President Vladimir Putin on Friday accused NATO member Poland of having territorial ambitions in the former Soviet Union, and said any aggression against Russia's neighbour and close ally Belarus would be considered an attack on Russia.
Poland won’t, but according to Hitler in September 1st, 1939, Nazi Germany was defending itself from Polish attacks.
I think putin is thinking of forcing Belarus with Wagner to attack Poland and see how NATO will react when the threat would be war with Russia (if NATO will respond, which I hope it will, I think Belarus will get the same help as Armenia).
I think NATOs response would have to be a strong, decisive one. No NATO member wants the Alliance to look weak. Nobody wants World War III, either, but I think they’d conclude that showing weakness is riskier than calling Putin’s bluff.
Poland is a major supply hub and has lost plenty of boots on the ground. Art 5 isn’t automatic. US won’t risk nuking for expendables. All Europe is expendable.
Europe has nukes, and an industrial capacity that dwarfs Russia multiple times over and is roughly equal to the US.
Russia has about as much chance attacking Europe as Japan would attacking China on their own.
Also without Europe, the US has no capacity to develop semiconductors better than what Russia has. In the extremely unlikely event Europe falls to Russia, the US will not be far behind.
Russia has no interest in attacking Europe. US/NATO is the executive arm of longterm geopolitical interests that strive for total global dominance. They utilize sophisticated multipronged longterm strategies attempting to bring the rest of the planet under their control. Russia is a small part of that parcel.
The ultima ratio regum part of it considers some geographies more expendable than others. Egress of core industries from the EU is deliberate part of the strategy. Vassals are ruled by compradors, so populations are captive. It’s direct oligarch control on the other side, so it’s simpler.
MAD still applies. Both sides go to great lengths to avoid it, since the outcome is deterministic and global. Which is why the US would be a second target, if not already part of first strategic strike.
Wars are confusing places, so potential for fatal mistakes is exponentiated.
If you think you understand the conflict, you are not understanding the conflict. I have spent decades and lately far too much time on sources inaccessible to most, and I still feel underinformed.
I noticed I commented on world news. My mistake. Lemmy keeps dropping the subscribed filter.
Enlighten me, what are the attacks on Russians neighbours if not war? Please tell me how the Nato forced Russia to attack Georgia or Ukraine? Maybe you should question your “unaccessible to most” (lol) sources if your result is, that Russias not at fault here.
Cool. Poland ain’t gonna start shit.
Any attack on Poland will trigger Article 5.
Poland won’t, but according to Hitler in September 1st, 1939, Nazi Germany was defending itself from Polish attacks.
I think putin is thinking of forcing Belarus with Wagner to attack Poland and see how NATO will react when the threat would be war with Russia (if NATO will respond, which I hope it will, I think Belarus will get the same help as Armenia).
I think NATOs response would have to be a strong, decisive one. No NATO member wants the Alliance to look weak. Nobody wants World War III, either, but I think they’d conclude that showing weakness is riskier than calling Putin’s bluff.
Whcih I hope it will.
Less bloodthirsty person from the imperial core.
Poland is a major supply hub and has lost plenty of boots on the ground. Art 5 isn’t automatic. US won’t risk nuking for expendables. All Europe is expendable.
Europe has nukes, and an industrial capacity that dwarfs Russia multiple times over and is roughly equal to the US.
Russia has about as much chance attacking Europe as Japan would attacking China on their own.
Also without Europe, the US has no capacity to develop semiconductors better than what Russia has. In the extremely unlikely event Europe falls to Russia, the US will not be far behind.
Russia has no interest in attacking Europe. US/NATO is the executive arm of longterm geopolitical interests that strive for total global dominance. They utilize sophisticated multipronged longterm strategies attempting to bring the rest of the planet under their control. Russia is a small part of that parcel.
The ultima ratio regum part of it considers some geographies more expendable than others. Egress of core industries from the EU is deliberate part of the strategy. Vassals are ruled by compradors, so populations are captive. It’s direct oligarch control on the other side, so it’s simpler.
MAD still applies. Both sides go to great lengths to avoid it, since the outcome is deterministic and global. Which is why the US would be a second target, if not already part of first strategic strike.
Wars are confusing places, so potential for fatal mistakes is exponentiated.
Where have you been the last few years?
If you think you understand the conflict, you are not understanding the conflict. I have spent decades and lately far too much time on sources inaccessible to most, and I still feel underinformed.
I noticed I commented on world news. My mistake. Lemmy keeps dropping the subscribed filter.
Enlighten me, what are the attacks on Russians neighbours if not war? Please tell me how the Nato forced Russia to attack Georgia or Ukraine? Maybe you should question your “unaccessible to most” (lol) sources if your result is, that Russias not at fault here.
Which is totally why we sent millions of troops in WW2.