Take Rolf Dobelli's advice - don't listen to the news:
The British press is not, on aggregate, left-leaning. That's just a weird weird wrong idea.
There is nothing to negotiate.
That said, I also believe that there is fairly widespread, low intensity, grey-zone action across Europe at the moment. Not every random fire or infrastructure failure is "The Russians", but I'd be surprised if none of them were. Indeed some of them have already been formally attributed.
It would be foolish to still just wring our hands about it. We have to name the enemy, Russia, and both support Ukraine's fight and do our own active hybrid actions on Russian soil. And yes, military buildup is required.
And to be clear, this will not end anytime soon. The war in Ukraine is but one aspect of Russia's imperial ambitions. It's fully possible we will not see friendly relations again in our lifetimes.
Right. Mighty Russia that has been fought to a standstill by its much smaller neighbour is going to provoke a military alliance absolutely dwarfing it into outright war. Not even China is going to back that after having a look at who the more valuable trading partner is.
Being ready for war is reasonable, being afraid or worried is a waste of time, and even irrational in this case.
> But what is the threat? In 1940 the danger of a German invasion of the UK was very real. But the chances of Russian tanks rolling up Whitehall are surely negligible.
> "It's not the tanks you need to worry about," says historian Margaret MacMillan, author of War: How Conflict Shaped Us.
> "It's the cutting of cables on the ocean floor. It's the hacking into systems on which so many things depend. The possibility for asymmetric war, for cyber war, is growing by leaps and bounds."
One may argue it has already done so in the past via election interference, except now it also has AI in its arsenal, which won’t even need ICBMs to be delivered to its targets.
It's already gone provoking with the drones at Leipzig and the like.
And the place which is not overflowing with spare cash has been building 20,000 hosptial beds near the Baltics https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-plans-16-000-20-000-ho...
The trolling never stops, as if they have any intention of fixing anyone broken
It's not irrational to notice that irrational actors do irrational things.
It might be tending towards impossible to achieve regime change militarily at this point. Maybe we all should just figure out how to get along.
So we have in this nugget an example of why you shouldn't trust western media, but not an example of why the west wont fold like a cheap deck.
Where have I heard this before?
They are unlikely to nuke Europe - there's a lot of it and they only really have a couple of decent cities which could be gone rapidly.
Russia doesn't have the armor or logistics to "easily take over the Baltics", particularly considering it would trigger Article V.
The Russian Air Force could not hope to bomb anything beyond the range of standoff munitions.
Well I never said that.
Was the common talking point even in early february of 2022
That said, it argues that the various pre-war preparations fail to include "psychological preparedness". I think this is largely true for America as well, since war is something that the USA almost exclusively engages in offensively in distant countries, with only one small exception for one day on 9/11.
I work with some Ukrainian refugees, we are not prepared.
Totally not a fan of the guy we have driving the bus right now, I didn’t vote for him, and oppose all war. But now that we’re in it, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to be quite a bit more violent and terrible than we have the stomach for?
I mentioned above I work with some Ukrainian refugees. We are not prepared mentally for what is coming.
You can make the (somewhat weak) case that Russia was provoked, but the first violent strike was made by Russia and Russia alone.
We are in a perilous position right now in Europe, very close to a major escalation of the Ukraine conflict. This would entail direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
I find it deeply troubling that no mainstream party in most European countries seems to think this is a bad idea.
Letting them do even more horrible lawlessness will only lead to worse outcomes.
It's dangerously out of control. We should be seeking de-escalation for our own sakes. The last two major European wars destroyed empires. We're playing with fire here.
I do not want to live through, or die in WW3. I'm worried it's already started.
Again in this era, reactionary and nationalist messaging has dominated and somehow, despite generations of extraordinary success, despite being born into it and seeing its success and superiority, many/most think such an order is infeasible or even undesireable. At the same time, I've seen American leaders in the military industry advocate for becoming accustomed to mass destruction and death.
And shockingly, even the experts and practioners abandoned it and at nearly the height of its success. It's as if a messaging campaign insisted cloud computing was impossible and absurd, and so everyone just stopped using what was obviously working. For the rules- and rights-based order, yes there were outliers and setbacks and threats; that's life. But the entire free, wealthy, industrialized world subscribed, and were untouchably allied, free, safe and prosperous. Now, having abandoned it, all those things have diminished.
What's missing is not acceptance of warfare but ultimate commitment and work for freedom and peace.
It is clear we are not generally physiologically ready.
It does not help that we keep electing extremely selfish strong appearing individuals in winner-takes-all democracies.
That is why Voldemort always comes back in real life
War a nation can recover from, but from an erosion of cultural unity and shared identity it cannot.
> china ? why ? they just want taiwan
> russia ? lol, they can't even manage Ukraine ( with our aid )
> iran ? why ? they just want to kill you know who
This is just a fearmongering article.
And it'd also be the end, economically, for the US. We'd be hosed, that isn't to say current leadership wouldn't try and end up fucking us all over, but the effect would be another loss for the US.
And that's why they want to attack Europe. They hope that it will either cause eu to stop supporting Ukraine or at least that it will give them good negotiation position (e.g. we'll stop attacking baltic countries but Ukraine has to let go of their territory).
When (likely not if) Russia decides to attack the Baltics, NATO will just shrug and send a strongly worded memo.
A Russian war with Europe would not be the short war that the original poster alludes to by invoking statements from a Russian official.
That's the issue, a belligerent neighbor that permanently sabotages you but which you can't ever get too close to losing.
Second of all, the "much smaller neighbour" is any European country to them. Ukraine is the biggest country on European continent if we include the occupied territory. And it's actually has the most capable armed forces military-wise. Russia took over 116k sq km of Ukraine. All three Baltic states are 175k sq km combined and they literally can't defend themselves in case USA decides to withdraw.
And last but not the least, Russia's war is irrational. It makes no sense from any rational viewpoint. So relying on common sense in this case is wrong. You need to understand russian ideology and Putin's specifically.
Didnt they start almost immediately trying to setup like mineral processing facillities in areas they were able to nominally gain control of?
Wonder what the impetus for this was, were the elites embezzling too much or low oil prices or something that motivated them to pillage to make up the difference? Or typical greed in the absence of any asscovery...
But to prebut whataboutism, I also don’t like American imperialism.
You're basically pointing at a smoker who started a year ago and concluding because they don't have cancer yet cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Russia wouldn't use armor or logistics to take over the Baltics. They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out, under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for (and the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth).
You're taking a regional conflict between militaries using cold war gear and drones and saying "this is what warfare is now".
> They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out
A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them. I see those swarms are especially effective at defending energy infrastructure, something that's of particular concern when you're fighting an alliance with stealth aircraft.
> under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for
This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
Please explain what you think this means.
And yes, this is what warfare is now. When Russia invaded in 2022, it was using its new armored battalion tactical groups, and they failed to reach Kyiv at all, or to conquer Kharkiv or Sumy--they just surrounded them and stretched out along the highways, where infantry teams with Javelins destroyed them in detail.
The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare, and a big part of that change that Ukrainians and Russians have learned is total force dispersion. You can't assemble an armored fist because it's bombed to oblivion before it ever sees the enemy, or encounters an artillery deployed minefield that didn't exist the night before.
NATO will take years to ingest the obvious lessons from Ukraine and adjust its doctrine to handle them. Until that time, they face an adversary who knows them in its bones.
> A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them.
Could NATO take a million+ casualties and still be fighting with another million in uniform and the nation not yet undergoing general mobilization?
> This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders, what chance would you give the Estonians?
>> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
> Please explain what you think this means.
It means the most expedient way for the US to learn to apply the lessons of the war in Ukraine was just discontinued. The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
Constructive, reasoned discussions on migration are precisely what have not occurred due to the dominant ideology stifling all contrary opinion.
Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere, then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed. Now imagine that a half million Russian soldiers show up on the border of Estonia, Finland, Kazhakstan, or Georgia.
Yes, Russia is exhausted and doing deep structural damage to its economy. It still has one of the best land forces in the world at the moment. The way Ukraine always smokes NATO forces in exercises is a strong indicator of what would happen if Russia decided to "liberate" the Baltics.
> Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere,then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed.
They'd have to give up a big chunk of the occupied land to do that, since creating that line within 50 km of the front line would now be much harder than it was 3 years ago. Who knows, maybe that's what's stopping them from attacking another country as you described.
It's hard for one side to de-escalate when the other side is an avowed irredentist attempting to rebuild the Russian Empire before they die.
We've had this stagnant wound festering in the middle of Europe for a decade.
No one is winning. No one can win, except those who are benefiting from it.
People like Trump and Elon think a deal can be done with Putin or he can be placated, or there's some sort of solution like you're waiting to hear, but all attempts to even begin negotiation fail because Putin is dead set on rebuilding the Empire. Apparently in any discussion about his war he spends hours talking about Russia's historical claims and ownership and shows old documents and books etc.
I'm sorry it seems to you like no one has come up with a good solution but it's either give Russia one or more countries (and then he'll want more...) or defend until he loses power or dies.
irredentism is a hell of a drug. Putin is fully locked in.
Now it's nothing but strongly worded thoughts and prayers
An actual confrontation would probably go like the battle of Khasham.
Meanwhile Russian drones, cruise missiles (!) and planes violate NATO airspace almost daily it seems. And are being launched from within NATO arispace quite frequently (see Germany).
And no, the drones are not the "Amazon delivery drones".
E.g on September 8 Geran-4 flew 120 km unopposed through Romanian airspace, took a leisurly turn above a small town with population of ~20k people, and then flew back, eventually crashing in Moldova.
No big deal.
For a long time I wanted to believe you, and in the past I'd have looked at work camps in China and said "thats bad". Now i look at the US prison industry and go "Is it really that different?". The examples don't end there...
People are great, countries are pretty much all evil.
Up close everyone is great, far away, like from space, everything looks great. It's the middle distances that are problematic.
The ignorance of the American people enables this violence-- this is by design. William J. Casey, CIA director under Reagan, "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false". The CIA has employed many hundreds of journalists working at major networks and newspapers like CBS, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Reading the comments on this story, it appears that much of what Europeans believe is false, as well. Someone presented a detailed and accurate account of the recent* history leading up to the illegal, but absolutely provoked, Russian invasion of Ukraine but was accused of lying. Several comments indicate a complete lack of concern about provoking the nation with the largest nuclear stockpile in the world into a direct hot conflict. Even if it stayed conventional, which appears unlikely, Russia has a much larger military than all of Western Europe combined. Insane.
* The history should start much earlier, with US assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand, and then Clinton and all subsequent US administrations betraying these promises.
It's an age-old story of a crime family holding on to its mafia state.
It's based on several flawed assumptions: that Putin's death will happen soon, that Putin's death will lead to a leader with a radically different and more amenable geopolitical vision.
Do understand that the popular narrative in Russia mirror's the ours exactly: "We can't just roll over and let the West have Ukraine".
I'm sorry, but "keep fighting until Putin has a heart attack" is stupid beyond belief. The only way to safely end this conflict is to freeze it. Continuation risks catastrophic escalation.
Source: youtube I imagine. Speculation is fine but here you are making assertions without evidence.
> The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare
And it began 20 years ago.
> Could NATO take a million+ casualties
This is a weird argument for the effectivness of your Russian drone infantry.
> If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders
They teleport now too? This is getting serious. I imagine within a week Putin would be meeting Gaddafi's fate. Attacking NATO is nothing like bullying a smaller country with no defense pacts. China and India would stop being patron states. You'd see a half dozen Prigozhins as the oligarchs would realize it's not survivable.
> The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
Anduril, GA, Boeing, and Lockmart absolutely inconsolable right now.
Then follow the Kyiv Independent and Kyiv Post, and the ISW's daily reports. Listen to War on the Rocks and read Philips O'Brien's substack.
I hope NATO leadership isn't as blythe as you about the changing face of war.
ETA: is the Wall Street Journal sufficiently credentialed for you to pay attention? https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nato-has-seen-the-future-and-is-...
Meanwhile Russian military jets violate NATO airspace in the Baltics. Russian Geran drones leisurely cruise in NATO airspace.
And nothing happens. Not even when a drone strikes a residential building.
Oh, I guess "it's just Romania who cares". It's also in NATO.
I'm an American and sometimes I'm not sure which is the "least evil game here." Like, the Iranians and Russians are pretty evil, the IRGC killed a lot of people last winter and I'm friends with quite a few Ukrainians. But then also we have the ongoing insanity with ICE and the Epstein files...
The way I see it right now, we have "The Epstein Alliance" versus "The Axis of A-holes." Nobody involved in this is great, but I would rather live in America or the EU than Russia, or Iran.
To be fair, as an American, I don't know enough about what life is actually like in China to form an educated opinion? But by the sounds of it, they suck too.
My intuition is that this whole charade will come crashing down over the next few years as AI starts replacing more and more jobs.