I guess the Swedes are (uncharacteristically) ramping up defense efforts, including in Latvia. :/

Interviewer: "You think that there could be war in Sweden? [with Russia]"
Micael Bydén: "Yes." — Jan 8, 2024

Pål Jonson:
At the same time, Russia has mobilised its economy and defence industry for war.
An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out. War can also come to us. — Jan 8, 2024

Aleksey Pushkov:
Following the military leaders of the Czech Republic and Holland, another one is the same - the Minister of Civil Defense of Sweden called on citizens to be prepared for war. “There could be a war in Sweden,” Carl-Oskar Bohlin said at a press conference. He was joined by the Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish Armed Forces, Micael Bydén. He is also eager to move “from words to actions.” My hands are really itching.
Sweden is one of the first countries in Europe in terms of the level of anti-Russian paranoia. Russian submarines have been fishing there for many years, and for some it has become the main occupation in life. For many years they have been telling how Russia is supposedly “preparing to capture Gothenburg”, and other nonsense. Apparently, this is how they try to give Sweden a geopolitical importance that it does not have. Sometimes it seems that some Swedish military personnel, as well as journalists, are almost dreaming of war. Apparently they can’t calm down since the defeat at Poltava... — Jan 8, 2024

Pål Jonson:
I do not engage with Russia when they use various forms of disinformation.
Russia has put both its economy and its defense industry on a war footing, and of course they continue to pressure Ukraine. — Jan 9, 2024

Reacting to the Kremlin. Probably shouldn't be that surprising any longer.

Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine — Tzeentch

Well, why wouldn't he want Crimea + Donbas "for free"? :)
That's exactly what his "peaceful settlement" would have been.
Grab (steal) → peace (official) → done (might have avoided some sanctions and whatever else too). :up:
Must be among the simplest + cheapest ways to grab land.

There's been a number of diplomatic efforts since Feb 2022 (including some grain export negotiations) + some polls.

You need to understand that if Europe is under attack, we will never come to help you and to support you," Breton quoted Trump as saying during the Davos meeting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/we-will-never-help-europe-under-attack-eu-official-cites-trump-saying-2024-01-10/

Glory to the age of the multipolar world:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/04/08/dutch-journalist-writes-critically-china-targeted-bizarre-intimidation-scheme
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-embassy-in-stockholm-threatens-swedish-journalist/
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/journalist-03252019114547.html
https://www.asiapacific.ca/fr/asia-watch/czech-prime-minister-wants-chinese-ambassador-out

Years ago the British parliament studied the issue of the US leaving. I think that will wake up finally Europeans put effort in their own defense industry. And similarly the US won't be as important as it is now.

At least Putin is betting firmly on this.

Europe really has to look at the possibility of the US leaving and basically being an ally of only Israel. :smirk:

It's only American politicians themselves that can ruin the position of the US it is enjoying now.

I think that will wake up finally Europeans put effort in their own defense industry. — ssu

Yeah, someone will get scrambling. I recall Obama (and others) suggesting as much. Plus, European countries will have to cooperate in some ways. The Gremlin has already more or less brought Russia into a war economy + path.

If the US leaves NATO, NATO might turn into a European military alliance or just end (if there is no shared understanding and willingness of what is the common enemy/enemies).
The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. Also the Balcan area, plenty of territorial disputes, may become hotter. Go figure what will happen if Trump will try to RECONCILE with Russia over Ukraine in order to weaken the Russian pact with China.
Besides the cost of boosting the defence industry (BTW what will happen about the European nuclear deterrence which only few European states possess? Should the other start a nuclear program? What will happen to the defence of the commercial routs around the world? Should all Europeans boost investment into the Navy too?) or maybe reintroducing the military service, the economic crisis due to the economic competition of the Americans (which may even become more hawkish after the end of their NATO partnership e.g. consider the market of microchips and technologies) and the problem of commodity supply under the control of more assertive and competitive geopolitical agents (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and the US), the difficulty of coordinating this effort among Europeans may have repercussions on the stability of the EU and resurgence of populist movements (with its unresolved anti-elitism and unresolved identitarian issues with immigration and Muslim community). European tensions inside European countries and between European countries will still be fueled by hostile or competing powers (including the US), which in turn may even more polarize and paralyze European democracies in their capacity to pursue their strategic interests unless they turn into authoritarian regimes and/or search protection from foreign powers (if not the US, which one?). Also the EU is in danger. And the demographic decline won't help either for the next decades.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, we — we have issued the last drawdown package that — that we had funding to support. And that’s why it’s — it’s critical that — that Congress move on that national security supplemental request and we get more funding.

The — the assistance that we provided has now ground to a halt. The attacks that the Russians are conducting are only increasing. And now, as I talked about earlier this week, they’re using North Korean ballistic missiles to do their dirty work.

So, the — the need is acute right now, particularly in these winter months.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/01/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-and-national-economic-council-director-lael-brainard/

The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. — neomac

At least, the Baltic States will feel the pressure.

And let's have the facts:

1. Russian armed forces are superior to any European country. Hence Russia is against any kind of European integration or Atlanticism. It is the de facto Greatest power in Europe.

2. Russia is going to a wartime economy. If US and Europe throw in the towel, Russia unlikely won't change course here.

2. Finlandization can be an option for EU countries. Why not be a friend of Russia? Just like Hungary. Why rearm when there are other more important things to finance. Especially if Russia is far away, why not seek better relations and start to understand Putin. Why...he's not so bad actually!

The EU has a combined GDP rougly equal to the US, and roughly ten times greater than Russia.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever.

So why doesn't it? The enemy is at the gates after all!

My sense is that the US is and has been pulling strings in the background in order to keep Europe nice and docile, instead turning into the peer competitor that it could be and potentially shaking the US yoke.

And therein lies the problem. We share an "alliance" (though vassalage would be a better term) with a belligerent hegemon that lives across the pond. It doesn't share our security concerns, in fact being an island nation it benefits from sowing discord on the Eurasian mainland - divide & conquer.

This relationship we have with the US won't keep Europe safe, rather the opposite is true. The US is a dangerous ally.

Again, if Europe tried even a little bit there would be no conceivable Russian threat and we could enjoy stable relations with our eastern neighbor backed up by healthy deterrence.

That would not be in American interests though, which, I suspect, is why it doesn't happen.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever. — Tzeentch

YES!

But sorry. I'm an European, I know these people.

The EU is the best we can make. Non-US NATO would be a shadow of the former organization. Or if Russia bombed with cruise missiles EVERY European Capitol, that could make us work together. But that's not going to happen.

In my opinion, this complacency and decadence we see within the EU is a post-Cold War thing. During the Cold War we had proper armies - way larger than what would be required today to provide a deterrent against Russia. So I believe we can do better.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west.

The reason it won't happen until Europe shakes the US yoke is because the US does not want stable relations between Europe and Russia.

In fact, sowing discord on the European mainland is a strategy written down by Mackinder in his famous article 'The Geographical Pivot of History', and echoed by people like Brzezinski in 'The Grand Chessboard'.

Mackinder was British, by the way. It stems from a time when the British still had illusions of empire and world domination, but it appears they have not forgotten their old tricks.

It is no coincidence it was the US and UK who sought to block peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Both are island nations who do not share in the cost of war on the European mainland but have historically benefitted from it.

The EU is the best we can make — ssu

Maybe if there's a common, increasing clear and present danger...? At least some parts of Europe (like Scandinavia / the Nordics, the Baltics) typically tend to cooperate reasonably well. Not that this by itself will do, though.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west. — Tzeentch

In the real world, there's a bit more to it

The Kremlin's authoritarianism regress oppression opacity irredentism posturing polemic bombing is indeed threatening, and anyone valuing democracy transparency freedom can be expected to respond — Jan 1, 2024

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. And this. ... What would you think not standing up does? (Would that be cowardice, complicity, assent, something else?)

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. — jorndoe

Speaking of apartheid and genocide, this is currently taking place in Israel with either "unconditional support" or tacit approval of virtually every western government.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility.

But you know, if Americans want to go to war with Russia over democratic principles that would be a nice joke. Fight that battle without us Europeans, though. Will you be volunteering for the frontlines?

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. And this. ... What would you think not standing up does? (Would that be cowardice, complicity, assent, something else?) — jorndoe

Russia is not comparable to the Third Reich.

And, as we've gone over a dozen times at least in this conversation, we are not "standing up" in Ukraine. Our soldiers are not there to do any "standing".

Rather, we are threatening Russia by trying to move arms (which are threats) closer to Russia, and we are supplying arms to Ukraine, but as you yourself seem to now agree, in a drip feed manner calibrated to ensure Ukraine is not a real threat to Russia, at an insanely high cost to Ukraine.

We are not making "a stand".

Furthermore, the sound bite of "making a stand" sounds good, but is not some sort of political or ethical theory.

There's plenty of evil in the world the West condones and profits from and there's plenty other evil any Western decision maker or policy analyst will giddily explain at some length how we don't have practical means to do anything about it and so "making a stand" would be counter productive.

The West has created a theatrical performance in Ukraine (at a severe cost to Ukraine) of pretending to be "standing up" to something, because it serves US interest.

And, to skip over your ignorant retorts, making Russia stronger servers US interests. The US needs enemies. Kremlin hardliners too, and in this both Russian and US hardliners are frenemies getting what they want out of the war.

Russia is building back its war machine.

The US has defeated the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, with plenty of money to throw at the defence industry in the process, which is also now rebranded as intrepid peace warriors almost overnight (rather than the corrupt military industrial congressional complex that ruined Afghanistan and then fled like cowards when it turned into a liability).

Everybody wins.

Everybody who matters anyways.

And look on the bright side, you win too!

You get to engage in 2 years of moral masterbation at no real risk or cost to yourself, but rather live true heroism vicariously through the blood spent in Ukraine to "defend the West".

So many people need the war.

Just imagine the horrors of peace.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility. — Tzeentch

How does credibility come into this?

There's plenty of evil in the world the West condones and profits from and there's plenty other evil any Western decision maker or policy analyst will giddily explain at some length how we don't have practical means to do anything about it and so "making a stand" would be counter productive.

The West has created a theatrical performance in Ukraine (at a severe cost to Ukraine) of pretending to be "standing up" to something, because it serves US interest. — boethius

Everyone is a hypocrite, so what? Hypocrisy is an ad hominem charge.

The US has defeated the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, with plenty of money to throw at the defence industry in the process, which is also now rebranded as intrepid peace warriors almost overnight (rather than the corrupt military industrial congressional complex that ruined Afghanistan and then fled like cowards when it turned into a liability). — boethius

The US military has always been both. The real rebranding is that of the European militaries, which suddenly have gone from necessary evil to integral part of the state again.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west. — Tzeentch

I agree with this.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. But this has been very typical to Russia in history: it's imperialist expansionism has always been seen by the Russian rulers themselves as something defensive. The US can relax behind both the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, but geography has given Russia this easy-to-travel steppe, from which the enemy can come, be it the Mongols, the Poles, the French or the Germans. Or the Americans.

It's a difficult issue as Russia really has a identity problem when it comes to Europe and the West: the ideological battle for the idea of Russia between the slavophiles and the westernizers is still something that can be seen even today.

Everyone is a hypocrite, so what? Hypocrisy is an ad hominem charge. — Echarmion

Again with the marketing, never stops, but I'll unpack your commercial for the benefit of anyone following along.

An ad hominem attack is a fallacy in two cases:

1. When we're talking about timeless eternal truths, in which case the character of anyone doesn't matter.

2. In the case of contigent facts, when attacking the person proposing an argument rather than the content of the argument, when the argument is not related to their character. Character maybe relevant to contingent facts, but for the character of the speaker to be relevant they need to be making some claim to authority, either as some sort of expert or then a witness to events.

The classic example of the first case is mathematics. Obviously makes no sense to attack a mathematicians character to argue a proof they put forward is invalid.

In the second case, character is extremely relevant to all sorts of factual investigative processes (police and courts deal with this issue all the time), but, nevertheless, character needs to be relevant; aka. some sort of premise ("I am an expert so what I say is more believable than non or less-expert opinion" or then "I saw these things happen with my very eyes!") that is legitimate to attack and undermine. We may charge the expert with a conflict of interest and we may charge the witness to the crime with being an unreliable heroine addict.

Now, back to our own discussion.

First of all, pointing out the hypocrisy of US policy is not an ad hominem attack on @jorndoe, as perhaps you meant to imply a little slight of hand, but rather a ad hominem attack on US government policy and decision makers.

Evaluating the character of these actors in the conflict in question is entirely relevant to analyzing the situation and evaluating the intentions and likely future decisions of parties to the conflict.

One may even go so far as to say perspicacity requires having a clue of what you're talking about.

So yes, that US policy makers are hypocrites and aren't making any sort of "stand" in Ukraine is essential to understanding the conflict.

What we all have witnessed, regardless of our character, is weaponized enlightenment humanism.

The US military has always been both. The real rebranding is that of the European militaries, which suddenly have gone from necessary evil to integral part of the state again. — Echarmion

Ah yes, the US military has always been both corrupt psychopathic mass murderers as well as valiantly carrying the pillars of world peace on their backs.

I believe you mean to say that the US military has always been corrupt psychopathic mass murderers when it serves elite US perceived interest ... and corrupt noble and caring or whatever when that serves elite US perceived interests.

As for Europe ... what's the evidence of that European change in sentiments. A lot of people like cheering on the war in Ukraine, that's for sure, but the current protests spreading over Europe: Netherlands, Germany, Poland, France and so on, are not to insist on a mad dash to rearm to fight the Russians but on subjects like wages and the cost of living and fuel and so on.

Maybe if there's a common, increasing clear and present danger...? At least some parts of Europe (like Scandinavia / the Nordics, the Baltics) typically tend to cooperate reasonably well. Not that this by itself will do, though. — jorndoe

The Nordics do cooperate very well. However, in security policy there's always the problem that in the end, "going alone/opting out" can be beneficial. Not to fully commit your country to defend another country. Sweden in the end is the perfect example of this: It did send volunteers and many aircraft to help Finland in the Winter War. It didn't help Denmark or Norway when attacked by Germany. It survived WW2 intact, only with few stray Russians bombers accidentally bombing Stockholm thinking it's Helsinki. It's military deterrence and foreign policy kept it out from the war, not being occupied by either side, just like the Swiss managed to do. Is that a bad thing?

Let's take a hypothetical example:

Let's assume that in the 2030's when the war in Ukraine is behind us and Russia has rearmed itself, Russia simply occupies a corridor to Kaliningrad in the Suwalki gap through Lithuanian territory and declares it will defend this corridor by tactical nuclear weapons and possibly using the full force of it's nuclear arsenal against countries that attack it.


Russia can even show that they are dead serious by detonating a small tactical warhead, a 5 Kt bomb (much smaller than the A-bomb in Hiroshima), in the Lithuanian countyside destroying part of some NATO unit or it's HQ and send Lithuathians to their basements. With a 5 kt detonation, you have quite a good chance to survive unless you are closer than 1km from the center. We would all see in the television or our smartphones multiple images of a nuclear mushroom cloud in the Lithuanian countryside.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war?

Or how many will want things to be "just stopped" before an all-out nuclear war? Let them have the fucking corridor, it's not worth for possibly tens of millions to die. So send some iodine pills to Lithuania and something else marginal. Wouldn't that be enough for the article 5 response, if Lithuania is far away and you don't want to escalate things?

The fact is that we are already engaged in this problem: the reason for not giving Ukraine the best weapons there are, has been exactly the worry of escalation to a nuclear war. This has meant, that the aid has been to Ukraine for it to survive, not to push Russia away from Ukrainian territory.

The lure of appeasement and just wanting to the war to end is understandable. Especially when you have no will to fight.

The real question is, how much Europeans have that will to fight in the first place? Because that's where your deterrence starts from.

the reason for not giving Ukraine the best weapons there are, has been exactly the worry of escalation to a nuclear war. — ssu

I don’t know if that’s “the reason”, there might be other plausible reasons weihing in the American strategic calculus:
1 - Avoid to get too much involved in a war that isn’t as relevant as the incumbent conflict with China over Taiwan.
2 - Avoid the collapse of Putin’s regime in case of clamorous defeat, which might open the door to more aggressive political leaders .
3 - Avoid the collapse of Russia and worrying about the fate of its nuclear arsenal and the chance for China to expand its sphere of influence on the Russia eastern front.
4 - Keep Russia stuck in Ukraine to weaken its possible support to China in case of a conflict over Taiwan and prevent a reconciliation between Europeans and Russia as long as possible.
5 - Realising the soft and hard limits of the deterrence capacity of the West as a system of military and economic alliance against a hostile Rest.

The real question is, how much Europeans have that will to fight in the first place? Because that's where your deterrence starts from. — ssu

Well put!

So yes, that US policy makers are hypocrites and aren't making any sort of "stand" in Ukraine is essential to understanding the conflict. — boethius

Noone in this thread has cared the argue that the US is not duplicitous or self-interested.

Only that a) not literally anything that happens is a US plot and b) the US interest is not necessarily opposed to local interests, and the US does actually do good things.

Their hypocrisy is immaterial in and of itself.

As for Europe ... what's the evidence of that European change in sentiments. A lot of people like cheering on the war in Ukraine, that's for sure, but the current protests spreading over Europe: Netherlands, Germany, Poland, France and so on, are not to insist on a mad dash to rearm to fight the Russians but on subjects like wages and the cost of living and fuel and so on. — boethius

A lot of people want nothing more than to be left alone and go back to business as usual as it was 30 years ago. But this is not a new sentiment and it's not caused specifically by the war in Ukraine, the war is simply another sign of the crisis a significant portion of people wants to simply wish away.

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters.

Putin's trump card in this conflict appears to ultimately be the right wing movements that Russia has sponsored in the West for years. Despite not being in a majority in most countries, everyone's so afraid of loosing votes to the new right that they end up compromising.

Who knows if, by the time this war is over, the Europe that Ukraine wanted to join still exists. The pull of xenophobic isolationism currently seems irresistible.

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion

It doesn't sound implausible to me either.

Putin's trump card in this conflict appears to ultimately be the right wing movements that Russia has sponsored in the West for years. — Echarmion

BTW the divide & conquer strategy applied in Europe might make sense to Russia more than to the US due to the geographic proximity between Europe and Russia. Not to mention that NATO, EU and globalization supported by the US were there more to unite than to divide.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. — ssu

Hmm. Maybe, but what enemy would that be? In the period between 1999 - 2013 Putin tried very hard to have good relations with the West. To a large extent he succeeded, and ties between Europe and Russia were good.

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war? — ssu

The thing I would worry about most in this scenario, once again, is Uncle Sam who basically has the power to send Europe into a nuclear war while it sits thousands of miles across the pond.

I've said this before, but the Americans don't share in the cost of large-scale war on the European mainland, in fact have historically benefitted from it. It is extremely foolish of us to put our fate in their hands.

In your scenario, what happens when the Americans decide large-scale, potentially nuclear, war between Europe and Russia is in its interest because it wants to "weaken Russia"?

The Yankees can and will climb the escalation ladder as far as they want and there's nothing Europe can do about it. Well, Europeans can whinge, maybe. I'm sure there will be plenty of whinging.

If, in reaction to your scenario, the Europeans want de-escalation, but the Americans covertly fire a 10kt nuclear weapon from an SSBN in the Baltic, what do you suppose will happen?

YES!

But sorry. I'm an European, I know these people.

The EU is the best we can make. Non-US NATO would be a shadow of the former organization. Or if Russia bombed with cruise missiles EVERY European Capitol, that could make us work together. But that's not going to happen. — ssu

But doesn't the fact that NATO exist in itself cause the EU not to successfully cooperate militarily? There's simply no real need. I think if EU countries could centralise command and simply have all the countries current armies merge into a single force we would easily have an adequate defensive force. France already has the nukes for deterrence.

Even outside of these extreme scenarios, I think it's clear that EU and USA interests no longer align on various issues.

But doesn't the fact that NATO exist in itself cause the EU not to successfully cooperate militarily? There's simply no real need. I think if EU countries could centralise command and simply have all the countries current armies merge into a single force we would easily have an adequate defensive force. France already has the nukes for deterrence. — Benkei

So does the UK, which is still taking part in the defence cooperation.

But good questions, @Benkei.

The membership of one Superpower would make it more easy to coordinate any actions. It's basically that the US proposes an operation and countries either commit or not. Otherwise you would have to have the "Troika" of France, UK and Germany. They should work together, have an unified objective. Otherwise it is improbable that EU will act in coordination. Germany has huge problems in creating and operating an effective armed forces in the current situation. Not only has it difficulties creating that "bang for buck" in defense spending, it has (like Japan) huge sensitivities in using military force. Only France and the UK have capabilities to project power out of the area. They also do have the "can do" spirit of a Great Power. All other nations are basically supportive.

The worst possibility that there's no uniform objective, but the "alliance" simply dissolves. Arab states and Turkey are the best example of this. It would be beneficial for them to really have cooperation even at the level of the Arab League, but this isn't happening. Even the GCC members have been close to having war with each other. Also the Libyan civil war showed clearly that allied countries can support different sides.

And btw, when I gave the example of the Suwalki gap, seems like Germany has thought about a similar situation:

In a recent revelation by the German newspaper Bild, the Bundeswehr, Germany's armed forces, are reportedly gearing up for a possible hybrid attack by Russia on NATO's eastern flank. This anticipated offensive could commence as early as February 2024, as per a classified document from the German Federal Ministry of Defence.

The document, marked "Top Secret – For Official Use Only," outlines a detailed scenario named "Alliance Defence 2025." It predicts a series of events starting in February 2024, where Russia is expected to initiate another wave of mobilization, drafting an additional 200,000 individuals into its army. This move is set to precede a spring offensive against Ukraine, pushing the Ukrainian forces back by June.

The scenario escalates in July with Russia's transition from covert to increasingly overt attacks against Western interests, particularly targeting the Baltic states with cyberattacks and other forms of hybrid warfare. These actions are anticipated to provoke clashes, which Russia could use as a pretext for large-scale military exercises on its territory and in Belarus.

A significant escalation is projected for October when Russia might deploy troops and medium-range missiles to the strategically important region of Kaliningrad. From December 2024 onwards, the scenario foresees an artificially induced "border conflict" and "clashes with numerous casualties" in the vicinity of the Suwałki Gap, a critical corridor between Belarus and Kaliningrad.

In a concerning development, the scenario suggests that Russia, with Belarusian support, could replicate its 2014 invasion tactics used in Ukraine but this time on NATO territory. This is speculated to occur at a time when the United States might be politically vulnerable due to the presidential election transition.

(See German Intelligence Reports: NATO Prepares for War with Russia.)

These dudes. Really.

Here some points:

1 - If the formation of a military block bordering with Russia on its eastern front was perceived by Russia as an intolerable existential security threat , this would hold for NATO as much as for a European military alliance. Even more so, if one remembers that the US has NEVER EVER invaded Russia proper. France, Germany and Poland did.

2 - Imperialism is obviously not an exclusive mark of the US foreign policy. European countries like the UK, France and Germany, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China have shown imperialist ambitions in the past, and for the last ones also remarkably revived in the present. Imperialism as it goes away it can also come back. So Putin is not only interested in having the US out from Europe just now but forever by preventing the US from coming back. That’s why for Putin it would be important to keep alive harmless or pro-Russian European regimes while promoting intra European and inter European political polarisation with all its available means (infowar, corruption, commodity blackmailing, poison and mysterious suicides, etc.). Russia may very well need to hegemonise Europe not only to keep the US out and Germany down (and the rise of a Western military block), but also to counterbalance its dependence on China, and its Muslim/Chinese competitors in the mediterranean-africana area.

3 - Putin is mortal and will die at some point (but pro-Russian cheerleaders shouldn’t lose hope, with the US and NATO gone Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic States are up for grabbing even if Russia has lost its pretext of NATO enlargement!). So, one can’t just look at Putin but also the Russia political elite and environment which will likely survive Putin (imperialism is not a mark of Putin but a historical trend which Putin may have unleashed), or even outside Russia. What his war is meant to prove to the World (including Westerners) is that authoritarian regimes have won over Western democracies in international competition and that the West is declining while the Rest is rising in power and demands: the West is not just the US, the West is Europe too! A resentful Rest which doesn’t forget Western wrongdoings (and, let me remind you that the West is not just the US but also the Europeans, or ex-US vassals, or ex-filthy coward cockroaches servile to the Yankees, and right after being callous exploitative colonizers of the Rest!), also thanks to the Western zealous anti-Western propagandists for which even a remote reference of something good coming from the West is an unbearably outrageous proof of hypocrisy and wanna bitch about it from their armchair as customary among men of honour. This will embolden assertiveness of the Rest in terms of security threats (like islamic terrorism and commercial routs disruption) and economic threats (due to the dependencies of the West from abroad commodities).

4 - Europe is rich of inter-European interest conflicts as far as security and economy are concerned (including territorial disputes). And along all dimensions: Western Europe vs Eastern Europe, North Europe vs South Europe, financially virtuous Europe vs financially sucker Europe, liberal Europe vs illiberal Europe, etc. Even without an American divide and conquer strategy. European countries have enough historical dispositions to be and act selfishly at the expense of fellow European countries, eroding European cohesion and coordination for any European project including a European army. And the European populist aversion for multilateral agreements (like the one required by a European army) which will require super-national constraints, and national jealousy might drive countries back to bilateral agreements as established by nation states. Besides we shouldn’t antagonise Russia, Russia is not a threat, that's all US propaganda, right? (I do wonder who would dare to antagonise Russia and say they are a security threat, after the US is gone, i.e. I’m afraid that’s not an option) so what's even the point of having a European army, exactly? So for Russia it would be more easy to destabilise Europe at convenience, once the US has left, by polarising and paralizing democracies, until they turn into a civil war or authoritarian regimes, if needed to make Europe more docile for any security and economic demands Russia has. Russia can even present itself as a mediator/peace-keeper in inter-European conflicts (like in the Balcans which may turn into the next hot spot, which will likely divert European attentions from Russia) and help European countries which risk a civil war by turning them authoritarian, if needed, maybe by sending a Wagner group around European countries as it happened in Africa. Or even support parties that would prefer to buy weapons from Russia instead of building a national military industry (even more so if that would support a European army).
So without the US, Russia would have a much easier hand at replacing Western corrupt and servile elites serving American corrupt and greedy industrial-military complex with Western corrupt and servile elites serving Russian corrupt and greedy industrial-military complex. What a win!

5 - How about the Great Satan once it is gone from Europe? Nothing to worry about, since the Great Satan has no longer reason to invest in supporting EU and NATO at their own expense, they will invest in support of their economy and security at the European expense. The other good news is that the Great Satan won’t need to pull strings in the background, now that they can pull strings in foreground with bilateral agreements also to counterbalance the Russian hegemonic penetration in Europe. (Oh and with the end of the EU and the euro, another competitor of the dollar is gone!)


But sure, after the US is gone, what could possibly go wrong? We will preserve peace, democracy, unity and prosperity, and the Rest will love us, Europeans, the self-deprecating servile minions of the Great Satan (which replaced them as the Great Satan!). The entire multipolar world is looking forward to seeing us flourish, of course. They are sitting quietly on their armchair and passionately chatting about this epiphany in philosophy forums like this one (if their authoritarian regimes allows them, of course).

So fuck the Great Satan, fuck globalization, fuck NATO and EU, and glory to the multipolar world! :D

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering. — Tzeentch

Unless the Russians were already aggreviated at being treated as merely a second-rate "regional power" by the west, and the status quo was always unacceptable to the Putin government.

Basically your view assumes the "primacy of economics", as the western governments generally did post 1990. Under this assumption, China would have no reason to create tensions over Taiwan either.

The membership of one Superpower would make it more easy to coordinate any actions. It's basically that the US proposes an operation and countries either commit or not. Otherwise you would have to have the "Troika" of France, UK and Germany. They should work together, have an unified objective. Otherwise it is improbable that EU will act in coordination. Germany has huge problems in creating and operating an effective armed forces in the current situation. Not only has it difficulties creating that "bang for buck" in defense spending, it has (like Japan) huge sensitivities in using military force. Only France and the UK have capabilities to project power out of the area. They also do have the "can do" spirit of a Great Power. All other nations are basically supportive. — ssu

Don't write off Poland. Poland may well be a very important player in the EU of the future.

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion

I agree. Military people can understand escalation. The public doesn't. Indeed, the politicians are more afraid than the military.

And this is why actually the twisted logic of "Escalate to de-escalate" can work: a small tactical weapon can raise absolute panic. If an accident in a nuclear power plant in Japan that didn't kill anybody causes such a huge panic, how much panic will the mushroom cloud bring with it? What we have been taught: nuclear war is utter doom for human kind, nobody can handle it once it's started.

Don't write off Poland. Poland may well be a very important player in the EU of the future. — Echarmion

That is true, good remark!

Poland is basically a large-scale model of my little country: it can put a defense on it's territory and provide assistance close by. But if the crisis would happen let's say in the Mediterranean, there's not much that Poland can give, only something to assist a larger force. I assume if Poles are ready to defend the Suwalki gap and even the Baltics, it might be different issue in the Balkans or in South-West Europe.

And the security threats can happen outside of the primary theatre: the Houthi attacks on the Bab El Mandeb show this clearly.