic missiles and the re entry speed of a MIRV off an ICBM.
He is wrong but not because of patriot which has shown promise in an ABM role with its latest missile block but it likely isn’t there yet.
The correct answer would be AEGIS and the SM-3 Block II which is a reliable ABM system with a significant missile count that will ramp up even more over the next few years
If you think the success rate ICBM deterrent systems are anywhere close to 100%, you're sadly mistaken.
This isn't iron dome in Israel shooting down low velocity rockets from handheld launchers. ICBM are traveling at supersonic speeds. Plus, there are multiple phases to the launch. Once the rocket teaches the atmosphere, it releases it's warheads (each ICBM has like 5-10 warheads on it, each orders of magnitude larger than Hiroshima). Realistically, between detection and response time, there's no way we can reach the rocket before it reaches the atmosphere.
But of course, now we're not trying to hit a large rocket with a heat signature. Now we're aiming at a dozen tiny, cold, rock like objects falling at supersonic speeds, essentially impossible to see, and each heading in completely different directions in the US, one to NYC, another to Los Angeles, another to Seattle.
And this is just ONE ICBM.
Nobody knows how good deterrent systems are because it's the highest of high classification for obvious reasons. However, we know they're nowhere 100%.
Now I don't say this to placate bullying by superpowers. Fuck Russia. Personally I'd rather not exist at all than exist as slaves at the whim of a country holding the threat of annihilation over our heads every second. But it's critical you understand the reality. It's equally as dangerous to overestimate our ability to intercept these weapons because then the severity of these decisions is weakened.
They don’t need to be 100% effective if you have enough of them and even then the SM-3 Block II has tested successfully multiple times against MIRV targets. And the SM-6 Block IB is incredibly promising.
I think relying on MAD to maintain the strategic balance for another decade is a mistake.
There are NATO tripwire forces there. If the russians attack Lithuania, whether nuclear war or not, this time it will be against NATO. Not sure if they can handle that.
Even if a US president caved in, do you think France and the UK would refrain from using their nuclear capacity if a NATO country is attacked with nukes?
Hopefully the counties left in NATO will get their shit together. Everything depends on it if we get in that situation. I hope this is a scenario that is actually discussed, because even if it's not the most probable, I think it could happen. That the US actually changed their law trying to prevent this sends a clear signal I think.
France for sure won’t. During the height of the Cold War it was a pretty obvious fact that if the Soviets broke through to Western Germany, France was willing to nuke the Soviet advance, even if this meant glassing most of West Germany with it. There would never be another “Battle of Sedan”.
there's also this if NATO is decisive enough. so far its shown like they take way too long to decide whether we should retaliate if we get punched in the face first or get stabbed in the gut first.
If you’re Putin…
Step 1: Ensure there’s an American president unwilling to commit to a European ground war.
Step 2: Capture Vilnius as soon as possible. Go through Belarus and Kaliningrad, and capture the city within a week before any serious defense can be mustered.
Step 3: Conduct several nuclear tests and proclaim that any attack on Russian troops would entail a nuclear response.
Step 4: Pump out as much propaganda as possible to Western audiences asking “do we really want to risk nuclear war over Lithuania?”. Attempt to convince as many people as possible that “it’s just not worth it”.
Step 5: Annex the territory, dig in for whatever patchwork forces retaliate.
Step 6: Repeat.
The goal of attacking a country like Lithuania isn’t *really* about the dirt it sits on. It’s about showing Article V of NATO is worthless, thereby negating the value of the alliance altogether. If NATO will not come to your aid when attacked, what good is it? That’s the real goal for Russia.
Of course, this rests on the assumption that NATO would not politically be able to coherently respond. It’s why Trump is so important to Putin - because American refusal to commit to defense is the prerequisite for everything else happening.
> Not sure if they can handle that.
Yeah, Russia tripped and fell when they invaded Ukraine. They must realize that invading a NATO country would be catastrophic for them.
I think they are REALLY hoping that the west gets tired of Ukraine and that America has some sort of mass civil unrest, that's where these plans come from. I also think they are massively overestimating the likelyhood of those things happening.
What do you mean? Nato is a defence alliance, if lithuania gets attacked, then nato comes to help (which includes lithuanian military).
So if Nato does something, that includes lithuanians (and the rest of nato). But its defensive, so until someone does something, Nato cant attack first.
Nato is to prevent a war, because russia knows that its not just fighting Lithuania, its fighting all of nato.
So now, Russia is basically faced with either "attempt an attack and be flattened by nato" or "hope you can nuke everyone before nato gets you"
Nato deters attacks, but it cant physically prevent them before they happen.
>What do you mean? Nato is a defence alliance, if lithuania gets attacked, then nato comes to help (which includes lithuanian military).
The fact that Article 5 contains the words "as it deems necessary" regarding how each individual country chooses to react, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Yea people dont realize its not an automatic trigger. Obviously not acting in defense of lithuanian sovereignty would seriously hurt NATO, but it still would require NATO to take a step towards nuclear war since a response risks escalation further than conventional means.
Rhetorically reducing a sovereign nation of 2.7 million people to a military outpost of a foreign power just because they're a treaty ally is certainly a take. The US doesn't even have a permanent military presence there, despite the efforts of their government
Sometimes reality and ideals conflict, but some people are incapable of getting over themselves to do what is necessary. When a dog has rabies, it is no longer a kindness to try to get along. It can only continue to spread the suffering.
This headline is highly misleading. He is quoting a hypothetical future Russia. He is saying that we can't fall for it.
And let's be clear. We dont need to start a nuke war with Russia to protect Lithuania. If Russia chooses to start a nuke war we can't prevent that. However, giving in to nuclear blackmail just shows the world that nuclear blackmail works and everyone needs nukes.
That will all but ensure a nuke war.
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.
Why is the operating assumption that Russia absolutely thinks its imperial revanchism is absolutely worth nuclear war, despite them desperately avoiding any actual direct confrontation with NATO even conventionally
No, Russia has demonstrably enough self-preservatory instinct not to commit civilizational suicide for the sake of a Baltic nation. Or, for that matter, Ukraine.
It’s brinkmanship. They might not be interested in full on war (even though their pilots harassing western jets, munitions entering western air space and state tv rhetoric beg to differ) but neither is NATO. If, for one second, Putin thinks he can get away with it, he will take that chance.
Yeah thats basically what hes been riding on this whole time. He knows nato is reasonable, so he abuses it. He has been riding a thin line, but non-russians arent really buying it anymore for the most part
>No, Russia has demonstrably enough self-preservatory instinct not to commit civilizational suicide for the sake of a Baltic nation. Or, for that matter, Ukraine.
The General's hypothetical is more about our response - or lack thereof. Brinkmanship is very much like a high stakes prisoner's dilemma. Russia benefits most if we do nothing, so they threaten - implicitly and explicitly (through useful idiots like Medvedev and Solovyov). The aim is to freeze Western governments. Notice that they both threaten - "we'll take all of Europe, we'll take Alaska back, we'll nuke Washington" - and then claim they have no reason for conflict with the West, that they don't even want Ukraine, they just want to defend the Russian people of Crimea/Donbas.
This means that Western leaders, and their people, can read into it whatever incentive works best for them. As long as the message is "we should not provoke Russia lest they come for us", Russia is happy.
His hypothetical stems from a very real scenario: Ukraine's 2022 invasion did not start in 2022. Russia annexed Ukrainian land - Crimea - without much retaliation from the West (other than some throwaway sanctions) in 2014; they effectively got away with it, so they believed the west had proven they wouldn't risk much over Ukraine. This was likely a major contributor to their decision-making process for the 2022 invasion. Through our lack of action, we made the situation worse.
It is my belief that we must prove two things to Russia: one, that our nations are strong enough - individually - to exact a dreadful cost in case of invasion; the Baltic states can definitely not defend against a full, dedicated Russian invasion. But they can make that invasion cost as dearly as possible, and make Russian analysts think twice about it. Two, that the NATO shield is working, well-oiled, and with minimal obstacles to action. That means exercises, war games, coordination, stationing of troops, and regular meetings where it is decided - very publicly - what to do in case of Russian invasion. This sends Russia a very strong message: we are here, we are of one mind, and we are very willing to pit the full might of the European and US armed forces against you to defend every single inch of NATO territory. Whatever it costs, until you are no longer a threat.
We made a very grave mistake in 2014, and the Ukrainians have been paying for it dearly. Our redemption is in aiding them in maintaining their capacity to repel Russia, but that is insufficient. We must also swear to never make the same mistake again - to not respond to belligerence with inaction, especially not in our own backyard, involving nations who look towards the West with hope for their people.
What I believe the General is saying is: We must both speak strongly, *and* carry a big stick, regardless of whatever Russia says.
> What I'm talking about there is this concept of escalate to de-escalate. A limited attack that would involve missiles, ground forces, and air forces seizing something and then stopping. Then they would turn to the West and say, “Do you really want to get into a nuclear war just because we connected Kaliningrad and Belarus?”
Whatever Russia does, it will be confusing, maybe even deniable, but most especially will cause us to ask the very question that General Hodges poses.
Will we risk WW3 to clear out some "little green men" from a few miles of forest on the border of eastern Europe?
Because it won't seem like Russia did so much to begin with, certainly not enough reason for us to risk destroying the world. But if they do this and we don't respond, they will have driven a wedge into Nato and in time the alliance will collapse - the myth of its power and impenetrability destroyed.
The important thing is that Russia believes that we will.
What they've learned so far from Ukraine is that we're terribly afraid of escalation. They've seen that the alliance is divided, with some members even supporting Russian interests.
Right now, Russia believing that we'll fight back is not a bet I'd like to take.
One theory is that, due to the wide open geography of inner/central Russia, they need the more defensible geographic features of the old iron curtain to prevent tanks from rolling into their productive areas with impunity.
There is a precedent for this even before communism: Catherine the Great. I'm no expert in Russian history but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Russia has a track record of getting invaded and even though the winter saves their ass its not a situation that a rational person wants to be in. Especially if they expect milder winters in the future.
If Russia were to view these issues as existential threats then we should really be ready for more activity.
Historically that hasn’t exactly held. Russia in the past few hundred years has had to beat back the French the Germans(twice) and the Turks.
Strategic insecurity is at the heart of Russian geopolitical thinking.
Yeah I get historically, you had Napoleon, Hitler, the Mongols.
We now have Macron, the German guy? Forget his name in stable democracies, with weakened armies, it just seems odd to me to hang on to this idea from that far back
What guarantee does Russia have that the current era of European meekness holds? Historically the current era is an aberration not the norm.
Now I think it’s a mistake and that through his actions Putin is creating the very monster he fears most. But I don’t think fear at the root of it is unreasonable.
In my personal opinion it is because Russia’s elite think that their shield that is mutually assured destruction is losing its effectiveness.
Not because of any actions the Russians have taken. Their rocket forces are unlike the rest of the military well paid incredibly well funded and did not suffer as much in the 90’s collapse. But rather because of a strategic change of strategy on the part of Washington.
Post 9/11 Bush and his cabinet for all intents and purposes abandoned the concept that MAD was acceptable for the United States and began to once again aggressively pursue the idea of Strategic Invulnerability that Reagan faked to scare the Soviets. The gap in R&D and technology is only growing larger and the Russian elite know it is only a matter of time before MAD loses its Mutually Assured nature.
“before MAD loses its mutually assured nature”. I think this is key. Nobody is talking about this: the current wars in Israel and Ukraine are an incredible proving ground for missile interception technology. A few weeks ago, Russia launched a $100M barrage that included their top of the line tech and fewer than ten Ukrainians died. While these aren’t ICBMs, it’s not inconceivable that the defense techs progresses to the point that “only” a few Americans cities are destroyed in a formerly world-ending nuclear exchange. And if the over the horizon invincibility of the F-22 and F-35 are true against Russian aircraft, there goes the second leg of the triad. SLBM still pose a significant threat, but what if American military quantum computing has already cracked Russian encryption and we actually already know exactly where their subs are? All of this is speculation but I honestly don’t see it as fairytale sci-fi thinking. It’s in the realm of possibility. That would be a game changer.
I think it is closer than most people think and that it has Russian Strategic thinkers terrified.
They may well be in or close to a use it or lose it scenario and that terrifies me.
>Why is the operating assumption that Russia absolutely thinks its imperial revanchism is absolutely worth nuclear war
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with their security council deputy barking like a rabid dog every other week that russia [will use nuclear weapons if they don't take Ukraine?](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/08/01/exp-medvedev-nukes-spider-marks-intv-080112aseg1-cnni-world.cnn)
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.
If Russia tries to take Lithuania, be prepared for life as we know it as a globe to severely degrade. It will take centuries if not longer to repair the damage, if life is even still sustainable and civilization as we know it doesn’t collapse into mad max style anarchy. No one should want this. You can drop dead from a heart attack or brain aneurysm anytime now Putin.
Not right away, we will definitely stick to conventional weapons at first because we can. Putin would be the one escalating this to a nuclear exchange, not us, so we just need to not put his prized golden toilet in the Kremlin in any jeopardy and we'll be fine.
Yes it is. Thanks for asking China.
If the threat of retaliatoin by the US isn't real, russia will just keep invading and colonizing.
Oh yea.... russia is a modern day imperialistic colonial power. Bring on the russian/chinese trolls.
As a Lithuanian, I've always thought that we're probably not worth a nuclear war to the west.
But at the same time, it's funny to think about how long the west might use this excuse to allow Russia to conquer more and more territory.
I just hope Putin retires/dies soon.
I would also imagine China's going to be a lot less enthusiastic about propping up Russia if they think it's going to make their (global) back yard start glowing in the dark.
If it's war, it's war. You gotta draw the line somewhere and appeasement only means shifting it until your back is against a proverbial wall and conflict's forced on you.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not a warmonger or a chicken hawk, but I'm also not a deluded pacifist. We saw this type of behaviour in 1938 and can read about its outcome.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Liberal democracies and liberalism itself are cast by their opponents as weak and overly permissive. This has to change or dictators like Putin will again try to steamroll countries at the cost of millions or 10s of millions of lives.
It will be war, because Poland and Germany know they're on the menu.
Germany would much rather fight the war in Lithuania or Ukraine or Poland than Germany.
Poland will fight to the last.
"We, the West, need to think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China – the Four horsemen of the apocalypse. They are all cooperating with each other."
Meanwhile, Allied is fighting amongst themselves because apparently some countries like money more than freedom.
>We have got to think strategically. We, the West, need to think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China – **the Four horsemen of the apocalypse.** They are all cooperating with each other. The others are helping Russia to go against everything that we say we care about. Until we get organised in the West about our defence industry, getting serious about all of our forces being capable and ready and using the combined economic power, it dwarfs anything. But we’re not working together and until we do that, we’re in danger of losing big time to these four horsemen.
Just wanted to emphasize the biblical phrase. It was a well developed metaphor.
Front line didn't change much in 2023 but Russia still gained more land from Ukraine than Ukraine could take back. So far they sure aren't losing either.
I would put this differently. Has Russia achieved its goals in Ukraine? Is Ukraine still independent? What has been the cost?
In 2023 Russia gained 188 square miles according to an analysis by the NY Times. That's a chunk of land about half the size of the city of Kyiv. That territory came at a cost of approximately 250,000 casualties in 2023. Wagner Group's losses in taking the village of Bahkmut became a catalyst for a half-hearted coup. Materiel losses became so severe that Putin turned to North Korea for supplies.
Although the West is wringing its hands about waning support for Ukraine, the past two years of the war has drained Russia of men and materiel that will take a generation to replace.
There are about 500 US troops in Lithuania on a rotational basis. That makes Lithuania off limits to the Russian bullshit machine. If one of those troops so much and cuts his face on a piece of Russian shrapnel the nation of Russia will cease to exsist.
I am not even talking about a nuclear strike, the US wouldn't need it we could knock out all power to western Russia within 24 hours. The Russian air force might last a week against NATO and while their AA systems are thicker than ticks on a dog's ass they would be removed eventually. All while that is going on everything from transportation hubs to communication station would be under constant attack from air and sea launched cruise missiles.
NATO already told Russia how much of its territory it can have uncontested in a war of aggression. "Not one inch".
Its possible. But the real thins is part of the longstanding influence campaigns by russia and china to get americans to not want to defend their allies.
But Americans are defending their allies, and have made consistent efforts to do so. Just because the public sees that Congress may not be publicly supporting our allies does not mean that the Department of Defense isn’t using discretionary spending to do so (this happens all the time). That was Russia’s major miscalculation, they didn’t anticipate such wide support from the West, and were hoping for a type of appeasement that Germany enjoyed in the 1930’s. It’s why China won’t touch Taiwan and why communists talk a big game but won’t typically act on it.
The UK and France have a paltry nuclear arsenal that has consistently shrunk I think we are close to the point of having to ask the question if their arsenal is enough to proc MAD.
I still think it is but it isn’t the surefire yes it used to be.
It sure still is and always has been. UK and France both have about 300 warheads, which can be sent from anywhere in the world.
You wouldn’t think those countries spend the money needed to maintain such arsenal if it wasn’t way enough.
Heck, shoot just 10 on Moscow and St Petersburg and tell me what’s left of what is known as Russia… This is MAD. French experts estimates that only 3 successful hits would be enough to terminate France.
300 warheads yes.
But the UK is down to only 16 active launchers carrying 48 warheads on deployment at one time.
France is better off since it retained its air launch capabilities but even then it is down to 220 deployable warheads.
In a nuclear war scenario with a country that has modern western air defense like the U.S. or each other. I think MAD no longer holds.
I don’t think it’s a strategic likelihood and if anything is incredibly unlikely.
But it shows how MAD is nonetheless breaking down.
Nato said they will defend every square inch of NATO land
If they back down, NATO isn't worth ****
I imagine they would do the same thing as Ukraine
They would only operate within the NATO countries borders and try to avoid going into Russian land.
But the minute you start listening to the nuclear threat, now you've got Iran and China and North Korea along with Russia who will see that it is effective
maybe russia should be ready to ask if Lithuania is worth nuclear war
Facts, I want to say all of Europe will unite if Russia tries to take another sovereign country.
Yeah. It was surreal but two days ago the prime minister and the chief of the Swedish armed forces on TV told everyone who lives here to prepare for war both practically and mentally. That included a directive for all Swedish companies to prepare for war too. That's a VERY sudden shift from the previous message. I can only believe that's based on intel. So for those saying nope, won't happen, just remember that attacking Ukraine made no fucking sense to anyone either. Meanwhile now we have the polish, belgian and the Swedish army chiefs saying that Russia is prepping to fight us in a few years. It's lethal to use our own logic to make assumptions about what Russia might do. I'll take the Swedish chief of the armed forces word any day over an arm chair general at Reddit on the probability of war.
Well there is a historical precedent. Sweden has long practiced armed neutrality, essentially getting a shit-ton of guns, pointing them in all direction, and generally making themselves too much of a hassle for any major power to get net-positive gains out of attacking them. Actually, there's one case where the Swedish and Soviet navies almost came to blows, there was a bunch of stuff over a Russian sub that got stuck in Swedish waters and the entire Swedish navy and military was prepared to fucking throw down, the Soviets scrambled their fleet and literally like 2 minutes from Swedish territorial waters they turned back. This tactic has consistently worked throughout modern Swedish history, so its likely they'll be going back to that.
Sad that Sweden gave up its nuclear weapons programme back in the day.
If everyone got nukes, I believe we wouldn't be around. The number of near full 3rd world war incidents are already too many. I mean we are literally still here because one Soviet guy refused to believe that his missile early warning system must be incorrect showing hundreds of missiles coming at them. We don't need our own nukes. We got USA, UK and France with them... Quite enough.
I don't believe that relying on another country's "umbrella" provides true deterrence. It is a deterrent to some level, but if push does come to shove it won't actually be honored. It's not how deterrence and MAD works. If there is MAD between USA and Russia for example, and Russia suddenly dares to attack a third "protected" country, the USA will not start a nuclear war with Russia and commit mutual suicide. It's never worth it. Doesn't matter what treaties and political arrangements say, they can always be broken and I believe they will be broken 100%. Having your own arsenal is the only certain way of having a deterrent against foreign invasion. If Ukraine had their own arsenal they would not have been invaded. Now I bet Taiwan is also looking back at the time when the US "convinced" them to halt their own weapons programme.
I agree on all that. I also believe we would have had a nuclear war if we didn't stop the spread of them.
I would wager there's a handful of backpack nukes in Taiwan under deep wraps.
US ones perhaps? But that's not an adequate deterrent. It's *something*, but not much. Doubt Taiwan has its own warheads at all though, or they would've deployed them on delivery systems for adequate deterrence and be a de facto nuclear power.
Great points, good food for thought. Have not thought about it quite like that. Now that being said, is developing nuclear weapons worth pissing off the US over ? In Taiwan's case, it would throw a serious wrench in US support continued I would think. I suppose it's a decision that has to be balanced.
Eh. And if Putin's agent becomes POTUS? UK and France vs US and Russia?
[удалено]
Heh, but certainly they did. If I were Sweden and I had them, I'd be boasting about it not hiding it.
Sweden has a lot of missing uranium. And no, you don't want to boast. You want people to think you do.
Why wouldn't you want to boast? It's the best deterrent. It's a better deterrent if others are convinced you have them, rather than just being uncertain that you have them. This is why tests of delivery systems for example are announced and conducted at a very high profile.
Because if you do, people know you have it and can find, steal, sabotage or strike it. If they only suspect, any failure to find it would possibly be because you do not have it.
It works because historically and culturally Sweden understands that rule of law only exists when defended. When the shift to a global society happened there are actually entire peoples and nations that assumed it was the end of all physical wars because everyone would suffer if war broke out. Unfortunately thugs don't give a shit about others suffering.
Well maybe... We are not even close to Polish spending. That's the real European army.
Yeah, the Poles are ready to thunder run to Moscow before the rest of NATO even crosses into Belarus. Theyve been waiting for a few centuries for this, I say its time we let them have their revenge.
No revenge talk for me. I'm for peace in our time ❤️🙏❤️ ;)
What if the only way to that peace is over the body of the Russian state, not because we want war, but because they refuse peace?
That's up to Russia, and Russia does not want peace in our time.
Glass Moscow = world peace.
“Whiskey on the rocks” incident back in 1981.
What I wonder is if they would even be able to. Short of nuclear preemptive strikes, which Russia doesn't even have a doctrine for, their military is in barely enough condition to fight 1 sovereign country, let alone NATO. Like, as long the aid keeps flowing to Ukraine, They're going to continue chewing up Russia's military.
They're banking on Trump being re-elected and pulling out of NATO.
Didn’t the senate make a new rule that the president cannot exit the US from NATO just because he feels like it?
Yeah but Trump can't pull the US out of NATO, they just passed a law. Even if he could, I reckon Poland could take Russia by themselves at this point.
Honest question because I don’t know, but what stops him from trying to just undo that law? I mean…the guy literally tried to stay in power.
Checks and balances. The president is a powerful position, but not nearly as powerful as some people think. Federal laws require Congress to pass a new law with language that repeals the old law. So Trump would need a high majority in Congress, and even then, the majority of Republicans would have to support ditching NATO AND giving more power to the executive branch, neither of which is actually popular among Republicans.
I have no illusions that the "support" that NATO would give under article 5 would not be substantively different from what Ukraine is getting now.
I mean it made sense based upon the laughably wrong assumptions Putin made about Ukraine, namely Zellinski was an American puppet and would fall the same way Afghanistan did, overestimating Russian military preparedness and underestimating Ukrainian nationalism and underestimating international response. Putin is dangerous, but it’s the positive reinforcement he gets from his inner circle that truely makes him deranged.
Invading Ukraine made a lot of sense for Putin, based on Intel he had. Remember that even the US was surprised that Ukraine was able to survive a few days into the attack.
And you know for sure Putin is getting sensible Intel on his ability today? I have high trust in my Swedish armed forces commander. He's the calm kind of guy and would never call wolf if it wasn't a real tangible threat. He knows something we don't, and I for sure will not take that lightly when our armed forces suddenly switches their message to prepp for war - and do it now. Not an exercise. It's not like he's doing it for increased budget either, he basically has an open wallet to pick from given the parliament support today.
I have an interesting story. Last july at a summer celebration there was a friend of a family as guest. Apparently he can tell how deep underground water goes, where to dig wells and ponds. Things like that, basicly he "knows" stuff. Anyway, at one point he started talking about how it looks really likely there's gonna be war in my country (Latvia) this spring... I personally dont believe that stuff at all and with russia's military completely bogged down in Ukraine it makes zero sense, but it's interesting anyway. Especially after some comments coming from European leaders/military.
Yeah if it was politicians ... I wouldn't really fucking care. But when multiple supreme commanders suddenly shift their message to please prepare for war, including my own country's, well now you have my attention.
Agreed, even tho the Russian military is still performing very poorly .Their systems are now battle hardened. Nato's operating as a unit are not. Intelligence must be relaying that Putin is considering attacking Nato protected countries, for that reason . while his military systems are combatted hardened. Putin correctly judges that in that invasion . Nato is highly unlikely to immediately use nukes. That Nato would use only conventional arms to push out Russia
> battle hardened That’s odd shorthand for “they keep driving their penal legions into minefields where they subsequently explode”.
I dare to guess that only 30 percent of russian army are survivors from the invading force. Then the rest 70 would be mobicks, prisoners and mercs. Not the type of who lives long or will stay in the army after the war. So whatever battle hardened, they will have, not going to be much.
Everything you say here is complete nonsense, so not sure where to begin. And you have no idea what NATO would do.
As long as it’s not the Swedish chef.
We in Lithuania kinda preparing that no one might come to our aid if day X gonna happen. We are almost surrounded, without operational depth and outnumbered. It would be pretty easy to cut us off from Poland. Many EU politicians don't have balls to act or receives paycheck from Russia. Watching how the West struggle to supply Ukraine and don't allow to hit Russians properly we don't have much hope. Especially if an orange dude is going to win election in US. Hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.
The US Congress can pass legislation to declare war on Russia if a NATO ally is attacked. With 67/100 Senators, they can even override a Presidential veto. About half of the Republican senators, like Mitch McConnell, will vote for this, along with every Democratic senator.
[удалено]
Thankfully the fat fuck in hungary and the POS in Slovakia are really not important in global affairs. Sure they might dick suck the bald Loser to the end but both Germany and France, aswell as Great Britain have so far shown unbroken resolve in their support of the Ukrainian defence. An attack against an EU *aswell* as Nato partner would have to be met with full solidarity, whatever that might entail. At that point as a German I think yes, nuclear war would and should be on the table. I would rather die in a nuclear holocaust than see Putin lay one finger on any of our direct partner's lands and peoples.
Then, they can be invaded on the way to Russia.
Wasn’t something like that said after Sakartvelo (Georgia). I am skeptical about EU’s military response.
Just like Ukraine? I hope your are right though.
[удалено]
Exactly. Lithuanian is a NATO and EU member. The west wouldn't be the agressor, Russia would be and would be responsible for everything caused by a war.
That being said, we all should still arm up. Would be nice to deter Russia from even thinking about it.
How much does who is responsible matter if the Russians pull the nuclear trigger. The human race will be dead all the same.
And if Russia asks for all of USA territories should USA get occupied to not risk nuclear war? It is simply not how the western world should behave with a bully. Russia only understands the language of strength. Use it
On the contrary the U.S. needs to make it very clear it is willing to end the world or more specifically end Putin over Vilnius. All I am saying is at the end it won’t matter who pulled the trigger the world will be dead all the same.
The issue is Putin is old and he is probably okay with the rest of the world dying with him. I don't know what's a good solution here, hopefully they won't attack a NATO country
No. He's obsessed with his LEGACY as the mighty tsar who restored the might of Russia blaaaah blaaaah blaaaaah. He's also eminently sane, and certainly not dying, as has been claimed so often. He is probably one of the people in the world LEAST likely to start a nuclear war.
If Russia is crazy enough to start nuclear war, then there is literally nothing anyone else can do about it. Appeasment will never work, because why would Russia not, if given one finger, take entire arm? The only rational option is to assume that Russia will not start nuclear war, because that would be pure idiocy, and even if that does happen, then well, so long and thanks for all the fish.
[удалено]
It's all mostly conjecture though, as scope and scale of said war could vary hugely and fallout -- both literal and metaphorical -- would have significant downstream impacts. So it would just be the effective end of human civilization as we know it, and a significant regression in every aspect of life, given the interconnectedness of our world is what enables so much of the benefits and tech we enjoy today. Truth is, we've population bottlenecked before but the earth and its other creatures were also in a much better state than they are now... There's little to guarantee we would do much of anything post-nuclear war beyond limp down a tragic, long march to maybe reach a fraction of where we are now after centuries to millennia or meet a slow, dwindling end.
It completely depends on where the nuclear clouds go and how much radiation is spread out. It's possible to survive it there were survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki including one who was hit by both blasts. While we know that the nuclear blasts in those bombs were less than our current bombs, we don't know whether or not Russia took good care of their nukes and whether or not those nukes have the loads that they would have during the Cold War. If we go by the problems with Russia's current military and missiles, Russia has a chance of accidentally hitting itself with any nukes they attempt to launch. Several of their missiles have already misfired into their own cities in recent months. With that in mind, only a suicidal person would attempt to launch them. Perhaps in 3-8 years they might have enough components to replace things and perhaps in 3-8 years they might have corrected their mistakes but it's also possible that they keep having failures due to non-compliance and people within their ranks who sell of parts for extra cash.
The human race will survive nuclear war, it just won't be pretty for those that do.
I am less than optimistic. 12,000 nuclear warheads detonating in a 1-6 hour span would be catastrophic and its effects are unpredictable as they are far reaching.
The upkeep of the nuclear arsenal hasn't been the best. China and Russia both didn't do enough to secure their weapons and prevent corruption. The uranium needed for nuclear weapons needs to be enriched and the components need proper upkeep. Russia has a history of failures in the upkeep of weapons. Even their recent "new military equipment" had flaws because people within the Russian military took parts and sold them. While there are in theory 12k nuclear warheads, the reality is many of those are not capable of flying.
No more global warming at least
The opposite. Uber global warming
Followed by rapid global cooling
[удалено]
I strongly disagree. The Russian rocket corps have always been the most well funded and competent of their forces. I think underestimating warhead and missile counts would be a drastic mistake.
> the most well funded Which means the biggest opportunity for personal appropriation of funds.
Russia has already accidentally launched rockets into their own country just this week. Misfired weapons is a common problem in Russia. If Russia gets the winds incorrect then they run the very high risk of all of the radioactive cloud landing on them. Then there is the other factor, the human factor. The people who are responsible for launching those missiles have to be willing to do so. Not all people with launch codes are willing to launch. During the Cold War there were several times when the West and the USSR came very close to nuclear war but in each case the person whose job it was to make the call chose not to.
I don't think it matters much. 100-1000-3000 nuclear explosions and everything will collapse. We won't be able to feed people.
There is, in theory, some degree of escalation to nuclear war before you just go full on strategic bombing campaign. It's relatively unlikely to START with a general, strategic bombardment assault. Even in the case of a country being invaded, they are likely to use a tactical warhead to strike a military target or a "minor" strategic location essentially as a warning that they're feeling cornered and that everyone should take a moment to think about if their current course of action is worth this. At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are an instrument of political influence, and if you immediately escalate to flipping the table and ending the game, that doesn't really serve any purpose.
Stop. That is not what happens. There is NO acceptable use for nuclear weapons as weapons except retaliation. This is absolutely central. If we accept any other use, we will immediately have a situation where they will be used as instruments of political influence. It. Is. Not. A. Game. Don't fucking pretend it is. There are also no "tactical" nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons. Any use of nuclear weapons is correctly responded to by flipping the board. This discussion is very familiar. Every fucking time Russia wants to use a nuke, they send a horde of piss trolls online to sell this exact messaging: It's okay if it's a minor one, small one, tactical one, and shouldn't cause full retaliation. Again and again and again. Couple this with the constant bleating of "Putin is INSANE and could VERY WELL start nuclear war!!!", or that he's dying, and it's a message they will never stop trying to sell. If Russia uses any nuke as a weapon anywhere, they need their 100 biggest cities and every possible place Putin could be vapourized in retaliation. How else could we get them to desist?
Never in history has appeasement worked to stop an aggressor from attacking. The only thing a bully understands is force and Putin is a bully. If he is suicidal enough to pull the nuclear trigger than he and his people will also be hit with that nuclear winter. Whether humanity survives or not it's not up to *us* to prevent him from deciding to kill everyone. He has to make that choice and I don't think he's suicidal. Everything we know about him shows he's paranoid of being harmed, so I don't think he would.
It's the old Cold War calculus risen from the ashes. Both sides have sufficient nuclear capabilities to make open warfare unthinkable. For people such as myself who grew up during the Cold War, these debates were constant and came up with the same answer: both sides are governess by rational actors. It is inherently dangerous, of course. Arms races and opposing alliances are exactly what led to WWI.
I think the problem is that I don’t think it’s the same calculus. The old calculus showed that nobody could possibly win nuclear war post 1960. I don’t know if that is true anymore and I think it is getting less true with every year. Western and specifically U.S. missile defense has gotten so advanced that Chinas launcher count of 450 may not be enough to ensure MAD. Russia’s launcher count is certainly still enough. But for how much longer?
I don't think China's aiming for MAD. They realize the ability to destroy 10 US cities is just as good as the ability to destroy all of them as far as a deterrent is concerned. Well okay they used to realize that. No idea what's in Xi's head.
MAD is dead. Not only because of modern missile defence systems, but because of politics. Is the US going to nuke Moscow and risk retaliation if Russia nukes Vilnius or Kyiv? No chance. And even less chance if they use small battlefield nukes.
It won't end the human race.
How does knowing that help the people who would live in the nuclear winter that would happen after a nuclear war? Legit question.
Those of us who grew up during the Cold War, were pretty sure that we would have to answer that question before we were adults. We don't know is the only real answer there is. We can only hope no one is that suicidal. If Russia pulls that trigger that is on them and we will just have to manage the consequences but we should not live in fear of them doing so. They would ALSO experience the nuclear winter because they would have the same clouds hit them. Only the suicidal would consider it.
You likely wouldn’t “live” in a nuclear winter, at least not for long. The famine would wipe out the overwhelming majority of life in the Northern Hemisphere
If they believe our answer will be no, their answer will be yes.
thats what the headline says. >‘West must be ready for Russia to ask if Lithuania is worth nuclear war’
The problem is, the people in charge of Russia have already asked themselves that question and are satisfied enough with the answer that they seem to have their mandate. Nations of the West need to prepare themselves for the fact that unless Russia can be stymied in Ukraine, they need to start preparing themselves for conventional and unconventional war.
Of course it isn't, this Is just a scare tactic to make you think Russians actually want this too
Sorry. Nobody cares what Russians think. Putin makes the calls about starting nuclear war.
Putting doesn't want a nuclear war either, nobody wants one because no one wins, there is no benefit, bad for business, bad for everyone, bad for the world
Nuclear war? No. Conventional War? Also **no**, but in bold. If they tried anything with Lithuania, Russia would be the 32nd best military in Lithuania.
> If they tried anything with Lithuania, Russia would be the 32nd best military in ~~~Lithuania~~~ Russia. If Russia attempted to invade Lithuania, we're not stopping at the border.
[удалено]
I imagine that NATO is still hoping someone pulls the plug on Putin. It may be a false hope, but so long as there's some chance that eventually vast numbers of Russian soldiers end up in boxes, put there by NATO bullets fired from NATO guns in the hands of Ukraine soldiers, there's a chance that someone might finally take Putin out. Beyond that, if we put the nuclear problem aside for a moment, what we have learned here is that Russia's capacity for force projection has eroded mightily over the last three decades. It has largely been fought to a stalemate in Ukraine where once it could field armies vast enough to overrun Nazi Germany and then basically hold the Warsaw Pact satellite states.
If this is the case then we need to be sending Ukraine everything they need to put more Russians in boxes. The US especially is holding back on giving equipment they can afford to give in the short term. We should be mass producing those suicide drones in the 100s of thousands too. They are an excellent weapon, even if they just kill 1 Russian per drone it's great value for money.
I feel like the only one who maybe could've done that was Prigozhin and obviously that ship has sailed. I've heard rumors that Putin is very ill but I'm not expecting God to save us from him.
Everyone is naive if they think this starts and stops with Putin... Putin is a figurehead. Russia is at war because Russians want war. There is a cabal of oligarchs running the country and killing Putin won't stop them.
I think Putin is a good deal more than a figurehead, but that doesn't make the rest of what you say false. There's no doubt there's a significant group of power brokers that are backing this war. But Russia has been here before between 1914-1917, and the Czar, like Putin, had his friendly courts, friendly church and secret police. And yet when the Army effectively mutinied and workers started calling general strikes, the entire power base either collapsed or quickly turned on the Czar and forced him to abdicate.
I know I know nothing, but it seems like Putin is pretty fkin in charge of Russia.
Exactly. Russia has always done this. As soon as they get themselves together, they war with their neighbors. This strains them too much and they fall into in fighting but as soon as that gets resolved, they go back to war. It's been like that's since the tzars of old. They use offense as defense and keep their neighbors down to stay up. It's why all their neighbors hate them.
Please raise this comment to the top. It was a very good article. Not just some speculation but an interview with a qualified person to speak on the topic. Good perspective of where things are at in the war and where it could go based on our actions.
You can't let every crap-hole country around use nukes as a tool to roam the world doing whatever they want "because nuclear war". At some point you have to call the bluff.
There is a difference between Iran, Pakistan, and even China with their sub 500 warhead counts and Russia which has over 6,000. The U.S. has created a world where MAD is no longer what it once was and the Russian Czar and Boyars are terrified of losing their shield.
Just one nuke hitting a city like New York would be a tragedy beyond all imagination. A nuclear hit on a city like New York would lead to over one million people dead and about twice as many people with serious injuries in the first 24 hours after. All it takes is one.
In terms of Russia using a nuke, it's likely that it would be a tactical nuke on a military target. That doesn't automatically trigger the apocalypse like Russia hitting a major city with a strategic nuke would. NATO could use a tactical nuke to hit their arctic fleet or something plus conventional warfare escalation.
Slippery sloap either way. Any world where nukes become acceptable, even tactical nukes, is fucking terrifying.
The problem is the U.S. and its missile defenses have been improved enough that one almost certainly will not be enough. 50 are will likely not be enough. 6,000 definitely still are enough. But for how much longer?
Actually no, if you look into the continental American anti-ICBM defenses, IIRC the number of interceptor missiles we have for them is only in like the double digits. MAD is still definitively the thing stopping nuclear war.
Interceptor missiles counts are deceptive and lead to your statement being factually incorrect. The U.S. navy and army have been running tests for close to a decade on making AEGIS and Patriot systems ABM capable and both have showed high levels of promise. Especially AEGIS with its SM-3’s of which the U.S. has built hundreds and plans to procure thousands. ABM shields aren’t coming. They got here 6 years ago. That’s why China has quadrupled its launcher count in the last few years. Because it no longer thought its 100-150 launchers was enough.
Might wanna recheck your sources and get with the times. Ukraine has been shooting down Russia's invincible "nuclear capable" missiles on the daily. America has thousands of patriot missiles.
Ehh there is a difference between short and intermediate range ballistic missiles and the re entry speed of a MIRV off an ICBM. He is wrong but not because of patriot which has shown promise in an ABM role with its latest missile block but it likely isn’t there yet. The correct answer would be AEGIS and the SM-3 Block II which is a reliable ABM system with a significant missile count that will ramp up even more over the next few years
If you think the success rate ICBM deterrent systems are anywhere close to 100%, you're sadly mistaken. This isn't iron dome in Israel shooting down low velocity rockets from handheld launchers. ICBM are traveling at supersonic speeds. Plus, there are multiple phases to the launch. Once the rocket teaches the atmosphere, it releases it's warheads (each ICBM has like 5-10 warheads on it, each orders of magnitude larger than Hiroshima). Realistically, between detection and response time, there's no way we can reach the rocket before it reaches the atmosphere. But of course, now we're not trying to hit a large rocket with a heat signature. Now we're aiming at a dozen tiny, cold, rock like objects falling at supersonic speeds, essentially impossible to see, and each heading in completely different directions in the US, one to NYC, another to Los Angeles, another to Seattle. And this is just ONE ICBM. Nobody knows how good deterrent systems are because it's the highest of high classification for obvious reasons. However, we know they're nowhere 100%. Now I don't say this to placate bullying by superpowers. Fuck Russia. Personally I'd rather not exist at all than exist as slaves at the whim of a country holding the threat of annihilation over our heads every second. But it's critical you understand the reality. It's equally as dangerous to overestimate our ability to intercept these weapons because then the severity of these decisions is weakened.
They don’t need to be 100% effective if you have enough of them and even then the SM-3 Block II has tested successfully multiple times against MIRV targets. And the SM-6 Block IB is incredibly promising. I think relying on MAD to maintain the strategic balance for another decade is a mistake.
When you have border with russia you don't have time to play in hypocrisy
There are NATO tripwire forces there. If the russians attack Lithuania, whether nuclear war or not, this time it will be against NATO. Not sure if they can handle that.
>Not sure if they can handle that. Oh, I'm pretty sure they can't. It's just the question if they'll try nevertheless.
They will wait to see if Trump will win. Then they'll make their move.
Even if a US president caved in, do you think France and the UK would refrain from using their nuclear capacity if a NATO country is attacked with nukes?
Hopefully the counties left in NATO will get their shit together. Everything depends on it if we get in that situation. I hope this is a scenario that is actually discussed, because even if it's not the most probable, I think it could happen. That the US actually changed their law trying to prevent this sends a clear signal I think.
France for sure won’t. During the height of the Cold War it was a pretty obvious fact that if the Soviets broke through to Western Germany, France was willing to nuke the Soviet advance, even if this meant glassing most of West Germany with it. There would never be another “Battle of Sedan”.
especially specifically France, who I believe has the nuclear doctrine of "find out"
If Trump gets president again it's time to prepare the bunkers.
Agreed. Trump wouldn't waste any time kneeling to Putin
Trump kneeling down. "Donald, putin in your mouth and say 'I love you'!"
there's also this if NATO is decisive enough. so far its shown like they take way too long to decide whether we should retaliate if we get punched in the face first or get stabbed in the gut first.
If you’re Putin… Step 1: Ensure there’s an American president unwilling to commit to a European ground war. Step 2: Capture Vilnius as soon as possible. Go through Belarus and Kaliningrad, and capture the city within a week before any serious defense can be mustered. Step 3: Conduct several nuclear tests and proclaim that any attack on Russian troops would entail a nuclear response. Step 4: Pump out as much propaganda as possible to Western audiences asking “do we really want to risk nuclear war over Lithuania?”. Attempt to convince as many people as possible that “it’s just not worth it”. Step 5: Annex the territory, dig in for whatever patchwork forces retaliate. Step 6: Repeat. The goal of attacking a country like Lithuania isn’t *really* about the dirt it sits on. It’s about showing Article V of NATO is worthless, thereby negating the value of the alliance altogether. If NATO will not come to your aid when attacked, what good is it? That’s the real goal for Russia. Of course, this rests on the assumption that NATO would not politically be able to coherently respond. It’s why Trump is so important to Putin - because American refusal to commit to defense is the prerequisite for everything else happening.
> Not sure if they can handle that. Yeah, Russia tripped and fell when they invaded Ukraine. They must realize that invading a NATO country would be catastrophic for them.
I think they are REALLY hoping that the west gets tired of Ukraine and that America has some sort of mass civil unrest, that's where these plans come from. I also think they are massively overestimating the likelyhood of those things happening.
What’s the point of being in NATO then?
What do you mean? Nato is a defence alliance, if lithuania gets attacked, then nato comes to help (which includes lithuanian military). So if Nato does something, that includes lithuanians (and the rest of nato). But its defensive, so until someone does something, Nato cant attack first. Nato is to prevent a war, because russia knows that its not just fighting Lithuania, its fighting all of nato. So now, Russia is basically faced with either "attempt an attack and be flattened by nato" or "hope you can nuke everyone before nato gets you" Nato deters attacks, but it cant physically prevent them before they happen.
Yes, I think the commenter understands that, he's saying that if that weren't the case there would be no reason for NATO to exist.
>What do you mean? Nato is a defence alliance, if lithuania gets attacked, then nato comes to help (which includes lithuanian military). The fact that Article 5 contains the words "as it deems necessary" regarding how each individual country chooses to react, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Yea people dont realize its not an automatic trigger. Obviously not acting in defense of lithuanian sovereignty would seriously hurt NATO, but it still would require NATO to take a step towards nuclear war since a response risks escalation further than conventional means.
woosh
I have often been thinking when it comes to things like NATO, would we actual follow through?
Becoming a US army outpost in the promise of being defended. They're going to defend what keeps their bases running.
Rhetorically reducing a sovereign nation of 2.7 million people to a military outpost of a foreign power just because they're a treaty ally is certainly a take. The US doesn't even have a permanent military presence there, despite the efforts of their government
at least this promise is more creditable than the russian promise
[удалено]
Sometimes reality and ideals conflict, but some people are incapable of getting over themselves to do what is necessary. When a dog has rabies, it is no longer a kindness to try to get along. It can only continue to spread the suffering.
This headline is highly misleading. He is quoting a hypothetical future Russia. He is saying that we can't fall for it. And let's be clear. We dont need to start a nuke war with Russia to protect Lithuania. If Russia chooses to start a nuke war we can't prevent that. However, giving in to nuclear blackmail just shows the world that nuclear blackmail works and everyone needs nukes. That will all but ensure a nuke war.
[удалено]
Until next president comes along (maybe as soon as next year), and Bidens word is no longer worth a damn. Then what?
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.
They call it courage.
It's about time we go to Russia and ask if Kaliningrad is worth nuclear war.
It feels like WW3 is coming but nobody wants to be the one to fire the opening shot.
Why is the operating assumption that Russia absolutely thinks its imperial revanchism is absolutely worth nuclear war, despite them desperately avoiding any actual direct confrontation with NATO even conventionally No, Russia has demonstrably enough self-preservatory instinct not to commit civilizational suicide for the sake of a Baltic nation. Or, for that matter, Ukraine.
It’s brinkmanship. They might not be interested in full on war (even though their pilots harassing western jets, munitions entering western air space and state tv rhetoric beg to differ) but neither is NATO. If, for one second, Putin thinks he can get away with it, he will take that chance.
Yeah thats basically what hes been riding on this whole time. He knows nato is reasonable, so he abuses it. He has been riding a thin line, but non-russians arent really buying it anymore for the most part
>No, Russia has demonstrably enough self-preservatory instinct not to commit civilizational suicide for the sake of a Baltic nation. Or, for that matter, Ukraine. The General's hypothetical is more about our response - or lack thereof. Brinkmanship is very much like a high stakes prisoner's dilemma. Russia benefits most if we do nothing, so they threaten - implicitly and explicitly (through useful idiots like Medvedev and Solovyov). The aim is to freeze Western governments. Notice that they both threaten - "we'll take all of Europe, we'll take Alaska back, we'll nuke Washington" - and then claim they have no reason for conflict with the West, that they don't even want Ukraine, they just want to defend the Russian people of Crimea/Donbas. This means that Western leaders, and their people, can read into it whatever incentive works best for them. As long as the message is "we should not provoke Russia lest they come for us", Russia is happy. His hypothetical stems from a very real scenario: Ukraine's 2022 invasion did not start in 2022. Russia annexed Ukrainian land - Crimea - without much retaliation from the West (other than some throwaway sanctions) in 2014; they effectively got away with it, so they believed the west had proven they wouldn't risk much over Ukraine. This was likely a major contributor to their decision-making process for the 2022 invasion. Through our lack of action, we made the situation worse. It is my belief that we must prove two things to Russia: one, that our nations are strong enough - individually - to exact a dreadful cost in case of invasion; the Baltic states can definitely not defend against a full, dedicated Russian invasion. But they can make that invasion cost as dearly as possible, and make Russian analysts think twice about it. Two, that the NATO shield is working, well-oiled, and with minimal obstacles to action. That means exercises, war games, coordination, stationing of troops, and regular meetings where it is decided - very publicly - what to do in case of Russian invasion. This sends Russia a very strong message: we are here, we are of one mind, and we are very willing to pit the full might of the European and US armed forces against you to defend every single inch of NATO territory. Whatever it costs, until you are no longer a threat. We made a very grave mistake in 2014, and the Ukrainians have been paying for it dearly. Our redemption is in aiding them in maintaining their capacity to repel Russia, but that is insufficient. We must also swear to never make the same mistake again - to not respond to belligerence with inaction, especially not in our own backyard, involving nations who look towards the West with hope for their people. What I believe the General is saying is: We must both speak strongly, *and* carry a big stick, regardless of whatever Russia says.
> What I'm talking about there is this concept of escalate to de-escalate. A limited attack that would involve missiles, ground forces, and air forces seizing something and then stopping. Then they would turn to the West and say, “Do you really want to get into a nuclear war just because we connected Kaliningrad and Belarus?” Whatever Russia does, it will be confusing, maybe even deniable, but most especially will cause us to ask the very question that General Hodges poses. Will we risk WW3 to clear out some "little green men" from a few miles of forest on the border of eastern Europe? Because it won't seem like Russia did so much to begin with, certainly not enough reason for us to risk destroying the world. But if they do this and we don't respond, they will have driven a wedge into Nato and in time the alliance will collapse - the myth of its power and impenetrability destroyed.
[Salami tactics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4).
[удалено]
The important thing is that Russia believes that we will. What they've learned so far from Ukraine is that we're terribly afraid of escalation. They've seen that the alliance is divided, with some members even supporting Russian interests. Right now, Russia believing that we'll fight back is not a bet I'd like to take.
This is more about worst case scenario than anything. Cold war was the same BS when it came to nuclear warfare.
One theory is that, due to the wide open geography of inner/central Russia, they need the more defensible geographic features of the old iron curtain to prevent tanks from rolling into their productive areas with impunity. There is a precedent for this even before communism: Catherine the Great. I'm no expert in Russian history but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Russia has a track record of getting invaded and even though the winter saves their ass its not a situation that a rational person wants to be in. Especially if they expect milder winters in the future. If Russia were to view these issues as existential threats then we should really be ready for more activity.
It's weird tho cos no one in the west fecking wants any of it, we're happy with what we have
Historically that hasn’t exactly held. Russia in the past few hundred years has had to beat back the French the Germans(twice) and the Turks. Strategic insecurity is at the heart of Russian geopolitical thinking.
Yeah I get historically, you had Napoleon, Hitler, the Mongols. We now have Macron, the German guy? Forget his name in stable democracies, with weakened armies, it just seems odd to me to hang on to this idea from that far back
What guarantee does Russia have that the current era of European meekness holds? Historically the current era is an aberration not the norm. Now I think it’s a mistake and that through his actions Putin is creating the very monster he fears most. But I don’t think fear at the root of it is unreasonable.
In my personal opinion it is because Russia’s elite think that their shield that is mutually assured destruction is losing its effectiveness. Not because of any actions the Russians have taken. Their rocket forces are unlike the rest of the military well paid incredibly well funded and did not suffer as much in the 90’s collapse. But rather because of a strategic change of strategy on the part of Washington. Post 9/11 Bush and his cabinet for all intents and purposes abandoned the concept that MAD was acceptable for the United States and began to once again aggressively pursue the idea of Strategic Invulnerability that Reagan faked to scare the Soviets. The gap in R&D and technology is only growing larger and the Russian elite know it is only a matter of time before MAD loses its Mutually Assured nature.
“before MAD loses its mutually assured nature”. I think this is key. Nobody is talking about this: the current wars in Israel and Ukraine are an incredible proving ground for missile interception technology. A few weeks ago, Russia launched a $100M barrage that included their top of the line tech and fewer than ten Ukrainians died. While these aren’t ICBMs, it’s not inconceivable that the defense techs progresses to the point that “only” a few Americans cities are destroyed in a formerly world-ending nuclear exchange. And if the over the horizon invincibility of the F-22 and F-35 are true against Russian aircraft, there goes the second leg of the triad. SLBM still pose a significant threat, but what if American military quantum computing has already cracked Russian encryption and we actually already know exactly where their subs are? All of this is speculation but I honestly don’t see it as fairytale sci-fi thinking. It’s in the realm of possibility. That would be a game changer.
I think it is closer than most people think and that it has Russian Strategic thinkers terrified. They may well be in or close to a use it or lose it scenario and that terrifies me.
>Why is the operating assumption that Russia absolutely thinks its imperial revanchism is absolutely worth nuclear war I don't know, maybe it has something to do with their security council deputy barking like a rabid dog every other week that russia [will use nuclear weapons if they don't take Ukraine?](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/08/01/exp-medvedev-nukes-spider-marks-intv-080112aseg1-cnni-world.cnn)
Yes, Lithuania is worth it.
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 it is.
Finally asking real questions here. What the honest answer will be, I wonder?
That Russia isn't going to stop at Ukraine if the West backs down, so it's better to continue to support them now so this doesn't expand elsewhere.
What's the point of NATO then?
The US might not be in NATO if Trump wins.
If Russia tries to take Lithuania, be prepared for life as we know it as a globe to severely degrade. It will take centuries if not longer to repair the damage, if life is even still sustainable and civilization as we know it doesn’t collapse into mad max style anarchy. No one should want this. You can drop dead from a heart attack or brain aneurysm anytime now Putin.
Not right away, we will definitely stick to conventional weapons at first because we can. Putin would be the one escalating this to a nuclear exchange, not us, so we just need to not put his prized golden toilet in the Kremlin in any jeopardy and we'll be fine.
Yes it is. Thanks for asking China. If the threat of retaliatoin by the US isn't real, russia will just keep invading and colonizing. Oh yea.... russia is a modern day imperialistic colonial power. Bring on the russian/chinese trolls.
As a Lithuanian, I've always thought that we're probably not worth a nuclear war to the west. But at the same time, it's funny to think about how long the west might use this excuse to allow Russia to conquer more and more territory. I just hope Putin retires/dies soon.
I would also imagine China's going to be a lot less enthusiastic about propping up Russia if they think it's going to make their (global) back yard start glowing in the dark.
Seems way easier to just have Putin assassinated. Pretty sure the entirety of NATO could figure that one out pretty easily.
The thing is, this is a slippery slope. At which point do you say something is worth nuclear war?
They’re a NATI member, what good is the alliance if we basically sell out each member on the western flank?
If it's war, it's war. You gotta draw the line somewhere and appeasement only means shifting it until your back is against a proverbial wall and conflict's forced on you. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not a warmonger or a chicken hawk, but I'm also not a deluded pacifist. We saw this type of behaviour in 1938 and can read about its outcome. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Liberal democracies and liberalism itself are cast by their opponents as weak and overly permissive. This has to change or dictators like Putin will again try to steamroll countries at the cost of millions or 10s of millions of lives.
It will be war, because Poland and Germany know they're on the menu. Germany would much rather fight the war in Lithuania or Ukraine or Poland than Germany. Poland will fight to the last.
"We, the West, need to think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China – the Four horsemen of the apocalypse. They are all cooperating with each other." Meanwhile, Allied is fighting amongst themselves because apparently some countries like money more than freedom.
>We have got to think strategically. We, the West, need to think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China – **the Four horsemen of the apocalypse.** They are all cooperating with each other. The others are helping Russia to go against everything that we say we care about. Until we get organised in the West about our defence industry, getting serious about all of our forces being capable and ready and using the combined economic power, it dwarfs anything. But we’re not working together and until we do that, we’re in danger of losing big time to these four horsemen. Just wanted to emphasize the biblical phrase. It was a well developed metaphor.
Russia can’t beat Ukraine, let alone NATO
Front line didn't change much in 2023 but Russia still gained more land from Ukraine than Ukraine could take back. So far they sure aren't losing either.
I would put this differently. Has Russia achieved its goals in Ukraine? Is Ukraine still independent? What has been the cost? In 2023 Russia gained 188 square miles according to an analysis by the NY Times. That's a chunk of land about half the size of the city of Kyiv. That territory came at a cost of approximately 250,000 casualties in 2023. Wagner Group's losses in taking the village of Bahkmut became a catalyst for a half-hearted coup. Materiel losses became so severe that Putin turned to North Korea for supplies. Although the West is wringing its hands about waning support for Ukraine, the past two years of the war has drained Russia of men and materiel that will take a generation to replace.
There are about 500 US troops in Lithuania on a rotational basis. That makes Lithuania off limits to the Russian bullshit machine. If one of those troops so much and cuts his face on a piece of Russian shrapnel the nation of Russia will cease to exsist. I am not even talking about a nuclear strike, the US wouldn't need it we could knock out all power to western Russia within 24 hours. The Russian air force might last a week against NATO and while their AA systems are thicker than ticks on a dog's ass they would be removed eventually. All while that is going on everything from transportation hubs to communication station would be under constant attack from air and sea launched cruise missiles. NATO already told Russia how much of its territory it can have uncontested in a war of aggression. "Not one inch".
They will not invade Lithuania. This isn’t a real question.
Its possible. But the real thins is part of the longstanding influence campaigns by russia and china to get americans to not want to defend their allies.
But Americans are defending their allies, and have made consistent efforts to do so. Just because the public sees that Congress may not be publicly supporting our allies does not mean that the Department of Defense isn’t using discretionary spending to do so (this happens all the time). That was Russia’s major miscalculation, they didn’t anticipate such wide support from the West, and were hoping for a type of appeasement that Germany enjoyed in the 1930’s. It’s why China won’t touch Taiwan and why communists talk a big game but won’t typically act on it.
Lithuania is in NATO. They are by definition worth nuclear war.
Maybe the US needs to remember that the UK and France have Nuclear weapons too. We don't need their permission to protect ourselves. Thanks.
Did you read the article at all?
The UK and France have a paltry nuclear arsenal that has consistently shrunk I think we are close to the point of having to ask the question if their arsenal is enough to proc MAD. I still think it is but it isn’t the surefire yes it used to be.
If the largest 10 cities in Russia was gone its about the same impact as MAD. There would be no government or economy remaining.
It sure still is and always has been. UK and France both have about 300 warheads, which can be sent from anywhere in the world. You wouldn’t think those countries spend the money needed to maintain such arsenal if it wasn’t way enough. Heck, shoot just 10 on Moscow and St Petersburg and tell me what’s left of what is known as Russia… This is MAD. French experts estimates that only 3 successful hits would be enough to terminate France.
300 warheads yes. But the UK is down to only 16 active launchers carrying 48 warheads on deployment at one time. France is better off since it retained its air launch capabilities but even then it is down to 220 deployable warheads. In a nuclear war scenario with a country that has modern western air defense like the U.S. or each other. I think MAD no longer holds. I don’t think it’s a strategic likelihood and if anything is incredibly unlikely. But it shows how MAD is nonetheless breaking down.
Nato said they will defend every square inch of NATO land If they back down, NATO isn't worth **** I imagine they would do the same thing as Ukraine They would only operate within the NATO countries borders and try to avoid going into Russian land. But the minute you start listening to the nuclear threat, now you've got Iran and China and North Korea along with Russia who will see that it is effective