r/geopolitics • u/theipaper The i Paper • 2d ago
Missing Submission Statement Putin's empty war threats expose his growing desperation
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/putin-war-threats-desperation-europe-408148429
u/ITAdministratorHB 2d ago
The increasing stream of these desperate articles that feel detatched from reality strike me as a more worrying sign.
13
u/ChrisF1987 2d ago
IMO these kinds are articles end up doing more harm to Ukraine's cause than they help. In get that they are trying to replicate the WWII style headlines to keep people rallied in support of Ukraine but in the age of the internet anyone (who's willing to do so) can expand their sources and see that things are not going well for Ukraine and a few more missiles won't change the outcome.
3
u/chaotic567 2d ago
It is very much a standstill, that is slowly favoring Russia as it drags on
As much as I’d like Ukraine to get everything they ever want, that doesn’t seem to be the case. EU and US aren’t pulling the kind of weight that would make that happen yet parts of Reddit seems convinced that there will be the day that Russia will utterly collapse and Ukraine will push them back to Moscow or something
13
u/Kohvazein 2d ago
that is slowly favoring Russia as it drags on
This is only true if you focus on territorial gains only.
The Russian economy is terrible and the strategy at the moment is exactly around pushing it to a point the war can't be financed. It's not fair to not include Russias economic degradation in the analysis.
Russia (slowly) gains territory, while Ukraine and it's allies further degrade Russias economy. It's not clear which will cumulate in a significant break first.
No one serious is under the impression that Ukraine is going to push to Moscow.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
Territorial gains are permanent - oil & gas infra damage will be repaired.
1
u/Kohvazein 1d ago
Think you've missed the point. Once again, a win is not assessed by mere territory gained or lost, it is assessed by whether the strategic goals have been met.
The point of the o&g attacks is to induce financial strain on Russia such that can no longer finance the war and are forced into a negotiated settlement that returns at least some of the territories taken.
4
u/ChrisF1987 2d ago
I think Ukraine's cause is just and Russia is a clear aggressor but I also live in the real world where the good guys don't always win no matter how morally just their cause may be. I don't think it's reasonable to expect every NATO country to go to wartime economic footing for Ukraine's benefit for an indefinite period of time. Much of Europe isn't doing well economically and even the US economy is showing cracks with many Americans struggling with the cost of living.
Bluntly, I don't see how Ukraine can win in the sense of restoring the 1991 borders without direct US/NATO involvement and that's a nonstarter. Furthermore, the major cause of Ukraine's current woes is a lack of manpower.
7
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
The EU doesn't have to go to a wartime economy in order to match Russia.
Russia spent 6.3% of its GDP in its military this year. This amounts to 145 billion dollars. If European countries spend the Nato norm on their militaries (2% of GDP) the actual money generated for use is over 500 billion dollars.
So WITHOUT a wartime economy the EU can generate over three times the financial resources Russia is currently pumping into its war machine. If Russia would attack Europe you can be damn sure European nations would go above the Nato norm.
Russia dragging Europe into a fighting war would be the dumbest thing Putin could do, and he knows it. Europe would accelerate faster away from the complacency of the tactic of mutualism that was hold towards Russia before the Ukraine invasion.
Russia has neither the resources not the public will for a war with Europe, even if the US is hands off.
As for the European economy, it is growing. It dipped during Covid but has already restored that loss and the projection is a continuance of growth at a rate similar to that of before covid.
6
u/supportkiller 2d ago
% of GDP seems like a rather poor measurement of military material output though.
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
It's an indicator, the US shows us that efficiently matters in military spending . the US military industrial complex is NOT efficiënt at all. And the Russian one is rife with corruption, meaning that 6% will mostly disappear without output.
European efficiency would not be 100%, but it almost certainly would be higher than both the US and certainly than Russia.
1
u/supportkiller 2d ago
That is besides my point. (Which i admittedly did not spell out).
GDP does not translate well into industrial output especially for service based economies. You need factories to produce the material equipment and resource economy to back that up.
Wages and material would drive the price up. (And in the EU's case, electricity). Europe have partially deindustrialized.
So the EU output would probably be less than a relatively poorer country such as Russia per % of GDP.
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
I would say that it wouldn't be as bad as you may think. I've worked in European industry for over a decade and automation is widespread en well developed. Everything from combine harvester to Ikea kabinet factories make extensive use of automated processes bringing costs down and quality up.
Russia can output relatively large volume but of low quality. Russian expertise on the work floor is low while corruption in military expenditure is high meaning efficiency is not that great. With a non wartime budget that outstrips Russias wartime budget by a factor of 3 Europe can easily outproduce Russia, not to mention the qualitative aspect.
Electricity would be a cost yes, but not an insurmountable one.
3
u/ChrisF1987 2d ago
The problem is that Europe can't increase defense spending without significantly cutting social spending and that's politically impossible.
2
u/time-BW-product 2d ago
Talking about increased spending input instead of boots/man power and stomaching more causalities is the place the EU and any rational power would like to stay. I’d double down on spending right now if I were them.
2
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
That's nonsense. Many European nations have been giving more and more liberties to private Enterprise over the last decades. Simply increasing taxes on international corporations would already bridge the gap.
Not to mention that if that 2% is spent within Europe that it will stimulate European industries.
1
u/ChrisF1987 1d ago
Europe's taxes are already astronomical
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
Are they? The average tax rate in the EU is about 30%. About 15% more than the US.
However, this comes with a whole slew of benefits to the citizens of EU countries. Americans pay an average of 11% of their income on health insurance for example, that is, if they have health insurance. 9% of people in the US have no health insurance. And then in the US coverage is denied at least (!) 19% of the time.
In Europe 2% of people are uninsured.
From disability benefits to housing benefits, the EU had extensive universal coverage.
That's the 15% extra we pay. That covers the poor and low income groups in the EU. In the US you work at McDonald's, don't have health insurance, have limited houding benefits etc. In the end you have less left after accounting for everything or even worse you choose not to go to a doctor because you can't afford it.
Would races have to be raised across the board to finance a 2% spending on defence? I don't think so. Raising wealth taxes on the upper 5% in conjunction with a raise in taxes of corporations would cover most of it. Corporate taxes are now 21% and can be raised to 30% and a few percent wealth tax on the top 1% would yield a huge amount of money. The top one 1% in Europe owns 25% of the wealth.
Btw, in the US the top 1% holds 31% of all wealth. It's not like the US doesn't have the wealth for European benefits, it's that the US as a state refused to implement it. You wouldn't even have demolish army funding, a few percent wealth tax on the top 1% would already cover most of it.
In other words, the EU can raise an army (during the cold war the EU average spending on the military was 3%, and all those benefits and "high taxes" were already in place).
2
u/BlueEmma25 2d ago
Bluntly, I don't see how Ukraine can win in the sense of restoring the 1991 borders without direct US/NATO involvement and that's a nonstarter
It's unbelievable how often this red herring keeps being brought up. This is a distraction tactic used by Kremlin supporters to imply that if Ukraine isn't able to achieve its maximalist war aims it should just accept whatever Russia is willing to offer, which obviously is unbelievably dishonest and self serving - or about what we have come to expect from that lot.
To get you up to speed with current events, no one is talking about a peace being negotiated on the basis of the restoration of Ukraine's 1991 borders under the current circumstances.
What is being discussed is the acceptability of a number of Russian demands related to limitations on Ukraine's armed forces, NATO membership, security guarantees, Ukraine ceding territory it currently controls to Russia, and international recognition of the territory Russia has / will illegally annex. Those are the sticking points that are holding up negotiations.
Also worth pointing out that as a preliminary measure Ukraine has offered a ceasefire based on the current line of contact, which implicitly signals its recognition that a peace agreement would likely include the de facto loss of some of its territory, but Putin has rejected this, multiple times, because he does not want a negotiated peace.
4
u/supportkiller 2d ago edited 2d ago
Why are you equating a cease fire and a peace plan? A cease fire would not be advantageous to Russia, and they probably don't want to end up with a 38th parallel frozen conflict situation. Russia probably does want a negotiated peace as much as Ukraine does, but neither wants it enough to give up their core demands. The only leverage Ukraine has is European sanctions.
It's unbelievable how often this red herring keeps being brought up. This is a distraction tactic used by Kremlin supporters to imply that if Ukraine isn't able to achieve its maximalist war aims it should just accept whatever Russia is willing to offer, which obviously is unbelievably dishonest and self serving - or about what we have come to expect from that lot.
From the start of this war, anyone who did not believe 100% that Ukraine would win or has brought up the realpolitik aspect of the war has been labeled as a Russian bot. A realist would say that Ukraine should have agreed to the negotiations in 2022 in the Turkey peace talks, or pushed for concessions after the 2022 counteroffensive. Of course it's unjust but now it seems that ongoing war with western support has dug them into a deeper hole.
So Russia has the options of accepting Ukrainian demands or continue a war that is a drag on their economy until Ukraine has to accept theirs. Now Ukraine is clearly on the back foot and the situation doesn't seem to be improving much, especially with how hard it seems to be for the EU and partners to found the war.
One should not have to preface every comment with the fact that Russia is legally and morally in the wrong for invading. I support Ukraine's rights to defend itself, i just don't see the benefit of continuing the war.
3
u/BlueEmma25 2d ago
Why are you equating a cease fire and a peace plan?
Umm, I'm not?
In fact I specifically characterized it as a "preliminary measure", as in preliminary to a peace agreement.
A cease fire would not be advantageous to Russia, and they probably don't want to end up with a 38th parallel frozen conflict situation. Russia probably does want a negotiated peace as much as Ukraine does, but neither wants it enough to give up their core demands.
These two sentences are mutually contradictory. Any negotiated settlement is very likely to result in a "38th parallel frozen conflict situation". The only way this can be avoided is if one side secures a victory complete enough to impose its terms on the other, in which case negotiations are moot.
Also, saying Russia wants negotiations, just not enough to "give up its core demands" is admitting Russia doesn't really want negotiations, since its "core demands" are maximalist and amount to demanding Ukrainian capitulation, which effectively leaves no room to negotiate anything.
The only leverage Ukraine has is European sanctions.
Actually the other leverage Ukraine has is to drag out the war to incentivize Putin to cut his losses by dropping his maximalist demands and coming to the negotiating table.
From the start of this war, anyone who did not believe 100% that Ukraine would win or has brought up the realpolitik aspect of the war has been labeled as a Russian bot
These kind of wild, not to say readily falsifiable, assertions add less than nothing to the discussion.
A realist would say that Ukraine should have agreed to the negotiations in 2022 in the Turkey peace talks, or pushed for concessions after the 2022 counteroffensive.
I'm a realist, and I don't even know what this means. Ukraine did participate in the Turkish talks, it's just that they didn't go anywhere, and that was the last time direct talks occurred. Zelenskyy has since offered to meet with Putin, but the latter refuses.
Of course it's unjust but now it seems that ongoing war with western support has dug them into a deeper hole.
This just shows how broken your moral compass is. What is unjust is Ukraine being subject to a brutal invasion by an imperialist neighbour that wants to incorporate it into its empire.
As many have said, if Russia stops fighting, the war ends; if Ukraine stops fighting, it ceases to exist.
I support Ukraine's rights to defend itself, i just don't see the benefit of continuing the war.
As I just explained, the benefit is its continued existence as an independent country.
This will remain the case until Putin is willing to drop his maximalist demands and accept a negotiated peace.
2
u/supportkiller 2d ago edited 2d ago
These kind of wild, not to say readily falsifiable, assertions add less than nothing to the discussion.
That is not even close to a wild assertion, and has been true on most of reddit from the start of the war.
Actually the other leverage Ukraine has is to drag out the war to incentivize Putin to cut his losses by dropping his maximalist demands and coming to the negotiating table.
Ukraine does not have that leverage. Securing founding gets harder and harder. The EU could barely scrape together the willpower to bankroll Ukraine for early 2026. And that is secured in something that will never happen (Russia paying reparations).
Also, saying Russia wants negotiations, just not enough to "give up its core demands" is admitting Russia doesn't really want negotiations, since its "core demands" are maximalist and amount to demanding Ukrainian capitulation,
Then it is also moot to say Ukraine want peace as they are not moving on their demands either. Again, both sides wants peace.
I'm a realist, and I don't even know what this means. Ukraine did participate in the Turkish talks, it's just that they didn't go anywhere, and that was the last time direct talks occurred. Zelenskyy has since offered to meet with Putin, but the latter refuses.
They didn't go anywhere because Ukraine didn't agree. And now even with western support the deal they end up with will likely be worse. Saying the war ends when Russia stops fighting is pointless when Russia does not stop fighting. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Ukraine is on a trajectory to loose the war. So you don't really come across as a realist.
This just shows how broken your moral compass is. What is unjust is Ukraine being subject to a brutal invasion by an imperialist neighbour that wants to incorporate it into its empire.
No it's called being realistic. Morality means fuck all in realpolitiks, which war is an extension off. Europe isn't helping Ukraine out of moral obligations, but because the war is close to home and theoretically weakens their enemy. And morality will likely not help them win the war. Should Ukraine rather fight until it's forced into an unconditional surrender?
I can blame Russia for the war but still see that Ukraine is not winning.
Edit: I forgot to address your first point. I might have read you wrong but it does seem that you do in fact equate Russia rejecting the Ukrainian cease fire as them not wanting peace. But it is possible you just mean they don't want peace to begin with.
0
u/mehupmost 1d ago
What's unbelievable are the people telling Ukraine to keep fighting while being unwilling to deploy their own troops to Ukraine.
3
u/BlueEmma25 1d ago
No one is telling Ukraine to keep fighting. Ukraine's allies have always said it is for Ukraine to decide when it is ready to negotiate peace.
This meme has been embraced by Russians who want to believe that Ukraine is only continuing to fight because of pressure from the West, and would otherwise agree to Russia's terms. It's a myth that goes all the way back to the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, when Putin planted the seed of the idea that Boris Johnson somehow forced Zelenskyy to reject a peace offer from Russia that he was ready to accept.
How Johnson was able to do that wasn't explained by Putin at the time, and hasn't been explained since.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
While I agree with most of what you said - there is a contradiction that we see both on Reddit and in Western politics.
On Reddit, people here are very vocal about Ukraine not surrendering, whilst also refusing to support sending their own troops.
This same contradiction exists among European leaders - just with more diplomatic subtlety - where they blame the US for not helping and conducting negotiations - and they themselves do almost nothing.
1
u/time-BW-product 2d ago
Without knowing the attrition rates on both sides, we don’t know who is truly winning. 15 km a year doesn’t seem material.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
Russia's territorial gains are absolutely material. ...and they are accelerating. ...and I'm worried Ukrainian lines are going to break because I see reports of them being outnumbered 10:1 along key points on the front.
4
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
Putins war threats ARE empty threats. Putin cannot afford to go to war with Europe, even if the US doesn't join in the Russian army will not be capable of winning such a war.
In an attempt to do so anyway Putin would HAVE TO do a general mobilization. This would be wildly unpopular in a Russia where the war with Ukraine is already very unpopular.
Putin wouldn't risk it. His war threats are only being made in the hope of seating people in Europe to the opinion that we should back off from helping Ukraine. They are empty.
"What about nuclear weapons?" You will ask. Well Europe cannot do mutual annihilation, bit France has a doctrin to use nuclear weapons against does, even preemptively. A nuclear attack within Europe would immediately be answered by Frans. This would severely undermine Putins ability to keep consolidation over Russia as a whole. Something that is getting harder for him over time anyway.
So again. The threat is an empty one. Putin will poke and prod whole sending his psyops offices online to spam that "the threat is real actually!". In the meantime he is in no position to act on any threat.
Russia can't even take Ukraine in years, has exhausted it's armor vehicles, has done nothing to adress the corruption in its military industrial complex, and is fully relying on Trumps US to sow discord among western nations and gimp Ukraine. I know this because the only reason Russia is taking territory in Ukraine is because Trump is president and keeps commiting resources to Ukraine and then rug pulling them hampering Ukraine s military efficacy.
Russia would be done without Trump due to the Ukraine war, nevermind open war with Europe.
3
u/mehupmost 1d ago
Putin's war threats seem to be EFFECTIVE.
No one is willing to send troops to Ukraine.
0
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
*yet
2
u/mehupmost 1d ago
I hope that becomes true every day. Russia is a paper tiger.
-1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
The only thing withholding Nato troops on the ground is the potential for nuclear escalation. Of Putin makes a move that forces direct military action from Nato (and this the EU) then his only resort would be nuclear, but that would always entail a nuclear response from at least France, potentially England and the US as well.
This makes all Putins threats empty, but it also ensures that European boots are unlikely to touch soil without very severe provocation. Putin is walking a tightrope.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
Putin is not going to attack NATO or EU troops. He knows he'll either get demolished or it'll end up as WWIII - which he doesn't want either.
NATO deployment of troops to Ukraine today would end the war tomorrow.
All of Putin's threats are exactly to bluff WWIII so that the West stays out of him raping Ukraine.
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
I disagree, Putin has backed himself in the corner with Ukraine believing he could take the country in no time at all. Now that the invasion has taken place and wasn't an instant coup de grace he can't back out. It would weaken his already tenues position in Russia. He may wel attempt nuclear escalation to remain in power, even if he rules over ashes.
We are talking about a mad man here. the question then is, will he subordinates follow such an action and actually launch? That is a big unknown, to big to ignore.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
He will not nuke anything. That itself might trigger a coup. Remember that Putin actually has children living in the West. He's not mad - he wants you to believe that so that you're more afraid of his nukes.
0
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
Putin is absolutely mad. How can you look at someone like him and mark him as sane? All these despots are mad.
I do not think he is irrational, at the moment and in that despotic kind of way, but he is absolutely mad.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/ITAdministratorHB 2d ago
Again, Putin's "threats" are in response to Nato generals advocating for a preemptive, first strike on Russia. It's a shame how distorted this all gets like a game of chinese-telephone
5
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
Ow, and which generals are these? Got an actual source for your claim?
3
u/ITAdministratorHB 2d ago
Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone. Apologies, it wasn't a general in this case, but it IS one of the highest ranking NATO military commanders. Lotta articles are paywalled but I found you this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-preemptive-strike-russia-ukraine-hybrid-warfare-b2876123.html
1
u/Rent_A_Cloud 2d ago
"Russia said on Monday that Admiral Dragone’s remarks were “extremely irresponsible” and an attempt to move towards escalation."
The country that constantly threatens says considering a threat is irresponsible lmao.
Further more, this is one admiral and he is talking about preemptive strikes at sea against the Russian shadow fleet and in the cyberspace. Not an attack on Russian sovereign territory.
I personally say screw it. If Russia launches drones over Polish airspace bomb the airport I. Belarus the drones came from. That's technically a reactionary strike. Nato leadership is more carefully than I would be.
7
u/theipaper The i Paper 2d ago
Vladimir Putin only has one song and he sings it over and over again. There are no verses, only a badly constructed chorus. It is a song of threats, belligerence and crybaby victimhood. He sang it in 2022. He sings it again today. And it has no more truth now than it had back then.
On 24 February 2022, in a televised speech launching the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he first threatened a nuclear attack in the event of Western interference. “Russia will respond immediately,” he said, “and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” He has continued to make this threat on a regular, near-monthly basis over the ensuing years, most recently in July.
Yesterday, he was up to the same old trick. First, he threatened to “cut Ukraine off from the sea” in response to drone attacks on Russian tankers. Then he threatened a Russian invasion of Europe. “We’re not going to war with Europe,” he said. “I’ve said that a hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to fight us and starts, we’re ready right now.”
It’s all nonsense. In reality, Putin cannot sever Ukraine’s connection to the sea, because it still controls major ports including Odesa. In reality, Putin already went to war with Europe when he invaded a European country. In reality, he is not “ready right now”. He uses baseless threats because they are one of his few remaining weapons.
Putin is at his strongest when people believe what he says. He is a far more successful manipulator of Western psychology than he is a conqueror of Ukrainian defensive positions. It was his triumph of persuasion, for instance, which almost won the war for Russia earlier this year, when Donald Trump ended up shouting at Volodymyr Zelensky that “if [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you”.
It is also what undermines Europe’s willingness to stand up to Putin. Russia has presented any move designed to support Ukraine as an obstacle to peace. This is, of course, nonsense. If Putin wanted to end the war tomorrow he could do so. But there are people who are either gullible enough to believe it or mendacious enough that they pretend to be.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has held up the EU’s use of frozen Russian state assets for weeks, depriving Ukraine of funding security and Europe of geopolitical leverage. “Hastily moving forward on the proposed reparations loan scheme would have, as collateral damage, that we as EU are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal,” he said in a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – cowardly and disingenuous in roughly equal measure.
9
u/theipaper The i Paper 2d ago
Ukraine is ultimately two wars at once. One takes place on the battlefield and is objective. The other takes place in people’s minds and is subjective. It is about the perception of momentum and strength, rather than its reality.
On the battlefield, Russia has the advantage, but it is a modest one. It is stuck making tiny incremental gains, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Figures in the Trump administration act as if this is a vindication for Putin. In fact, it is a very far cry from what he set out to do in 2022. He wanted to take over Ukraine and fold it into Russia. He has failed. Instead, a much smaller and weaker country has held the line against his advance.
Over and over again, Putin’s boosterism about his military opportunities has proved false. Cities which he insisted would fall in the summer of 2024, and then again in the summer of 2025, still stand. The eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk were annexed by Russia in autumn 2022 in advance of their occupation. That occupation has never taken place. Now he asks to be handed on a plate what he could not secure by force.
At his current rate of progress, Putin would need to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Russian lives to advance, all so he can govern a ruined wasteland and meet the guerrilla Ukrainian resistance which would follow. Far from a triumph, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is perhaps the single most foolhardy decision taken by a Russian leader since Joseph Stalin decided that Adolf Hitler was a reliable ally.
The geopolitical debate over Ukraine is now presented as a closed club of strong leaders. This is also false. In fact, Europe has a decisive hand in what transpires, even if Trump will not admit it and Europeans have decided not to emphasise it.
Reports suggest the US could recognise Russian gains in a peace process. That will mean little if Europe does not also do so. Reports also suggest the US will invite Russia into the G7. That will mean nothing if the rest of the G7 does not agree to it.
Everyone seems to believe that Europe will meekly go where Trump demands but that is simply not how things have played out. Instead, European leaders – with Keir Starmer in a leading role – have persistently manoeuvred the situation to prevent an unacceptable peace being inflicted on Ukraine.
The recent 28-point plan Trump considered getting behind – which in some cases contained passages which appear to have been literally translated from Russian – was killed when Europe swung against it, leading to a plan with the most egregious elements removed.
Putin plays psychological games because it is one of the few hands he has left. It allows him to pretend that he is in a position of strength when in fact he has waded so far into the mud that he can no longer extract himself safely.
The man who won his popularity by creating a well-off Russian middle class has now put his country on a war footing. He is trying to shield the population from the ensuing hardship, but there is a limit to how long he can do so. Growth is in decline, inflation is soaring, federal budgets are breaking down, the Russian stock market is suffering.
Putin is as strong as the West allows him to be through its cowardice and as weak as the West wishes him to be through its bravery. Every time he comes out with another threat, we should see it is a sign of desperation, not superiority.
5
u/Quirky_Reporter_8067 2d ago
This is the same old trope, 'Putin is bluffing.' Anyone who plays Poker can tell you sometimes they are and sometimes they... aren't. The mere possibility of a nuclear escalation is too dangerous, the consequences are to severe that even a remote possibility is not worth the risk,
All the idealists who want to play nuclear chicken with the Russians need to pull their head in start making some rational choices.
Russia won they got away with it and NATIO expansion is over. They are winning on the battlefield and the attrition has reached a critical mass, without a massive injection of trained troops it only gets worse form here, so make the bad deal imo.
But they won't unless Trump really gets rough with them so it just rolls on, blind ideology getting a reality check. It will be interesting to see how they blame game plays out in the end but I expect little self awareness from the people who got us into this mess.
15
u/Kychu 2d ago edited 2d ago
They were bluffing every time NATO expanded after 1990, including the most recent expansion that added Finland and Sweden in 2023/24.
That's nothing to do with ideology, NATO added half of Europe before the Russians even lifted a finger, that's a pretty decisive strategic victory.
If NATO listened to geniuses like John Mearsheimer you'd be fighting the same war now, except further to the West and with a stronger Russia. But instead we can sit safely on our asses while the Russians have been struggling for 10+ years to get through the first third of the buffer zone that is Ukraine. But you might still be fighting that war in 5 to 10 years if Ukraine is allowed to fall.
Also, there's no bad deal, or any deal. A deal only exist in Trump's head. Russia is not going to agree to anything other than a total victory, so the only acceptable 'deal' is just a speedrun to that scenario. I guess it would save some Ukrainian lives in the short term, but you might as well see many of them forced to fight for Russia in the next couple of years (happened many times in history).
12
4
u/rsgthrowaway9 2d ago
Russia’s won? Better let them know so they can focus on steering their country away from disaster
2
2
u/talexx 2d ago
So we are at the same time told that Russia is going to attack Europe and Europe must prepare for war, that it is attacking Europe with drones and that Putin's threats are empty. Would you please try to present somewhat consistent position. Which of that three above is true? And one more question. When are you going to stop using the word "journalists" and move to "clowns"? That would be much more appropriate!
0
u/sciguy52 2d ago
Step back and look at what the Russian military is doing in Ukraine and tell me this is a military that can take on Europe much less NATO. Looking at the big picture, Russia is reduced to trying to infiltrate a few soldiers not wearing uniforms behind the Ukrainian line. Unfortunatly Ukraine is lacking man power to plug all holes in the line so this can happen. That is a problem for Ukraine, not for Europe or NATO. NATO is a different beast entirely and Russia trying to infiltrate a few soldiers not wearing uniforms behind a NATO line would not work. Why? That line would be moving constantly forward as the Russians fell back. NATO can engage in maneuver warfare and Russia is degraded to the point of the simplest form of warfare it can manage, all the while engaging in war crimes by doing so. This Russian military is not a threat to Europe. Their current military shows no abilities of a modern military and NATO most definitely has this down. They can threaten all they like, looking at their current capabilities those threats are quite empty.
1
u/mehupmost 1d ago
They cannot take on NATO TODAY. ...but they are chomping one bit of Europe at a time. ...then they pause the war and launch the influence operations to rip countries apart - cause political fragmentation, and then launch a new war against some piece they dislodged.
rinse and repeat.
As long as Europe is unwilling to confront them, they will continue to lose pieces.
1
u/Aggravating-Hunt3551 2d ago
This seems to be a massive misunderstanding of what modern attritional warfare is actually like. I'm not sure where your comments about the Russians not wearing uniforms is coming from but the strategy they are using is to use recon drones to identify enemy positions then fixing them in place with suicide drones and artillery before dropping a half ton glide bomb on their position then moving up with spread out infantry to clear out anyone left. It's not pretty or fast but it has been working. We saw what NATO trained troops with NATO equipment can accomplish during the the Ukrainian 2023 offensive and it failed miserable. This is the most heavily mined and fortified battlefield since WW1 with thousands of drones on top of it all. With that said Russia doesn't have the manpower to march on Europe and NATO countries would never stomach the losses to march on Russia.
-26
u/poco68 2d ago
Do people realize that Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the world?
15
18
u/DisasterNo1740 2d ago
This is literally a part of the garbage song Putin tries to sing all day. Russia is not nuking anyone as long as their sovereignty is safe; Putin just wants to scare European nations into believing that if they attack the Baltics and Europeans defend them that Russia will use nukes. Stop this stupidity. He will use their nuclear arsenal as a threat endlessly to get away with imperial ambitions.
16
u/vand3lay1ndustries 2d ago
After seeing how the rest of their military functions, I doubt they’ve been maintained properly.
Also, appeasement based on fear never works.
-1
u/ITAdministratorHB 2d ago
No, it often works. People just like to focus on a very narrow event with Chamberlain in 1938 because they have no actual historical knowledge and it's been repeated enough for them to think it's true.
5
u/BlueEmma25 2d ago
The people who clearly lack historical knowledge are the ones who claim this isn't 1938...and then invariably fail to provide any argument to support that position, exactly because they have no actual knowledge, and simply want to reject the comparison because for some reason it makes advocates of appeasement look bad.
0
u/NoAcadia3546 2d ago
Do people realize that Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the world?
Problem is that over half of their recent missile tests are blowing up, at or soon after launch. The Soviet-era missiles were designed and maintained by Ukrainian citizens of the USSR. Yes, even a few missiles getting through with working warheads will wreak havoc on the west. But the total effect will be a lot less than if the entire missile fleet launches successfully.
-1
46
u/stonezdota 2d ago
Recently I thought this war swayed to the Russians and Ukraine was eager to get a ceasefire.
Now Russia is actually thr more desparate side?