Europe under extreme duress

[taxi1]

There is also a lack of capability, as they don't have the long-range weapons necessary to strike at anything very far beyond their borders.

Think more Al Qaeda than billion dollar weapons. Lots of ways to bring the hurt to Russian interests that are exposed. Lots of fragile poorly protected infrastructure. Russia has not had a problem assassinating people overseas, wouldn't be that hard for Ukraine to go full-on asymmetric and do similar.

Is there a tipping point for atrocities committed against them, that changes the calculus? Idunno.

 

[SynixMan]

Said it before, but again, which is a better outcome... Russia taking Estonia for awhile and then being unable to hold it long term, or all of Europe, the US, and Russia at a minimum being destroyed in nuclear war? I sure hope if it comes to that then cooler heads prevale.

I'd also challenge you to go to Russia when things calm down a bit. I think you'll find the regular people there are wonderful. It's their leaders that consistently suck. If they can solve that then I have no doubt we could all coexist happily.

I'm confused.

If you're saying NATO shouldn't respond to a conventional attack in a Baltics with automatically nuking Moscow, I agree. Proportional response is required. That escalation ladder will be tough not to climb, but the nuclear states (US/FRA/UK) would need discipline.

If you're saying NATO should let Estonia fight by itself and not get involved if Russia attempts to "De-nazify" them like Ukraine, I think you're crazy.

 

[Mirage]

I'd say a weakened or non-existent NATO makes the possibility of everything going boom as great as a direct conflict with Russia right now, it would just take a little bit longer as Russia would have much more incentive to keep going and less deterrent to him escalating to a nuclear conflict.



There are certainly incidents of Americans committing atrocities in the past, to include several in the last 20 years, but it has been over 50 years since the last unit-wide atrocity that approaches what has been discovered so far in Ukraine, and even in that case it was much more isolated than what has happened in Ukraine.

Again, the scale and scope of what has happened in Ukraine hasn't been seen in Europe for at least 30 years, if not 80. That it was so widespread, so casual and indifferent to the possible consequences it indicates much deeper and systemic issues in Russia than a few individuals who commit war crimes like we had in Afghanistan and Iraq. Coupled with the Russian indifference to targeting and the invasion itself I think the Russian leadership is much more reflective of the Russian people than you seem to think. Propaganda is a helluva drug.

You think a weakened NATO is as likely to cause nuclear war as full scale war with Russia would? Really?

Russia has been accused of these atrocities in the last few days by the country their at war with. I'm not saying their lying, but you shouldn't just assume it's true, and even if it's eventually proven true, your argument hinges on the fact that they are widespread acts condoned by large numbers of the Russian people and soldiers. Ridiculous to assume all this with no evidence. You also state there is Russian indifference to targeting and the invasion itself. Again, on what evidence do you base this? Even with all the propaganda they are fed and the harsh consequences for Russians who break the law and criticize the war, many still have. Have you been to Russia? Again, I think you'll find the people lovely, though many are the victims of propaganda and corrupt leaders.

 

[Mirage]

I'm confused.

If you're saying NATO shouldn't respond to a conventional attack in a Baltics with automatically nuking Moscow, I agree. Proportional response is required. That escalation ladder will be tough not to climb, but the nuclear states (US/FRA/UK) would need discipline.

If you're saying NATO should let Estonia fight by itself and not get involved if Russia attempts to "De-nazify" them like Ukraine, I think you're crazy.

Declaring war on Russia or using nukes on Russia at the outset have the same outcome. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a one in a million chance we go to war with Russia and it doesn't result in nuclear war.

So, again... Using this most likely outcome as our end state if we go to war over Estonia, then what end state do you think the alternative (letting Russia fight the Baltics alone with likely equal results as they've had in Ukraine), would accomplish that is worse?

I don't think letting Russia fight an Ally and not going to war is a good solution. It sucks. It's cowardly in a sense. But the possible end states for both the Baltics and the rest of the world are far better than the alternative, and achieving the best end state is what should drive out policy, is it not?

 

[Griz882]

Declaring war on Russia or using nukes on Russia at the outset have the same outcome. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a one in a million chance we go to war with Russia and it doesn't result in nuclear war.

So, again... Using this most likely outcome as our end state if we go to war over Estonia, then what end state do you think the alternative (letting Russia fight the Baltics alone with likely equal results as they've had in Ukraine), would accomplish that is worse?

I don't think letting Russia fight an Ally and not going to war is a good solution. It sucks. It's cowardly in a sense. But the possible end states for both the Baltics and the rest of the world are far better than the alternative, and achieving the best end state is what should drive out policy, is it not?

This is ludicrous. Using your metric the rulers of this “bold new world” are now Russia and North Korea. You seem to lack a complete understanding of geopolitics.

 

[Mirage]

This is ludicrous. Using your metric the rulers of this “bold new world” are now Russia and North Korea. You seem to lack a complete understanding of geopolitics.

It's easy to criticize what I'm saying if you don't explain how your own end state is somehow better than what would happen if we allowed Russia's apparently weak military to fight the Baltics states, and supported them in the way we are Ukraine. Not sure how nuclear Holocaust is better, but perhaps I'm missing something you can enlighten me about.

 

[Griz882]

It's easy to criticize what I'm saying if you don't explain how your own end state is somehow better than what would happen if we allowed Russia's apparently weak military to fight the Baltics states, and supported them in the way we are Ukraine. Not sure how nuclear Holocaust is better, but perhaps I'm missing something you can enlighten me about.

Nuclear holocaust…SNARK.

The position is simple and starts with the basic voter. Politicians love power…they love power more than peace. The simple fact is if Russia attacks a NATO partner and the other do nothing their governments will fall - our government will fall. Not violently, not by revolutionary acts, but by votes. People won’t tolerate it. The Brits won’t tolerate it, the French won’t tolerate it, and even the Germans won’t. The Poles are already balling up their fists for a brawl and the Americans will send any administration that fails to support a NATO ally packing. You might think…oh look at me…I’m playing the geopolitical “long game” but the voters don’t care.

All of this is the long way of saying that the fear of a “possible” nuclear war is a lot lighter than the fear of losing an election and seeing your political party destroyed in the process.

 

[Mirage]

Nuclear holocaust…SNARK.

The position is simple and starts with the basic voter. Politicians love power…they love power more than peace. The simple fact is if Russia attacks a NATO partner and the other do nothing their governments will fall - our government will fall. Not violently, not by revolutionary acts, but by votes. People won’t tolerate it. The Brits won’t tolerate it, the French won’t tolerate it, and even the Germans won’t. The Poles are already balling up their fists for a brawl and the Americans will send any administration that fails to support a NATO ally packing. You might think…oh look at me…I’m playing the geopolitical “long game” but the voters don’t care.

All of this is the long way of saying that the fear of a “possible” nuclear war is a lot lighter than the fear of losing an election and seeing your political party destroyed in the process.

What does this have to do with what I was saying? I'm not saying what our politicians will do... I'm arguing what they should do. But I also don't know that I totally agree with you on what they would do, either. War with Russia would mean the end of America and probably their lives as well. Not sure they'd care about their careers if they understand that.

 

[SynixMan]

Declaring war on Russia or using nukes on Russia at the outset have the same outcome. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a one in a million chance we go to war with Russia and it doesn't result in nuclear war.

So, again... Using this most likely outcome as our end state if we go to war over Estonia, then what end state do you think the alternative (letting Russia fight the Baltics alone with likely equal results as they've had in Ukraine), would accomplish that is worse?

I don't think letting Russia fight an Ally and not going to war is a good solution. It sucks. It's cowardly in a sense. But the possible end states for both the Baltics and the rest of the world are far better than the alternative, and achieving the best end state is what should drive out policy, is it not?

Yes, it is, and the part you forgot was the shame after which you left our sworn allies to fend for themselves. The whole point of the NATO alliance is to allow smaller states to band together and protect their sovereignty against a malevolent Russia.

I agree that a direct confrontation with Russia could lead to the nuclear exchange, but there's a big space between a version of what we're seeing in Ukraine repeating in the Baltics and a full on nuclear exchange.

Since you opened the door, how much of European sovereignty are you willing to sell off?

 

[MIDNJAC]

Do you suspect that if we launched a bunch of ICBMs at Russia they just wouldn't respond in kind, or do you just not care and think it's worth it?

It would be interesting to see Russia, but I have no interest in forgiving them for their most recent atrocities......the newest in an incredibly long list dating back to the revolution. Disgusting.

And yes, you are correct. I do not care. I realize that would be the response. There is a chance we would dull the impact via various means, but I am not kidding myself that it wouldn't be a global catastrophe. But a world where russia gets to call any of the shots....not a world worth living in IMHO.

We are on a road to nuclear war with russia in a very short amount of time.....I don't think there is any other way of looking at it. It is time to put the modern equivalent of Pershing II and GLCM in Putin's backyard.....Poland, etc. Give him no room to breathe. Make it known that if he even coughs in the direction of a NATO country, those weapons will be in his bunker in less than 5 minutes, as well as those of his daughters/wives/anyone he claims to care about.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

But a world where russia gets to call any of the shots....not a world worth living in

And the more Americans will say so, the sooner the RU as a state will get the death warrant which it clearly deserves with no any additional proof needed.

 

[Mirage]

Yes, it is, and the part you forgot was the shame after which you left our sworn allies to fend for themselves. The whole point of the NATO alliance is to allow smaller states to band together and protect their sovereignty against a malevolent Russia.

I agree that a direct confrontation with Russia could lead to the nuclear exchange, but there's a big space between a version of what we're seeing in Ukraine repeating in the Baltics and a full on nuclear exchange.

Since you opened the door, how much of European sovereignty are you willing to sell off?

So you guys all think Europe, America, and Russia being completely destroyed is better than Putin fighting a losing battle in the Baltics, but I'm crazy and thinking otherwise is ludicrous? What am I missing here? You think Europeans or Americans in 50 years will be happy with that decisions? Either they don't exist, or they read in their history books about that time Russia overplayed it's hand and collapsed all over again. If our goal is protecting the Baltics from Russia, getting it nuked instead of fighting a conventional war against unmotivated conscripts isn't helpful.

Y'all are short sighted.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

You think Europeans or Americans in 50 years will be happy with that decisions?

Not the happiness is on the table but meaning of life instead. You offer a deal with evil as such. Clearly in short order this brings fruits but let me remind what the overall price is.

 

[Mirage]

Not the happiness is on the table but meaning of life instead. You offer a deal with evil as such. Clearly in short order this brings fruits but let me remind what the overall price is.

What if our ancient civilizations had nukes and used them in similar circumstances because of fear of making a deal with evil as you say? We wouldn't be here. But turns out their problems don't really matter to us anymore. Likewise to humans who live 1000 years from now, unless we screw that future up for them because we think the weak Russian military fighting one more losing war is worth ending it all out of some fear of being immoral.

I understand the price of letting NATO fall. It sucks. But perhaps you should consider the price of what you guys are proposing. It's insane.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

What if our ancient civilizations had nukes and used them in similar circumstances because of fear of making a deal with evil as you say?

Honestly, they had. Each era had its own nukes, from Greek fire to machine gun to sarin. Those who employed it suffered first, as history says. You may say no, real nuke is totally different, but this logic I'm afraid shares Putin's view.