Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Xyonai]

Very creative imagination you have there.

I mean the time frame is a bit idealistic, but the idea isn't that far fetched.

Succeed or Fail, if Russia's military or economic power isn't utterly handicapped by this Invasion then they'll just sit back and bide their time while doubling down on the 'Get Sympathetic governments elected into our enemy's countries' tactic that's worked out remarkably well for them so far; then try another go at invasion.

Will this work? Probably not. Putin's not going to live forever and there are only so many rubes you can manipulate with cheap bribes and troll farms before you see diminishing returns on quality. Like the US in just a few short years went from a Russian Sympathetic Leader to a minority of congress that everyone else is very visibly getting fed up with.

[Saradain]

Because in the end, politicians are pulling the strings. The baltic attack will come closer to 2030, which gives Russia enough time to rebuilt their military after Ukraine and to try install right wing populist pro-russia governments into NATO countries.

"After Ukraine" and still having anything left to attack with implies Russia would win. Preparation for that scenario leaves us with years of time. And orks doing the war crimes as always, it sure doesn't invite any goodwill towards them from anyone with a brain. But yeah, NATO has never needed to invoke Article 5 before, so of course we can be left wondering how that'd work out.

[Edge-]

But yeah, NATO has never needed to invoke Article 5 before, so of course we can be left wondering how that'd work out.

The US invoked it in 2001 following the 9/11 attack.

Basically the long short of this discussion is, "Is NATO a functional organization?" based largely off the fact that it's rarely ever needed to do much as an organization. I'm remarkably skeptical in these arguments considering the whole point of NATO is the collective security it brings member nations and all that.

[Gaidax]

The US invoked it in 2001 following the 9/11 attack.

Basically the long short of this discussion is, "Is NATO a functional organization?" based largely off the fact that it's rarely ever needed to do much as an organization. I'm remarkably skeptical in these arguments considering the whole point of NATO is the collective security it brings member nations and all that.

Invoking it against a middle-of-nowhereistan and a bunch of terrorists in flip flops is one thing.

Invoking it against Russia and co. is a whole another deal. The actual question here is, whether it will actually be used against Russia over let's say... Estonia and even if it will, will it be actual all-in fighting or as a poster few posts ago said send some medkits and good wishes?

[Edge-]

Invoking it against a middle-of-nowhereistan and a bunch of terrorists in flip flops is one thing.

Invoking it against Russia and co. is a whole another deal. The actual question here is, whether it will actually be used against Russia over let's say... Estonia and even if it will, will it be actual all-in fighting or as a poster few posts ago said send some medkits and good wishes?

They said it wasn't invoked, I just provided a correction.

Also, I'm unsure about "Russia and co." is exactly hugely different? Have we been watching a different war for the past 2+ years? I'm not remotely convinced Russia could even mobilize enough troops and supplies for a broader invasion, much less that Europe would be asleep during the long time it took them to do so following whatever the outcome of their invasion of Ukraine is.

I mean, Joe alone basically whipped up enough support pre-invasion to quickly get supplies and funding to Ukraine and he was just one guy warning about it while everyone else (myself included) was confident that the troop buildup was more posturing by Putin.

[Jessicka]

Because in the end, politicians are pulling the strings. The baltic attack will come closer to 2030, which gives Russia enough time to rebuilt their military after Ukraine and to try install right wing populist pro-russia governments into NATO countries.

Every bit as likely by then, is Russia is balkanised into multiple civil wars across its autonomous regions.

Shit by 2030 I’d be surprised if both Putin and Trump were both still alive.

[Saradain]

The US invoked it in 2001 following the 9/11 attack.

Basically the long short of this discussion is, "Is NATO a functional organization?" based largely off the fact that it's rarely ever needed to do much as an organization. I'm remarkably skeptical in these arguments considering the whole point of NATO is the collective security it brings member nations and all that.

Gotcha, wasn't aware of that. Think I was 13 back then, didn't exactly read details of the 9/11 and the consequences. But yeah, I find it bit comical that some vatniks are shouting about fucking around and finding out about any nuclear weaponry, but NATO defending its members is suddenly an unlikely thing that people doubt. Russia surely will obliterate all who dare to oppose them, but NATO is scurrying away...

[Gaidax]

They said it wasn't invoked, I just provided a correction.

Also, I'm unsure about "Russia and co." is exactly hugely different? Have we been watching a different war for the past 2+ years? I'm not remotely convinced Russia could even mobilize enough troops and supplies for a broader invasion, much less that Europe would be asleep during the long time it took them to do so following whatever the outcome of their invasion of Ukraine is.

I mean, Joe alone basically whipped up enough support pre-invasion to quickly get supplies and funding to Ukraine and he was just one guy warning about it while everyone else (myself included) was confident that the troop buildup was more posturing by Putin.

Russia is different because the stakes are very high and everyone understands that, so I am not sure what's to be not sure about.

It's not even about "nooks", will Europe of 2020s be willing to field tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers, if some "less important" NATO member gets attacked?

That is a big question, and nobody really wants to be finding out the answer for it.

[Edge-]

Russia is different because the stakes are very high and everyone understands that, so I am not sure what's to be not sure about.

It's not even about "nooks", will Europe of 2020s be willing to field tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers, if some "less important" NATO member gets attacked?

That is a big question, and nobody really wants to be finding out the answer for it.

If they're not then NATO falls apart overnight, it's as easy as that. But I remain skeptical that's the most likely outcome, much less that Russia would be able to field a real threat to mainland Europe even if it does manage to win part or all of Ukraine. For all their bluster, I doubt that's a fight that Russia/Putin is eager for.

[Jastall]

Russia is different because the stakes are very high and everyone understands that, so I am not sure what's to be not sure about.

It's not even about "nooks", will Europe of 2020s be willing to field tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers, if some "less important" NATO member gets attacked?

That is a big question, and nobody really wants to be finding out the answer for it.

That nobody includes Russia tho. Attacking a NATO member is a far, far bigger gamble than attacking Ukraine and that already went sideways for them. They're not going to be ready for such an adventure for many years even assuming the war in Ukraine ends well for them and ends this year (the latter of which is quite unlikely). By that time Putin will either be very old or dead and who knows what the latter option brings in terms of political turmoil that makes trying to grab Estonia a lot less important, especially if they risk having the combined militaries of NATO gunning for them afterwards.

[Deus Mortis]

Didn't one also have a technical malfunction that caused it to go down? Are they stripping them for parts and still hoping they'll fly or something?

Yeah they have had a couple go down to tech problems. All the ones the past couple months seem to be friendly fire and Ukraine's doing though. As Russia is not able to quickly build new planes as all their stuff uses a lot of foreign parts it will take them longer to get those parts. With the fact that they are losing more than they are building, it means that all of the ones still flying now have to fly even more to make up for the destroyed plane. This just adds more wear and tear to them so as this war goes on, more and more problems should in theory continue to happen.

[Gaidax]

That nobody includes Russia tho. Attacking a NATO member is a far, far bigger gamble than attacking Ukraine and that already went sideways for them. They're not going to be ready for such an adventure for many years even assuming the war in Ukraine ends well for them and ends this year (the latter of which is quite unlikely). By that time Putin will either be very old or dead and who knows what the latter option brings in terms of political turmoil that makes trying to grab Estonia a lot less important, especially if they risk having the combined militaries of NATO gunning for them afterwards.

People here think Putin is the problem.

Putin is just a tip of an iceberg. I suggest starting divorcing from this delusion that if Putin is dead, then Russia will turn into a fluffy puppy overnight.

Russia is Russia, it's like in that Simpsons episode where they flip the name plate to USSR in the UN meeting. Delusions of grandeur and superiority complex are being fed to Russians since day 1 for hundreds of years and ultimately the ruling elites use that to stay in power. It is a double-edged sword, as they also need to deliver or at least make a show of it.

[Jessicka]

If they're not then NATO falls apart overnight, it's as easy as that. But I remain skeptical that's the most likely outcome, much less that Russia would be able to field a real threat to mainland Europe even if it does manage to win part or all of Ukraine. For all their bluster, I doubt that's a fight that Russia/Putin is eager for.

Plenty of Europe already have troops deployed in Estonia and other countries neighbouring Russia. There’s basically no way France, Britain and Poland don’t get involved even if others did falter, which I doubt. And that frankly is all that’s needed.

[Jastall]

People here think Putin is the problem.

Putin is just a tip of an iceberg. I suggest starting divorcing from this delusion that if Putin is dead, then Russia will turn into a fluffy puppy overnight.

Russia is Russia, it's like in that Simpsons episode where they flip the name plate to USSR in the UN meeting. Delusions of grandeur and superiority complex are being fed to Russians since day 1 for hundreds of years and ultimately the ruling elites use that to stay in power. It is a double-edged sword, as they also need to deliver or at least make a show of it.

It's not a question of the clouds parting and the sun shining upon all the world the moment Putin dies. It's a question of what the inevitable power struggle will end up looking like. We already know there are divisions within the Russian government and agencies, and Putin keeps a lid on a lot of it. Perhaps his successor will also manage to do that, or perhaps he won't. Perhaps sanctions will mean mounting economic turmoil that'll force said successor to pretend Ukraine was all in good fun and play nice for a while so his country is something more than a half functioning gas station with nukes.

Russia took years to prepare for Ukraine, and that was with tested and uncontested leadership at the helm, going after a target that's magnitudes more vulnerable than NATO members. I somewhat doubt the idea that they'll take 5 years to both end the current festivities across the border and be ready to test a war machine that is a lot scarier than anything Ukraine could possibly muster.

[Edge-]

People here think Putin is the problem.

Putin is just a tip of an iceberg. I suggest starting divorcing from this delusion that if Putin is dead, then Russia will turn into a fluffy puppy overnight.

Russia is Russia, it's like in that Simpsons episode where they flip the name plate to USSR in the UN meeting. Delusions of grandeur and superiority complex are being fed to Russians since day 1 for hundreds of years and ultimately the ruling elites use that to stay in power. It is a double-edged sword, as they also need to deliver or at least make a show of it.

Especially after the post-USSR era, I doubt anyone thinks that things will meaningfully change any time soon or that "economic diplomacy" is exactly the carrot that it was once thought to be.

[Jessicka]

Especially after the post-USSR era, I doubt anyone thinks that things will meaningfully change any time soon or that "economic diplomacy" is exactly the carrot that it was once thought to be.

If there’s meaningful change in Russia post Putin, it’ll be because they can’t fight another Chechen campaign. That’s the risk whoever comes after Putin is faced with.

[Lahis]

Gotcha, wasn't aware of that. Think I was 13 back then, didn't exactly read details of the 9/11 and the consequences. But yeah, I find it bit comical that some vatniks are shouting about fucking around and finding out about any nuclear weaponry, but NATO defending its members is suddenly an unlikely thing that people doubt. Russia surely will obliterate all who dare to oppose them, but NATO is scurrying away...

The response to Ukraine invasion has been so pathetically weak in the west that unfortunately that doesn't leave much confidence for when NATO is under attack.

[DarkTZeratul]

The response to Ukraine invasion has been so pathetically weak in the west that unfortunately that doesn't leave much confidence for when NATO is under attack.

You mean the nation that isn't part of NATO and thus doesn't fall under the provisions of being defended by NATO? Why would you expect NATO to be going all-in on defending a non-member? I've seen this argument before, and it's absolute bullshit. Not wanting to get involved in a war that doesn't involve NATO is one thing. A NATO member actually being attacked completely changes that dynamic, because NATO is now expressly involved from the get-go.

[Lahis]

Russia took years to prepare for Ukraine, and that was with tested and uncontested leadership at the helm, going after a target that's magnitudes more vulnerable than NATO members. I somewhat doubt the idea that they'll take 5 years to both end the current festivities across the border and be ready to test a war machine that is a lot scarier than anything Ukraine could possibly muster.

Unfortunately the war in Ukraine is prepping them for the next invasion. They are already in war economy, and the bad material in the military, both personnel and hardware, gets culled out in Ukraine. For the next invansion they have combat experienced army with new equipment.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the nation that isn't part of NATO and thus doesn't fall under the provisions of being defended by NATO? Why would you expect NATO to be going all-in on defending a non-member? I've seen this argument before, and it's absolute bullshit.

Doesn't need to be NATO. Just free democratic countries that are facing real threath from Russia right now.

But they didn't want to provide help for Ukraine in order to "not provoke Russia and escalate."

[DarkTZeratul]

Unfortunately the war in Ukraine is prepping them for the next invasion. They are already in war economy, and the bad material in the military, both personnel and hardware, gets culled out in Ukraine. For the next invansion they have combat experienced army with new equipment.

That is quite possibly one of the most ludicruously stupid strategies I could possibly imagine. It's right up there with the idea that Coca-Cola intentionally tanked their own stock prices with New Coke purely to increase sales of Coke Classic.

- - - Updated - - -

But they didn't want to provide help for Ukraine in order to "not provoke Russia and escalate."

Can you really not understand why a nation not involved in a war may not wish to escalate by getting materially involved in said war, and how that's completely different from a mutal defense alliance getting directly attacked?