Comment by littlestymaar

Comment by littlestymaar 20 hours ago

14 replies

> like containing Russia without having to rely on the whims of another country's politics

That's true, but at the same time it was probably already the case before invasion of Ukraine, and it is definitely the case now.

The main issue is political fragmentation: would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius?

But if the answer is true (as obligated by the Treaty of Maastricht, independently of NATO) then Russia stands no chance with conventional weapons against the whole Western Europe, the balance of military, demographic and industrial power is ridiculously lopsided (involving nuclear weapons would also raise the same political question about the French willingness to nuke Russia in retaliation to Russia nuking Poland but if the answer is yes, Russia cannot win a nuclear war either (which everyone would lose)).

HPsquared 20 hours ago

The answer is always going to be "maybe", but hopefully enough of a maybe to deter hostile actions. That puts everything in an uncomfortable state of uncertainty.

  • bornfreddy 19 hours ago

    Better uncomfortable state of uncertainty than comfortable state of war. Nuclear or conventional.

    • hilbert42 4 hours ago

      "…comfortable state of war."

      No war is "comfortable", it's a distaster for all involved participants—even the victors.

dvfjsdhgfv 19 hours ago

> The main issue is political fragmentation: would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius?

This is a wrong question. If one day Russia feels brave enough to attack any NATO country, the right question to ask is, "Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours?". This is the reason why Europe is so focused on helping Ukraine BTW.

  • vasac 14 hours ago

    > Do we want to fight this war on someone else's soil or on ours?

    Russia thought so too.

    • dvfjsdhgfv 13 hours ago

      What do you mean? There was never any question of attacking Russia and fighting any war on their soil. Nobody in their right mind would attack a country with the 2nd largest army and nuclear weapons. The war in Ukraine definitely made this army still very weak, but, except Ukraine defending itself, I don't see anyone rushing to attack Russia anytime soon. It makes no sense now and made no sense before they invaded Ukraine. There is nothing to win by attacking Russia and a lot to lose.

      • hilbert42 4 hours ago

        The best way to 'attack' Russia is to undermine its economic and political systems then let unrest amongst its citizenry do the dirty work. 1917 showed Russia's proletariat was very effective at achieving regime change.

      • pqtyw 12 hours ago

        > with the 2nd largest army

        By what metric?

        • dvfjsdhgfv 2 hours ago

          Global Firepower maintains a database and is a popular reference: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-de...

          But I saw several people criticizing their relatively high position on this chart given high incompetence and losses.

          EDIT: Apparently this website doesn't follow any rigorous methodology. So basically the only thing their army is 2nd in the world is the nominal number of nukes (hopefully most of them don't work).

tokai 17 hours ago

>would Paris and Berlin risk lives of French and German people (soldiers and civilians due to retaliation) to save Vilnius?

Yes very much.