Current Affairs Ukraine

[Mutzo Nutzo]

I don't see any danger whatsoever of Putin invading a NATO country. Unless Trump wins. Then, NATO could very well be shown up for what it is threatening to become: a paper tiger that gives a pretense of American hegemony. If Trump gets in, and Putin attacks, it's game over for American leadership. Forever.

Whatever the outcome of the war in Ukraine Russia will be left severely weakened (both militarily and economically), it will also see its global influence diminished, although it will still present a global security threat to NATO and the U.S.

In relation to future attacks against Eastern NATO states, I think the danger will not be a conventional military threat but rather non-conventional. Putin would likely use methods such as cyber attacks, disinformation, sabotage and infiltration of government to attack NATO states. Therefore the strategy of Europe and NATO should be one of preparedness and containment of Russia.

 

[Drico]

Whatever the outcome of the war in Ukraine Russia will be left severely weakened (both militarily and economically), it will also see its global influence diminished, although it will still present a global security threat to NATO and the U.S.

In relation to future attacks against Eastern NATO states, I think the danger will not be a conventional military threat but rather non-conventional. Putin would likely use methods such as cyber attacks, disinformation, sabotage and infiltration of government to attack NATO states. Therefore the strategy of Europe and NATO should be one of preparedness and containment of Russia.

Absolutely. But we need an EU army. We cannot rely on the Americans.

 

[Xizor]

They want to expand NATO

I think you've got this back to front. The countries that are in Russia's crosshairs don't want to be attacked, and so feel like maybe joining a defensive alliance with a lot of 'stronger' nations at their back is the right thing to do.

In the 1950s, a lot of the founder members of NATO were either just across the border from potential 'Eastern Bloc' aggression or feared how fast a Soviet-led invasion could potentially move across Europe in an era of mechanised & jet-propelled warfare. The Western European leaders then were probably feeling the same fear that Russia's neighbours are now.

So I think it's a bit weird for people in the West to want to turn their backs on the former East who now form the 'buffer' with Russia. Is there a risk that Russia does something dumb and kicks off the NATO support network, drawing us all into war? Sure, but that was always the point of NATO, and just because we all feel a bit safer now that the Soviets aren't lining up on the East/West German border with their engines running, it's a bit rich to just cut off those peoples who had the strength to throw the Soviet yoke off their own backs 30 years ago and treat NATO as some sort of elite club for generally safe nations only.

 

[Ming the Merciful]

Absolutely. But we need an EU army. We cannot rely on the Americans.

Well not EU because a lot of idiots voted UK out but Europe definitely should be self sufficient with regards to defence.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Absolutely. But we need an EU army. We cannot rely on the Americans.

I disagree. IMO we need a stronger NATO however with less financial and economic dependency on the US.

Europe needs to do more but within the framework of NATO

 

[Drico]

I think you've got this back to front. The countries that are in Russia's crosshairs don't want to be attacked, and so feel like maybe joining a defensive alliance with a lot of 'stronger' nations at their back is the right thing to do.

In the 1950s, a lot of the founder members of NATO were either just across the border from potential 'Eastern Bloc' aggression or feared how fast a Soviet-led invasion could potentially move across Europe in an era of mechanised & jet-propelled warfare. The Western European leaders then were probably feeling the same fear that Russia's neighbours are now.

So I think it's a bit weird for people in the West to want to turn their backs on the former East who now form the 'buffer' with Russia. Is there a risk that Russia does something dumb and kicks off the NATO support network, drawing us all into war? Sure, but that was always the point of NATO, and just because we all feel a bit safer now that the Soviets aren't lining up on the East/West German border with their engines running, it's a bit rich to just cut off those peoples who had the strength to throw the Soviet yoke off their own backs 30 years ago and treat NATO as some sort of elite club for generally safe nations only.

Tell that to NATO! They're the ones not inviting in the Ukrainians or the Moldovans. I'm all in favour of countries joining NATO, but the hypocrities won't even ratify Sweden's membership, for heaven's sake. Not a serious organisation, at the moment.

 

[Drico]

I disagree. IMO we need a stronger NATO however with less financial and economic dependency on the US.

Europe needs to do more but within the framework of NATO

Not while the Americans think Trump is a viable choice as president. Depending on them is exactly what Putin wants us to do. He needn't worry, there is no serious European leadership at the moment to make the alternative case.

 

[tsubaki]

I disagree. IMO we need a stronger NATO however with less financial and economic dependency on the US.

Europe needs to do more but within the framework of NATO

That is an impossibility though - you cannot have a stronger Europe within NATO, because if you do then the argument for NATO (as an American shield to protect Europe) is removed; Europe is already strong enough to not need it.

The EU urgently needs to example what it wants to be and, if ever closer union is the aim (and it should be) then it needs to establish the means by which it can defend itself without any US involvement. That means pan-EU armed forces and a pan-EU foreign policy. Doing that will considerably boost security here and worldwide. Relying on the current version of NATO will just result in its demise.

 

[tsubaki]

Not while the Americans think Trump is a viable choice as president. Depending on them is exactly what Putin wants us to do. He needn't worry, there is no serious European leadership at the moment to make the alternative case.

A strong EU is Putin's biggest fear - not because they would invade Russia, but because Russians would want to join it.

 

[Drico]

A strong EU is Putin's biggest fear - not because they would invade Russia, but because Russians would want to join it.

True, but I feel Putin has done enough to ensure that won't be happening in the 21st century...

 

[tsubaki]

True, but I feel Putin has done enough to ensure that won't be happening in the 21st century...

I disagree - the problem with his regime (as with all strongmen regimes) is that its dependent on him running it. Take him away and things could change really, really quickly.

 

[Drico]

I disagree - the problem with his regime (as with all strongmen regimes) is that its dependent on him running it. Take him away and things could change really, really quickly.

Nah, the Russians are pariahs now. Here in Germany, they've had to effectively end trade with Russia and, after the efforts required to do that, won't be doing the hokey-cokey with these lads again for quite some time. His regime is going nowhere, anyway. And Russians have no history of democracy. They won't be joining the EU - if it still exists - this century. And that's before we even get to the poverty in that country, its sheer size, and the reality that we cannot absorb even Ukraine over the next 20 years let alone a country four times it's population. Not a chance.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

So, we don't have to worry about Putin invading the West if the Americans and the rest of NATO live up to the NATO charter: an attack on one is an attack on all.

You see, this is where I feel many of the hawks want it both ways. They want to expand NATO - in self-defence, the say - to ensure protection for all members, while at the same time telling us some of their members are in danger of attack and, therefore, we must keep funding the Ukrainians. Both of these things cannot be true if NATO does what it's supposed to do: defend any of its members under attack. That means nuclear war, in effect.

I don't see any danger whatsoever of Putin invading a NATO country. Unless Trump wins. Then, NATO could very well be shown up for what it is threatening to become: a paper tiger that gives a pretense of American hegemony. If Trump gets in, and Putin attacks, it's game over for American leadership. Forever.

Of course, Europe shouldn't be waiting for all this to happen. We need an EU army. We cannot depend on Trump. Funneling weapons to Ukraine now will be pointless if the Americans decide to elect their dictator. So, in that sense, I'm not sure the author's argument stands up. If Biden wins, Putin will not be attacking a NATO country unless he fancies a nuclear war (or unless the Americans lose their nerve and accept they are no longer the top dog in world affairs - very unlikely). If Trump wins, the Ukrainians are finished anyway and Putin can pick off who he likes. So, it's more about the Americans not losing their minds a second time and going full fascist.

As for Moldova and Kazahkstan - with all due respect, these are not our wars. If NATO wants to protect them, let them in. As they won't, I think we should spare the crocodile tears.

You don't see an emboldened, imperially ambitious Putin posing a threat to Europe!

Russia are manupulating the migrant situations and culture wars across Europe to push right leaning leaders in and he is funding many of these. He is already invading us politically, same in the US as you allude to.

He doesn't just want to control Europe, he is trying to reshape the world. He needs to be defeated ASAP.

 

[Drico]

You don't see an emboldened, imperially ambitious Putin posing a threat to Europe!

Russia are manupulating the migrant situations and culture wars across Europe to push right leaning leaders in and he is funding many of these. He is already invading us politically, same in the US as you allude to.

He doesn't just want to control Europe, he is trying to reshape the world. He needs to be defeated ASAP.

I don't see Putin bombing the Baltics, no - not unless the Americans abdicate all responsibility and elect Trump. Of course he is a threat, but there is no "defeating" him on the battlefield as things stand. NATO is not prepared to risk a nuclear war over Ukraine, the Republicans are tying up Biden, Trump is waiting in the wings, and the EU can't even deal with Viktor effin Orban. If we in the US and EU cannot even deal with our own internal threats, we aren't in a great position to defeat Putin, militarily or geopolitically.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I don't see Putin bombing the Baltics, no - not unless the Americans abdicate all responsibility and elect Trump. Of course he is a threat, but there is no "defeating" him on the battlefield as things stand. NATO is not prepared to risk a nuclear war over Ukraine, the Republicans are tying up Biden, Trump is waiting in the wings, and the EU can't even deal with Viktor effin Orban. If we in the US and EU cannot even deal with our own internal threats, we aren't in a great position to defeat Putin, militarily or geopolitically.

I'm not sure that you have understood my post.