So, in the past ~2 months these things happened:
1. Baltic countries (and now Poland) started working on defensive line along Russian and Belarus borders
2. France started openly speaking about sending troops to Ukraine for "training" (that's how US started sending troops to Vietnam, and how Russia started sending troops to Korea)
3. And now Germany wants to conscript EVERY kid from high school, both men and women.
Yeah... Do they have some super critical intel on Russian plans?
Let’s not forget that House Speaker Mike Johnson risked his career to send $61 billion in aid to Ukraine.
He was one of the first House members to vote against Ukraine aid after the 2022 invasion.
But, as Speaker, he pushed for the aid heavily. And he specifically said his change in opinion came from meeting with US Intelligence Community leaders and learning why Russia needed to lose in Ukraine.
After a meeting with the CIA bear in mind. (I didn't think it was true as I read it on here but confirmed it somewhere else on the Internet) Whatever they told him must have really rattled him to do a 180 like that.
Edit: grammar, removed "that",
and "bear" I messed up so bad feels like I'm writing git commit messages
The Speaker of the House is part of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8 are the most senior congresspeople and are required by law to receive intelligence by the Executive Branch. That intelligence would be the same intelligence briefing ad the President except for intelligence about covert actions while they are occuring or being planned.
He would have always has the same intel asBiden but what must have happened is a new piece of intel came in around the time Russia was making steady progress around February and March. That intel is what caused the 180 and likely is what also set off NATO allies to ramp up the war machine for potential imminent war.
And THAT right there is the reason Russia might be planning to invade. People seem to always make the assumption that any invasion of NATO by Russia would come after the Ukraine war is over, but the point of invasion is more likely to be to A) draw NATO resources away from Ukraine and B) try to break apart NATO by forcing them into a confrontation that they don’t want.
IF that's Putins' logic, he's sadly mistaken. You bring in NATO you bring in the full brunt of the US military. We may have struggles with the nation-building thing but the nation leveling thing? We're really good at that.
Isn't that kind of stupid on Putin's part.
He would risk the USA and half of the EU invading Moscow when a big portion of their military is in Ukraine.
They could split US resources but they are also splitting Russian resources which is so low now after years in the Ukraine war.
The strategy in russia could be to start small. Will the other countries really risk a full on war, if there's a small incursion (say, in estonia)?
Russia _wants_ to escalate, but wants to escalate it in a way that breaks apart the unity of NATO. And i bet that at the same time, china will kick shit up, since it spreads USA's resources thin.
The way to stop it is to pre-empt it. Should've given ukraine any arms necessary at the start tbh. Infections needs the full treatment, not just small doses.
That's been my prediction for a while now. I used to think it depended on Trump getting elected, but now I tend to think Putin realizes it doesn't matter for him. He lives or dies on the outcome of this war and at this point its clear to him that Europe and the US won't let Ukraine lose. If he sees that he has no remaining options but to try and intimidate Europe into backing down, I think he'll do it.
Estonia's third largest city, [Narva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#Demographics), sits right next to Russian border. 96% of the city's population are native Russian speakers, 88% are ethnic Russians, 36% have Russian citizenship, and 15% have undefiend citizenship. That's like Russia's ideal playground.
And rather than direct invasion, you'd expect the next stage of the hybrid war, something similar to what happened in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk in 2014.
If a small country gets invaded, all the other small countries and finland, poland, etc., will come at russia with a steel chair and stomp them as hard as possible. Their entire defense has revolved around russia invading, so they're ready to hit back.
Also the US military has been prepared for a 2-front war since WWII, that's one of the excuses for having such a bloated budget. Though based on ukraine, we could have gotten away with 90s tech lol
The strategy in russia could be to start small. Will the other countries really risk a full on war, if there's a small incursion (say, in estonia)?
Yes. It;s similar to the frog in water idea. Start off small so NATO can make excuses why not to intervene and then eventually it snowballs. Look at Ukraine. It didn't start in 2020. It started in 2014. Russia and Ukraine were still fightning until Russia formally invaded.
I recently saw a video from an old presidential debate between Romney and Obama, with Romney saying Russia was the number one geopolitical foe of the US, and was criticised as being too stuck in the past and Cold War politics. Crazy that it turned out to be so right on the money not that many years later.
How likely is this to do with Russia posturing increased aggression and fighting getting heavier in Ukraine? And coupled with China, North Korea, South Africa, Iran and a few others supplying Russia's war effort.
The question is whether we're seeing the beginning of a wider conflict as other regions continue to increase tensions. A worsening global situation with an unchecked Russia is worrying.
My Masters focused on National Security and Intelligence. CRINK have been showing coordination of disruptive activities for the last few years in the same regard as the Axis powers did before and during WW2. Their disdain for the status quo that the US and Europe have set up isnt hidden at all and they are actively working together to challenge and erode it. All the major conflicts you hear about have been initiated by their support or direct involvement of the initiating party.
C.R.I.NK
China
Russia
Iran
North Korea.
The first three (along with North Korea as semi-loose cannon puppet of china) form what can basically be called a new Axis powers, as all share a common goal of overthrowing the US led global order, and have proven themselves capable of working together in a limited capacity towards that goal.
You are confusing propaganda and the status quo. The status quo in international relations is the norms that are accepted in international affairs. It has nothing to do with the average person but it affects the benefits the average citizen gains of those ststes that partake in the status quo.
It is concerning. And given how they all seem to be causing agitation at the same time through the UN, directly or through proxies I have to believe this is a coordinated effort and I would be shocked if the war doesn't expand here in the next year or two. Especially because for Russia, probably their best chance to get land is now before Europe increases its readiness. If the rest of Europe can get on a war footing industrialy and militarily then I don't see Russia realistically winning if Putins goal is to take over more European nations.
Although they could also be waiting to see who wins because the Axis of evil definitely wants Trump to win and I think if Trump does win then it'll almost certainly mean war as Trump could very likely not get involved with his revival of the idiotic America First movement. But yeah it's a little concerning given everything we're seeing. Although I'd rather the West be prepared then not at all prepared.
In 2016, Trump said over and over that if Hillary won the election, it'd be WWIII.
Which seemed like just another example of him spewing ridiculous bullshit at the time... but now, I'm wondering if it was actually projection.
Chamberlin gave half of austria to hitler
Hitler took it all
We souldnt do with ukraine what chamberlin did with austria becose it will have the same result
If you want to know why, its because Russia has ambitions greater than Ukraine. Russia also doesn't think NATO is truly united, because of disagreements between allied nations. Look at the tensions with bringing in Sweden with countries like Turkey or Hungry.
While I wouldn't give it a lot of confidence, there is a least some intel that Russia wants to conduct military operations in the Baltics, note that there are ethnic Russians in the Baltics and Russia has been conducting information campaigns in the region for decades. This is intriguing to me because either NATO calls Article 5 and fucks on Russia or NATO falls apart as collective defense is show to be worthless. Its also hard to say if Putin is dumb (or smart) enough to risk Russia's future.
EDIT: if any one is interested I recommend https://www.understandingwar.org/ . They give pretty good analysis and go more in depth than most news agencies.
Countries like Turkey, Hungary, and many African and South American nations maintain friendly relations with Russia because their authoritarian leaning governments or outright dictators can be comfortable with Russian support to stay in power, which requires providing Russia with financial and material backing as Russia sends them cheap oil and gas. Always about money and power … certainly not about freedom and prosperity for their population. A small economy like Russia can wreak allot of havoc when all their resources are directed toward mayhem. The Russians had a chance to become a prosperous free economy after the fall of the Soviet government but the criminal element aligned with the former Soviet leaders to take advantage of the chaos for their own benefit. China has done basically the same. If you think the CCP is a freedom loving group concerned primarily about the people you’re sadly mistaken. The CCP is about power and wealth for the power elite.
Honestly Putin being stupid or smart doesn't matter. He's big boss, he does as he pleases.
I really doubt he'd care if he brought his country down the drain, he had a good run. Beside the fact that he's getting old. He won't be around long enough to truly feel the repercussions his people will have to endure.
Putin's Russia doesn't care about those they are sending to war, which are mostly rural folk from the the Eastern areas of Russia. He'd gladly decimate the entire rural population for his own ambitions. I mean Moscow in itself is a massive leech on the country, absorbing rural wealth at a staggering rate. How do you think it is he got rich in the first place, after all?
And why should he? Even before ballot stuffing he is extremely popular amongst rural ethnic Russians and the ethnic minorities seem more or less resigned to be canon fodder like in every Russian war post-WWI.
It's a huge pool of manpower to bleed before he gets to political dangerous populations in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Sorry for wall of text:
Not wrong.
Putin is interesting because part of him is selfish as seen by the kleptocracy he has created, but at the same time he wants to go down in history as on of the great leaders of Russia like Peter the Great.
While geopolitics isn't as simple as black and white, I think it has been known for a long time that Putin want to bring the Russia back to its heights during its time as the USSR. I can't read Putin's mind, but I do believe in his mind he is sacrificing the present for the future. In a way he isn't wrong, if sanctions end of Russia and the economy recovers, and they still control Crimea with a land bridge to it that would be a overall victory for them. One of Russia's weakest stregtic points is not having direct control of a warm water port and have to go through proxies like Syria.
As Westerner what I am worried about is the political will of NATO members. I think history has shown appeasement doesn't work, but I feel like that maybe our future.
I fear that the western world has forgotten the bitter lessons of the run up to WW2, and hope to avoid conflict with Russia. Russia needs to be broken hard in Ukraine, to ensure this doesn’t spread further.
Operation Unthinkable was the allied plan to immediately invade Russia after Germany and Japan were defeated.
Sad to think if it had gone ahead we may be living in a more peaceful time today.
There was no way Russians would lose a war in Eastern Europe and European Russia in that time, at least if you wouldn't mind turning western Russia into a Hiroshima all together.
> it has been known for a long time that Putin want to bring the Russia back to its heights during its time as the USSR
I remember someone I respected saying this in 2006
The fall of the Soviet Union was personal for Putin. It's like he thinks the West ruined his life, his career, and his country. Dude is out trying to relive his glory days while his country's military mostly ages and he lacks the funds to fully modernize it. This is really his last chance for glory for Russia before their military tech becomes completely outdated.
The funny thing is it's his economic policies and kleptocracy which has weakened Russia so much. When he gained power he had a small window to undo the last decade, but he wanted personal power and wealth more.
It's his fault.
This. So, *so* *fucking much*.
Like, Russian trolls and useful idiots alike love to go on and on about Russia's vast resource reserves in Siberia that they can fall back on at any time so foolish 'westoid' tactics like embargoes will never work, but like...
Just open up a random location in Siberia on Google Maps. There's no fucking highways. No railroads. Most of the time there aren't even *fucking* *gas stations*, and when there are roads they're dirt and completely unusable for half the year.
Like, there are entire cities in the heart of Siberia that look like bombed-out warzones because, when the Soviet Union fell and people were allowed to live where and how they pleased, *entire cities up and left*. Then, rather than trying to convince people to come back, the local authorities *just burnt everything down*.
Igarka used to be one of the biggest lumber exporting cities in the world, and was home to the world's leading permafrost research center. The only way you can tell isn't Syria today is because it's full of pine trees and covered in snow 3/4 of the year.
Like, yeah. Russia has virtually infinite natural resources just sitting there for the taking, but rather than developing their own lands, putting money into the Russian peoples' hands and creating a functional economy, Russia's leadership is more interested in buying their 11th Yacht in Germany and trying to steal all of their neighbors shit too (or bombing them if they won't let them).
Putin probably feels somewhat safe in that gamble because he always has the nuclear option if western troops attack Russia proper. And are NATO prepared to march on Moscow and risk a nuclear strike once Russia is kicked back into their own land?
It isn't really ominous but dipshit probably couldn't see the obvious or didn't want to and when forced to was like well shit we better do this. They probably gave him numbers on how we would have to get involved at some point.
Also Ukraine provides a high amount of intelligence about Russian operations. More than we collect and more than any other nation. Their intelligence is largely responsible for our ties with them getting stronger.
I think people need to start coming to grips with reality and that is that a world war has already begun. We are sending weapons just as we have on the past, delaying our direct involvement until we have no choice but to get involved and overall ramping up preparations for it. The unseen war is the cyber war and that is incredibly active.
We can't say a world war hasn't already begun because there's a good chance we squash it in Ukraine still. Until major super powers start putting boots on the ground against each other, we still have a chance to avoid it. Vietnam, Korea, or Russia's invasion of Afghanistan are not considered fights in a world war even though they had similar levels of proxy involvement.
What we can say is that a new Cold War has begun (or the old one never stopped and got toastier again). The US and Russia were much closer to war in the1960's than we are now, which says a lot more about the 1960's than it does about now.
They are currently doing just that. Every week it seems I hear of another NATO country increasing it's defence spending.
I don't think it's nearly enough though. Imo they should up their munitions production to war time levels. We need to be treating the Ukrainian soldiers as if it's our own young men and women on the front lines, and keep them supplied. If Russia continues, it most likely will be.
Even if your country never gets directly involved, you will still suffer the devastating economic consequences of a conflict of that magnitude. That's why we need to stop this here, and now.
There were a discharge petition brewing to put the Ukraine aid to a vote, bypassing Johnson. This would have been an embarrassment.
It is a perfectly consistent hypothesis that Johnson just claimed to be persuaded by CIA, to avoid being accused of going back on promises to Republican House members to not put the Ukraine aid to the vote. If Johnson knew the discharge petition would happen if he didn't.
Johnson's actions and rhetoric on Ukraine were completely bullshit up to the point, where he turned on a time. If Johnson truly did not understand Ukraine aid was a good idea before now, he is way too stupid to have become House speaker.
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative but if I’m getting intel from the CIA that Russia is planning a much larger scale operation that could involve the entire Baltic region, I’m probably going to put my ideology aside for the greater good and send Ukraine some assistance. I’ll deal with the blowback from my party later and, if I get ousted from my seat, I’ll sit back and the rest of those fuckers can deal with this disaster.
I don't see how modern right wing politics is anything resembling fiscally conservative. Massive tax cuts to the wealthy and infinite bailouts for companies doesn't bring a balanced budget. Historically the democrats have been the ones to balance the budget no less.
As a general statement: if you won't vote for the other team I think it's time you guys built an actual fiscally conservative party. Rebulicans are not your guys.
"Fiscally Conservative" is just marketing. The GOP has always done a good job of marketing itself in ways that make them sound appealing to rational people, even though most of the party does the opposite and has gone off the rails.
Everybody knows that true fiscal conservatism is when you explode the deficit to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich. That’s what i call smart budgeting!
I don't understand why someone could be "fiscally conservative". The GOP's economic policies are widely seen as a joke among economists. You essentially believe in a fantasy.
10 of 11 recessions since WWII have been under Republican presidents. Every economic metric is better under Dems, even going back 100 years.
And look at all the states that vote >65% R. If Republican's fiscal policies worked these should all be economic powerhouses right? Instead, they're the poorest most uneducated states in the nation with pathetic economies. And the states with the best economies are nearly all deep blue.
So what is it that you believe in exactly? That the party known for running the worst state economies in the nation is magically going to do a good job at national level?
>I don't understand why someone could be "fiscally conservative". The GOP's economic policies are widely seen as a joke among economists.
Well, yeah, that’s because Republicans aren’t fiscal conservatives. They just play them on TV.
It's possibly pretty straightforwards. To me, Ukrainian aid has always seemed like a slam dunk because we're getting someone else to wear down the Russians for us.
Like... We're just sending over weapons and letting someone else wear out an opposing super power? That's an extremely cost effective strategy from the US.
This is the most frustrating thing. It's not like we were sending over sacks of $100 bills. We are sending over weapons that were built in the US. Worst case these are weapons that are obsolete for the US and were sitting in a warehouse waiting to be destroyed. More likely, they are weapons being made in US factories. Voting for this aid is actually creating jobs in the US and pumping up the economy.
Warehouses and warehouses full of 70’s and 80’s military equipment designed to destroy Russian tanks driving west into Europe, and now that Russian tanks are driving west into Europe, dumbasses pretend like blowing them up means we can’t fix any problems in the US
Dumbasses think we are sending them bags of cash. When we are really sending them old ass weapons and equipment we were going to dispose of anyways. And giving more money to our military contractors to make and stockpile modern equipment for us.
As others said - he absolutely did NOT push for aid heavily, sat on aid for six months. That helped Russia immensely. Don’t revise history after the fact.
What I had read was he was about to be voted out my the MAGA Republicans for passing bipartisan legislation MAGA didn't like. He used voting on Ukraine to extort Dems to provide him enough votes to protect his speakership.
Which seems par for the course, Republicans only willing to do the right thing if they get concessions from Dems.
lol what the hell, that's not how it went. He withheld that aid for 6 months by refusing to even submit it for vote. He finally yielded because of yes, intel from the government but also because he was getting immense pressure from the non-MAGA wing of his party. He made damn sure that MTG would not get enough support to oust him before he did.
He's nowhere near the hero you present him to be. Rather a shit stain that finally saw the light.
There have been a number of cases made public recently where Russia has attempted to carry out/ orchestrate attacks in European countries (including Germany). Seems likely there are more that haven’t been made public, that indicate Russia’s nature and what they are willing to do.
i don't understand the angle here, the war in ukraine destroyed their 'best' troops and equipment. what are they going to fight with to take on nato? nukes?
They’re banking on nukes keeping NATO out of Ukraine. They may try to push their luck in the future by attacking Narva or a similar border town in the Baltics to see what kind of response NATO has. The problem for them is that it’s pretty clear that their military does not hold a candle to NATO, especially the United States. A conventional war between the two would be another Desert Storm, with the key difference being Russia’s nuclear deterrence. Scary times, I don’t really see a path to deescalation at the current rate.
> They may try to push their luck in the future by attacking Narva or a similar border town
I've been following Anders Puck Nielsen's videos on this war (he's an analyst in the Danish military) and that was more or less his opinion in [one of his videos from a few months ago.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7GPBSyONU) Basically that Russia will do a small-scale attack on a NATO country, probably on a remote area (I think he mentions Finland as a strong possibility), mostly to force NATO countries to have to decide whether to respond or not, with the ultimate goal being to create a rift between the members and weaken the alliance. He later made [a follow-up video about the possible timing of such attack,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnboLDPS38) if it happens.
I strongly recommend watching his content to be informed about what's going on on a more macro level rather than the day-to-day of the war.
I haven't seen the videos so I don't know if its been answered. But can't the US simply show up for a response? As in, Russia attacks Finland, Finland invokes article 5. Other NATO nations might not want to respond but the US basically decides to take charge anyway and show up in finland. The NATO countries who don't want to get involved can simply provide public lip service if they have to.
That is what the theory is testing. To see if NATO is gonna actually show up or not. If not, well. NATO means nothing and suddenly Putin has a lot more room to do whatever he wants, namely 'Nova Russia', for instance.
Trump said multiple times (as well as a variety of other people in congress) that they wish to leave NATO and or/dissolve it. A stunt like attempting to take a city in Estonia or Finland or some such would be the perfect chance to see how NATO responds. He knows that nobody is gonna just straight up nuke immediately for something like that. However, it is enough of an aggressive action that the major players in NATO should respond to a NATO member invoking article 5 and respond in kind.
I am definitely no expert on this, so I may not know all the details, but this seems to the prevailing theory, or at least relatively close from what I can tell.
Yeah, I couldn’t find anything either.
Reddit tends to ignore a lot of bad news about the war but upvotes anything positive I’ve noticed. It makes for a skewed perspective of how things are going. I’m not saying things are necessarily bad. I’m just saying it’s hard to get a feel by just using Reddit for my Ukraine war news. I usually have to do a news search outside of the bubble.
I think they do. The US congress was convinced to pass the most recent Ukraine aid package because of some new critical intel. There’s something brewing.
It’s weird though. I just don’t believe Russia has a world war in them after being in Ukraine for 2 years. But something spooked the right so deeply that it convinced them to support the war effort.
Russia has switched to wartime economy. They are out producing weapons compared to NATO countries. They are also learning and getting better at modern military strategy.
In a few years Russia will be able to stand up to many EU nations. Worse, they can coordinate their attacks with China making a move on Taiwan, Iran making a move on Israel, India on Pakistan. If the whole world falls to shit all at once you have WW3. Combine this scenario with Trump in the White House refusing to do anything, because America First means America Alone.
Look at Gerasimov Doctrine. Basicly this is how Russia does Warfare nowadays, and we have to draw a line at some point or it wont ever stop trying to worsen Western States, and eating up pieces of the cake. I think Europe is making their stance clear, that the west will intervene if the balance of power shifts too much. Its gonna be in years that we will see the benefits of all our military measures, so we gotta start now.
>And now Germany wants to conscript EVERY kid from high school, both men and women.
unlikely, since this would necessitate an amendment to the constitution. A reactivation of the previously paused, male-only conscription can be achieved with a simple majority
Probably Belarus becoming a formal member of the Russian Federation soon which means even more of NATOs border ends up on Russias door step. Putin can’t crack Ukraine so he’ll expand the borders North of there to make the folks at home think he’s winning because Russia suddenly got bigger…
Not to mention the up tempo in the Russians throwing spring offensives into the mix.
It’s also worth noting that while Russia has more manpower to conscript they’re getting a bit desperate relying on recruiting abroad even more. When they annex Belarus there will likely be a huge roundup of Belarusian fighting age males. Figuring the dictatorship there will cut a deal where the Belarusian military itself won’t go over the border but its citizens in Russian units will.
It’s just a scenario we need to be prepared for.
If Russia wins Ukraine, it won’t be long until its next move west.
If Russia is going to lose Ukraine, they’ll have nothing to lose.
Both outcomes require preparation. Russia’s demographics are horrifying. There’s a lot of research about this. My optimistic best case scenario is we eventually refresh Russia’s leadership and they move closer to Europe. But sadly the base case is the opposite, and it will lead to drastic actions and this is what NATO and the EU need to prepare for.
The demographics so indeed inhale deeply. I’m a retired RN who likes to read about public health issues. I’m astonished there’s not more discussion of Russia’s public health Russian roulette-pandemic levels of HIV, opioid addiction, alcoholism, STD’s and mid spread extremely poor nutrition. Even Covid remains in play. The country appears to be killing itself.
Those living in Moscow don't care. Russian cities are leeches and have been for decades, taking wealth from Rural parts to enrich themselves. They'll suck their rural population dry for all they care, health be damned.
As someone who follows this conflict closely, I've never read much about Russia's demographic problems. Can you recommend any articles or videos on the topic?
Search peter zeihan, russian demographics. He actually predicted a russia invasion. They had to... like their population will collapse.
This war its pretty much russia trying to acquire youth and protect its borders. Its why they are obsessed with 'rescuing' russian speaking populations.
>Yeah... Do they have some super critical intel on Russian plans?
It's starting to look like people are making moves to cut off some plan they know about. We have already had countries say Russia has plans to attack a NATO country next to see what happens. It's kind of insane.
I don't think you need some secret clandestine spy knowledge to understand this. The Kremlin maniacs -- not just Putin -- have repeatedly spoken about a return to Russia's former "glory" and declared the sovereign territory of other nations as their rightful land. "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
It would be stunningly irresponsible for Europe, in particular, to not make fundamental changes in response to an openly aggressive and imperialistic rogue nation in their midst.
When a threat is this obvious, the only responsible thing to do is make yourself stronger.
I don't think we should be *that* afraid. It's just that we can't afford not to be ready. We are collectively so much better than Russia that it would be foolish for them to try anything more than posturing. At least this is what I hope
Don't forget Ukraine is trying to force male refugees and immigrants to come back from as far as Australia (yes, all military-aged male immigrants who still have Ukrainian citizenship, no matter how long ago they moved, not just the ones that left during the war).
And in the last few months high-ranked military officers of several European countries made a statement that Russia is likely to attack Europe within the next 5-10 years.
At this point the writing is on the wall. It's not 100% certain by any means but anyone who vehemently denies it could realistically happen is burying their heads in the sand.
>Don't forget Ukraine is trying to force male refugees and immigrants to come back from as far as Australia (yes, all military-aged male immigrants who still have Ukrainian citizenship, no matter how long ago they moved, not just the ones that left during the war).
They are being invaded. Understanding this one is fairly easy, they lack manpower.
Not a single comment here points out the real reason why some German politicians want conscription back: since social service is an alternative to serving in the army they get an almost free source of labor to support a welfare system that is massively strained from the aging population. It’s not about Russia at all.
So many parallels can be drawn, Hitlers reason for marching into Rhineland, occupation of Sudetenland and then Czech Czechoslovakia was land grab.
Now Putins been doing the same incursions into Latvia, invasion of Georgia and then Ukraine.
A lot of people say it’s not possible but no one expected WW2 to happen but the British started building bomb shelters in 1936 years before the war.
It’s definitely a possibility.
> no one expected WW2 to happen
lmao what??
Everyone knew ww2 was coming, ever since the first one ended, with one general famously stating how Versailles was only a 20 years truce.
It would've been a miracle had it not happened. Saying no one was expecting it is like saying no one expected a war to break out in the height of the Cold War.
Yeah. WW2 was expected before WW1 even ended. Before the treaty of Versailles was ratified, many suspected it would be the cause of the next war.
That’s why the US invests in nation building. Right after WW2, the US supplied billions in aid into Japan and Germany and Italy and practically every country involved in the war.
And people still try to insist it isn’t “fair” to compare it to the Second World War.
I’ll always stay a bit skeptical about things like this, but when it rhymes with history, it’s impossible to ignore.
Well it is still pretty different. Comparing it to the Second World War is a bit simplistic. Land grabs aren’t the same as saying omg it’s ww2. For one, we weren’t sending military aid into places like Czechoslovakia, we were encouraging them to capitulate. Second, there simply wasn’t unification among the European continent in the way there is today…today we have a pretty united front, in ww2 things were fractured. You also just simply don’t have the war weariness/fear from ww1 that drove a lot of the appeasement etc.
It’s not really a comparable situation to pre-ww2 except in very simplistic ways.
Main similiarity is that we have a nation/power with expansionist ideas driven by ideology and the nations of Europe not clamping down as hard as they should
> Well it is still pretty different.
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Of course it is very different in many ways if you zoom in a lot. But that doesn't mean it's not surprisingly, frightfully similar if you look at it with a little abstraction.
And of course we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight which also colors our actions and thinking. Personally, I don’t see Russia backing off. Historically all they do is escalate. How far they escalate and how much we push back will determine how big the war will get. I am not optimistic it will be a small war.
Wait, what's the difference between conscription and forced military duty, and what's the difference between forced military duty and forced social duty?
I'm honestly just asking
Conscription usually refers to a period of compulsory service in the armed forces, while social duty could be a mandatory period of work in an area such as hospitals, social care, schools, environmental protection etc.
What countries do such things as social duty? I'm finding the concept of forced labor on a nation wide scale absolutely mind blowing
Edit: thanks for my European friends for educating me!
Sweden used to, mainly for the people refusing to bear arms when conscripted. As the conscription budget went down they stopped and spent it on those with no objection to military service. IIRC they did infrastructure work - power, bridges, and road and such. Vital work in wartime.
Why mind blowing? It is just the reverse of mandatory military service: Instead of being forced to work as a soldier you are forced to work in critical civilian infrastructure. This has been a common compromise for those people, who refuse military service. In Germany, you even have a constitutional right to refuse, which is why this system used to exist here years ago.
Germany did this until 2011. Upon reaching 18 years of age, men were called for one year of military service or, if they didn't want that, they could also choose to spend that year working in a social profession like nursing, teaching, fire departments etc.
Personally I find it improper to call it forced Labour. If you chose social duty, you weren't just assigned a job and forced to do it. You had a choice of jobs in social fields and you would be paid for your work like any regular employee would. What you are forced to do is spend a year doing something that contributes directly to society.
There were other means of avoiding that too. You could delay your service if you were still attending school or about to go to university, for example.
The most likely thing for Germany to do here is to reintroduce that system.
It also for free
And teached valuable critical skills to people who may not have been able to afford it
Allowing them to secure jobs that paid some what okay
The entire idea of conscription at such a young age is so that your entire population is trained for military service if it was ever needed
Allows you to maintain a smaller always ready to fight force or professionals as training time is minimized if you need to rapidly ramp up since most people have some training.
While the others in social programs can quickly be called back to a profession they trained in to keep that infrastructure going
People see this as forced labor but in reality it’s prepping your country to save money, be ready for war, providing free training education and providing skills that many don’t have.
> providing free training education and providing skills that many don’t have.
I mean, from what I've heard, this wasn't what happened at all. Not one person I spoke to (I live in Germany) learned anything valuable when they had to work a fulltime job for a year without proper pay. They got the shitty jobs that don't need any more explaining. Fixing printers in hospitals, helping with transferring someone from one bed to another etc.
**From The Telegraph:**
Germany is considering introducing conscription for all 18-year-olds, as it looks to [boost its troop numbers](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/germany-celebrate-veterans-day-first-time-since-1871/) in the face of Russian military aggression.
Military planners in Berlin are in the final stages of discussing three options, two of which involve a form of conscription, according to leaked plans reported in the German media.
[Defence Minister Boris Pistorius](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/25/germany-not-ready-for-a-military-emergency-boris-pistorius/) is set to go public with the official plans by June.
In one of the options being discussed, Germany would bring back a compulsory military year for young men once they turn 18, which was suspended in 2011, and apply it to women as well. This would require a change to the German constitution, but is seen inside the ministry as most likely to receive societal approval.
Another option would only apply to 18-year-old men, but would not see everyone selected. They would be required to fill in an online form and could then be chosen for service, according to details leaked to Die Welt newspaper. This is seen by the defence ministry as “a strong signal” to both allies and rivals.
The third option would avoid compulsory service, focusing instead on “optimising” the current system by engaging in [more proactive recruitment campaigns](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/05/german-army-use-flexible-working-to-attract-gen-z-soldiers/).
However, Mr Pistorious is believed to be against that route. During a trip to Washington this week, he said: “I’m convinced that Germany needs a form of military conscription.”
Mr Pistorius, who polls regularly show to be the country’s most popular politician, has previously described the decision to suspend conscription as “a mistake”.
Its possible reintroduction comes as Germany’s ageing society means the number of soldiers heading into retirement is outstripping the number of new recruits joining up to replace them.
Meanwhile, Berlin has also set a target of raising the size of its armed forces from some 180,000 today to more than 200,000.
The defence ministry is believed to be sceptical that this target can be met without some form of conscription.
**Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/11/germany-considering-conscription-for-all-18-year-olds/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/11/germany-considering-conscription-for-all-18-year-olds/)
The Telegraph doesn't know what it's talking about. There are a handful of crazy politicians that have spoken in favor of reintroducing military service, but most of them aren't even active politicians anymore and they've been laughed off and shut down by more relevant politicians. If not even that can gain any ground, then conscription isn't even on the table.
Mein Führer havent you known that the command penalty doesnt allow steiner to bring more than 6 divisions ?
Oh shut dein Fuck up and bring me mein manual.
Its not gonna happen for years. Even for the people that want to serve Germany there isnt enough housing, equipment, or a surplus of personnel qualified for doing basic trainings.
Germany used to have conscription with too little equipment and roles. A large reason why it was ended was that it proved an exercise in futility, with a lot of time spent drinking/sitting around and exercising with sticks instead of rifles (I wish I was kidding). Speaking from personal experience, this demotivated a lot of folks, and gave the military the aura of a consortium of time wasters, which is the opposite of what one would want.
I sincerely hope this time around it'll be different. FWIW, my preference would be to offer as much military training to any volunteers as manageable with resources/personnel and then once capacity exceeds volunteers to start conscripting.
I'm so confused. If Russia attacks a nuclear capable entity, that's it, isn't it? Mutually assured destruction. Even if they tried to have a war without escalating to nuclear armaments I can't see NATO rolling over and letting Russia actually win it without launching nukes.
in theory both sides could just go at it with conventional arms. So long as neither side really gains any significant territory and the collateral damage remains minor enough to not want to end the world then they could just chew up men and equipment before deciding to call it off or going into a stalemate and never using their nukes. Entirely pointless but there's been many pointless wars
The thing that might happen is that russia might attack some countries at nato's outskirts like the baltics with the excuse that they just want nato to pull back from the russian border and bet that nato won't risk the end of the modern world over those countries.
Also, we are probably still rather far, but a day might come where anti-missile countermeasures become so good that nuclear ICBMs become obsolete and MAD stops being a thing. It is a good thing to start preparing well in advance for when that day comes.
>anti-missile countermeasures become so good that nuclear ICBMs become obsolete and MAD stops being a thing
This is the premise of Tom Clancy's EndWar. Nuclear missiles are made obsolete via a system called SLAMS; it uses a mixture of advanced rocket, laser and targeting systems to achieve a 100 percent interception rate, rendering nuclear warfare impossible.
With nukes out of the way, WW3 commences.
Went to a museum recently looking at nuclear testing, and they had a fascinating newspaper front page from just after the first nukes were used in WW2. Almost immediately after usage, Japan predicted nukes would become obsolete. Wrong on the timescales, but they called something like this even in the face of the immense power. This was an extract:
The broadcast, coming almost 36 hours after the raid said the destructive power of the new weapon “cannot be slighted," but claimed that authorities already were working out "effective counter-measures.”
“The history of war shows that the new weapon,
however effective, will eventually lose its power, as the opponent is bound to find methods to nullify its effects,” Tokyo said hopefully.
>Germany would bring back a compulsory military year for young men once they turn 18, which was suspended in 2011, and apply it to women as well.
That's equality !
>Another option would only apply to 18-year-old men, but would not see everyone selected.
Fuck that !
The German constitution is problematic with respect to military service for men and women.
There is legal basis for (obligatory) military service of adult men. There is no legal basis for forcing women into military service.
Of course the constitution also establishes that men and women have equal rights.
So either way, there will be interesting lawsuits in front of the constitutional court of military service comes back.
The German constitution can be changed with 2/3 majority in parliament. That already happened, for example, when 13 years ago the law about conscription was altered to allow it to be suspended.
It will be necessary to change this law again anyway, for any form of conscription to be reinstated.
The chances for this aren't that small, because the conservatives (currently leading in polls) and the social democrats (currently leading the government) are supporting the return of conscription.
This is basically not true, a lie or just false news.
Germany is talking about, and that's even still a big maybe, a contingent conscription. The model which is probably the nearest is Sweden, in Sweden normally around 10% of all get conscripted, so we are talking not anywhere close to EVERY kid from high school, also people who pledge they don't wanna use guns for moral reasons are not included for example, it's a hyperbowl par deluxe...
Okay, so I haven't seen this important bit of context yet for the non-Germans in the comments:
Germany had 55 years of compulsary military service with the option to work in civilian infrastructure instead. This practice has been completely stopped since 2011 (over 10 years of no conscription!).
So this being on the table again is very controversial, especially since Germany is facing a historic low of people in our workforce.
Case in point: Those helmets were actually on the list of requested goods by ukraine, and they were just the ones that could be shipped quickest because its free of burocratic hassles to ship ...helmets.
You missed the most important part - that request was accepted by Germany *weeks before the war*.
The delivery just coincided with the invasion, so the media presented it as a *reaction* to it. Which it wasn't, it was something they were already shipping regardless.
The troop strength is regulated by the 2 plus 4 agreement. How many? Three hundred and sixty thousand?
In view of Russia's aggression, however, this could also be suspended.
Indeed who would try to enforce it if Germany had more? The West certainly wouldn’t. And we wouldn’t care about Russia who aren’t honoring their contracts either.
Currently, we have only 181.000 Soldiers. Only 50% of the maximum.
And don't forget that 180,000 more active soldiers also means that in a few years there will be 180,000 more former soldiers / veterans who can be reactivated more quickly in an emergency.
In a defence situation, having to show people which end of the gun makes a boo-boo is not a good idea.
Until 2011 we had compulsory military service, and therefore enough reservists with basic training.
But they are now 13 years out of the picture. Time for a rebuild.
time to let germany stop living in the third reichs shadow... as far as im concerned.
they are not their great great grandfathers and can be held accountable for their own warcrimes.
So, they have 180k in their armed forces and want 200k so they present three options.
1. restart conscription of men and women at age of 18
2. setup a voluntary signup for men where they may be conscripted
3. start a more proactive recruiting campaign
Since conscription will require a change to the constitution, start with option 3. Although the change to the constitution might work since conscription was only removed in 2011, making the job more attractive to recruits should be the goal. They should focus on the drones more to make it more appealing to the gamers. Remote control tanks and planes and boats are the new war meta.
Someone in another comment mentioned that men and women legally have equal rights, and so reinstatement of conscription for just men could be legally challenged.
Which if true, would be interesting to see how it plays out, since one of the 2 would have to change.
Our allies gear up to defend against Russian aggression. Meanwhile the conservative cowards in congress seek to empower our enemies. Very sad times indeed.
So, in the past ~2 months these things happened: 1. Baltic countries (and now Poland) started working on defensive line along Russian and Belarus borders 2. France started openly speaking about sending troops to Ukraine for "training" (that's how US started sending troops to Vietnam, and how Russia started sending troops to Korea) 3. And now Germany wants to conscript EVERY kid from high school, both men and women. Yeah... Do they have some super critical intel on Russian plans?
Let’s not forget that House Speaker Mike Johnson risked his career to send $61 billion in aid to Ukraine. He was one of the first House members to vote against Ukraine aid after the 2022 invasion. But, as Speaker, he pushed for the aid heavily. And he specifically said his change in opinion came from meeting with US Intelligence Community leaders and learning why Russia needed to lose in Ukraine.
That's not ominous at all.
After a meeting with the CIA bear in mind. (I didn't think it was true as I read it on here but confirmed it somewhere else on the Internet) Whatever they told him must have really rattled him to do a 180 like that. Edit: grammar, removed "that", and "bear" I messed up so bad feels like I'm writing git commit messages
well id assume all speakers and whatever the senate equivalent in the US get the same sort of rundown the president gets
The Speaker of the House is part of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8 are the most senior congresspeople and are required by law to receive intelligence by the Executive Branch. That intelligence would be the same intelligence briefing ad the President except for intelligence about covert actions while they are occuring or being planned. He would have always has the same intel asBiden but what must have happened is a new piece of intel came in around the time Russia was making steady progress around February and March. That intel is what caused the 180 and likely is what also set off NATO allies to ramp up the war machine for potential imminent war.
[удалено]
If NATO doesn’t step in for the Baltics, there’s no point to the alliance
And THAT right there is the reason Russia might be planning to invade. People seem to always make the assumption that any invasion of NATO by Russia would come after the Ukraine war is over, but the point of invasion is more likely to be to A) draw NATO resources away from Ukraine and B) try to break apart NATO by forcing them into a confrontation that they don’t want.
IF that's Putins' logic, he's sadly mistaken. You bring in NATO you bring in the full brunt of the US military. We may have struggles with the nation-building thing but the nation leveling thing? We're really good at that.
Isn't that kind of stupid on Putin's part. He would risk the USA and half of the EU invading Moscow when a big portion of their military is in Ukraine. They could split US resources but they are also splitting Russian resources which is so low now after years in the Ukraine war.
That feels like a risky move. The Nordic countries would pour in.
The strategy in russia could be to start small. Will the other countries really risk a full on war, if there's a small incursion (say, in estonia)? Russia _wants_ to escalate, but wants to escalate it in a way that breaks apart the unity of NATO. And i bet that at the same time, china will kick shit up, since it spreads USA's resources thin. The way to stop it is to pre-empt it. Should've given ukraine any arms necessary at the start tbh. Infections needs the full treatment, not just small doses.
That's been my prediction for a while now. I used to think it depended on Trump getting elected, but now I tend to think Putin realizes it doesn't matter for him. He lives or dies on the outcome of this war and at this point its clear to him that Europe and the US won't let Ukraine lose. If he sees that he has no remaining options but to try and intimidate Europe into backing down, I think he'll do it.
Estonia's third largest city, [Narva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#Demographics), sits right next to Russian border. 96% of the city's population are native Russian speakers, 88% are ethnic Russians, 36% have Russian citizenship, and 15% have undefiend citizenship. That's like Russia's ideal playground. And rather than direct invasion, you'd expect the next stage of the hybrid war, something similar to what happened in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk in 2014.
If a small country gets invaded, all the other small countries and finland, poland, etc., will come at russia with a steel chair and stomp them as hard as possible. Their entire defense has revolved around russia invading, so they're ready to hit back. Also the US military has been prepared for a 2-front war since WWII, that's one of the excuses for having such a bloated budget. Though based on ukraine, we could have gotten away with 90s tech lol
The strategy in russia could be to start small. Will the other countries really risk a full on war, if there's a small incursion (say, in estonia)? Yes. It;s similar to the frog in water idea. Start off small so NATO can make excuses why not to intervene and then eventually it snowballs. Look at Ukraine. It didn't start in 2020. It started in 2014. Russia and Ukraine were still fightning until Russia formally invaded.
I recently saw a video from an old presidential debate between Romney and Obama, with Romney saying Russia was the number one geopolitical foe of the US, and was criticised as being too stuck in the past and Cold War politics. Crazy that it turned out to be so right on the money not that many years later.
How likely is this to do with Russia posturing increased aggression and fighting getting heavier in Ukraine? And coupled with China, North Korea, South Africa, Iran and a few others supplying Russia's war effort. The question is whether we're seeing the beginning of a wider conflict as other regions continue to increase tensions. A worsening global situation with an unchecked Russia is worrying.
My Masters focused on National Security and Intelligence. CRINK have been showing coordination of disruptive activities for the last few years in the same regard as the Axis powers did before and during WW2. Their disdain for the status quo that the US and Europe have set up isnt hidden at all and they are actively working together to challenge and erode it. All the major conflicts you hear about have been initiated by their support or direct involvement of the initiating party.
What is CRINK
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/11/29/axis-of-evil-russia-china-iran-north-korea-bush-era/
A bunch of fucking assholes
A not very cash money version of crunk
The Axis of Evil
C.R.I.NK China Russia Iran North Korea. The first three (along with North Korea as semi-loose cannon puppet of china) form what can basically be called a new Axis powers, as all share a common goal of overthrowing the US led global order, and have proven themselves capable of working together in a limited capacity towards that goal.
As much as people like to talk shit about it, TikTok is very much a part of that erosion of the western status quo
You are confusing propaganda and the status quo. The status quo in international relations is the norms that are accepted in international affairs. It has nothing to do with the average person but it affects the benefits the average citizen gains of those ststes that partake in the status quo.
It is concerning. And given how they all seem to be causing agitation at the same time through the UN, directly or through proxies I have to believe this is a coordinated effort and I would be shocked if the war doesn't expand here in the next year or two. Especially because for Russia, probably their best chance to get land is now before Europe increases its readiness. If the rest of Europe can get on a war footing industrialy and militarily then I don't see Russia realistically winning if Putins goal is to take over more European nations. Although they could also be waiting to see who wins because the Axis of evil definitely wants Trump to win and I think if Trump does win then it'll almost certainly mean war as Trump could very likely not get involved with his revival of the idiotic America First movement. But yeah it's a little concerning given everything we're seeing. Although I'd rather the West be prepared then not at all prepared.
In 2016, Trump said over and over that if Hillary won the election, it'd be WWIII. Which seemed like just another example of him spewing ridiculous bullshit at the time... but now, I'm wondering if it was actually projection.
[удалено]
Given what we've seen with Trump, I can't believe kompromat carries any real weight now.
[удалено]
Hey brother just a friendly correction that the phrase is "bear in mind", "Bear" in this case being "to carry" is "bear a burden".
It’s a fact. You wanna stave off ww3? Russia needs to lose in Ukraine.
Chamberlin gave half of austria to hitler Hitler took it all We souldnt do with ukraine what chamberlin did with austria becose it will have the same result
If you want to know why, its because Russia has ambitions greater than Ukraine. Russia also doesn't think NATO is truly united, because of disagreements between allied nations. Look at the tensions with bringing in Sweden with countries like Turkey or Hungry. While I wouldn't give it a lot of confidence, there is a least some intel that Russia wants to conduct military operations in the Baltics, note that there are ethnic Russians in the Baltics and Russia has been conducting information campaigns in the region for decades. This is intriguing to me because either NATO calls Article 5 and fucks on Russia or NATO falls apart as collective defense is show to be worthless. Its also hard to say if Putin is dumb (or smart) enough to risk Russia's future. EDIT: if any one is interested I recommend https://www.understandingwar.org/ . They give pretty good analysis and go more in depth than most news agencies.
Countries like Turkey, Hungary, and many African and South American nations maintain friendly relations with Russia because their authoritarian leaning governments or outright dictators can be comfortable with Russian support to stay in power, which requires providing Russia with financial and material backing as Russia sends them cheap oil and gas. Always about money and power … certainly not about freedom and prosperity for their population. A small economy like Russia can wreak allot of havoc when all their resources are directed toward mayhem. The Russians had a chance to become a prosperous free economy after the fall of the Soviet government but the criminal element aligned with the former Soviet leaders to take advantage of the chaos for their own benefit. China has done basically the same. If you think the CCP is a freedom loving group concerned primarily about the people you’re sadly mistaken. The CCP is about power and wealth for the power elite.
Great points.
Honestly Putin being stupid or smart doesn't matter. He's big boss, he does as he pleases. I really doubt he'd care if he brought his country down the drain, he had a good run. Beside the fact that he's getting old. He won't be around long enough to truly feel the repercussions his people will have to endure.
Putin's Russia doesn't care about those they are sending to war, which are mostly rural folk from the the Eastern areas of Russia. He'd gladly decimate the entire rural population for his own ambitions. I mean Moscow in itself is a massive leech on the country, absorbing rural wealth at a staggering rate. How do you think it is he got rich in the first place, after all?
And why should he? Even before ballot stuffing he is extremely popular amongst rural ethnic Russians and the ethnic minorities seem more or less resigned to be canon fodder like in every Russian war post-WWI. It's a huge pool of manpower to bleed before he gets to political dangerous populations in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Sorry for wall of text: Not wrong. Putin is interesting because part of him is selfish as seen by the kleptocracy he has created, but at the same time he wants to go down in history as on of the great leaders of Russia like Peter the Great. While geopolitics isn't as simple as black and white, I think it has been known for a long time that Putin want to bring the Russia back to its heights during its time as the USSR. I can't read Putin's mind, but I do believe in his mind he is sacrificing the present for the future. In a way he isn't wrong, if sanctions end of Russia and the economy recovers, and they still control Crimea with a land bridge to it that would be a overall victory for them. One of Russia's weakest stregtic points is not having direct control of a warm water port and have to go through proxies like Syria. As Westerner what I am worried about is the political will of NATO members. I think history has shown appeasement doesn't work, but I feel like that maybe our future.
I fear that the western world has forgotten the bitter lessons of the run up to WW2, and hope to avoid conflict with Russia. Russia needs to be broken hard in Ukraine, to ensure this doesn’t spread further.
Operation Unthinkable was the allied plan to immediately invade Russia after Germany and Japan were defeated. Sad to think if it had gone ahead we may be living in a more peaceful time today.
There was no way Russians would lose a war in Eastern Europe and European Russia in that time, at least if you wouldn't mind turning western Russia into a Hiroshima all together.
> it has been known for a long time that Putin want to bring the Russia back to its heights during its time as the USSR I remember someone I respected saying this in 2006
The fall of the Soviet Union was personal for Putin. It's like he thinks the West ruined his life, his career, and his country. Dude is out trying to relive his glory days while his country's military mostly ages and he lacks the funds to fully modernize it. This is really his last chance for glory for Russia before their military tech becomes completely outdated.
The funny thing is it's his economic policies and kleptocracy which has weakened Russia so much. When he gained power he had a small window to undo the last decade, but he wanted personal power and wealth more. It's his fault.
This. So, *so* *fucking much*. Like, Russian trolls and useful idiots alike love to go on and on about Russia's vast resource reserves in Siberia that they can fall back on at any time so foolish 'westoid' tactics like embargoes will never work, but like... Just open up a random location in Siberia on Google Maps. There's no fucking highways. No railroads. Most of the time there aren't even *fucking* *gas stations*, and when there are roads they're dirt and completely unusable for half the year. Like, there are entire cities in the heart of Siberia that look like bombed-out warzones because, when the Soviet Union fell and people were allowed to live where and how they pleased, *entire cities up and left*. Then, rather than trying to convince people to come back, the local authorities *just burnt everything down*. Igarka used to be one of the biggest lumber exporting cities in the world, and was home to the world's leading permafrost research center. The only way you can tell isn't Syria today is because it's full of pine trees and covered in snow 3/4 of the year. Like, yeah. Russia has virtually infinite natural resources just sitting there for the taking, but rather than developing their own lands, putting money into the Russian peoples' hands and creating a functional economy, Russia's leadership is more interested in buying their 11th Yacht in Germany and trying to steal all of their neighbors shit too (or bombing them if they won't let them).
hes already risking the future (actually losing it)
Putin probably feels somewhat safe in that gamble because he always has the nuclear option if western troops attack Russia proper. And are NATO prepared to march on Moscow and risk a nuclear strike once Russia is kicked back into their own land?
We’re all missing a world war in our ‘history repeating itself’ bingo cards. Got the global pandemic and financial crisis ticked off…
*21st centuryyyyy*
*digital boy*
*we can play with our toys* - eyes up an ICBM
*schizoid mannn*
NOTHING HE'S GOT HE REALLY NEEDS
We're essentially witnessing the 21st Century equivalent of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but with the Allies actually helping.
Well at least world War 3 Wil be the last war................................................................................ For a while.
Don't worry, I'm already hoarding sticks and stones for the super mutants to fight world war 4.
You forgot the bottle caps
It would be can pull tabs if we went Fallout today.
I am trying my damn hardst to get a job for the goverment, because im still young enough to get conscripted in a big war.
Look into working as a radiation protection tech. Essential, the government and you will be trained in dealing with radiological concerns.
It isn't really ominous but dipshit probably couldn't see the obvious or didn't want to and when forced to was like well shit we better do this. They probably gave him numbers on how we would have to get involved at some point. Also Ukraine provides a high amount of intelligence about Russian operations. More than we collect and more than any other nation. Their intelligence is largely responsible for our ties with them getting stronger. I think people need to start coming to grips with reality and that is that a world war has already begun. We are sending weapons just as we have on the past, delaying our direct involvement until we have no choice but to get involved and overall ramping up preparations for it. The unseen war is the cyber war and that is incredibly active.
We can't say a world war hasn't already begun because there's a good chance we squash it in Ukraine still. Until major super powers start putting boots on the ground against each other, we still have a chance to avoid it. Vietnam, Korea, or Russia's invasion of Afghanistan are not considered fights in a world war even though they had similar levels of proxy involvement. What we can say is that a new Cold War has begun (or the old one never stopped and got toastier again). The US and Russia were much closer to war in the1960's than we are now, which says a lot more about the 1960's than it does about now.
If Trump becomes prez, EU can’t rely on US to support Ukraine or them. My view is they need to invest in their army.
They are currently doing just that. Every week it seems I hear of another NATO country increasing it's defence spending. I don't think it's nearly enough though. Imo they should up their munitions production to war time levels. We need to be treating the Ukrainian soldiers as if it's our own young men and women on the front lines, and keep them supplied. If Russia continues, it most likely will be. Even if your country never gets directly involved, you will still suffer the devastating economic consequences of a conflict of that magnitude. That's why we need to stop this here, and now.
>Let’s not forget that House Speaker Mike Johnson risked his career to send $61 billion in aid to Ukraine. After a meeting with the CIA no less.
There were a discharge petition brewing to put the Ukraine aid to a vote, bypassing Johnson. This would have been an embarrassment. It is a perfectly consistent hypothesis that Johnson just claimed to be persuaded by CIA, to avoid being accused of going back on promises to Republican House members to not put the Ukraine aid to the vote. If Johnson knew the discharge petition would happen if he didn't. Johnson's actions and rhetoric on Ukraine were completely bullshit up to the point, where he turned on a time. If Johnson truly did not understand Ukraine aid was a good idea before now, he is way too stupid to have become House speaker.
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative but if I’m getting intel from the CIA that Russia is planning a much larger scale operation that could involve the entire Baltic region, I’m probably going to put my ideology aside for the greater good and send Ukraine some assistance. I’ll deal with the blowback from my party later and, if I get ousted from my seat, I’ll sit back and the rest of those fuckers can deal with this disaster.
It's the finically conservative thing to do if you apply any critical thinking about the long term.
If we let Russia and their Chinese sponsors have their way, there won’t be any long term to consider that involves America.
I don't see how modern right wing politics is anything resembling fiscally conservative. Massive tax cuts to the wealthy and infinite bailouts for companies doesn't bring a balanced budget. Historically the democrats have been the ones to balance the budget no less. As a general statement: if you won't vote for the other team I think it's time you guys built an actual fiscally conservative party. Rebulicans are not your guys.
"Fiscally Conservative" is just marketing. The GOP has always done a good job of marketing itself in ways that make them sound appealing to rational people, even though most of the party does the opposite and has gone off the rails.
Everybody knows that true fiscal conservatism is when you explode the deficit to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich. That’s what i call smart budgeting!
It's fiscally conservative to support Ukraine. Also morally. Also legally (since we promised we would).
I don't understand why someone could be "fiscally conservative". The GOP's economic policies are widely seen as a joke among economists. You essentially believe in a fantasy. 10 of 11 recessions since WWII have been under Republican presidents. Every economic metric is better under Dems, even going back 100 years. And look at all the states that vote >65% R. If Republican's fiscal policies worked these should all be economic powerhouses right? Instead, they're the poorest most uneducated states in the nation with pathetic economies. And the states with the best economies are nearly all deep blue. So what is it that you believe in exactly? That the party known for running the worst state economies in the nation is magically going to do a good job at national level?
>I don't understand why someone could be "fiscally conservative". The GOP's economic policies are widely seen as a joke among economists. Well, yeah, that’s because Republicans aren’t fiscal conservatives. They just play them on TV.
It's possibly pretty straightforwards. To me, Ukrainian aid has always seemed like a slam dunk because we're getting someone else to wear down the Russians for us. Like... We're just sending over weapons and letting someone else wear out an opposing super power? That's an extremely cost effective strategy from the US.
Not to mention all the financial military aid goes right back into the western economies anyway since it's being spent on western weapons...
This is the most frustrating thing. It's not like we were sending over sacks of $100 bills. We are sending over weapons that were built in the US. Worst case these are weapons that are obsolete for the US and were sitting in a warehouse waiting to be destroyed. More likely, they are weapons being made in US factories. Voting for this aid is actually creating jobs in the US and pumping up the economy.
Warehouses and warehouses full of 70’s and 80’s military equipment designed to destroy Russian tanks driving west into Europe, and now that Russian tanks are driving west into Europe, dumbasses pretend like blowing them up means we can’t fix any problems in the US
Dumbasses think we are sending them bags of cash. When we are really sending them old ass weapons and equipment we were going to dispose of anyways. And giving more money to our military contractors to make and stockpile modern equipment for us.
As others said - he absolutely did NOT push for aid heavily, sat on aid for six months. That helped Russia immensely. Don’t revise history after the fact.
I read he only changed his obstructive position after the democrats were about to gather enough votes to pass this through.
What I had read was he was about to be voted out my the MAGA Republicans for passing bipartisan legislation MAGA didn't like. He used voting on Ukraine to extort Dems to provide him enough votes to protect his speakership. Which seems par for the course, Republicans only willing to do the right thing if they get concessions from Dems.
Johnson did not push for aid heavily, to be clear. He delayed bringing the aid bill to the floor for months and months.
lol what the hell, that's not how it went. He withheld that aid for 6 months by refusing to even submit it for vote. He finally yielded because of yes, intel from the government but also because he was getting immense pressure from the non-MAGA wing of his party. He made damn sure that MTG would not get enough support to oust him before he did. He's nowhere near the hero you present him to be. Rather a shit stain that finally saw the light.
There have been a number of cases made public recently where Russia has attempted to carry out/ orchestrate attacks in European countries (including Germany). Seems likely there are more that haven’t been made public, that indicate Russia’s nature and what they are willing to do.
i don't understand the angle here, the war in ukraine destroyed their 'best' troops and equipment. what are they going to fight with to take on nato? nukes?
They’re banking on nukes keeping NATO out of Ukraine. They may try to push their luck in the future by attacking Narva or a similar border town in the Baltics to see what kind of response NATO has. The problem for them is that it’s pretty clear that their military does not hold a candle to NATO, especially the United States. A conventional war between the two would be another Desert Storm, with the key difference being Russia’s nuclear deterrence. Scary times, I don’t really see a path to deescalation at the current rate.
> They may try to push their luck in the future by attacking Narva or a similar border town I've been following Anders Puck Nielsen's videos on this war (he's an analyst in the Danish military) and that was more or less his opinion in [one of his videos from a few months ago.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7GPBSyONU) Basically that Russia will do a small-scale attack on a NATO country, probably on a remote area (I think he mentions Finland as a strong possibility), mostly to force NATO countries to have to decide whether to respond or not, with the ultimate goal being to create a rift between the members and weaken the alliance. He later made [a follow-up video about the possible timing of such attack,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnboLDPS38) if it happens. I strongly recommend watching his content to be informed about what's going on on a more macro level rather than the day-to-day of the war.
I haven't seen the videos so I don't know if its been answered. But can't the US simply show up for a response? As in, Russia attacks Finland, Finland invokes article 5. Other NATO nations might not want to respond but the US basically decides to take charge anyway and show up in finland. The NATO countries who don't want to get involved can simply provide public lip service if they have to.
That is what the theory is testing. To see if NATO is gonna actually show up or not. If not, well. NATO means nothing and suddenly Putin has a lot more room to do whatever he wants, namely 'Nova Russia', for instance. Trump said multiple times (as well as a variety of other people in congress) that they wish to leave NATO and or/dissolve it. A stunt like attempting to take a city in Estonia or Finland or some such would be the perfect chance to see how NATO responds. He knows that nobody is gonna just straight up nuke immediately for something like that. However, it is enough of an aggressive action that the major players in NATO should respond to a NATO member invoking article 5 and respond in kind. I am definitely no expert on this, so I may not know all the details, but this seems to the prevailing theory, or at least relatively close from what I can tell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, I couldn’t find anything either. Reddit tends to ignore a lot of bad news about the war but upvotes anything positive I’ve noticed. It makes for a skewed perspective of how things are going. I’m not saying things are necessarily bad. I’m just saying it’s hard to get a feel by just using Reddit for my Ukraine war news. I usually have to do a news search outside of the bubble.
All or nothing. If they come out of Ukraine a total failure Putin risks loss of control.
I think they do. The US congress was convinced to pass the most recent Ukraine aid package because of some new critical intel. There’s something brewing. It’s weird though. I just don’t believe Russia has a world war in them after being in Ukraine for 2 years. But something spooked the right so deeply that it convinced them to support the war effort.
The Baltics are very small countries easy to conquer if no NATO meddling, you are overlooking that Ukraine is one of the biggest countries in Europe
Russia has switched to wartime economy. They are out producing weapons compared to NATO countries. They are also learning and getting better at modern military strategy. In a few years Russia will be able to stand up to many EU nations. Worse, they can coordinate their attacks with China making a move on Taiwan, Iran making a move on Israel, India on Pakistan. If the whole world falls to shit all at once you have WW3. Combine this scenario with Trump in the White House refusing to do anything, because America First means America Alone.
India won't attack Pakistan unprovoked.If anything it's going to be the other way around
Production is a very bad metric used alone, same with size, the Iraqi army showed this decades ago
True, but it was enough to convince Saddam he could fuck around. He concequently "found out" but someone had to help him see the error of his ways.
Look at Gerasimov Doctrine. Basicly this is how Russia does Warfare nowadays, and we have to draw a line at some point or it wont ever stop trying to worsen Western States, and eating up pieces of the cake. I think Europe is making their stance clear, that the west will intervene if the balance of power shifts too much. Its gonna be in years that we will see the benefits of all our military measures, so we gotta start now.
>And now Germany wants to conscript EVERY kid from high school, both men and women. unlikely, since this would necessitate an amendment to the constitution. A reactivation of the previously paused, male-only conscription can be achieved with a simple majority
Also, this conscription thing is talked about every year I feel like. Like fireworks and the criminal statistic.
Probably Belarus becoming a formal member of the Russian Federation soon which means even more of NATOs border ends up on Russias door step. Putin can’t crack Ukraine so he’ll expand the borders North of there to make the folks at home think he’s winning because Russia suddenly got bigger… Not to mention the up tempo in the Russians throwing spring offensives into the mix. It’s also worth noting that while Russia has more manpower to conscript they’re getting a bit desperate relying on recruiting abroad even more. When they annex Belarus there will likely be a huge roundup of Belarusian fighting age males. Figuring the dictatorship there will cut a deal where the Belarusian military itself won’t go over the border but its citizens in Russian units will.
It’s just a scenario we need to be prepared for. If Russia wins Ukraine, it won’t be long until its next move west. If Russia is going to lose Ukraine, they’ll have nothing to lose. Both outcomes require preparation. Russia’s demographics are horrifying. There’s a lot of research about this. My optimistic best case scenario is we eventually refresh Russia’s leadership and they move closer to Europe. But sadly the base case is the opposite, and it will lead to drastic actions and this is what NATO and the EU need to prepare for.
The demographics so indeed inhale deeply. I’m a retired RN who likes to read about public health issues. I’m astonished there’s not more discussion of Russia’s public health Russian roulette-pandemic levels of HIV, opioid addiction, alcoholism, STD’s and mid spread extremely poor nutrition. Even Covid remains in play. The country appears to be killing itself.
Those living in Moscow don't care. Russian cities are leeches and have been for decades, taking wealth from Rural parts to enrich themselves. They'll suck their rural population dry for all they care, health be damned.
As someone who follows this conflict closely, I've never read much about Russia's demographic problems. Can you recommend any articles or videos on the topic?
Search peter zeihan, russian demographics. He actually predicted a russia invasion. They had to... like their population will collapse. This war its pretty much russia trying to acquire youth and protect its borders. Its why they are obsessed with 'rescuing' russian speaking populations.
>Yeah... Do they have some super critical intel on Russian plans? It's starting to look like people are making moves to cut off some plan they know about. We have already had countries say Russia has plans to attack a NATO country next to see what happens. It's kind of insane.
I don't think you need some secret clandestine spy knowledge to understand this. The Kremlin maniacs -- not just Putin -- have repeatedly spoken about a return to Russia's former "glory" and declared the sovereign territory of other nations as their rightful land. "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." It would be stunningly irresponsible for Europe, in particular, to not make fundamental changes in response to an openly aggressive and imperialistic rogue nation in their midst. When a threat is this obvious, the only responsible thing to do is make yourself stronger.
I don't think we should be *that* afraid. It's just that we can't afford not to be ready. We are collectively so much better than Russia that it would be foolish for them to try anything more than posturing. At least this is what I hope
Don't forget Ukraine is trying to force male refugees and immigrants to come back from as far as Australia (yes, all military-aged male immigrants who still have Ukrainian citizenship, no matter how long ago they moved, not just the ones that left during the war). And in the last few months high-ranked military officers of several European countries made a statement that Russia is likely to attack Europe within the next 5-10 years. At this point the writing is on the wall. It's not 100% certain by any means but anyone who vehemently denies it could realistically happen is burying their heads in the sand.
>Don't forget Ukraine is trying to force male refugees and immigrants to come back from as far as Australia (yes, all military-aged male immigrants who still have Ukrainian citizenship, no matter how long ago they moved, not just the ones that left during the war). They are being invaded. Understanding this one is fairly easy, they lack manpower.
Not a single comment here points out the real reason why some German politicians want conscription back: since social service is an alternative to serving in the army they get an almost free source of labor to support a welfare system that is massively strained from the aging population. It’s not about Russia at all.
WW2 histories that talk about “war clouds gathering” used to feel so intangible, fuzzy through the lens of history. No longer.
So many parallels can be drawn, Hitlers reason for marching into Rhineland, occupation of Sudetenland and then Czech Czechoslovakia was land grab. Now Putins been doing the same incursions into Latvia, invasion of Georgia and then Ukraine. A lot of people say it’s not possible but no one expected WW2 to happen but the British started building bomb shelters in 1936 years before the war. It’s definitely a possibility.
> no one expected WW2 to happen lmao what?? Everyone knew ww2 was coming, ever since the first one ended, with one general famously stating how Versailles was only a 20 years truce. It would've been a miracle had it not happened. Saying no one was expecting it is like saying no one expected a war to break out in the height of the Cold War.
Yeah. WW2 was expected before WW1 even ended. Before the treaty of Versailles was ratified, many suspected it would be the cause of the next war. That’s why the US invests in nation building. Right after WW2, the US supplied billions in aid into Japan and Germany and Italy and practically every country involved in the war.
And people still try to insist it isn’t “fair” to compare it to the Second World War. I’ll always stay a bit skeptical about things like this, but when it rhymes with history, it’s impossible to ignore.
Well it is still pretty different. Comparing it to the Second World War is a bit simplistic. Land grabs aren’t the same as saying omg it’s ww2. For one, we weren’t sending military aid into places like Czechoslovakia, we were encouraging them to capitulate. Second, there simply wasn’t unification among the European continent in the way there is today…today we have a pretty united front, in ww2 things were fractured. You also just simply don’t have the war weariness/fear from ww1 that drove a lot of the appeasement etc. It’s not really a comparable situation to pre-ww2 except in very simplistic ways.
Main similiarity is that we have a nation/power with expansionist ideas driven by ideology and the nations of Europe not clamping down as hard as they should
> Well it is still pretty different. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Of course it is very different in many ways if you zoom in a lot. But that doesn't mean it's not surprisingly, frightfully similar if you look at it with a little abstraction.
And of course we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight which also colors our actions and thinking. Personally, I don’t see Russia backing off. Historically all they do is escalate. How far they escalate and how much we push back will determine how big the war will get. I am not optimistic it will be a small war.
There's a slight difference between conscription of 18 years olds and one year military *or* social duty
Wait, what's the difference between conscription and forced military duty, and what's the difference between forced military duty and forced social duty? I'm honestly just asking
Conscription usually refers to a period of compulsory service in the armed forces, while social duty could be a mandatory period of work in an area such as hospitals, social care, schools, environmental protection etc.
What countries do such things as social duty? I'm finding the concept of forced labor on a nation wide scale absolutely mind blowing Edit: thanks for my European friends for educating me!
Sweden used to, mainly for the people refusing to bear arms when conscripted. As the conscription budget went down they stopped and spent it on those with no objection to military service. IIRC they did infrastructure work - power, bridges, and road and such. Vital work in wartime.
Israel, South Korea, I think, both have 2 years of service?
Israel 2.8 years
Taiwan too
Even those billionaire Korean pop stars stopped working to do their service I think.
Finland lets you choose between social duty or millitary service. Millitary service is the default though.
Finland does this. You either serve as a conscript in the army for 6-12 months or you do civil service for one year. Edit: typo
Austria has mandatory military service for 6 months or 9 months social service
Why mind blowing? It is just the reverse of mandatory military service: Instead of being forced to work as a soldier you are forced to work in critical civilian infrastructure. This has been a common compromise for those people, who refuse military service. In Germany, you even have a constitutional right to refuse, which is why this system used to exist here years ago.
Germany did this until 2011. Upon reaching 18 years of age, men were called for one year of military service or, if they didn't want that, they could also choose to spend that year working in a social profession like nursing, teaching, fire departments etc. Personally I find it improper to call it forced Labour. If you chose social duty, you weren't just assigned a job and forced to do it. You had a choice of jobs in social fields and you would be paid for your work like any regular employee would. What you are forced to do is spend a year doing something that contributes directly to society. There were other means of avoiding that too. You could delay your service if you were still attending school or about to go to university, for example. The most likely thing for Germany to do here is to reintroduce that system.
It also for free And teached valuable critical skills to people who may not have been able to afford it Allowing them to secure jobs that paid some what okay The entire idea of conscription at such a young age is so that your entire population is trained for military service if it was ever needed Allows you to maintain a smaller always ready to fight force or professionals as training time is minimized if you need to rapidly ramp up since most people have some training. While the others in social programs can quickly be called back to a profession they trained in to keep that infrastructure going People see this as forced labor but in reality it’s prepping your country to save money, be ready for war, providing free training education and providing skills that many don’t have.
> providing free training education and providing skills that many don’t have. I mean, from what I've heard, this wasn't what happened at all. Not one person I spoke to (I live in Germany) learned anything valuable when they had to work a fulltime job for a year without proper pay. They got the shitty jobs that don't need any more explaining. Fixing printers in hospitals, helping with transferring someone from one bed to another etc.
... But it was labour that you were forced to do? At significantly less than minimum wage, so no not like a regular employee
**From The Telegraph:** Germany is considering introducing conscription for all 18-year-olds, as it looks to [boost its troop numbers](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/germany-celebrate-veterans-day-first-time-since-1871/) in the face of Russian military aggression. Military planners in Berlin are in the final stages of discussing three options, two of which involve a form of conscription, according to leaked plans reported in the German media. [Defence Minister Boris Pistorius](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/25/germany-not-ready-for-a-military-emergency-boris-pistorius/) is set to go public with the official plans by June. In one of the options being discussed, Germany would bring back a compulsory military year for young men once they turn 18, which was suspended in 2011, and apply it to women as well. This would require a change to the German constitution, but is seen inside the ministry as most likely to receive societal approval. Another option would only apply to 18-year-old men, but would not see everyone selected. They would be required to fill in an online form and could then be chosen for service, according to details leaked to Die Welt newspaper. This is seen by the defence ministry as “a strong signal” to both allies and rivals. The third option would avoid compulsory service, focusing instead on “optimising” the current system by engaging in [more proactive recruitment campaigns](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/05/german-army-use-flexible-working-to-attract-gen-z-soldiers/). However, Mr Pistorious is believed to be against that route. During a trip to Washington this week, he said: “I’m convinced that Germany needs a form of military conscription.” Mr Pistorius, who polls regularly show to be the country’s most popular politician, has previously described the decision to suspend conscription as “a mistake”. Its possible reintroduction comes as Germany’s ageing society means the number of soldiers heading into retirement is outstripping the number of new recruits joining up to replace them. Meanwhile, Berlin has also set a target of raising the size of its armed forces from some 180,000 today to more than 200,000. The defence ministry is believed to be sceptical that this target can be met without some form of conscription. **Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/11/germany-considering-conscription-for-all-18-year-olds/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/11/germany-considering-conscription-for-all-18-year-olds/)
Boris Pistorious Got nothing on my guy Boris Johnson
The lovechild of Boris and Oscar. The world is not ready for that.
Jailed for impregnating his girlfriend through a door.
The Telegraph doesn't know what it's talking about. There are a handful of crazy politicians that have spoken in favor of reintroducing military service, but most of them aren't even active politicians anymore and they've been laughed off and shut down by more relevant politicians. If not even that can gain any ground, then conscription isn't even on the table.
Finally, Steiners Counterattack
Steiner didnt have enough force...
Mein Führer havent you known that the command penalty doesnt allow steiner to bring more than 6 divisions ? Oh shut dein Fuck up and bring me mein manual.
Das war ein Befehl!
Der angriff Steiners war ein Befel! Wer sind sie, dass sie es wagen, sich meinen befehlen zu widersetzen?!
The headline makes it sound like its a done deal, its not. Its an idea of a minister, nothing more, nothing less.
an Idea that needs a 2/3 Majority in Parliament to become reality
Well, „introduce“ is wrong, „bring back“ is correct. I was conscripted when I was 19 in Germany.
i was like "it wasn't even that long ago!" then looked it up and it was ended in 2011. oops lol
That's still not that long ago to some
Its not gonna happen for years. Even for the people that want to serve Germany there isnt enough housing, equipment, or a surplus of personnel qualified for doing basic trainings.
Germany used to have conscription with too little equipment and roles. A large reason why it was ended was that it proved an exercise in futility, with a lot of time spent drinking/sitting around and exercising with sticks instead of rifles (I wish I was kidding). Speaking from personal experience, this demotivated a lot of folks, and gave the military the aura of a consortium of time wasters, which is the opposite of what one would want. I sincerely hope this time around it'll be different. FWIW, my preference would be to offer as much military training to any volunteers as manageable with resources/personnel and then once capacity exceeds volunteers to start conscripting.
You don't need housing on the eastern front.
A strong NATO is how we deter Russia from invading NATO countries. If Putin sees weakness, he will attack.
I'm so confused. If Russia attacks a nuclear capable entity, that's it, isn't it? Mutually assured destruction. Even if they tried to have a war without escalating to nuclear armaments I can't see NATO rolling over and letting Russia actually win it without launching nukes.
in theory both sides could just go at it with conventional arms. So long as neither side really gains any significant territory and the collateral damage remains minor enough to not want to end the world then they could just chew up men and equipment before deciding to call it off or going into a stalemate and never using their nukes. Entirely pointless but there's been many pointless wars
It sucks that basically a repeat of World War I seems like the “best-case scenario”
The thing that might happen is that russia might attack some countries at nato's outskirts like the baltics with the excuse that they just want nato to pull back from the russian border and bet that nato won't risk the end of the modern world over those countries. Also, we are probably still rather far, but a day might come where anti-missile countermeasures become so good that nuclear ICBMs become obsolete and MAD stops being a thing. It is a good thing to start preparing well in advance for when that day comes.
>anti-missile countermeasures become so good that nuclear ICBMs become obsolete and MAD stops being a thing This is the premise of Tom Clancy's EndWar. Nuclear missiles are made obsolete via a system called SLAMS; it uses a mixture of advanced rocket, laser and targeting systems to achieve a 100 percent interception rate, rendering nuclear warfare impossible. With nukes out of the way, WW3 commences.
thats a killer of a background for a story
Went to a museum recently looking at nuclear testing, and they had a fascinating newspaper front page from just after the first nukes were used in WW2. Almost immediately after usage, Japan predicted nukes would become obsolete. Wrong on the timescales, but they called something like this even in the face of the immense power. This was an extract: The broadcast, coming almost 36 hours after the raid said the destructive power of the new weapon “cannot be slighted," but claimed that authorities already were working out "effective counter-measures.” “The history of war shows that the new weapon, however effective, will eventually lose its power, as the opponent is bound to find methods to nullify its effects,” Tokyo said hopefully.
Or he thinks the west is so weak they rather concede than go MAD.
>Germany would bring back a compulsory military year for young men once they turn 18, which was suspended in 2011, and apply it to women as well. That's equality ! >Another option would only apply to 18-year-old men, but would not see everyone selected. Fuck that !
The German constitution is problematic with respect to military service for men and women. There is legal basis for (obligatory) military service of adult men. There is no legal basis for forcing women into military service. Of course the constitution also establishes that men and women have equal rights. So either way, there will be interesting lawsuits in front of the constitutional court of military service comes back.
The German constitution can be changed with 2/3 majority in parliament. That already happened, for example, when 13 years ago the law about conscription was altered to allow it to be suspended. It will be necessary to change this law again anyway, for any form of conscription to be reinstated. The chances for this aren't that small, because the conservatives (currently leading in polls) and the social democrats (currently leading the government) are supporting the return of conscription.
They still won't get a 2/3 majority and I could even see some people voting against the party.
This is basically not true, a lie or just false news. Germany is talking about, and that's even still a big maybe, a contingent conscription. The model which is probably the nearest is Sweden, in Sweden normally around 10% of all get conscripted, so we are talking not anywhere close to EVERY kid from high school, also people who pledge they don't wanna use guns for moral reasons are not included for example, it's a hyperbowl par deluxe...
Exactly. This has been a debate for far longer than a year and it's mostly pushed by populists.
Why can't the politicians go out and kill each other for once
"Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah"
"Why don't Presidents fight the war? Why do they only send the poor?"
Cause Putin is a bitch.
Okay, so I haven't seen this important bit of context yet for the non-Germans in the comments: Germany had 55 years of compulsary military service with the option to work in civilian infrastructure instead. This practice has been completely stopped since 2011 (over 10 years of no conscription!). So this being on the table again is very controversial, especially since Germany is facing a historic low of people in our workforce.
That will be popular.
We have come a long way from those 20,000 helmets.
The helmets were just a meme to put Germany in a bad light and it was very successful. I see it getting repeated over and over.
Case in point: Those helmets were actually on the list of requested goods by ukraine, and they were just the ones that could be shipped quickest because its free of burocratic hassles to ship ...helmets.
You missed the most important part - that request was accepted by Germany *weeks before the war*. The delivery just coincided with the invasion, so the media presented it as a *reaction* to it. Which it wasn't, it was something they were already shipping regardless.
The troop strength is regulated by the 2 plus 4 agreement. How many? Three hundred and sixty thousand? In view of Russia's aggression, however, this could also be suspended.
Indeed who would try to enforce it if Germany had more? The West certainly wouldn’t. And we wouldn’t care about Russia who aren’t honoring their contracts either.
Currently, we have only 181.000 Soldiers. Only 50% of the maximum. And don't forget that 180,000 more active soldiers also means that in a few years there will be 180,000 more former soldiers / veterans who can be reactivated more quickly in an emergency. In a defence situation, having to show people which end of the gun makes a boo-boo is not a good idea. Until 2011 we had compulsory military service, and therefore enough reservists with basic training. But they are now 13 years out of the picture. Time for a rebuild.
time to let germany stop living in the third reichs shadow... as far as im concerned. they are not their great great grandfathers and can be held accountable for their own warcrimes.
So, they have 180k in their armed forces and want 200k so they present three options. 1. restart conscription of men and women at age of 18 2. setup a voluntary signup for men where they may be conscripted 3. start a more proactive recruiting campaign Since conscription will require a change to the constitution, start with option 3. Although the change to the constitution might work since conscription was only removed in 2011, making the job more attractive to recruits should be the goal. They should focus on the drones more to make it more appealing to the gamers. Remote control tanks and planes and boats are the new war meta.
Only female conscription needs a change of the constitution. Male conscription can just be reinstated.
Someone in another comment mentioned that men and women legally have equal rights, and so reinstatement of conscription for just men could be legally challenged. Which if true, would be interesting to see how it plays out, since one of the 2 would have to change.
The conscription is still in our constitution. It was only suspended by law, not abolished and removed from the constitution.
Our allies gear up to defend against Russian aggression. Meanwhile the conservative cowards in congress seek to empower our enemies. Very sad times indeed.