The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
10 comments and the pro Russia bots are already here
Such is life currently: hyperbolic questions in ironic comments like " have you proof about Ruzz agression, because the West…" etc.
Smh, about the contrast between their potential to embrace a grand selfdeception and the arrogant stubbornness to look away from the invasive destruction and killings Shahed drones cause on a daily bases for more than a thousand days.
“everyone i don’t agree with is a bot”
Meanwhile USA is fully prepared to comfort Russia.
I had to read the title 3 times, because even for the second read through I read ‘NATO is preparing to comfort Russia’.
it would really be something else if they fought them off successfully and the united states looked like pussies and assholes
it would really be something else if they fought them
No it wouldn’t be. Germany is suggesting forced conscription already, and so is France. I don’t want to see young men thrown into the meat grinder to satisfy the imperial wishes of either Europe or Russia
you raise a good point, and to be honest i haven’t figured out what the morally correct answer to this is.
In my opinion, the morally correct answer is to have a mild relation with Russia, consisting of trade and not much more. Europe would get access to a huge pool of resources to boost its industry, and stopping to antagonize our neighboring countries would help to drive down military tensions in the continent.
NATO was conceived as an anti-Soviet military pact, and any excuse for its usefulness expired after 1991. Now it’s just a military playground for US interests, keeping European money flowing to the Wunderwaffen of the USA Military Industrial Complex, and maintaining Yankee military bases in the continent.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation, they weren’t just minding their own fucking business
Let the comments here be a friendly reminder to people that they should block and boycott the .ml instance
deleted by creator
I missed the drama. This was the first Lemmy account I made. Is this server overrun with bots now?
So the .ml stands for Marxist Lenin… Just to get you started.
deleted by creator
Most of them are bot accounts run from the Philippines anyway.
Not really, .ml stands for Mali domain. And just because someone believes in Marxist principle or communism isn’t a issue. Personally for me why I am wary of .ml domain is because often I do see people posting obvious Chinese and North Korean propoganda with shady source and wild claims and their refusal to accept criticism of China or other communist past and present regimes. Also they get really defensive and assume you are pro west or pro imperialism when you happen to criticize china for something and then their whole argument would be bashing the west when both are to fault.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
Those two things are not synonymous.
Romanian military are concerned it would take allies time to get to the front (I.e. it would take time for NATO to mobilise in the event of an unanticipated invasion of Romania). However firstly that doesn’t mean victory wouldn’t be ultimately achieved (allied forces had a bad time of it during the first part of the second world war, but ultimately were victorious) and secondly it assumes that Russia would be able to rally its forces (what forces) and initiate a surprise invasion despite Europe heavily monitoring Russian military activity. Which all seems unlikely.
I’m also unclear about why 260 km is considered an insurmountable distance. In an emergency that distance could be covered in a couple of hours, (I’m assuming that liberation forces and not required to obey the speed limit) presumably everyone would be going the other way in any case.
The tanks and howitzers are not at Bucharest and they can’t drive 200 km/h.
Yeah because the Russians aren’t going to invade. They would have to amass troops along the border we’d have some time.
Why do we fucking still Need to use military confrontation for everything?
Fr in this modern world with phones, internet and much more, why do we have to confront by sending young people in a year grinder?
I am ashamed of my species
The funny thing is Russia should know full well how effective psyops are. They’re installing friendly far right assholes abusing the senility of boomers. They legitimately have a ton of countries on the path to destroy themselves. They could just… wait a decade and win.
UH OH - you did a ‘leftism’ in the warmongering liberal instance. you get sentenced to several downvotes and a brainwashed accusation!
What a wild thing to say about supporting a sovereign nation in defending its borders.
“Preparing to confront Russia” (post title) is not supporting any nation in defending its borders.
That is for the best. The US is a hostile power, and allowing it to embed enemy troops or sabotage NATO operations should not be permitted. Europe is better off without the traitorous Trump Regime.
It sucks that it has to be this way, but to deny the intent and nature of the current United States, is to invite disaster.
deleted by creator
That’s not really how NATO works, but I can understand the sentiment of imagining the USA refusing to enact the articles upon a member being attacked.
I didn’t think it was the sort of thing that could be refused? Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense? At least in my understanding, being a part of NATO at all legally requires each nation to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack on all of them. It specifically isn’t a “if you feel like it” rule, because that doesn’t have the scary MAD implications of Article 5.
If the US fails to honor NATO’s Article 5 then the rest of the world will worry the US won’t honor their defence packs.
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Are client states under the occupation of the US military. They aren’t worried the US might fall to act. They’re worried the US might act to remove their leaders and replace them with more pliant ones.
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Why would the US allow them to do so?
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Many of them already do have nuclear weapons of their own. Also the US wouldn’t have any say in whether or not they produce nuclear weapons they could announce their preference but they have no ability to enforce it.
Thankfully Russia can’t afford to stretch themselves much more. I implore them to try something it shouldn’t take much to fuck them at this point.
Why are you so willing to be thrown to the trenches? How is militarism a good position?
How is getting bullied without fighting back a good position?
How about engaging in deescalation by not pushing for military escalation against our neighbor? How about entering commercial relations with neighboring countries instead of antagonizing them?
Already tried that. We hoped that by buying massive amounts of Russian oil and gas they would see that peace is worth a lot more than war.
But they decided war anyways. And suddenly we had to find a replacement for all that energy.
Already tried that. We hoped that by buying massive amounts of Russian oil and gas they would see that peace is worth a lot more than war
And Russia responded to that positively. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, there were even negotiations to make Russia enter the European Union. Those hopes for Russia were shattered when Europe and the US kept interfering in its sphere of influence (Georgia, Ukraine, etc) through colour revolutions and propaganda. The culminating point where Russia saw there was no possibility was when in 2014, the democratically elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was removed by a US-sponsored colour revolution (see Victoria Nuland’s leaked phonecalls), that’s actually what triggered the invasion of Crimea. It was Russia’s way of saying “I cannot win the soft-power competition against the US, so if my only way to maintain a sphere of influence is through military power, so be it”.
If you still don’t believe allowing for a Russian “sphere of influence” is an important geopolitical item if we want worldwide peace, imagine how USA people and their government would react to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Peru entering a military alliance with Russia and China and started to import military material from said countries and have Chinese and/or Russian military bases. Last time something similar happened with Cuba, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
My brother in foreign affairs, Russia has been an aggressor of Ukraine it’s whole existence.
Ukraine signed an agreement which cited that it would give up nuclear warheads for protection by the USA against Russia.
That protection never happened. Crimea was taken. Chaos ensued on the borders. Then Russia struck their fucking capital.
AND YOU WANT US TO FUCKING TRADE WITH RUSSIA, lol… Surely that will fix everything.
Yeah, how about no escalation? No hybrid war tactics? No drones in foreign airspace? No threats to neighbouring countries?
Cool, I agree that all of those things should stop. How about we engage in actual negotiations with Russia instead of grinding down Ukrainian young men in trenches as a form of diplomacy?
Because appeaemt doesn’t work?
They’re not willing to engage in good faith. If they were they never would have started the “special operations” in the first place. Nor would they be asking to keep all of their gains in the war.
They were more than willing to engage in good faith from late 1990s to early 2010s, it’s the constant western meddling in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and other Russian sphere of influence countries, coupled with the expansion of NATO, that pushed Russia to isolation. Russia doesn’t have the economic or soft power to fight the US+EU in that field, so either US+EU accept Russia peacefully having its own sphere of influence, or Russia will naturally attempt to do so militarily.
The USA doesn’t need to militarily engage in Mexico because it already belongs to its sphere of influence, in Venezuela they don’t enjoy that so the natural response is to threaten with military invasion (as it’s doing now). It’s basic geopolitics.
Bro I’m not gonna be in any trenches, I’m going to be in the alleyways, the sewers, the steam tunnels. As in I’m going to go full French resistance on anyone who invades.
It’s kind of funny how the West is getting beat by its own game.
We only care about the money.
Edit: Apparently this reality upsets a lot of you.
You think Putin and his oligarch buddies don’t only care about the money?
We only care about the money.
Trump does. Oligarchs & dictators too. What’s your point?
The West will only do what it believes will make its rulers the most amount of money.
If Americans think it’s more profitable for their rulers to avoid supporting NATO, then that’s what they’re going to do.
Russia will only do what it believes will make its rulers the most amount of money.
The West
Yeah that really clarified everything about your POV, thank you.
I was clear from the beginning, but ok.
Is there any credible material proof that Russia is preparing for an invasion of Europe???
They are just barely capable of winning a slow war of attrition against Ukraine, how can you make a credible argument they could achieve any war aims against all of Europe?
You can’t even argue they can take one country at a time, the entire border is riddled with NATO tripwire troops, guaranteeing the direct involvement of each major European military from the get-go.
Is this just fearmongering to drum up support for more military Keynesianism?
They already have invaded Europe. For the second time in the last decade.
Fyi, Ukraine is in Europe.
Fuck USA for abandoning it’s allies, the whole world is realising they cannot be trusted.
The EU is doing the right thing by arming up.
They have invaded Ukraine, a country that is not in NATO nor in the EU, this article is talking about a war with all the European member states of NATO. I think my wording was clear.
And considering rearmament, do you know what the security dilemma is, and what that means for the security of everyone in Europe?
Ukraine is still in Europe no matter how you spin it. Russia has also invaded NATO aligned airspace, cut infrastructure lines in the ocean, likely blew up a critical fuel pipeline, continues aggressive cyber warfare, bombed a railway in Poland, and pays for bots and misinformation campaigns and supports right wing fascism in the US and EU. They rattle their nuclear sabre constantly and have also had illegal incursions across borders like Finland… Tell us again how Russia isn’t a nascent threat to all Europeans after invading a sovereign country twice, downing passenger jets and sending proxy ships for covert unconventional warfare? The EU is under attack already and at least Poland is awake to it.
Russia is still in Europe no matter how you spin it.
Not accoridng to them. They rightfully consider themselves Euroasian, and a growing number of Europeans see them that way too.
So, it’s still in Europe. What’s your point, other then division? Stop with this us/them shit, stop supporting warmongering narratives. Geography is not interested in this bullshit and you shouldn’t be, either.
Russia is currently attacking a sovereign state, murdering civilians and abducting children. Defense against that is hardly warmongering. Europe did not push for it to be us/them, it was Russians who made themselves the morally corrupt ‘them’ by killing people in Europe.
Russia is already attacking EU/NATO with their hybrid war. Russia is pushing all these far right movements in europe and usa. They also attacked critical infrastrucure e.g. the internet cables and send their drones into europe. Also Russia send killers into europe to kill certain individuals e.g. in Berlin the “Tiergarten killer”. Russia needs to feel that it can no longer do this without consequence. Europe needs to walk the talk.
It also causes resources to go to the eu’s defense instead of Ukraine’s offense so it’s in Putin’s interest to spread the rumors.
