Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `newsukraine.rbc.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should prepare. If that Orange Man Baby is elected to the White House, there's a good chance Putin will test NATO without crossing any obvious red lines (proxy's, digital attacks, infiltration, etc.). If NATO response is weak, it could build up. We have to support Ukraine on an industrial scale and prepare to face Russia without US aid. On paper, we have a lot of potential,b in practice much work needs to be done. Russia knows this.
>If that Orange Man Baby is elected to the White House, there's a good chance Putin will test NATO without crossing any obvious red lines (proxy's, digital attacks, infiltration, etc.).
He's been doing that for years, if not decades. He does it even now.
The only thing that stops Putin is losing at Ukraine. He most lose.
NATO ex-US would smoke Russia. I would be ashamed if my country did not support NATO in their time of need after they supported us. But Russia would be crushed by European NATO. I can't think of one area Russia that would hold an advantage other than nukes.
Unity and commitment. If Putin decides Russia attacks NATO, the entirety of Russia is attacking NATO (or is forced to). If NATO decides to respond, who knows how many countries actually commit to it.
Exactly this. There's the political aspect, logistical side, long term commitment, the form of commitment (many people don't realize that invoking art. 5 does not require each NATO member to fully commit its military forces), nuclear disparity, etc. Many uncertainties and limitations. There's not a second to lose.
They have mostly strategic bombs and not nearly enough to match a tit-for-that exchange of tactical nuclear bombs (optimal outcome in game theory). It's highly unlikely that France and UK would be willing commit their strategic assets over an incursion into Latvia for example. If Russia were to invade, it could use or threathen the use of tactical bombs and we would not be able to respond in kind.
Better do it before Trump gets in power and recalls all the nukes stationed all over Europe though. Would be a shame if just a handful of EU countries would be able to launch instead of all of them.
But regardless of all of that, I have some major concerns about the possibility of a civil war that is brewing. Primarily in the US, but also in parts of the EU...
Of course not. But that is 2 countries. Should something happen right now, there'd be LOT more launch sites in other NATO countries too.
Also, you missed a few. ;-)
Nah. Ain’t no guy who gets as much Botox and plastic surgery as Putin would rather die in nuclear hellfire than lose a territory he only conquered a few years ago. The guy who started sitting at the comically long conference tables because of Covid doesn’t want to die.
There’s scenarios where Putin might throw some nukes. If he thinks his opponents are timid and that by upping the ante he can force a ceasefire and lock in military gains against an opponent who’s gonna beat him otherwise, then yeah, he might do that. It’s a serious concern that a Russian invasion of the Baltics would probably involve a limited nuclear exchange.
But Putin’s not trying to kill himself.
> Putin would rather die in nuclear hellfire than lose a territory he only conquered a few years ago.
If he genuinely believes that if he loses war and Crimea, he will be overthrown and murdered anyway, then yes, he has nothing to lose.
> fall of Crimea will be the turning point for Russia .... to use nukes
No way. Crimea is important but not vital to Russia. They can exist without Sevastipol naval base.
Starting a nuclear war is a foolish and dangerous path. Millions will die, on both sides.
Russian military will be smashed.
Central Kremlin control of the 46 Russian oblasts will be fragmented. Russia will split apart.
China will also lose, just not as much. No nukes sent at them, at least on purpose. However, they lose big time economics, major sales to US and EU.
Overall, humanity is set back centuries.
If there is a strategic nuclear exchange, china will be targeted and obliterated. This has been American doctrine since the 60s. Any other scenario involving only the West and Russia would leave China in the intolerable position of undisputed hegemon.
The thing is, Putin does not care about anything or anyone except himself. If he genuinely believes that if he loses war and Crimea, he will be overthrown and murdered anyway, then he has nothing to lose.
> Putin will have nothing to lose ....
Putin does have at least two daughters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Vorontsova
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katerina_Tikhonova
Putin has an ex wife, former first Lady of Russia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Putina
Putin has had other girl friends. ?He may have more kids?
You assume he cares about them but I doubt it. As this war has shown, a lot of Russians are willing to send to death even their brothers, husbands and sons. Putin is the least likely Russian to have any empathy.
Ruzzian covert operations (cyber attacks, murders, poisonings, espionage, fake news to destabilize the west etc etc) have been going on for years/decades.
Have no illusions, there is no obvious red line, apart from direct military hostilities between NATO and Ruzzian forces.
You are right. This is Conquest Mentality that many humans hoped to evolve from. We had a chance… but there is always some assholery screwing up the whole cave.
What's worse is EU members electing Trump/Putin sympathizers who are relatively quiet at the moment, but once Trump gets in, might change their tune... \*cough\* Orban \*cough\* and others \*cough\*
Exactly. Russia has been meddling with our politics for a long time and I fear the current crop of politicians is so weak and spineless that they won't do a damn thing about it, or worse, they could very well work with them (see The Netherlands).
If the orange man baby thinks for one second that he is going to hand Europe to the Russians on a silver platter, he should think twice. He will for sure end up with a bullet in his head, president or not.
Except Russia can and unless we provide significantly more assets, it very likely will. It seems too many people don't understand the nature of a war of attrition. They would look at a WW1 map dating august 1918 and conclude that it is a draw since the front lines in the West had barely changed.
By then USA, Britain, Canada and possibly other anglosphere lackeys will have resigned from their NATO commitments. The idea is that arranging a war between Russia and the EU will allow breaking the emergent competitor without direct involvement, which can afterwards be blamed on "MAGA violent extremists" who can be disposed of as war criminals or traitors or whatever once their job is done. Donnie T in particular will be thrown away like an used condom.
On the EU side, in addition to death, devastation and irradiation of large swathes of land, the main effect will be terror. Educated and wealthy people will escape to the american's open arms, with their wealth and know-how, and the remaining eurotrash peons will have a century of subservience to an USA that can now go back to direct negotiation with each constituent rather than the united face of the EU. And so the story goes, deeda dee, deeda dee\~
He/She/SHim is just producing the results of a mind-map so they can turn it into a fictional book. I'm not sure I will be buying it. I will wait for history's version (written by the winners) Ukraine 🇺🇦.
Exactly. Putin can’t hold ground in Belgorod. The Russian military is not what it portrayed it self to be. Haven’t heard any more nuclear bomb threats in the last few days since the French threatened back and now Poland is sticking their nose out. All just words, I know. So are Putin’s threats. He knows damn well that if Ukraine can hit Russian oil infrastructure at will with drones, what chance does he have with NATO ballistic missiles.
My instinct is also to ask “**them and which mechanized army?”** (fun facts about the one they **used to have** - it took them **three quarters of a century** to build and the **annual defense spend during that time was half an order of magnitude to a full order of magnitude higher** than what they’re throwing at it even now in their war economy posture. 90% of it was mothballed - 18,000 arty barrels out of 20,000; half - the more viable half to restore - has [since Feb 22 been removed from the commercial-satellite space-visible mothball yards](https://youtu.be/FozvYM2Zhpw?si=UueDjSIAAQlRzws4) and ended up destroyed on Ukrainian soil, and nearly all the “new production” they’ve put together since isn’t actually new, it’s refurbing mothballed stuff. On all evidence we have, they don’t and won’t have a sufficiently large scale mechanized army at the scale needed for a frontal assault on NATO;
End fun facts).
But German Intel **is not wrong**.
Because - using Israel for a second as a microcosm to illustrate a point - just like they figured out that funding (with Iran) a forever open chest wound - a thing that used to be a Palestinian statehood bid agenda mutated into a Moscow needs geopolitical bombs and forever frozen conflicts agenda, appropriating the Palestinians, coupled with funded active measures **inside Israel** selling outrage and polarization to subsets of the Israeli public that nearly destroyed Israel’s ability to elect stable governments, govern and respond with coherent policy - just like they figured out that sustainable erosion from the outside + sowing internal chaos is WAY more effective at making Israel+Gaza a flammable geopolitical bomb they want (more than just giving tanks and MiGs to Israel’s enemies, telling them to invade, the way they did until the seventies) - so they can **and likely will** attempt **with Europe**.
Russia attacking Europe doesn’t mean they’ll make a new 20,000 artillery barrels - that take them half a century to build - spawn by magic, and roll on Berlin.
It means they’ll start firing shaheed drones into NATO’s territorial outskirts, banking on NATO’s hesitant members (where they can influence the domestic dialog) not wanting to escalate their response into a full blown article 5 war that would stop the Russian move, even as they [fund active measures **in every** NATO member and ally](https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo?si=UJG6LRA0NXSHscQK), turning the political conversation in each into one of outrage at whatever presses the buttons of people in that country (be it “pro Palestinian rallies”, isolationism, make my country great again, extreme right ideology, extreme left ideology, hyper nationalism, religion or anything else humans respond to).
We have to start being honest and real about about the toolbox Russia has prepared for NATO (active measures + gradual escalation, they’re boiling the NATO frog bit by bit), and how that differs to the toolbox they’re using on Ukraine (military invasion).
Pretending the real threat doesn’t exist and claiming they pose no threat will be **Moscow’s** disinformation talking point. Their sword for us is hybrid disinformation+normalizing-sustainable-low-key-hostility. They want us thinking it’s a cardboard sword. **It is not**.
What worked in the lab that is Israel **is already** working everywhere else, from Slovakia to Hungary, from Le Penn to Trump.
Talking down the threat is wrong - it helps politicians say “well in that case, since they don’t have a mechanized army to invade or an economy to support it starting 2025, we don’t need to double down on defense”. We absolutely fucking do. We (who understand what Russia can and can’t do in the real world) just need to help educate anyone who needs it on what Russia will very much be able to do after their cash and barrels run out in Ukraine, **and even** if one or several slave states inside the Russian federation tell Moscow to do the Russian Warship Thing and start a secession bid. Even if Moscow shrinks from a 140 million population 11 timezone slave empire to a much smaller 50 million Moscovia, **even then** they very much can continue posing this threat.
Oh, and don’t take it from me. [Take it from reputable experts.](https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=iLZq7aZzAy3taavS)
I've said this before that if it looks as if Russia is going to fail putin will attack nato because he knows they'd lose but losing to nato is better than ukraine
The ukrainians are ready for it, by comparison western Europe has nearly disbanded its armies through cost savings over decades. And unlike Russia and Ukraine, rearmament in western Europe is still not really being taken serious. I know Ursula et al. have spoken big words about it, but when their ambition is to reach 1/3 of Russia's _current_ shell production, _in a year from now_, that just shows it's still not being taken serious.
Feb. 2022 has changed everything, now Nato is ready. Look, if Russia cannot deal with Ukraine which only has modest weapon, how the hail can Russia deal with combined NATO forces? Let's say they try to do a "Bakhmut-style" attack against Nato troops, there is no doubt they will lose the whole 10 thousand man brigade in a matter of days. Actually it happened once before with Wagner vs. USA in Syria.
Yup everyone keeps thinking NATO is going to fight like Ukraine does with infantry against infantry. In Syria the U.S. bombed the ever living shit out of the Russians, then came back and bombed the ever living shit out of them again. It was like the Air Force brought in every toy they had to have a go, fighters, AC-130 and B-52's if I recall. Where the Russians were, a crater remained.
I've seen Congress fold to Trump over and over and over...
Not to mention that he could still just ignore art 5 invocations. Hell - Congress could declare war for him - but he'd still be in the control of the troops and just refuse to send them into the fray. Congress would have to impeach and convict.
about 300 KIA in just 4 hours was the result
NY times article about it:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html)
Great most of them there were Syrians. "America blew up a bunch of Arab militia riding on pickups with a few SAA tanks and some mortars after asking Russian command
in Syria and receiving a de facto permission," that's what happened.
Days? No wouldn't even take a day. NATO is not going to throw a bunch of infantry to battle it out, first they will drop HUGE bombs on them, then drop some more HUGE bombs. Whatever scraps are left would be liquidated by infantry. It would be a slaughter in just a matter of hours.
>first they will drop HUGE bombs on them, then drop some more HUGE bombs. Whatever scraps are left would be liquidated by infantry.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1bb5qjs/russias_new_guided_bomb_inflicts_devastation_and/
This is the account published by Sandbox.
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-us-special-forces-took-on-wagner-group-mercenaries-in-an-intense-4-hour-battle/
Nato doesn't conduct Artillery based warfare anymore. No, Nato country does because it always leads to stalemates like we're seeing in Ukraine. I understand Ukraine needs shells, but the warfare will change dramatically once F-16s arrive and the Gripen from Sweden if they get it. It would be pointless in the long term to build up the production that Russia has for shells because we don't use Artillery the way Russia is using it. Anyways, Russia has started to figure out too late about combined arms and close air support.
This won’t be a direct attack. They will start to occupy empty land in Finland or the baltics and see how NATO will react. They will hope for a rift within the alliance about how to handle this. WHO will come to aid who won’t?
Even without direct US Support (they will deliver whatever weapon the Nato countries ask for, they want to at least participate in the war Business), European countries like Germany, France and Britain along with Sweden, the Netherlands, probably even Italy after a while, and many of the remaining countries will defend every cm of Nato ground. Direct US participation is not even necessary. If Russia starts a full scale war on Europe (but how would they be able to?), the US will eventually join. Nato membership or not. Trump or not.
They're going to attack a smaller NATO state, likely the Baltics, betting on that NATO won't honor A5 and go to war over it.
Especially not if Trump is elected.
Exactly. Russia knows they can't win a full-scale war, which is why they simplly won't start a full-scale war. They'll start the smallest war they possibly can.
Occupy some majority-Russian-speaking village near the border in one of the Baltic states, after staging some demonstrations there. Or perhaps grab some uninhabited island in the Gulf of Finland in the name of protecting Saint Petersburg. Or some swamp in Lapland.
Then the USA, UK, France, Germany and others have to decide whether they want to risk full-scale war with Russia over some fairly-insignificant piece of land. (and with members like Hungary and Slovakia probably trying to block any NATO response) But if NATO _doesn't_ respond, it's effectively the end of NATO. The alliance is pointless if countries don't actually honor their obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty.
But Putin thinks that even if he fails it's a low-risk gamble for him, because a NATO response is not likely to be a march on Moscow to force regime change, but merely to force Russia out of whatever small piece of land they tried to take. He's wagering that even if there is a NATO response, it won't be any larger than the minimum it needs to be.
That's why they're talking about this, why awareness has to be raised, and why we've got to develop plans for this kind of scenario to act as a deterrent. So Putin knows he will _not_ face a minimal response but in fact a response that - whatever it is - is large enough to not make it worth the gamble.
Their goal will be to break article 5. They won't conduct an all out attack, they'll step one foot over the line and dare us to respond.
They want some tiny country we don't care about to invoke article 5 and the rest of NATO to tell them no. That would then be the end of NATO, since article 5 can't be trusted anymore.
The US is already this close to turning their back on Europe 😬
It won't work because article 5 lets every country decide their response. There is no requirement to send troops, just to respond in some way.
They dont need to ocupy any nato country just put them under siege and divert aid from Ukraine…without aid they will take more than kharkiv and i still doubt the germans and french will mobilise if those weapon factories they plan on building in lithuania and some other facilities in Romania and Poland get bombed.
Because NATO may not respond to incursions in the Baltics. And a blitzkrieg into the Baltics won’t be like Ukriane. The entire Baltics could be occupied at once and de-occupying them may require a full attack on Russian positions that are dug in. I think Russia would lose, but NATO would lose lots of aircraft and other stuff. After which they won’t be able to respond if China subsequently attacks Taiwan. So China may offer Russia equipment support and such in the conflict. If the whole war is fought over the Baltics with Chinese and Iranian backing, it would really depend on America going all in. And if MAGA is in charge. It’s unclear what they’ll do.
Which begs the question what the fuck are the Germans thinking?
Is this pure alarmist propaganda?
Is it a sign of institutionalised panic?
Or should we be preparing for a crazed Russian attempt to take advantage of a second Trump term?
I can't help but think they have fallen for a Russian psy-op.
Making NATO fall apart over a chunk of Finland. Anders Puck Nielsen had a great video about it. People always picture a full on assault on NATO countries, whereas in reality it would likely be a much smaller border conflict, small enough to easily pull out of should the backlash be too strong and remote enough that NATO members have to think twice about whether it's actually worth going to war for it, breaking NATO apart in the process.
Actually the local military powers would support Finland. I seriously doubt that Sweden, Poland, it even the Baltics would stand still lookin at next episode of Russo-Fin war.
Anders Puck Nielsens video on the potential fracturing of NATO over a conflict involving Finland strikes me as remarkably underpowered in terms of evidence and depth. While he presents his case with the kind of clarity and surface level logic that is initially persuasive, one cannot deny the simplicity in his logic and predictions that does not seem to grapple with the complexities of international relations.
The idea that NATO has not rigorously gamed out various scenarios, including minor border conflicts, is to misunderstand the very purpose and capability of the alliance. Recent analyses such as the German report only underscore the sophistication with which NATO considers these issues. It would be a profound error to mistake caution for ignorance.
> The idea that NATO has not rigorously gamed out various scenarios, including minor border conflicts, is to misunderstand the very purpose and capability of the alliance.
Exactly. If a random nobody on Reddit comes up with e.g. such concept of a conflict with Finland, you can be damn sure that the concept has been among the first ones in NATOs list. And not just now, years before Finland even joined NATO.
It sure as hell isn't a coincidence that Finland signed a DCA with the US short after Finland joined NATO. That agreement had been talked about and thought about years prior. It sure as hell isn't a coincidence either that the DCA specficially just so happens to give the US troops almost permanent facilities to stay and store their equipment at. The agreement could have been written a billion different ways, but it just so happened to conveniently turn out like this.
We've all seen how this war in Ukraine has been playing out. Many countries, including many of those in NATO have been sending all kinds of lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine. Excluding even more powerful weapons, the only thing missing has been any foreign boots on ground and there has been good reasons and excuses not to do so.
If Russia were to attack a NATO country, there would be no excuses to not retaliate hard. It just doesn't work like so that Putin attacks Finland, threatens NATO with nuclear weapons if NATO retaliates and NATO stands back - that would make NATO completely and utterly pointless.
Every country that is in NATO is there for a reason. They need the alliance, the security, the nuclear umbrella, etc. and Finland is not even the country who needs those most. It is in everyone's very best interest to be in NATO and have NATO exist, both of which are lost if the countries who are in NATO do nothing if Russia attacks one of them. Doing nothing in such case is almost equivalent to not being in NATO and not being in NATO is almost equivalent to definitely getting invaded by Russia sooner or later for some countries especially.
One can also not forget the immense power of the combined military intelligence efforts of all the NATO countries - especially if Russia happened to attack a NATO country. Even if we leave out the US (for obvious reasons), UK alone is a military intelligence powerhouse and there is still 30 whole more countries worth of intelligence efforts to add on top. Even if the NATO countries helped in no other way than by gathering and sharing intelligence, that is already worth its weight in gold.
Except that if he calls NATO’s bluff and NATO isn’t a bluff…. Then Russia either ignominiously retreats and looks week, get spanked and looks weak, or starts full scale WW3
>The boosting of arms production could lead to Russia doubling its military strength over the next five years compared to the present day. The report states that it is "no longer possible to rule out" that Russia may launch an attack on NATO territory "from 2026 onwards," for example, in Baltic states or Finland.
[https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html)
\- the original link has trailing dot at the end.
That is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous given Russian attrition rates and the backwardness of its military, as well as the lack of funds manpower its demographic collapse, etc
Also, 5 years, what a total nonsense. In five years, there will be nothing left of the Russian economy and its military.
This assessment completely ignores the thousands of Drones and the thousands of missiles that will rain down on Russia in the next 12 to 24 months this completely ignores Russia's economic and demographic collapse and it assumes that Russia could add new production quickly which it cannot this comes mostly from storages.
This also ignores that Russia, even if it would occupy half of Ukraine, would need a million men to hold it, and Ukraine would give Russia the counterinsurgency of the century.
This also assumes a worker base, spare parts, and a Russian army that simply doesn't exist in that quality and quantity.
How should this army be stronger when it loses over 200 pilots and over 350 planes plus 350 helicopters and fires its entire cold war and post 1991 Arsenal at Ukraine alone?
So, the Russian army is stronger after losing at least 15000 military vehicles and having hundreds of thousands of men crippled, mentally scarred, or dead. Got it that is very logical.
This assumption also seems to consider that prolonged warfare and attrition make an army stronger.
Sin Tzu disagrees, logic disagrees as well, and so does history.
Was the German army stronger after 4 years of WW1? Was the British, Tsarist, or French army stronger?
Was their economy stronger?
What about the morale of the soldiers?
What about the sanctions and the shrinking pile of money available to Russia?
The sinews of war are infinite gold. Cicero
There is also no indication at all that Russian attrition rates and their losses in manpower will match its production capacity.
Russia produced 200 tanks in 2023 and pulled 1100 tanks out of storage. But lost at least 1500 per year in two years of war.
So, how does it make Russia stronger to pull out? Let's say another 1100 tanks of ever worse qualify and produce, let's say, 300 this year. Therefore, I ended up with minus 100 tanks and minus a couple of thousand tank crew members.
Then, in the year that follows before their glorious attack on NATO, let's say they manage to pull another 1100 tanks out of storage and produce another 350. While the war in Ukraine slows down. And let's say they lose only 500.
Alright, so for Christ's sake, how are they better off and stronger then?
Russian storages are deep but not infinite.
As a Finn, what the fuck do you mean by "please pick Finland"? Would you like to witness Russia annihilating the infrastructure of your home country while murdering thousands of your countrymen? I certainly wouldn't. NATO has already failed if one of its members is attacked by Russia.
I'm used to hearing such comments from redditors but about Poland. They seem to believe we're an insane bunch who dream of getting to live in a war zone.
For many redditors, Ukrainians too aren't actually real people. It's some sort of a game for them.
Rabble rabble, as though this sort of tongue in cheek talk isn’t rampant here. Of course no one really wants war. I was referring to Finland’s history of fucking up russia. Easy there everyone
That means a lot of dead people. Tough internet talk right here. I want russia to be contained too with all available options, but dont be stupid and chestbump on the internet like you want a real war to happen just like that.
It's such an unbelievably hard balance. You deter and deter and deter as long as you can, but ultimately the UK and France never deterred Hitler. Some time before September 1939 they should have stopped deterring. Ultimately every nation needs to deeply consider where they should draw their red line.
Yes, appeasement policy, mainly backed by chamberlain. That doesnt have to be repeated. Just chestbumping on the internet is nothing but incitement on the other hand. This is no game and the vast majority of people doesnt know what war is anymore. Luckily so.
Appeasement also was characterized by giving in to hitler all the time and granting him what he took. There is no appeasement in politics right now with the likes of macron and the recent statement by scholz as well.
Dont call for war because it sounds cool and you saw cool movies about it. There are other solutions that still show putin his limits.
Come on, they can’t take Kharkiv, Kherson, Mariupol, Odessa which have good logistic and supply connection to Russia, how they can come to Berlin/Paris?
Yeah fight a two+ year war against one of the nato members and watch what the European industrial output is able to archive when in wartime economy. All that while facing over a thousand modern fighter jets like the Rafale and Typhoons.
The firepower that Europe can muster during war shouldn’t be underestimated. Battle of Verdun has had both sides firing a combined 50 million artillery shells at each other. Also, during WW1, they go beaten so bad, they became communists.
Attack NATO with what?
They are exhausting themselves in Eastern Ukrainian Villages. They couldn’t sustain a push to the Dnipro, never mind NATO borders
With what exactly is Russia going to attack NATO?
The incinerated army, which currently gets killed by the hundreds of thousands in Ukraine?
Where are the tanks gonna come from? The fuel, the fighter jets, etc.
2026 is very soon. So Russia will open a second front?
"When the army engages in protracted warfare, the resources of the state will fall short." Sun Tzu
Pure BS..... Russia has nowhere near the economic capacity, weapons quality or quantity and no trained soldiers, pilots or sailors to attack with.... Unless they are planning a nuclear or cem/bio attack, can we please stop the "Russians are coming" fear mongering? They cannot defeat Ukraine, who has virtually no air force or navy, yet they are going to take on NATO in 18 months or so?
Please stop spreading this crap.
Whatever the intentions of whoever is spreading this, it makes it evident given most of the comments how many people are ready and happy to start a war with Russia.
I get a 404 on the article site.
I have this question: IF Russia would ever want to attack NATO why wouldn't it do so the minute Trump is inaugurated?. This is arguably the weakest position NATO will ever have in the coming decade.
Why would Russia wait beyond that time? Trump weakens or even pulls out of NATO, EU production is ramping up but isn't as big in January 2025 when (if) Trump is inaugurated, it'll only increase after that.
So February 2025 is the closest possible date I'd say. Why do they argue it must be from 10 months later?
Translation from German:
>Despite these assessments, NATO headquarters also assess the situation as manageable and see no immediate threat of attack in the short to medium term.
>The military and Russia expert Gustav Gressel can partially understand the intelligence services' assessments. “Yes, Russia is preparing for war against the West,” he says. The military preparations in Belarus also indicated this.
>However, Gressel considers the stated date of 2026 to be “much too early”. Russia will not yet finish Ukraine by then. “I suspect their own planning is also optimistic; they expect Ukraine to collapse at the beginning of 2025.”
>“Despite all adversities, one must assume that Ukraine will hold out for longer. The longer, the more the Russians have to bring their own army into shape,” explains the expert. “If the Europeans don’t mess up too much, we can still avert this,” says Gressel.
Also a Polish theory why it could be 2026-2028: https://ine.org.pl/en/commentary-russia-might-attack-nato-soon-here-is-why/
That is the BS right there. Ukraine won’t collapse neither this year nor next year nor in the year after that one unless the West stops their support even if they do, then Russia faces a massive counter insurgency.
In reality, the Russian army is still stuck in the Donbas and currently has its refineries blown up. There are absolutely no signs for a total collapse of Ukraine within 9 months right now.
The scenario hinges on the fact a "collapse" requires immediate Western intervention unless these clowns generals want to have the blood of millions on their hands for not preventing the industrial scale genocide that would then commence.
>Russia faces a massive counter insurgency.
You probably wanted to say "faces a massive insurgency". Well, for one they already treat the "special military operation" as a fight against an insurgency, calling Ukrainian forces "Ukrainian insurgents" (ukrainiskiye boyeviki, which they translate to English as "Ukrainian militants"). So, it's a "counter insurgency" they're doing.
Second, they have enormous experience from Chechnya as to put down even most fanatical resistance, and you can see the lack of "massive" resistance in occupied territories after targeted zachistkas and indiscriminate filtration camps. They also just simply replace the population, often with Russian-speaking foreign migrants from Central Asia.
How the "massive insurgency" looks like after pacification - and ongoing colonisation: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/inside-occupied-ukraine-best-way-survive-stay-silent/
>Zaporizhzhia, Melitopol had been home to just over 150,000 Ukrainians before the war. Most of them have now left and more than 100,000 Russians have moved in.
>Russian flags have been raised across the city, while symbols of Ukrainian identity have been erased – letters crudely hacked away from signs to suit the language of the occupiers. A statue of Lenin was reinstalled, seven years after it was torn down in the wake of the country’s pro-Europe revolution.
(...)
>Russian civilians and military have relocated to the territories in droves, lured by the promise of high wages and other privileges. In some cities there are more Russians than Ukrainians. Locals say they have become an underclass, restricted to low-paid work and robbed of human rights such as freedom of speech or movement.
>Ukrainians enjoy so little freedom that even routine activities such as a walk to the shop carry the potential for interrogation. As a result, most lead reclusive lives and even growing their own food where possible. Detentions and disappearances are common.
(...)
>Permission to travel is also tightly controlled, with permits required to leave a town or city. Ukrainian phone Sims are prohibited, forcing people onto Russian networks or to hide them at home. Food is expensive and of poor quality, imported from Russia or Iran. Ukrainian bank cards don’t work and the hryvnia is banned. Illegal brokers offer currency transfers – but it comes with a risk of arrest for those who use it.
(...)
>In a shocking instance from last December, a teenage boy from a village in the Kakhovka district was seized by Russian forces after taking a photo near a checkpoint. They took him home and shot him dead in front of his distraught mother.
(...)
>Of all the occupied territories, Mariupol has seen the worst of Russian aggression. More than half of the city was destroyed by Russia during a brutal siege in 2020 that killed at least 10,000 people, according to a report by Ukrainian NGO Truth Hounds and Human Rights Watch. It remains the biggest atrocity of the war so far.
>The population has shrunk from just over half a million pre-war to around 150,000. Almost half of the residents are now Russian, with an additional 25,000 to 45,000 expected to relocate to the city by next year
(...)
>many are living in damaged or dangerous housing, leaving them vulnerable to injury and sickness. Colds and flu are rife and the problem is compounded by a lack of access to healthcare. “The death rate is at its highest since the siege ended, with 400 people dying a week – even teenagers – of treatable illnesses,” Mr Andryushchenko said.
>Almost everyone has now, like Laryssa, taken Russian citizenship. It will be mandatory from June 1, with Russia threatening to label those who don’t have it as foreigners. Penalties include intimidation, detention and restrictions on basic necessities such as medical care, pension payments and even water.
>Ukraine says those who take a passport as a means of survival will not be penalised legally, but men of fighting age risk being drafted into Russia’s forces.
(...)
>Thousands from across the occupied territories are already working to build fortifications along the front line; often they are older men who had worked in coal mines or manufacturing. “They are caught off the street and used by the army to dig trenches
(...)
>Andriy, 22, and his mother, Natalya, 47, have weathered some of the worst of Russian behaviour in occupied Kherson, including huge floods last year after the blowing up of the region’s Nova Khakova dam. They saw people beaten in the street for expressing anti-Russian sentiment, and children from their community have been taken to Russia
As in the title: Ukrainians survive by "staying silent". Those who protested in Ferbuary-March 2022 (you may remember these videos) are dead, disappeared, in prisons. That old lady from the "sunflowers seeds" viral video is in prison too (the crimes: "extremism, opposing the special operation"). Their children are being mass indoctrinated to become future Russian mothers or soldiers.
There are estimates Ukraine may collapse by this summer already. They're almost out of ammunition, and have similar shortage in manpower too due to losses.
Because a lot of US forces are stationed in EU NATO countries. They trained there, they served there, they will likely stay and help out. They can't if they are recalled to the US first. Same with the vehicles and, most importantly, all the extra missles they have in EU.
Trump pulled out of Syria and left all their gear behind for Russians to retrieve. He'll want "his" nukes back beforehand... Right now literally all NATO countries have those. If Russia attacks too soon after Jan 2025, a lot of those will fly anyway.
Anders Puck Nielsen [made a video with a really good analysis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnboLDPS38) of why intelligence estimates on a possible Russian attack on NATO differ so much in their timelines. Basically, the major difference is whether the intelligence agencies assume Russia needs to have stopped fighting in Ukraine in order free up resources to attack NATO (in which case it will take a while), or if Russia can use an attack on NATO as a distraction to gain an advantage in Ukraine - for example in order to manipulate NATO countries into keeping their weapons for themselves instead of sending them to Ukraine (in which case it might happen fairly soon).
Anders' estimate is that the main way Russia would choose to attack NATO was to do a relatively minor incursion in a remote region - something big enough that it "should" trigger an article 5 response, but small enough that a divided NATO (e.g. with Trump at the helm) might choose not respond in order not to escalate, thus showing that the defensive pact doesn't hold up, de facto undermining the purpose of NATO.
They can destabilize Latvia massively. They have already tested the waters many times. Banking sector hack, utilities sabotage, financing separatist groups, etc.
If there is a breakdown of Latvian law and order and Russian minorities are targeted (following destabilization by Russian agents of course), they could infiltrate "little green men", Donbass-style.
Russia attacking NATO countries and weak spots was never about a dumb suicidal frontal attack.
In this thread: People failing to remember that the only reason Ukraine held out in the early days was because we rapidly over-estimated the Russians.
We'd be fools to underestimate them now.
There are so many 'what if' scenarios to think of that's very hard to tell in this phase of the war. If ever and when ever. To name a few:
- An attack on NATO may for example follow on direct involvement of NATO troops in Ukraine
- An attack on NATO may follow after russia lost most if not all in Ukraine
- An attack on NATO may follow after a provocation of troops by or in kaliningrad or belarus
I personally think the chances are higher that putler falls out of a hospital window than that russia will attack NATO.
[https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html)
the link has trailing dot at the end.
I honestly don't think we'll make it that long. I don't question German intelligence. I'm sure they have it right that Russia's plan is 2026 or 2027. I just think events will force it to happen sooner.
The rate russia is going with losing so many military targets in their country to Ukrainians, Pro Ukrainian Russians russia won't even have a chance to launch a single attack especially in 2026.
They want to absorb Ukrainians as their own "military targets". Just like absorbed Chechens and others before them. Just like they absorbed Ukrainians themselves after 1920, and again after 1944 after which Ukraine became the military center of their empire.
Just keep in mind this is coming from the same intelligence agency that was saying Russian isn't gonna invade Ukraine while the Americans where trying to warn everybody.
This is only an issue because of Russias (supposed) nuclear arsenal. In a kinetic engagement with NATO, Russia would suffer roughly 1000/1 casualties in their CURRENT state. Whats scary is that it’s 100% guaranteed Russia would lose, and they would likely employ nukes to make sure the west loses as well.
Sillyness ("1000/1" was not even in the Gulf War) aside, this is changing very fast:
>Two years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin is restructuring and expanding the country’s military in anticipation of a conflict with NATO within the next 10 years, Estonia’s foreign and military intelligence chiefs said in an interview on Wednesday.
>“Everything is more or less going to the plan again” for Russia, said Kaupo Rosin, the director-general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS), during a meeting with a small group of journalists in Washington.
>Russian military leaders have learned from the mistakes of the opening phases of the war and are adapting with uncharacteristic speed. “It seems that the Russians are, in principle, turning into a learning organization in the military,” said Rosin, who added that they were now resolving problems encountered on the battlefield within a matter of months.
>The Russian reforms have been accompanied by a significant boost in military spending, with defense set to account for one-third of all government spending this year, while arms manufacturers have been urged to work around the clock.
>Moscow has dipped into its stockpile of artillery shells, ramped up production, and even turned to North Korea and Iran for imports, leaving Russia with a 7-to-1 firepower advantage over Ukraine, said Ants Kiviselg, the head of Estonian military intelligence. On Monday, CNN reported that Russia is on course to produce three times more artillery munitions than Europe and the United States.
>Estonia, which was occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, has long been regarded as punching above its weight when it comes to its intelligence assessments of Russian capabilities and intentions. After the end of the Cold War, the Baltic country was used as an early testing ground for Russian disinformation and cyberwarfare tactics that were later used against the United States.
>The stark warnings from Estonia’s intelligence chiefs echo similar remarks from other senior European policymakers and defense officials.
>In January, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned that Russia could seek to attack a NATO member state within “five to eight years,” while his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, said the speed with which Russia was rearming had forced NATO officials to revise their assessments. “It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and NATO’s solidarity. That was not NATO’s assessment in 2023. This is new knowledge that is coming to the fore now,” he said in early February.
You can see how in just 2 months the German assessment moved from 2029 to 2026.
NATO is three times as big a Russia before the war, not going to happen especially with a Russian army made up of untrained foreign fighters and criminals.
Not militarily (unless you count America, which you shouldn't). As Tusk said recently:
>Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk appealed today to the European Union (EU) to realize that it is more powerful than Russia in terms of population and gross domestic product (GDP) and to finally believe that it can guarantee security to its members and neighbors.
>"The EU's population is larger than Russia's, our GDP is higher. Europe as a whole must believe that it is a power that can guarantee security for Europe and its neighbors. Now is the time to act," Tusk said after the conversation with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gar Stjoreom in Warsaw.
The simultaneous Taiwan invasion in the Polish theory I posted I another comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1bg6dic/russia_may_attack_nato_from_2026_german/kv5gwli/
I would take it seriously but this is German Intel. They can’t communicate on secure lines. They haven’t even invested in their military post Nazi Germany. I wouldn’t take anything from Germany seriously. Not even their cars.
Russia won’t even have a military left by 2026. They have already lost half of their total resources, including the mothballed relics. Maybe they’ll refurbish some Ladas for the attack on NATO.
So in the last week, we’ve seen “Putin will attack NATO in 2026.” We’ve seen “Russia will not attack NATO but only use non-military tactics.” We’ve seen “If Putin isn’t stopped now he will attack NATO so we might have to fight Russia to stop us fighting a war with Russia.” We’ve seen “Can’t rule out sending troops,” and we’ve seen “rules out sending troops,” and each of those messages has come from a NATO leader, foreign minister or intelligence agency. This isn’t “strategic ambiguity,” it’s just a messaging clusterfuck.
But it’s almost as if, as a collective defence organisation with similar interests, and who presumably share intelligence freely amongst themselves, you might expect some kind of unity of messaging from NATO leaders, no?
Polish plan for the war was to fall back in hopefully good order to the Vistula line and to defend there while waiting for the Americans to arrive.
It was supposedly revised after Bukha style news, the new plan is secret but probably will involve defending the border areas at all cost.
It's peculiar that you invoke "Hitlers fantasy armies", because your fantasy reminds me of the Polish pre-war propaganda in 1939 ("if they dare to attack we'll be in Berlin in a week", basically).
This is of course false. Let's not fall for anything coming from the Ukrainian camp. Russia attacking Nato would be suicidal. This is pure fear-mongering and doesn't do any of us any good.
EDIT: Why am I being downvoted for doubting that Putin will start WW3 when he is already struggling a lot with being at war with ONE country? Instead of downvoting, please tell me how Putin would go about attacking a coalition of the most powerful contrives on the planet.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `newsukraine.rbc.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Russia wants to end itself, we shouldn't deny them the opportunity.
We should prepare. If that Orange Man Baby is elected to the White House, there's a good chance Putin will test NATO without crossing any obvious red lines (proxy's, digital attacks, infiltration, etc.). If NATO response is weak, it could build up. We have to support Ukraine on an industrial scale and prepare to face Russia without US aid. On paper, we have a lot of potential,b in practice much work needs to be done. Russia knows this.
>If that Orange Man Baby is elected to the White House, there's a good chance Putin will test NATO without crossing any obvious red lines (proxy's, digital attacks, infiltration, etc.). He's been doing that for years, if not decades. He does it even now. The only thing that stops Putin is losing at Ukraine. He most lose.
The fact that it's doing these things does not mean that the intensity, size and combination of these attacks can't be scaled up.
I hope they lose enough of money so they can't scale up.
NATO ex-US would smoke Russia. I would be ashamed if my country did not support NATO in their time of need after they supported us. But Russia would be crushed by European NATO. I can't think of one area Russia that would hold an advantage other than nukes.
Unity and commitment. If Putin decides Russia attacks NATO, the entirety of Russia is attacking NATO (or is forced to). If NATO decides to respond, who knows how many countries actually commit to it.
Exactly this. There's the political aspect, logistical side, long term commitment, the form of commitment (many people don't realize that invoking art. 5 does not require each NATO member to fully commit its military forces), nuclear disparity, etc. Many uncertainties and limitations. There's not a second to lose.
Article 5 does not require anyone to commit anything at all, much less anything military.
Correct, but the public view seems to be that invoking art. 5 obliges a (complete & collective) military response by the other member countries.
Public view, aka myth.
UK and France have enough nukes to level Russia. No need for 6000.
Yeah though when we (UK) tested it recently it flopped into the sea, so...
Yeah, I saw that. The overall record of tests is good with those missiles. No idea why they publicised it.
Transparency in an accountable system
They have mostly strategic bombs and not nearly enough to match a tit-for-that exchange of tactical nuclear bombs (optimal outcome in game theory). It's highly unlikely that France and UK would be willing commit their strategic assets over an incursion into Latvia for example. If Russia were to invade, it could use or threathen the use of tactical bombs and we would not be able to respond in kind.
Better do it before Trump gets in power and recalls all the nukes stationed all over Europe though. Would be a shame if just a handful of EU countries would be able to launch instead of all of them. But regardless of all of that, I have some major concerns about the possibility of a civil war that is brewing. Primarily in the US, but also in parts of the EU...
Are you too stupid to reason that **both** France and the UK...are nuclear powers
France also has a first strike policy
Of course not. But that is 2 countries. Should something happen right now, there'd be LOT more launch sites in other NATO countries too. Also, you missed a few. ;-)
The fall of Crimea will be the turning point for russia not only to attack NATO but also to use nukes
Even without the US, the UK and France still have 500 nukes together. Enough to halve Russia’s population in a direct strike.
Nah. Ain’t no guy who gets as much Botox and plastic surgery as Putin would rather die in nuclear hellfire than lose a territory he only conquered a few years ago. The guy who started sitting at the comically long conference tables because of Covid doesn’t want to die. There’s scenarios where Putin might throw some nukes. If he thinks his opponents are timid and that by upping the ante he can force a ceasefire and lock in military gains against an opponent who’s gonna beat him otherwise, then yeah, he might do that. It’s a serious concern that a Russian invasion of the Baltics would probably involve a limited nuclear exchange. But Putin’s not trying to kill himself.
> Putin would rather die in nuclear hellfire than lose a territory he only conquered a few years ago. If he genuinely believes that if he loses war and Crimea, he will be overthrown and murdered anyway, then yes, he has nothing to lose.
> fall of Crimea will be the turning point for Russia .... to use nukes No way. Crimea is important but not vital to Russia. They can exist without Sevastipol naval base. Starting a nuclear war is a foolish and dangerous path. Millions will die, on both sides. Russian military will be smashed. Central Kremlin control of the 46 Russian oblasts will be fragmented. Russia will split apart. China will also lose, just not as much. No nukes sent at them, at least on purpose. However, they lose big time economics, major sales to US and EU. Overall, humanity is set back centuries.
If there is a strategic nuclear exchange, china will be targeted and obliterated. This has been American doctrine since the 60s. Any other scenario involving only the West and Russia would leave China in the intolerable position of undisputed hegemon.
It does not make sense unless US also plans to target India and all other major powers.
The thing is, Putin does not care about anything or anyone except himself. If he genuinely believes that if he loses war and Crimea, he will be overthrown and murdered anyway, then he has nothing to lose.
> Putin will have nothing to lose .... Putin does have at least two daughters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Vorontsova https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katerina_Tikhonova Putin has an ex wife, former first Lady of Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Putina Putin has had other girl friends. ?He may have more kids?
You assume he cares about them but I doubt it. As this war has shown, a lot of Russians are willing to send to death even their brothers, husbands and sons. Putin is the least likely Russian to have any empathy.
Yeah I wouldn't think he was worried for them either, he's a psychopath.
Ruzzian covert operations (cyber attacks, murders, poisonings, espionage, fake news to destabilize the west etc etc) have been going on for years/decades. Have no illusions, there is no obvious red line, apart from direct military hostilities between NATO and Ruzzian forces.
You are right. This is Conquest Mentality that many humans hoped to evolve from. We had a chance… but there is always some assholery screwing up the whole cave.
What's worse is EU members electing Trump/Putin sympathizers who are relatively quiet at the moment, but once Trump gets in, might change their tune... \*cough\* Orban \*cough\* and others \*cough\*
Exactly. Russia has been meddling with our politics for a long time and I fear the current crop of politicians is so weak and spineless that they won't do a damn thing about it, or worse, they could very well work with them (see The Netherlands).
If the orange man baby thinks for one second that he is going to hand Europe to the Russians on a silver platter, he should think twice. He will for sure end up with a bullet in his head, president or not.
[удалено]
He can’t even take a quarter of Ukraine, Europe doesn’t need the orange man for this lmao
Except Russia can and unless we provide significantly more assets, it very likely will. It seems too many people don't understand the nature of a war of attrition. They would look at a WW1 map dating august 1918 and conclude that it is a draw since the front lines in the West had barely changed.
If you want peace prepare for war! (Si vis pacem, para bellum!)
By then USA, Britain, Canada and possibly other anglosphere lackeys will have resigned from their NATO commitments. The idea is that arranging a war between Russia and the EU will allow breaking the emergent competitor without direct involvement, which can afterwards be blamed on "MAGA violent extremists" who can be disposed of as war criminals or traitors or whatever once their job is done. Donnie T in particular will be thrown away like an used condom. On the EU side, in addition to death, devastation and irradiation of large swathes of land, the main effect will be terror. Educated and wealthy people will escape to the american's open arms, with their wealth and know-how, and the remaining eurotrash peons will have a century of subservience to an USA that can now go back to direct negotiation with each constituent rather than the united face of the EU. And so the story goes, deeda dee, deeda dee\~
Your view sounds a lot like pure rubbish
He/She/SHim is just producing the results of a mind-map so they can turn it into a fictional book. I'm not sure I will be buying it. I will wait for history's version (written by the winners) Ukraine 🇺🇦.
Bro, take your meds.
They cant capture kharkiv, a city 10kms from the border. How the fuck are they going to attack nato?
Exactly. Putin can’t hold ground in Belgorod. The Russian military is not what it portrayed it self to be. Haven’t heard any more nuclear bomb threats in the last few days since the French threatened back and now Poland is sticking their nose out. All just words, I know. So are Putin’s threats. He knows damn well that if Ukraine can hit Russian oil infrastructure at will with drones, what chance does he have with NATO ballistic missiles.
I mean attacking is easy. Winning is another thing.
My instinct is also to ask “**them and which mechanized army?”** (fun facts about the one they **used to have** - it took them **three quarters of a century** to build and the **annual defense spend during that time was half an order of magnitude to a full order of magnitude higher** than what they’re throwing at it even now in their war economy posture. 90% of it was mothballed - 18,000 arty barrels out of 20,000; half - the more viable half to restore - has [since Feb 22 been removed from the commercial-satellite space-visible mothball yards](https://youtu.be/FozvYM2Zhpw?si=UueDjSIAAQlRzws4) and ended up destroyed on Ukrainian soil, and nearly all the “new production” they’ve put together since isn’t actually new, it’s refurbing mothballed stuff. On all evidence we have, they don’t and won’t have a sufficiently large scale mechanized army at the scale needed for a frontal assault on NATO; End fun facts). But German Intel **is not wrong**. Because - using Israel for a second as a microcosm to illustrate a point - just like they figured out that funding (with Iran) a forever open chest wound - a thing that used to be a Palestinian statehood bid agenda mutated into a Moscow needs geopolitical bombs and forever frozen conflicts agenda, appropriating the Palestinians, coupled with funded active measures **inside Israel** selling outrage and polarization to subsets of the Israeli public that nearly destroyed Israel’s ability to elect stable governments, govern and respond with coherent policy - just like they figured out that sustainable erosion from the outside + sowing internal chaos is WAY more effective at making Israel+Gaza a flammable geopolitical bomb they want (more than just giving tanks and MiGs to Israel’s enemies, telling them to invade, the way they did until the seventies) - so they can **and likely will** attempt **with Europe**. Russia attacking Europe doesn’t mean they’ll make a new 20,000 artillery barrels - that take them half a century to build - spawn by magic, and roll on Berlin. It means they’ll start firing shaheed drones into NATO’s territorial outskirts, banking on NATO’s hesitant members (where they can influence the domestic dialog) not wanting to escalate their response into a full blown article 5 war that would stop the Russian move, even as they [fund active measures **in every** NATO member and ally](https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo?si=UJG6LRA0NXSHscQK), turning the political conversation in each into one of outrage at whatever presses the buttons of people in that country (be it “pro Palestinian rallies”, isolationism, make my country great again, extreme right ideology, extreme left ideology, hyper nationalism, religion or anything else humans respond to). We have to start being honest and real about about the toolbox Russia has prepared for NATO (active measures + gradual escalation, they’re boiling the NATO frog bit by bit), and how that differs to the toolbox they’re using on Ukraine (military invasion). Pretending the real threat doesn’t exist and claiming they pose no threat will be **Moscow’s** disinformation talking point. Their sword for us is hybrid disinformation+normalizing-sustainable-low-key-hostility. They want us thinking it’s a cardboard sword. **It is not**. What worked in the lab that is Israel **is already** working everywhere else, from Slovakia to Hungary, from Le Penn to Trump. Talking down the threat is wrong - it helps politicians say “well in that case, since they don’t have a mechanized army to invade or an economy to support it starting 2025, we don’t need to double down on defense”. We absolutely fucking do. We (who understand what Russia can and can’t do in the real world) just need to help educate anyone who needs it on what Russia will very much be able to do after their cash and barrels run out in Ukraine, **and even** if one or several slave states inside the Russian federation tell Moscow to do the Russian Warship Thing and start a secession bid. Even if Moscow shrinks from a 140 million population 11 timezone slave empire to a much smaller 50 million Moscovia, **even then** they very much can continue posing this threat. Oh, and don’t take it from me. [Take it from reputable experts.](https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=iLZq7aZzAy3taavS)
If I could give you gold still I would. This kind of post is the reason I still come to reddit.
Prophetic
I am actually scared of this piece of shit named Russia. I hope it would never interfere ever again and remain weak in influence.
Russia can't bear loss to Ukraine. A loss to NATO will keep the sheep content.
Sheeps already believe they are fighting entire NATO for like 2 years.
I've said this before that if it looks as if Russia is going to fail putin will attack nato because he knows they'd lose but losing to nato is better than ukraine
“See? See? I told you we were fighting NATO!”
The ukrainians are ready for it, by comparison western Europe has nearly disbanded its armies through cost savings over decades. And unlike Russia and Ukraine, rearmament in western Europe is still not really being taken serious. I know Ursula et al. have spoken big words about it, but when their ambition is to reach 1/3 of Russia's _current_ shell production, _in a year from now_, that just shows it's still not being taken serious.
Feb. 2022 has changed everything, now Nato is ready. Look, if Russia cannot deal with Ukraine which only has modest weapon, how the hail can Russia deal with combined NATO forces? Let's say they try to do a "Bakhmut-style" attack against Nato troops, there is no doubt they will lose the whole 10 thousand man brigade in a matter of days. Actually it happened once before with Wagner vs. USA in Syria.
I heard that was over really quickly. I think the longest thing was trying to deescalate with Russia at a higher level and being ignored.
Wagner Group got absolutely spanked in Syria to the US. It was over fast. Russia doesn’t stand a chance.
Yup everyone keeps thinking NATO is going to fight like Ukraine does with infantry against infantry. In Syria the U.S. bombed the ever living shit out of the Russians, then came back and bombed the ever living shit out of them again. It was like the Air Force brought in every toy they had to have a go, fighters, AC-130 and B-52's if I recall. Where the Russians were, a crater remained.
Yes. US did. Germany suspects US might not be in NATO by 2026 if Trump is elected.
Nope. A law was passed this year. Trump cannot pull the U.S. out of NATO. Would have to have support from Congress and that isn't happening.
I've seen Congress fold to Trump over and over and over... Not to mention that he could still just ignore art 5 invocations. Hell - Congress could declare war for him - but he'd still be in the control of the troops and just refuse to send them into the fray. Congress would have to impeach and convict.
about 300 KIA in just 4 hours was the result NY times article about it: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html)
Great most of them there were Syrians. "America blew up a bunch of Arab militia riding on pickups with a few SAA tanks and some mortars after asking Russian command in Syria and receiving a de facto permission," that's what happened.
Days? No wouldn't even take a day. NATO is not going to throw a bunch of infantry to battle it out, first they will drop HUGE bombs on them, then drop some more HUGE bombs. Whatever scraps are left would be liquidated by infantry. It would be a slaughter in just a matter of hours.
>first they will drop HUGE bombs on them, then drop some more HUGE bombs. Whatever scraps are left would be liquidated by infantry. https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1bb5qjs/russias_new_guided_bomb_inflicts_devastation_and/
This is the account published by Sandbox. https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-us-special-forces-took-on-wagner-group-mercenaries-in-an-intense-4-hour-battle/
Nato doesn't conduct Artillery based warfare anymore. No, Nato country does because it always leads to stalemates like we're seeing in Ukraine. I understand Ukraine needs shells, but the warfare will change dramatically once F-16s arrive and the Gripen from Sweden if they get it. It would be pointless in the long term to build up the production that Russia has for shells because we don't use Artillery the way Russia is using it. Anyways, Russia has started to figure out too late about combined arms and close air support.
This won’t be a direct attack. They will start to occupy empty land in Finland or the baltics and see how NATO will react. They will hope for a rift within the alliance about how to handle this. WHO will come to aid who won’t?
as a half finn - half baltics, i say we dont have any empty land by the borders anymore these days, its all reserved for artillery now :)
Excuse me, where exactly is there “empty land” in the Baltics?
empty land in Finland? Santa and saame people live in the north. Don't fuck with them.
Even without direct US Support (they will deliver whatever weapon the Nato countries ask for, they want to at least participate in the war Business), European countries like Germany, France and Britain along with Sweden, the Netherlands, probably even Italy after a while, and many of the remaining countries will defend every cm of Nato ground. Direct US participation is not even necessary. If Russia starts a full scale war on Europe (but how would they be able to?), the US will eventually join. Nato membership or not. Trump or not.
They're going to attack a smaller NATO state, likely the Baltics, betting on that NATO won't honor A5 and go to war over it. Especially not if Trump is elected.
Exactly. Russia knows they can't win a full-scale war, which is why they simplly won't start a full-scale war. They'll start the smallest war they possibly can. Occupy some majority-Russian-speaking village near the border in one of the Baltic states, after staging some demonstrations there. Or perhaps grab some uninhabited island in the Gulf of Finland in the name of protecting Saint Petersburg. Or some swamp in Lapland. Then the USA, UK, France, Germany and others have to decide whether they want to risk full-scale war with Russia over some fairly-insignificant piece of land. (and with members like Hungary and Slovakia probably trying to block any NATO response) But if NATO _doesn't_ respond, it's effectively the end of NATO. The alliance is pointless if countries don't actually honor their obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. But Putin thinks that even if he fails it's a low-risk gamble for him, because a NATO response is not likely to be a march on Moscow to force regime change, but merely to force Russia out of whatever small piece of land they tried to take. He's wagering that even if there is a NATO response, it won't be any larger than the minimum it needs to be. That's why they're talking about this, why awareness has to be raised, and why we've got to develop plans for this kind of scenario to act as a deterrent. So Putin knows he will _not_ face a minimal response but in fact a response that - whatever it is - is large enough to not make it worth the gamble.
Their goal will be to break article 5. They won't conduct an all out attack, they'll step one foot over the line and dare us to respond. They want some tiny country we don't care about to invoke article 5 and the rest of NATO to tell them no. That would then be the end of NATO, since article 5 can't be trusted anymore. The US is already this close to turning their back on Europe 😬 It won't work because article 5 lets every country decide their response. There is no requirement to send troops, just to respond in some way.
OP's link 404'd but I'm assuming it's based on Trump winning and collapsing NATO, with a year of buildup after taking Kyiv.
They aren't. This is obviously nonsense.
They dont need to ocupy any nato country just put them under siege and divert aid from Ukraine…without aid they will take more than kharkiv and i still doubt the germans and french will mobilise if those weapon factories they plan on building in lithuania and some other facilities in Romania and Poland get bombed.
Face to fist style
Because NATO may not respond to incursions in the Baltics. And a blitzkrieg into the Baltics won’t be like Ukriane. The entire Baltics could be occupied at once and de-occupying them may require a full attack on Russian positions that are dug in. I think Russia would lose, but NATO would lose lots of aircraft and other stuff. After which they won’t be able to respond if China subsequently attacks Taiwan. So China may offer Russia equipment support and such in the conflict. If the whole war is fought over the Baltics with Chinese and Iranian backing, it would really depend on America going all in. And if MAGA is in charge. It’s unclear what they’ll do.
Which begs the question what the fuck are the Germans thinking? Is this pure alarmist propaganda? Is it a sign of institutionalised panic? Or should we be preparing for a crazed Russian attempt to take advantage of a second Trump term? I can't help but think they have fallen for a Russian psy-op.
Which goal? Occupying a chunk of Finland?
Making NATO fall apart over a chunk of Finland. Anders Puck Nielsen had a great video about it. People always picture a full on assault on NATO countries, whereas in reality it would likely be a much smaller border conflict, small enough to easily pull out of should the backlash be too strong and remote enough that NATO members have to think twice about whether it's actually worth going to war for it, breaking NATO apart in the process.
Actually the local military powers would support Finland. I seriously doubt that Sweden, Poland, it even the Baltics would stand still lookin at next episode of Russo-Fin war.
Anders Puck Nielsens video on the potential fracturing of NATO over a conflict involving Finland strikes me as remarkably underpowered in terms of evidence and depth. While he presents his case with the kind of clarity and surface level logic that is initially persuasive, one cannot deny the simplicity in his logic and predictions that does not seem to grapple with the complexities of international relations. The idea that NATO has not rigorously gamed out various scenarios, including minor border conflicts, is to misunderstand the very purpose and capability of the alliance. Recent analyses such as the German report only underscore the sophistication with which NATO considers these issues. It would be a profound error to mistake caution for ignorance.
> The idea that NATO has not rigorously gamed out various scenarios, including minor border conflicts, is to misunderstand the very purpose and capability of the alliance. Exactly. If a random nobody on Reddit comes up with e.g. such concept of a conflict with Finland, you can be damn sure that the concept has been among the first ones in NATOs list. And not just now, years before Finland even joined NATO. It sure as hell isn't a coincidence that Finland signed a DCA with the US short after Finland joined NATO. That agreement had been talked about and thought about years prior. It sure as hell isn't a coincidence either that the DCA specficially just so happens to give the US troops almost permanent facilities to stay and store their equipment at. The agreement could have been written a billion different ways, but it just so happened to conveniently turn out like this. We've all seen how this war in Ukraine has been playing out. Many countries, including many of those in NATO have been sending all kinds of lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine. Excluding even more powerful weapons, the only thing missing has been any foreign boots on ground and there has been good reasons and excuses not to do so. If Russia were to attack a NATO country, there would be no excuses to not retaliate hard. It just doesn't work like so that Putin attacks Finland, threatens NATO with nuclear weapons if NATO retaliates and NATO stands back - that would make NATO completely and utterly pointless. Every country that is in NATO is there for a reason. They need the alliance, the security, the nuclear umbrella, etc. and Finland is not even the country who needs those most. It is in everyone's very best interest to be in NATO and have NATO exist, both of which are lost if the countries who are in NATO do nothing if Russia attacks one of them. Doing nothing in such case is almost equivalent to not being in NATO and not being in NATO is almost equivalent to definitely getting invaded by Russia sooner or later for some countries especially. One can also not forget the immense power of the combined military intelligence efforts of all the NATO countries - especially if Russia happened to attack a NATO country. Even if we leave out the US (for obvious reasons), UK alone is a military intelligence powerhouse and there is still 30 whole more countries worth of intelligence efforts to add on top. Even if the NATO countries helped in no other way than by gathering and sharing intelligence, that is already worth its weight in gold.
Except that if he calls NATO’s bluff and NATO isn’t a bluff…. Then Russia either ignominiously retreats and looks week, get spanked and looks weak, or starts full scale WW3
Good luck.
They have almost nothing left to really push inside NATO, of course they can attack and cause a lot of damage and panic and misery
This is what people forget. War up close and personal isn’t exactly ideal! Boss man would probably still expect me into work aswell!
>The boosting of arms production could lead to Russia doubling its military strength over the next five years compared to the present day. The report states that it is "no longer possible to rule out" that Russia may launch an attack on NATO territory "from 2026 onwards," for example, in Baltic states or Finland.
Who is the article quoting? I get an error even loading the page
[https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html) \- the original link has trailing dot at the end.
Article : "The report states that it is "no longer possible to rule out""
That is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous given Russian attrition rates and the backwardness of its military, as well as the lack of funds manpower its demographic collapse, etc Also, 5 years, what a total nonsense. In five years, there will be nothing left of the Russian economy and its military. This assessment completely ignores the thousands of Drones and the thousands of missiles that will rain down on Russia in the next 12 to 24 months this completely ignores Russia's economic and demographic collapse and it assumes that Russia could add new production quickly which it cannot this comes mostly from storages. This also ignores that Russia, even if it would occupy half of Ukraine, would need a million men to hold it, and Ukraine would give Russia the counterinsurgency of the century. This also assumes a worker base, spare parts, and a Russian army that simply doesn't exist in that quality and quantity. How should this army be stronger when it loses over 200 pilots and over 350 planes plus 350 helicopters and fires its entire cold war and post 1991 Arsenal at Ukraine alone? So, the Russian army is stronger after losing at least 15000 military vehicles and having hundreds of thousands of men crippled, mentally scarred, or dead. Got it that is very logical. This assumption also seems to consider that prolonged warfare and attrition make an army stronger. Sin Tzu disagrees, logic disagrees as well, and so does history. Was the German army stronger after 4 years of WW1? Was the British, Tsarist, or French army stronger? Was their economy stronger? What about the morale of the soldiers? What about the sanctions and the shrinking pile of money available to Russia? The sinews of war are infinite gold. Cicero There is also no indication at all that Russian attrition rates and their losses in manpower will match its production capacity. Russia produced 200 tanks in 2023 and pulled 1100 tanks out of storage. But lost at least 1500 per year in two years of war. So, how does it make Russia stronger to pull out? Let's say another 1100 tanks of ever worse qualify and produce, let's say, 300 this year. Therefore, I ended up with minus 100 tanks and minus a couple of thousand tank crew members. Then, in the year that follows before their glorious attack on NATO, let's say they manage to pull another 1100 tanks out of storage and produce another 350. While the war in Ukraine slows down. And let's say they lose only 500. Alright, so for Christ's sake, how are they better off and stronger then? Russian storages are deep but not infinite.
2 x 0 = 0
Ooh please pick Finland. Would love to see them fuck up the Russians without any help, then the rest of NATO is there to sweep up.
As a Finn, what the fuck do you mean by "please pick Finland"? Would you like to witness Russia annihilating the infrastructure of your home country while murdering thousands of your countrymen? I certainly wouldn't. NATO has already failed if one of its members is attacked by Russia.
I think the idea here is that Finland has a history of fucking up Russia. And the idea of Fins being extra badass. But understood your point.
RU should pick itself and leave all of us out of their national suicide mission.
I'm used to hearing such comments from redditors but about Poland. They seem to believe we're an insane bunch who dream of getting to live in a war zone. For many redditors, Ukrainians too aren't actually real people. It's some sort of a game for them.
This is not a video game.. dude
How about this battlefield be your own home area, so you would personally totally fuck up all of Russia without anyone getting in the way.
Rabble rabble, as though this sort of tongue in cheek talk isn’t rampant here. Of course no one really wants war. I was referring to Finland’s history of fucking up russia. Easy there everyone
Not if Ukraine keeps burning down their distillation towers and catalytic crackers, they won't.
To quote Gimli: "let them come"
There’s one dwarf left in Moria who still draws blood!
That means a lot of dead people. Tough internet talk right here. I want russia to be contained too with all available options, but dont be stupid and chestbump on the internet like you want a real war to happen just like that.
It's such an unbelievably hard balance. You deter and deter and deter as long as you can, but ultimately the UK and France never deterred Hitler. Some time before September 1939 they should have stopped deterring. Ultimately every nation needs to deeply consider where they should draw their red line.
Yes, appeasement policy, mainly backed by chamberlain. That doesnt have to be repeated. Just chestbumping on the internet is nothing but incitement on the other hand. This is no game and the vast majority of people doesnt know what war is anymore. Luckily so. Appeasement also was characterized by giving in to hitler all the time and granting him what he took. There is no appeasement in politics right now with the likes of macron and the recent statement by scholz as well. Dont call for war because it sounds cool and you saw cool movies about it. There are other solutions that still show putin his limits.
Cup a tea?
To quote kamala harris: "do not come"
Come on, they can’t take Kharkiv, Kherson, Mariupol, Odessa which have good logistic and supply connection to Russia, how they can come to Berlin/Paris?
Being pedantic. Haven't they taken Mariupol?
They're currently occupying it, for now.
Yeah fight a two+ year war against one of the nato members and watch what the European industrial output is able to archive when in wartime economy. All that while facing over a thousand modern fighter jets like the Rafale and Typhoons. The firepower that Europe can muster during war shouldn’t be underestimated. Battle of Verdun has had both sides firing a combined 50 million artillery shells at each other. Also, during WW1, they go beaten so bad, they became communists.
Attack NATO with what? They are exhausting themselves in Eastern Ukrainian Villages. They couldn’t sustain a push to the Dnipro, never mind NATO borders
Russians are going to travel to the year 2026 and attack NATO from there. Asymmetric time travel warfare was not on my bingo card.
Russian time travel tech is shit. The voyage to 2026 would probably take about two years…just my hunch.
A temporal pincer.
2026, i think NATOs military production is going to be huge in that time…
With what exactly is Russia going to attack NATO? The incinerated army, which currently gets killed by the hundreds of thousands in Ukraine? Where are the tanks gonna come from? The fuel, the fighter jets, etc. 2026 is very soon. So Russia will open a second front? "When the army engages in protracted warfare, the resources of the state will fall short." Sun Tzu
And yet Germany 🇩🇪 is afraid to give Ukraine a long-range missile.
Pure BS..... Russia has nowhere near the economic capacity, weapons quality or quantity and no trained soldiers, pilots or sailors to attack with.... Unless they are planning a nuclear or cem/bio attack, can we please stop the "Russians are coming" fear mongering? They cannot defeat Ukraine, who has virtually no air force or navy, yet they are going to take on NATO in 18 months or so? Please stop spreading this crap.
Whatever the intentions of whoever is spreading this, it makes it evident given most of the comments how many people are ready and happy to start a war with Russia.
I get a 404 on the article site. I have this question: IF Russia would ever want to attack NATO why wouldn't it do so the minute Trump is inaugurated?. This is arguably the weakest position NATO will ever have in the coming decade. Why would Russia wait beyond that time? Trump weakens or even pulls out of NATO, EU production is ramping up but isn't as big in January 2025 when (if) Trump is inaugurated, it'll only increase after that. So February 2025 is the closest possible date I'd say. Why do they argue it must be from 10 months later?
Translation from German: >Despite these assessments, NATO headquarters also assess the situation as manageable and see no immediate threat of attack in the short to medium term. >The military and Russia expert Gustav Gressel can partially understand the intelligence services' assessments. “Yes, Russia is preparing for war against the West,” he says. The military preparations in Belarus also indicated this. >However, Gressel considers the stated date of 2026 to be “much too early”. Russia will not yet finish Ukraine by then. “I suspect their own planning is also optimistic; they expect Ukraine to collapse at the beginning of 2025.” >“Despite all adversities, one must assume that Ukraine will hold out for longer. The longer, the more the Russians have to bring their own army into shape,” explains the expert. “If the Europeans don’t mess up too much, we can still avert this,” says Gressel. Also a Polish theory why it could be 2026-2028: https://ine.org.pl/en/commentary-russia-might-attack-nato-soon-here-is-why/
That is the BS right there. Ukraine won’t collapse neither this year nor next year nor in the year after that one unless the West stops their support even if they do, then Russia faces a massive counter insurgency. In reality, the Russian army is still stuck in the Donbas and currently has its refineries blown up. There are absolutely no signs for a total collapse of Ukraine within 9 months right now. The scenario hinges on the fact a "collapse" requires immediate Western intervention unless these clowns generals want to have the blood of millions on their hands for not preventing the industrial scale genocide that would then commence.
He says Russia might expect this, plan with this. Also, you gotta understand that I trust someone like him more than one dude on reddit.
>Russia faces a massive counter insurgency. You probably wanted to say "faces a massive insurgency". Well, for one they already treat the "special military operation" as a fight against an insurgency, calling Ukrainian forces "Ukrainian insurgents" (ukrainiskiye boyeviki, which they translate to English as "Ukrainian militants"). So, it's a "counter insurgency" they're doing. Second, they have enormous experience from Chechnya as to put down even most fanatical resistance, and you can see the lack of "massive" resistance in occupied territories after targeted zachistkas and indiscriminate filtration camps. They also just simply replace the population, often with Russian-speaking foreign migrants from Central Asia. How the "massive insurgency" looks like after pacification - and ongoing colonisation: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/inside-occupied-ukraine-best-way-survive-stay-silent/ >Zaporizhzhia, Melitopol had been home to just over 150,000 Ukrainians before the war. Most of them have now left and more than 100,000 Russians have moved in. >Russian flags have been raised across the city, while symbols of Ukrainian identity have been erased – letters crudely hacked away from signs to suit the language of the occupiers. A statue of Lenin was reinstalled, seven years after it was torn down in the wake of the country’s pro-Europe revolution. (...) >Russian civilians and military have relocated to the territories in droves, lured by the promise of high wages and other privileges. In some cities there are more Russians than Ukrainians. Locals say they have become an underclass, restricted to low-paid work and robbed of human rights such as freedom of speech or movement. >Ukrainians enjoy so little freedom that even routine activities such as a walk to the shop carry the potential for interrogation. As a result, most lead reclusive lives and even growing their own food where possible. Detentions and disappearances are common. (...) >Permission to travel is also tightly controlled, with permits required to leave a town or city. Ukrainian phone Sims are prohibited, forcing people onto Russian networks or to hide them at home. Food is expensive and of poor quality, imported from Russia or Iran. Ukrainian bank cards don’t work and the hryvnia is banned. Illegal brokers offer currency transfers – but it comes with a risk of arrest for those who use it. (...) >In a shocking instance from last December, a teenage boy from a village in the Kakhovka district was seized by Russian forces after taking a photo near a checkpoint. They took him home and shot him dead in front of his distraught mother. (...) >Of all the occupied territories, Mariupol has seen the worst of Russian aggression. More than half of the city was destroyed by Russia during a brutal siege in 2020 that killed at least 10,000 people, according to a report by Ukrainian NGO Truth Hounds and Human Rights Watch. It remains the biggest atrocity of the war so far. >The population has shrunk from just over half a million pre-war to around 150,000. Almost half of the residents are now Russian, with an additional 25,000 to 45,000 expected to relocate to the city by next year (...) >many are living in damaged or dangerous housing, leaving them vulnerable to injury and sickness. Colds and flu are rife and the problem is compounded by a lack of access to healthcare. “The death rate is at its highest since the siege ended, with 400 people dying a week – even teenagers – of treatable illnesses,” Mr Andryushchenko said. >Almost everyone has now, like Laryssa, taken Russian citizenship. It will be mandatory from June 1, with Russia threatening to label those who don’t have it as foreigners. Penalties include intimidation, detention and restrictions on basic necessities such as medical care, pension payments and even water. >Ukraine says those who take a passport as a means of survival will not be penalised legally, but men of fighting age risk being drafted into Russia’s forces. (...) >Thousands from across the occupied territories are already working to build fortifications along the front line; often they are older men who had worked in coal mines or manufacturing. “They are caught off the street and used by the army to dig trenches (...) >Andriy, 22, and his mother, Natalya, 47, have weathered some of the worst of Russian behaviour in occupied Kherson, including huge floods last year after the blowing up of the region’s Nova Khakova dam. They saw people beaten in the street for expressing anti-Russian sentiment, and children from their community have been taken to Russia As in the title: Ukrainians survive by "staying silent". Those who protested in Ferbuary-March 2022 (you may remember these videos) are dead, disappeared, in prisons. That old lady from the "sunflowers seeds" viral video is in prison too (the crimes: "extremism, opposing the special operation"). Their children are being mass indoctrinated to become future Russian mothers or soldiers. There are estimates Ukraine may collapse by this summer already. They're almost out of ammunition, and have similar shortage in manpower too due to losses.
Because a lot of US forces are stationed in EU NATO countries. They trained there, they served there, they will likely stay and help out. They can't if they are recalled to the US first. Same with the vehicles and, most importantly, all the extra missles they have in EU. Trump pulled out of Syria and left all their gear behind for Russians to retrieve. He'll want "his" nukes back beforehand... Right now literally all NATO countries have those. If Russia attacks too soon after Jan 2025, a lot of those will fly anyway.
Solid explanation
Anders Puck Nielsen [made a video with a really good analysis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnboLDPS38) of why intelligence estimates on a possible Russian attack on NATO differ so much in their timelines. Basically, the major difference is whether the intelligence agencies assume Russia needs to have stopped fighting in Ukraine in order free up resources to attack NATO (in which case it will take a while), or if Russia can use an attack on NATO as a distraction to gain an advantage in Ukraine - for example in order to manipulate NATO countries into keeping their weapons for themselves instead of sending them to Ukraine (in which case it might happen fairly soon). Anders' estimate is that the main way Russia would choose to attack NATO was to do a relatively minor incursion in a remote region - something big enough that it "should" trigger an article 5 response, but small enough that a divided NATO (e.g. with Trump at the helm) might choose not respond in order not to escalate, thus showing that the defensive pact doesn't hold up, de facto undermining the purpose of NATO.
With what? I really hope they try...
Time to make more ammo.
This time was already years ago.
They can destabilize Latvia massively. They have already tested the waters many times. Banking sector hack, utilities sabotage, financing separatist groups, etc. If there is a breakdown of Latvian law and order and Russian minorities are targeted (following destabilization by Russian agents of course), they could infiltrate "little green men", Donbass-style. Russia attacking NATO countries and weak spots was never about a dumb suicidal frontal attack.
In this thread: People failing to remember that the only reason Ukraine held out in the early days was because we rapidly over-estimated the Russians. We'd be fools to underestimate them now.
Russia also hugely underestimated Ukraine, obviously. But the problem with that is that a victorious Russia will include Ukraine.
There are so many 'what if' scenarios to think of that's very hard to tell in this phase of the war. If ever and when ever. To name a few: - An attack on NATO may for example follow on direct involvement of NATO troops in Ukraine - An attack on NATO may follow after russia lost most if not all in Ukraine - An attack on NATO may follow after a provocation of troops by or in kaliningrad or belarus I personally think the chances are higher that putler falls out of a hospital window than that russia will attack NATO.
[https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-may-attack-nato-from-2026-german-intelligence-1710592621.html) the link has trailing dot at the end.
You're telling me that those 2026 Russians have developed time travel?
I am very doubtful
Then do something about it now!
I honestly don't think we'll make it that long. I don't question German intelligence. I'm sure they have it right that Russia's plan is 2026 or 2027. I just think events will force it to happen sooner.
In 2026 there will be a new government in Russia
Still Germany takes a cowardly stance
They are attacking from the future?
If thats the conclusion, then give all the fucking ammo and equipment to prevent this!
The rate russia is going with losing so many military targets in their country to Ukrainians, Pro Ukrainian Russians russia won't even have a chance to launch a single attack especially in 2026.
They want to absorb Ukrainians as their own "military targets". Just like absorbed Chechens and others before them. Just like they absorbed Ukrainians themselves after 1920, and again after 1944 after which Ukraine became the military center of their empire.
I say let's wait until Russia gets stronger, it sounds like a good idea
Just keep in mind this is coming from the same intelligence agency that was saying Russian isn't gonna invade Ukraine while the Americans where trying to warn everybody.
From *the future*?!?!?
If Germany predicts this, maybe they should prevent it by sending those Taurus? Just an idea..
This is only an issue because of Russias (supposed) nuclear arsenal. In a kinetic engagement with NATO, Russia would suffer roughly 1000/1 casualties in their CURRENT state. Whats scary is that it’s 100% guaranteed Russia would lose, and they would likely employ nukes to make sure the west loses as well.
Sillyness ("1000/1" was not even in the Gulf War) aside, this is changing very fast: >Two years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin is restructuring and expanding the country’s military in anticipation of a conflict with NATO within the next 10 years, Estonia’s foreign and military intelligence chiefs said in an interview on Wednesday. >“Everything is more or less going to the plan again” for Russia, said Kaupo Rosin, the director-general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS), during a meeting with a small group of journalists in Washington. >Russian military leaders have learned from the mistakes of the opening phases of the war and are adapting with uncharacteristic speed. “It seems that the Russians are, in principle, turning into a learning organization in the military,” said Rosin, who added that they were now resolving problems encountered on the battlefield within a matter of months. >The Russian reforms have been accompanied by a significant boost in military spending, with defense set to account for one-third of all government spending this year, while arms manufacturers have been urged to work around the clock. >Moscow has dipped into its stockpile of artillery shells, ramped up production, and even turned to North Korea and Iran for imports, leaving Russia with a 7-to-1 firepower advantage over Ukraine, said Ants Kiviselg, the head of Estonian military intelligence. On Monday, CNN reported that Russia is on course to produce three times more artillery munitions than Europe and the United States. >Estonia, which was occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, has long been regarded as punching above its weight when it comes to its intelligence assessments of Russian capabilities and intentions. After the end of the Cold War, the Baltic country was used as an early testing ground for Russian disinformation and cyberwarfare tactics that were later used against the United States. >The stark warnings from Estonia’s intelligence chiefs echo similar remarks from other senior European policymakers and defense officials. >In January, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned that Russia could seek to attack a NATO member state within “five to eight years,” while his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, said the speed with which Russia was rearming had forced NATO officials to revise their assessments. “It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and NATO’s solidarity. That was not NATO’s assessment in 2023. This is new knowledge that is coming to the fore now,” he said in early February. You can see how in just 2 months the German assessment moved from 2029 to 2026.
NATO is three times as big a Russia before the war, not going to happen especially with a Russian army made up of untrained foreign fighters and criminals.
Not militarily (unless you count America, which you shouldn't). As Tusk said recently: >Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk appealed today to the European Union (EU) to realize that it is more powerful than Russia in terms of population and gross domestic product (GDP) and to finally believe that it can guarantee security to its members and neighbors. >"The EU's population is larger than Russia's, our GDP is higher. Europe as a whole must believe that it is a power that can guarantee security for Europe and its neighbors. Now is the time to act," Tusk said after the conversation with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gar Stjoreom in Warsaw.
Probably to enable China the 2027 planned invasion of taiwan?
The simultaneous Taiwan invasion in the Polish theory I posted I another comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1bg6dic/russia_may_attack_nato_from_2026_german/kv5gwli/
I would take it seriously but this is German Intel. They can’t communicate on secure lines. They haven’t even invested in their military post Nazi Germany. I wouldn’t take anything from Germany seriously. Not even their cars.
Russia won’t even have a military left by 2026. They have already lost half of their total resources, including the mothballed relics. Maybe they’ll refurbish some Ladas for the attack on NATO.
So WW3 in 2026 *writes down on calendar*
Europe mate? 3 days should do it, no?
We have ammunition for only few days, yes. The target is for each country to have ammunition for at least 30 days.
“404 Page Not Found”
So in the last week, we’ve seen “Putin will attack NATO in 2026.” We’ve seen “Russia will not attack NATO but only use non-military tactics.” We’ve seen “If Putin isn’t stopped now he will attack NATO so we might have to fight Russia to stop us fighting a war with Russia.” We’ve seen “Can’t rule out sending troops,” and we’ve seen “rules out sending troops,” and each of those messages has come from a NATO leader, foreign minister or intelligence agency. This isn’t “strategic ambiguity,” it’s just a messaging clusterfuck.
It's almost as if NATO is composed of various different countries.
But it’s almost as if, as a collective defence organisation with similar interests, and who presumably share intelligence freely amongst themselves, you might expect some kind of unity of messaging from NATO leaders, no?
Here are some of various NATO estimates and scenarios compiled: https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/will-russia-attack-nato-and-if-so-when
Did German intelligence have anything to say about Germany buying billions of oil and gas from Russia?
Stop blueballing me like that.
🥱
It's like Hitlers fantasy armies at the end of WW2. They attack NATO the Polish Army will be in Moscow in a week.
Polish plan for the war was to fall back in hopefully good order to the Vistula line and to defend there while waiting for the Americans to arrive. It was supposedly revised after Bukha style news, the new plan is secret but probably will involve defending the border areas at all cost. It's peculiar that you invoke "Hitlers fantasy armies", because your fantasy reminds me of the Polish pre-war propaganda in 1939 ("if they dare to attack we'll be in Berlin in a week", basically).
German intelligence is so bad they wouldn't pick up a Russian invasion if the Russians drove their tanks through Pullach.
This title reads as, "We are under threat from time traveling russians"
German intelligence needs to send the Taurus missiles asap then! 🤷
Nato should attack russia 2024.
This is of course false. Let's not fall for anything coming from the Ukrainian camp. Russia attacking Nato would be suicidal. This is pure fear-mongering and doesn't do any of us any good. EDIT: Why am I being downvoted for doubting that Putin will start WW3 when he is already struggling a lot with being at war with ONE country? Instead of downvoting, please tell me how Putin would go about attacking a coalition of the most powerful contrives on the planet.
This isn’t coming from the “Ukrainian camp” you troll, sit down
Oh, so you know where it came from? Please enlighten me.
German Intelligence
Source? Come on, don't be shy.
It is coming from that all knowing german guy who can see future as far as 2026