How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[chuckdyke]

33 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

the Netherlands are not exactly on the far side of the Moon either. 

They were even closer to Germany and had exactly the same attitude. It is a country of traders and pragmatists. 

[Butschi]

49 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I keep reading about how Ukraine is fighting this war on the West behalf. No, they are fighting this war to stop Russia from invading/annexing their country. They are fighting it for their own behalf (fortunately).
Yes we also have interests in it, but please stop the framing. Ukrainians are doing the dying, they have decided to do it, we didn't need to convince m or pay m to do it.

 

I agree this has been bothering me for some time now, too.

16 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

This is the view from Western Europe. 

For most people in the Baltics and Central Europe it is absolutely clear, that the Ukraine is fighting this war on our behalf. Every Russian soldier killed by the Ukrainians is someone our soldiers will not have to shoot at. I have a son of military age and another one who will be in a couple of years, so as callous as it sounds, I would gladly have the Ukrainians fight that fight for our money.

For what it is worth, I do not exactly understand why countries in Europe further to the West are not worried more. We are the next border after Ukraine, but the Netherlands are not exactly on the far side of the Moon either. 

I get why Eastern Europe is concerned about Russia, given the more or less direct neighboring and years long suffering under the Soviets.

But imagine neither Ukraine not Russia had any other neighbors and Russia would never pose a threat to anyone else. Would Ukraine still fight? Of course! Because it is about their lives, their freedom, their values. The fact that we may also benefit from their fight doesn't change that they fight for their own good first and second and probably third. Saying that doesn't lessen their achievement so I see no reason for the narrative they'd somehow fight for us - besides the obvious: It is a powerful PR campaign that serves it's purpose in getting support from people who otherwise wouldn't care. I'm ok with that, too. But we should see it as exactly that.

The other thing is: why do you actually still feel so threatened? Russias "performance" against Ukraine so far was less than stellar to put it mildly. I don't see how they might even remotely think that they stood a chance against 31 NATO countries even with the reduced capabilities we are facing in our armies, too. I guess you doubt that Western Europe would answer the call. That's sad but understandable, although I'm quite convinced we would.

 

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

The other thing is: why do you actually still feel so threatened?

Without assistance they would lose. We are either with them all the way or not at all. Quick enough to invade Iraq, remember the reason? Weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait was not a member of NATO either but to have boots on the ground was reasonable because of weapons of mass destruction. Now Russian has weapons of mass destruction and threatening to use them. Frankly speaking I am absolutely disgusted with all the Two Bob Each Way attitude. Look up what Two Bob Each Way means. It is the West European attitude. 

 

[Butschi]

13 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Without assistance they would lose. We are either with them all the way or not at all. Quick enough to invade Iraq, remember the reason? Weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait was not a member of NATO either but to have boots on the ground was reasonable because of weapons of mass destruction. Now Russian has weapons of mass destruction and threatening to use them. Frankly speaking I am absolutely disgusted with all the Two Bob Each Way attitude. Look up what Two Bob Each Way means. It is the West European attitude. 

 

Ok, noted, but how is that related to my sentence you quoted? I wasn't talking about Ukraine there or any Western support or intervention or the lack there of. I specifically asked @Maciej Zwolinski what exactly makes him (still) so worried/concerned about Russia. And not to mock anyone or show my indifference but to understand. So, if you just wanted to vent frustration, please make your own post instead answering to mine and making strawman arguments or insulting me.

[panzermartin]

Historically Russia went deeper into Western Europe only after Western Europe attacked Russia. Napoleon, Hitler etc..Kinda of reactionary counter offensive. I can't see this changing now, especially since the motivation of russians to fight in Ukraine and protect vital interests and russian populations there is already low and men are fleeing to Georgia, Turkey and god knows where else.

Russia doenst have the means to advance even past the Dnieper. NATO air foce alone will be enough to stop them. Realisticaly the only fear is the nuclear escalation. Thats why we are trying to keep this war "small"  

 

    

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Historically Russia went deeper into Western Europe only after Western Europe attacked Russia. Napoleon, Hitler etc..Kinda of reactionary counter offensive. I can't see this changing now, especially since the motivation of russians to fight in Ukraine and protect vital interests and russian populations there is already low and men are fleeing to Georgia, Turkey and god knows where else.

Russia doenst have the means to advance even past the Dnieper. NATO air foce alone will be enough to stop them. Realisticaly the only fear is the nuclear escalation. Thats why we are trying to keep this war "small"  

 

    

History holds no guarantees for the future, so I wouldn't bet money on that part. It's really more that I can't see how, even if they wanted to.

 

[Aragorn2002]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Historically Russia went deeper into Western Europe only after Western Europe attacked Russia. Napoleon, Hitler etc..Kinda of reactionary counter offensive. 

 

    

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Wow, that's really a mature reaction...

[Aragorn2002]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Wow, that's really a mature reaction...

Historically Russia only attacked countries on it's Western border after being attacked itself?

If that ain't a remark to laugh about, I don't know what is.

 

[_Morpheus_]

5 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Historically Russia only attacked countries on it's Western border after being attacked itself?

If that ain't a remark to laugh about, I don't know what is.

 

Yep, I think Finland and Poland have some thought about it 

[kraze]

50 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Historically Russia went deeper into Western Europe only after Western Europe attacked Russia. Napoleon, Hitler etc.

 

    

Yes, let's pretend 1939 didn't happen. Or I guess Poland attacked Russia first. And then Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. And even Finland attacked Russia.

I guess you get to occupy 1/6 of the landmass by being constantly invaded by everyone around you. Because everyone just wanted a piece of your precious Siberian eternal frost. I can just see how somebody in Warsaw thought "goddamn this warm weather in summer and fertile lands. That's it, Ogniezhka, we are capturing Yakutsk! Our kids will get to live in the swampy lebensraum!"

Edited July 12, 2023 by kraze

[panzermartin]

32 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Please laugh if this makes you less anxious about Russia invading Netherlands

10 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Historically Russia only attacked countries on it's Western border after being attacked itself?

If that ain't a remark to laugh about, I don't know what is.

 

Please read again my post. "Went deeper in Western Europe". That's quite different than a war on their western border. 

But the truth is Berlin and Paris saw russian soldiers in their streets only after Germans and French tried to march in Moscow.

 

 

[_Morpheus_]

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Please laugh if this makes you less anxious about Russia invading Netherlands

Please read again my post. "Went deeper in Western Europe". That's quite different than a war on their western border. 

But the truth is Berlin and Paris saw russian soldiers in their streets only after Germans and French tried to march in Moscow.

 

 

Ok, let be fair. 
`truth is Berlin and Paris saw russian soldiers` - that happen only because non russians (Ukrainians, Belarusian and others) fought on the russian side.

[Howler]

6 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

But the truth is Berlin and Paris saw russian soldiers in their streets only after Germans and French tried to march in Moscow.

 

 

Start your research at the Second Coalition 1798–1801 and work your way up. I'm not even going to waste space detailing the treaty of Tilsit (1807) and the Tzar's decision to ignore it in 1809...

You're saying something is true doesn't make it so. Understand history. Facts matter.

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Historically Russia went deeper into Western Europe only after Western Europe attacked Russia.

Besides.. you know... Finland and Romania

Oh right Poland too, forgot about them.

Oh yeah and the Baltics too. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Artkin

[Aragorn2002]

8 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Besides.. you know... Finland and Romania

Oh right Poland too, forgot about them.

And let's not forget Eastern Prussia (Germany) 1914, which was looted and burned down by the Russian army, before the Germans could kick them out again.

Does that qualify as Western Europe? Probably not.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

The other thing is: why do you actually still feel so threatened? Russias "performance" against Ukraine so far was less than stellar to put it mildly. I don't see how they might even remotely think that they stood a chance against 31 NATO countries even with the reduced capabilities we are facing in our armies, too. I guess you doubt that Western Europe would answer the call. That's sad but understandable, although I'm quite convinced we would.

There are several reasons, to quote some of the top of the head:

First, Russian performance against Ukraine is an outlier, caused by their attempting a coup Prigozhin style but finding their soldiers in a middle of the biggest conventional war after WW2 in columns of march. This practically killed their professional army in the first month of the war and had to create a new one on the fly. It was a result of hugely wrong assumptions, which are not going to be repeated in a war against a NATO member They would come properly mobilised and their peformance would be better. How much better, I do not know exactly.

Second, out of those 31 countries, the only one which matters is the US. I am not so sure about the ablility of the rest of the European NATO members to effectively help protect the Eastern flank (prior to the weapons shopping spree on which Poland embarked; but the final outcome of this is uncertain). Even if they are fully willing. So the defence of Europe hangs on the result of US electorate not electing a radical isolationist because of their internal political issues, on which we have no influence, like after WW I. It would be much more comfortable if Russia was decisively defeated and deprived of the means to try and make a comeback as a world threatening empire. 

Third, and this is probably the most likely risk, is that after a hypothetical Ukrainian defeat, Russia gets wind in its sails, returns to its plans to be a World-threatening empire and new Cold War starts with the current NATO east flank being the frontier states. Even if Russia is ultimately deterred from starting a new shooting war this would not a good place to be.

[Seedorf81]

Mmm, I sense it's almost..

MODERATOR-TIME!

[Aragorn2002]

Just now, Seedorf81 said:

Mmm, I sense it's almost..

MODERATOR-TIME!

You war monger.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

25 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

But the truth is Berlin and Paris saw russian soldiers in their streets only after Germans and French tried to march in Moscow.

That is monumentally wrong.  A classic case of what Russia does when it is strong and not threatened is the period prior to WW 1- it tries to expand its territory in all directions, including to the West, by taking territories of the Hapsburg Empire. 

Also, Cold War. What was the Western attack which provoked the Soviets? The invasion by their treacherous ally III Reich in 1941? 

[Butschi]

28 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Besides.. you know... Finland and Romania

Oh right Poland too, forgot about them.

Oh yeah and the Baltics too. 

To be fair, @panzermartin specifically mentioned Western Europe. None of those countries are in western Europe.

Again, there is enough to discuss that people actually post, so can we all please reduce the number of strawmen a bit? They are multiplying like rabbits of late.

[Aragorn2002]

3 minutes ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, @panzermartin specifically mentioned Western Europe. None of those countries are in western Europe.

Again, there is enough to discuss that people actually post, so can we all please reduce the number of strawmen a bit? They are multiplying like rabbits of late.

Such maturity. Yes, dear Butschi, let's do that.

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

The other thing is: why do you actually still feel so threatened? Russias "performance" against Ukraine so far was less than stellar to put it mildly. I don't see how they might even remotely think that they stood a chance against 31 NATO countries even with the reduced capabilities we are facing in our armies, too. I guess you doubt that Western Europe would answer the call. That's sad but understandable, although I'm quite convinced we would.

Let's not forget that those 31 NATO nations - combined with a less than stellar RA - still resulted in over 100K Ukrainian causalities and a wreaked infrastructure . The RA is still capable of fighting a less than stellar defensive war trading lives with a smaller country hiding behind the ever present nuclear blackmail. That black mail has been more effective than dozens of S-400 battalions in keeping the skies over Ukraine clear of NATO aircraft. Time for that to end starting with a no-fly zone over Ukraine's internationally recognized territory. With the unpredictable consequences of US election cycle starting in January, time is of the essence. Trading lives, even at a favorable rate for Ukraine, won't be fast enough I fear and a risky strategy that surrenders any initiative. 

[panzermartin]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, @panzermartin specifically mentioned Western Europe. None of those countries are in western Europe.

Again, there is enough to discuss that people actually post, so can we all please reduce the number of strawmen a bit? They are multiplying like rabbits of late.

For a moment I thought geography was inverted to prove my point false. Thanks. 

All I wanted to say before I was shot on the wall, was that the fears of Russia reaching the Atlantic with the current scale and intentions of this war, have no actual base in reality or history. 

At least, I'm glad I unite this forum

 

 

 

 

[Jr Buck Private]

This Urkaine NATO membership will be an interesting topic going forward if there's ever some serious attempt at a negotiated peace.   Putin has to have some face saving victory.   Ukraine not being admitted into NATO would be one of the west's best bargaining chips.   Most of us want Ukraine in NATO after the war, but either way Ukraine comes out of this armed to the teeth with an experienced army.   I doubt the Russians would try to invade them anytime soon as it will take a decade to rebuild their armed forces.

As far as ATACMS.   Is it correct to assume that the Russians have enough air defenses around the Kerch bridge to stop them from getting through?   I was hoping that bridge would soon be toast.