The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
10 comments and the pro Russia bots are already here
Such is life currently: hyperbolic questions in ironic comments like " have you proof about Ruzz agression, because the West…" etc.
Smh, about the contrast between their potential to embrace a grand selfdeception and the arrogant stubbornness to look away from the invasive destruction and killings Shahed drones cause on a daily bases for more than a thousand days.
Let the comments here be a friendly reminder to people that they should block and boycott the .ml instance
I love how it occurs so naturally that by the time I come into a post that talks about Russia and Ukraine, half the posts are already limited and I can’t expand threads because people replying are ones I’ve already blocked in other posts for being absolutely developmentally challenged.
I missed the drama. This was the first Lemmy account I made. Is this server overrun with bots now?
So the .ml stands for Marxist Lenin… Just to get you started.
Not really, .ml stands for Mali domain. And just because someone believes in Marxist principle or communism isn’t a issue. Personally for me why I am wary of .ml domain is because often I do see people posting obvious Chinese and North Korean propoganda with shady source and wild claims and their refusal to accept criticism of China or other communist past and present regimes. Also they get really defensive and assume you are pro west or pro imperialism when you happen to criticize china for something and then their whole argument would be bashing the west when both are to fault.
I stand corrected.
I love you got three angy downvotes for explaining this.
I’m sad there isn’t an appropriate gif of an “angry tankie” shaking his fist.
deleted by creator
I thought it stood for militant left
In the spirit of inclusive leftism, I say it stands for both!
NATO/EU needs to start moving resources more into place. This will cause putin to have to move troops out of Ukraine to balance.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side.
This is discussed too rarely. Does anybody know of a source that makes a reliable comparison?
Only the former head of the US forces in NATO, Ben Hodges , has oftentimes said similar lines afaik, like here :
Europe should “quit whining” about the threats it faces and “act like the superpower” that it is, according to a former senior US army officer.
Generally, he’s quite confident about Europe defending itself.
But does that come from genuine analysis of Europe’s capabilities or the desire to redeploy American forces from Europe to other theaters?
deleted by creator
Well, France has the second or third largest/most powerful individual Navy in the world, and Russia has severely diminished trained personnel, so unless China enters it would be a one sided massacre in Europe’s favor.
Probably why Russia has worked so hard on the south of Ukraine to secure the sea border even losing territory in the north.
The issue is when China enters, and whose side they will be on. Does Xi Jinpooh see more profit in helping his cabal of friendly dictators or would he just carve out a slice of the Russia Pie?
Why would the navy be relevant? The war is about controlling the area that cannot be reached by ships.
Nuclear submarine are part of the navy. So it’s an important asset, especially in the deterrence and strike game. We have good payload capabilities (all proportion garded) thanks to the navy. And projection force from our aircraft carrier is also a good asset.
Long range missiles and Fighter Jet deployments control modern warfare. The only way around it is a decentralized power structure bunkered down for infinite guerilla warfare, but Russia’s power structure is very much centralized.
Plus, if you can take the shores you can spread from there to cut off supply lines.
How much can one bullet cost?
The US can go fuck itself with limited support!
That’s not really how NATO works, but I can understand the sentiment of imagining the USA refusing to enact the articles upon a member being attacked.
I didn’t think it was the sort of thing that could be refused? Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense? At least in my understanding, being a part of NATO at all legally requires each nation to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack on all of them. It specifically isn’t a “if you feel like it” rule, because that doesn’t have the scary MAD implications of Article 5.
If the US fails to honor NATO’s Article 5 then the rest of the world will worry the US won’t honor their defence packs.
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Are client states under the occupation of the US military. They aren’t worried the US might fall to act. They’re worried the US might act to remove their leaders and replace them with more pliant ones.
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Why would the US allow them to do so?
By that logic Germany and UK are too so the whole article is garbage
Germany, definitely. We’ve had that country inundated with bases for nearly a century
Trump doesn’t seem like a ‘respect the law’ sort of guy.
Well I know this is getting well away from the point here, but Congress declares war, not the President.
Congress declares war, not the President.
Congress has already authorized the President to deploy military units at the president’s discretion, per the AUMF which renews biannually under the NDAA
For sure, what I’m saying is that, if Article 5 gets invoked, Congress at least has the theoretical option to make a declaration of war. They’ve done it 11 times in US history so far, and I’d have to imagine that Article 5 being invoked would be about the strongest possible reason to make it 12.
And how exactly would they force the United States to do anything?
“Join Us or we’ll start a two front war to make you join us” is hardly a convincing argument.
Hey if there’s one thing I know, it’s that you can’t force the US to respect a treaty it’s signed, ever. It’s kinda our thing since the very beginning.
The US military is highly distributed throughout the world. Other countries can stop allowing us to have bases on their soil and it will significantly weaken our military posture. They dont need to invade the US to do this.
I think I didn’t really articulate it correctly, I am saying I sympathize with the French and other EU Generals for planning like this.
Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense?
They aren’t self enforcing. Someone at the Pentagon actually has to give the order to mobilize
It would be better if the U.S. just waits a minute sees shat happens, and then congress votes to declare war and the executive branch would have to act based upon their vote or would be directly disobeying the legislature again. Congress declares war. Not the executive branch. And in the end we are the only country to enact article 5 in history, when 9/11 happened and NATO countries answered the call even though many probably did not wish too.
The thing here would be that unless Russis initiates the attack, it wouldn’t trigger article 5 and congress could just ignore it.
And a lot of people would like to ignore it even with the long term pitfalls, because all they care about is themselves and right this very second
Congress declares war. Not the executive branch
Congress authorized enormous discretion to the president under the NDAA and AUMF. There’s no actual need to declare war in the modern era.
Other than the part about it forcing the executive branch to act and holding all of them responsible for not upholding the laws written by the legislature. But congress wouldn’t likely do it.
Why do we fucking still Need to use military confrontation for everything?
Fr in this modern world with phones, internet and much more, why do we have to confront by sending young people in a year grinder?
I am ashamed of my species
Well because no amount of “phones internet and much more” is going to stop a foreign invading soldier with a gun from taking your shit and killing you, would be the very short answer.
Apperently yall havent got this isnt a realistic thing but a call on how war isnt that good you know?
ok, well if the point you were trying to make is “war isnt that good you know?” then hard agree from me, but that’s a serious motte-and-baily retreat from your original words wondering why we still sometimes need armed confrontation even in today’s world.
Aremed confrontation as in military, especially if the people dont want to be there fighting, Isnt good.
Unfortunately with some governments you cant treat in peace and the people Will Need to arm themselves and do stuff.
I still Think that in any case there should be the leasts deaths possibile
UH OH - you did a ‘leftism’ in the warmongering liberal instance. you get sentenced to several downvotes and a brainwashed accusation!
What a wild thing to say about supporting a sovereign nation in defending its borders.
Warmongering… that sounds so unhinged in the current situation of the world.
Haaai :3 i already saw you a couple times herw on lemmy.
Yeah btw these fuckers are everywhere .
Ik Surprised no One told me to go kms yet
Is there any credible material proof that Russia is preparing for an invasion of Europe???
They are just barely capable of winning a slow war of attrition against Ukraine, how can you make a credible argument they could achieve any war aims against all of Europe?
You can’t even argue they can take one country at a time, the entire border is riddled with NATO tripwire troops, guaranteeing the direct involvement of each major European military from the get-go.
Is this just fearmongering to drum up support for more military Keynesianism?
deleted by creator
I mean the rest of the world is realizing what brown people already knew about the USG is hilarious
They have invaded Ukraine, a country that is not in NATO nor in the EU, this article is talking about a war with all the European member states of NATO. I think my wording was clear.
And considering rearmament, do you know what the security dilemma is, and what that means for the security of everyone in Europe?
Ukraine is still in Europe no matter how you spin it. Russia has also invaded NATO aligned airspace, cut infrastructure lines in the ocean, likely blew up a critical fuel pipeline, continues aggressive cyber warfare, bombed a railway in Poland, and pays for bots and misinformation campaigns and supports right wing fascism in the US and EU. They rattle their nuclear sabre constantly and have also had illegal incursions across borders like Finland… Tell us again how Russia isn’t a nascent threat to all Europeans after invading a sovereign country twice, downing passenger jets and sending proxy ships for covert unconventional warfare? The EU is under attack already and at least Poland is awake to it.
Russia is already attacking EU/NATO with their hybrid war. Russia is pushing all these far right movements in europe and usa. They also attacked critical infrastrucure e.g. the internet cables and send their drones into europe. Also Russia send killers into europe to kill certain individuals e.g. in Berlin the “Tiergarten killer”. Russia needs to feel that it can no longer do this without consequence. Europe needs to walk the talk.
Lol tell me which continent Ukraine is on.
Here I’ll help: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+countries+are+in+europe
