Europe under extreme duress

[Brett327]

The notion that Russia would attack a NATO member - especially now in its depleted state - is pretty far-fetched. That said, the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, who have been NATO partners, makes a lot of sense for them right now. I'm not convinced membership for UKR makes a lot of sense, and we do have to at least consider the effect of continually provoking RUS. Though they are clearly the aggressor in this war, their level of paranoia has to be taken into account in whatever configuration we envision for Eastern Europe.

 

[taxi1]

That is part of what I'm asking, yes. The least interesting part, but still a part. Do you have an answer for why folks on here really believe Russia will attack a NATO country next, or are you just repeating it back for clarity?

My point is that the countries that really know Russia, that were a part of the Soviet Union joined with Russia, and that joined NATO to protect themselves from Russia, believe so.

You seem to be arguing (to them?) that they shouldn’t worry any more, that Russia is sufficiently degraded from the one year war. Nothing to worry about. I think they know Russia lots better than you or I do, and I’d want to understand their reasons before blowing them off from the cheap seats.

 

[Random8145]

Again.. what am I missing? Russia is struggling heavily to take Ukraine, they have lost a ton of their irreplaceable military equipment and most of their most highly trained forces, their economy has for a long time been weaker than Germany alone, let alone the rest of Europe combined, their military is clearly nowhere near as powerful as we thought prior to the war... So why are folks here convinced that they are going to attack NATO next? Why does Europe still require us to bear the bulk of the responsibility for deterring Russia? What am I missing? I honestly want to know. There's a lot of smart people here, and this just doesn't add up to me.

The fear is that further down the line, they will attack NATO after rebuilding and that showing weakness would send not only a terrible message to Russia but also to other such actors. It will also send a terrible message to other freedom-desiring nations.

If "Europe" is charged with checking Russia by itself, I have a feeling they would hand over the Eastern European nations and in particular the Baltic states before being willing to go to war.

 

[Mirage]

Becasue we would then be obligated to get in a shooting war. Cheaper to fight the proxy war in Ukraine and help NATO allies deter. Anything less sends a signal that NATO is weak and will not defend smaller members, like Eastonia. If you doubt Putin would like to move on other countries then you haven't heard what he has said and written for a few years now.

I'm not sure this addresses the questions. Putin also said he would use nukes if Ukraine took back its territory, attacked Crimea, attacked the motherland, if Finland/Sweden applied for NATO membership, etc. etc. He says a lot of things.

The notion that Russia would attack a NATO member - especially now in its depleted state - is pretty far-fetched. That said, the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, who have been NATO partners, makes a lot of sense for them right now. I'm not convinced membership for UKR makes a lot of sense, and we do have to at least consider the effect of continually provoking RUS. Though they are clearly the aggressor in this war, their level of paranoia has to be taken into account in whatever configuration we envision for Eastern Europe.

I "liked" one of your posts. I am shocked, but glad we can agree.

My point is that the countries that really know Russia, that were a part of the Soviet Union joined with Russia, and that joined NATO to protect themselves from Russia, believe so.

I don't think those countries supporting a proxy war in Ukraine means they think they will be invaded next. Nor does this answer my question.. again it just implies someone else has the answer, which doesn't help me understand.

You seem to be arguing (to them?) that they shouldn’t worry any more, that Russia is sufficiently degraded from the one year war. Nothing to worry about. I think they know Russia lots better than you or I do, and I’d want to understand their reasons before blowing them off from the cheap seats.

I'm not arguing they shouldn't worry anymore... I literally asked you guys who seem to be concerned Russia is going to invade NATO next why you are concerned. I am trying to understand their reasons before I "blow them off from the cheap seats." That is literally what I asked.

The fear is that further down the line, they will attack NATO after rebuilding and that showing weakness would send not only a terrible message to Russia but also to other such actors. It will also send a terrible message to other freedom-desiring nations.

I understand you think Russia will rebuild and then attack NATO. I'm asking why you think that, given the points I mentioned before (Russian economic weakness, weak military, etc etc).

If "Europe" is charged with checking Russia by itself, I have a feeling they would hand over the Eastern European nations and in particular the Baltic states before being willing to go to war.

Sooo.. your belief is that our Western/Central European NATO Allies don't actually give a damn about the collective security agreements, and won't respond if a NATO Ally like the Baltics are attacked? But, knowing this, we should continue doing all of the heavy lifting for European security ourselves? As in, you agree that France, Germany, the UK, etc can defend the EU from Russia, but they won't, so we should instead?

 

[Random8145]

I understand you think Russia will rebuild and then attack NATO. I'm asking why you think that, given the points I mentioned before (Russian economic weakness, weak military, etc etc).

They'll try to rebuild a stronger military. Yes they have economic weakness, but they can get help from other countries that are benefited by a stronger Russia. They will try to take back former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states through direct and indirect means because, as Brett said, they are paranoid.

Western-style liberal democracies from their perspective are dangerous, both because of either being friendly to NATO or becoming part of NATO, but also because such nations can be prone to a populist uprising in which a Hitler takes control. To feel secure, such nations must be under direct or indirect control from Moscow, which means a dictatorship in charge, and the Russians would like a lot of them between themselves and NATO.

Sooo.. your belief is that our Western/Central European NATO Allies don't actually give a damn about the collective security agreements, and won't respond if a NATO Ally like the Baltics are attacked? But, knowing this, we should continue doing all of the heavy lifting for European security ourselves? As in, you agree that France, Germany, the UK, etc can defend the EU from Russia, but they won't, so we should instead?

I don't believe they can defend it from Russia long-term, not easily anyway. Right now, yes, but longer-term, I have doubts. Also, it isn't per se "Russia" they'd be countering, but more a combined Russia-Chinese-North Korean-Iranian axis, in which Russia would be the muscle for that part of the world, as those countries know they have to stick together.

And yeah, I don't trust the likes of the France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc...to be willing to go to war over say Latvia or Estonia being attacked.

 

[Mos]

That is part of what I'm asking, yes. The least interesting part, but still a part. Do you have an answer for why folks on here really believe Russia will attack a NATO country next, or are you just repeating it back for clarity?

I think the strange nature of deterrence is that we choose to worry about Russia so that we don't have worry about Russia, and those that choose not to worry about Russia will sooner or later have to worry about Russia.

 

[ABMD]

I'm not convinced membership for UKR makes a lot of sense, and we do have to at least consider the effect of continually provoking RUS.

I’ve read similar statements posted other places. Why would it not make sense for an independent country to want to join NATO like many other European countries? RUS would then know they just can’t invade a neighboring country without consequences.

 

[Brett327]

I’ve read similar statements posted other places. Why would it not make sense for an independent country to want to join NATO like many other European countries? RUS would then know they just can’t invade a neighboring country without consequences.

From UKR's perspective, they definitely want to join NATO... I'm just not certain that would necessarily be the best approach for NATO or the US.

 

[Mirage]

They'll try to rebuild a stronger military. Yes they have economic weakness, but they can get help from other countries that are benefited by a stronger Russia. They will try to take back former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states through direct and indirect means because, as Brett said, they are paranoid.

Western-style liberal democracies from their perspective are dangerous, both because of either being friendly to NATO or becoming part of NATO, but also because such nations can be prone to a populist uprising in which a Hitler takes control. To feel secure, such nations must be under direct or indirect control from Moscow, which means a dictatorship in charge, and the Russians would like a lot of them between themselves and NATO.

I don't believe they can defend it from Russia long-term, not easily anyway. Right now, yes, but longer-term, I have doubts. Also, it isn't per se "Russia" they'd be countering, but more a combined Russia-Chinese-North Korean-Iranian axis, in which Russia would be the muscle for that part of the world, as those countries know they have to stick together.

And yeah, I don't trust the likes of the France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc...to be willing to go to war over say Latvia or Estonia being attacked.

Why do you not believe Germany, France, UK, etc can defend against Russia long term? Germany has more than shown they have the capacity in the past... As has France. The UK is no slouch, and all the rest add significant capability as well. Here's a graph showing the largest economies of the world. Russia has roughly the same economic might of Italy. That's half the size of Germany, and smaller than France and the UK. The likes of Poland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland, and Spain are all not far behind Russia.

So if Russia needs to rebuild, and will do so under heavy sanctions, then why do you not believe the EU has the capacity to build their defenses and defend themselves? Do you think China, Iran, or NK are going to send troops into Europe because Putin wants to make a land grab? Do you think Germany should be scared in the outlanding scenario that they did, considering none of these countries have significant ability to project power? Do you think Russia is somehow going to do what it failed to do in the last 2 decades and build a competent military? Again, what am I missing?

 

[nittany03]

North Korea isn’t on that list either, but they’re tying down a not-insignificant amount of forces in INDOPACOM because when “fucking your people over for the benefit of the dictator“ is a valid COA, the economic-size-to-military-size ratio can get skewed to hell and gone. Putin is arguably playing the same game.

Now if you want to argue whether or not a European-style welfare state is compatible with the force posture needed to defend against Russia sans us, that’s a separate question. But anyone with any degree of seriousness on the subject would also understand that those sorts of policy choices won’t change overnight anyway. Regardless of what happens in 10-20 years, Europe needs us in the short-to-medium term, even if you’re the most diehard isolationist in the world.

 

[Random8145]

Why do you not believe Germany, France, UK, etc can defend against Russia long term? Germany has more than shown they have the capacity in the past... As has France. The UK is no slouch, and all the rest add significant capability as well. Here's a graph showing the largest economies of the world. Russia has roughly the same economic might of Italy. That's half the size of Germany, and smaller than France and the UK. The likes of Poland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland, and Spain are all not far behind Russia.

So if Russia needs to rebuild, and will do so under heavy sanctions, then why do you not believe the EU has the capacity to build their defenses and defend themselves? Do you think China, Iran, or NK are going to send troops into Europe because Putin wants to make a land grab? Do you think Germany should be scared in the outlanding scenario that they did, considering none of these countries have significant ability to project power? Do you think Russia is somehow going to do what it failed to do in the last 2 decades and build a competent military? Again, what am I missing?

Because the large social welfare states the Europeans have to maintain I think would make it very difficult for them to develop the kind of military strength needed to long-term check Russian power. There's also the question of who would be the central leader for the defense.

It is a slightly separate topic, but I think it would also be possibly dangerous as we'd likely see a very re-militarized Germany and I'm not sure that's per se a good idea.

Russia may or may not be able to rebuild a credible military, but with help from China and Iran in terms of weapons and equipment, they might.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

It is a slightly separate topic, but I think it would also be possibly dangerous as we'd likely see a very re-militarized Germany and I'm not sure that's per se a good idea.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Did any questions get asked about resourcing the training command? Were there any substantive answers beyond “we’re standing up a JO blue ribbon panel”?

 

[Mirage]

Regardless of what happens in 10-20 years, Europe needs us in the short-to-medium term, even if you’re the most diehard isolationist in the world.

Why do you believe Europe needs us in the short to medium term? Do you think Russia will invade something else after Ukraine, given the state of it's military? If not, they must rebuild, which would give the rest of Europe the time it needs to also prepare, so why, in that case, do they need us given their economic power?

Folks keep repeating that they need us. I understand you guys think that. I disagree, and I've stated my reasons why, but I want to understand why you think what you do. Maybe I am wrong, but I won't come to that conclusion if you just tell me I am.

Because the large social welfare states the Europeans have to maintain I think would make it very difficult for them to develop the kind of military strength needed to long-term check Russian power. There's also the question of who would be the central leader for the defense.

So the European states have neglected their militaries and spent that money on their people instead. I believe they've done so because we have enabled them by providing the defense they feel they need. At any rate, why can they not change course if we stop enabling them? By your own implicit admission, Russia hasn't been able to build a credible military until this point, and likely won't be able to in our lifetimes, so why do you not believe Europe already has the defensive power it needs to defend and deter Russia? Why do you believe Putin would think he could win a war against NATO now or at any time in our lifetimes?

It is a slightly separate topic, but I think it would also be possibly dangerous as we'd likely see a very re-militarized Germany and I'm not sure that's per se a good idea.

So you fear Germany will get the itch to start invading other countries if they build up their military? You haven't spoken to many modern Germans, have you?

 

[taxi1]

Folks keep repeating that they need us.

We shouldn’t be there because they need us. We should be there because it is in our interest.

You’re asking good questions.