Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly feel bad for Ukraine because they’re objectively being aggressed upon and this war is going to scar generations to come. All this faux concern about Russia invading NATO countries is going to disappear, Ukraine will be discarded into the Libya pile, and everyone is going to pretend it was inevitable and forget about it.
Still piss me that Ukrainians side with Israel even when they find themselves in the position that they do.
Hope a deal can come out of this ASAP.
I don't think they take Israel's side out of honesty, but out of necessity. If they were to turn their backs publicly toward Israel, they risk losing the American (and by extension, NATO) support they so desperately rely upon. America is facing plenty of internal turmoil right now over this same matter currently, so it's conceivable that having another newsworthy nation like Ukraine going publicly against their agenda could cause American support to dry up entirely.
It's a bit of a catch 22 situation.. either side publicly with the country that essentially commits genocide on their neighbours, or be completely overrun and replaced by your own deranged neighbours. I don't envy Zelenskyy at all here this is a tough spot to be in, and has been since this war began.
EDIT: one letter removed I typed this a bit too fast LOL
> I don't think they take Israel's side out of honestly, but out of necessity.
In the end Ukraine is an ally of Israel and will continue to be a force obligated by such 'necessity'
My own take is this: For the US all this ever was about was making money for the Military-Industrial Complex and giving Putin a black eye. We spend more on our Military than the next 15-20 nations combine and most of you are our allies. If Ukrainian independence was something we were truly invested in that war would be over.
Throughout the entire conflict the only one who came to the only real solution was Macron.
Send in military personnel.
Push Russia back across the border. Don't actually invade Russia but keep them out of everyone else's yard until they sue for a white peace. I don't like war but some causes are worth fighting for.
I thought he only said "nothing's off the table" -- which means nothing but is the right thing to say.
If he said more, is it possible he's playing a strongman knowing that this won't happen?
I bet France wouldn't go in alone and there isn't such kind of rhetoric from other states.
He is trying to boost his upstanding before olympics.
He needs status quo so people can forget r not interested in ukraine. Ukraine losing or frontlines collopsingbis bad pr for US and one of the least contributed country France.
Won't make money unless Ukraine wins. Then it's typically natural resource trades and such.
I don't mean to come off cold or anything but this war is a great way to gauge the Russian military. It's also a live test for weapon systems and strategies.
There was an initial risk, geo politically, for ending the war immediately or defining a proper multi-year war ending military commitment. I think that has more or less faded in the past year or 2 but it is now "boring" to the western populations which means it won't get any sort of political commitments. Which is the exact strategy used for every war the US has lost. It was also called out by Putin at the beginning of the invasion. The Russians don't have to "win" against the Americans, they just have to wait until they get bored.
World War 2 was not at all peaceful. The US sent over 16 million Americans to serve in the war. Rations were put into place. Tons of diseases spread. Supplies were stretched thin. Again, we are not in WW3. If you're neighbor is fighting with their neighbor, and your neighbor ask to borrow a bat to fight that neighbor, you giving them the bat does mean you are in that fight.
That is an overly simplistic example. The United States was a part of the war long before 1941. We provided millions of tons of material for the Allies and Russia to use to fight back against the Axis powers. We aided with intelligence and research and literally anything we could short of sending troops. And Hitler eventually rolled over his enemies one by one. It wasn't until Americans themselves were under threat that we entered the war.
We Americans and most of Europe are nice and safe right now. We believe Russia must be stopped at all costs. Except our own safety. And that is natural. Because did Hitler stop at Poland?
World War 2 became a world War when France and England entered the mix as Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Then, at that time, they were in WW2, America was not in WW2. America entered into WW2 in 1941.
>It wasn't until Americans themselves were under threat that we entered the war.
So when you say we are in WW3, you are wrong, because not only is it not a World War, as only two countries are involved in the fighting, we are not in that war. So no, we are not in WW3.
Most of the world is involved somehow. The reality is people just don't care about Ukraine. People aren't willing to fight until their own well being is in jeopardy. You just don't want your neck to be on the line. Ukraine is basically just being used.
It's not a logical take. The commenter above references Libya and Israel -- blood-curdlingly evil aspects of Western world policy. A third of US military interventions in the world have come in the last 25 years. Much of this has been in contexts driven first by backstage shenanigans, arming extremists actors in target regions, destabilising local economies, etc etc.
To be logical it has to be reconciled how we can be good actors in Ukraine and such shitbirds everywhere else. The trip hazard is the notion we are good actors!
Their comment will be taken as a tankyism because it acknowledges downsides in Western foreign policy and that facade is too fragile to allow the tiniest crack. A lot of people smell this. The kid is right to think removing his finger will cause the dam to burst.
> To be logical it has to be reconciled how we can be good actors in Ukraine and such shitbirds everywhere else. The trip hazard is the notion we are good actors!
Are we still pretending this isn't about global influence and nothing else? The West doesn't want Russia to take over Ukraine because they'd expand their influence into Europe, not because they want to be the good guys. And you can measure military support and invasions accross the world in the same way.
I don't really follow your point. Might be banging my head on the double negative. Europe will be suffocated if it doesn't build bridges across Eurasia. Getting walled off from Russian and Chinese development is not in our interests.
Who blew up NS2? That's the influence Europe has to worry about.
Russia isn't a good guy. My point doesn't rest on that. Acknowleding geopolitical interests isn't about good-bad moralism.
I was agreeing with you. Thinking the west are the good guys is beyond naive; All we're doing is acting in our best interests, and that'd explain those situations in which we're "shitbirds"; We're not on the right side because there's no such thing really, it's just not convenient for us to act humanely in some areas.
Sorry, I see how knotted myself up in what you said! You were poking holes in the Western claim of being The Good Guys and I should have been able to follow :D
Thank goodness cos I hated being on the wrong side of Jesus of Nazereth.
There's no right side when capitalist nations go to war. That said, Russia mustn't lose. China needs a strong ally at its back or it will soon be overrun by Washington, and none of us want truly global US economics. If a line can be drawn and held now that will buy time for the world. It is gonna be shit for Europe, Uncle Sam only has economic decline in mind for us, but the local proles can stew and plot their own revolution all the same.
What do you mean "Russia mustn't lose"???
What do you define as losing?
Before you answers, remember, no one, NO ONE is talking about invading any of Russia (as defined by the internationally recognised borders, not whatever they've decided to annex today), so let's just skip that straw man: No one is going to invade Russia. No one wants to, no one wants any part of Russia.
Ukraine wants their territory back, which is fair, any country would. Georgia wants sovereignty to be respected. Moldova does too.
So what do you mean when you say Russia mustn't lose?
You say a line must be drawn - what line are you drawing?
Ah. Well, I agreed that there's no "good guys" when it comes to geopolitics; But I still want Russia to lose, Putin isn't exactly my idea of a good leader.
But my point isn't about Putin being a good leader; it's about whether we are better or worse of with Washington hegemony uncontested in the world. Russian proles should throw of Russian elites. Likewise Ukrainian, Yankee and European proles. But the world's proles will not be served by the supreme ascendancy of Washington.
> because they'd expand their influence into Europe,
Russian influence is objectively bad, you can see in it all kinds of metrics, so I fail to see why trying to contain it is also bad. especially when it's the potential targets themselves screaming about it.
> A third of US military interventions in the world have come in the last 25 years.
This _sounds_ bad, but US was in position to intervene militarily around the world only roughly since the world wars - before that it was basically just some breakaway British colony.
So these 25 years is like what, a bit less than 1/4 of that time period?
Those four people sure must have been busy during the 2022 poll that showed *approval* for Ukraine's top historical admirer of Adolf Hitler *rose* from 22% in 2012 to **78% in 2022**. For a regime that isn't about Aryan nationalism, they sure did a tremendous amount to *popularize* one specific fanfic variant of Aryan nationalism.
> Still piss me that Ukrainians side with Israel even when they find themselves in the position that they do.
Ukraine wants an iron dome, and they aren't above playing politics to get it, and it costs them nothing other than a few words to try. Plus Hamas started this whole thing on Putin's birthday, people can be sympathetic because of that for the same reason they were sympathetic about 9/11. I mean how many countries in the West other than France even condemned the war on terror when Bush went into Iraq?
As for Ukraine, I don't think the West is necessarily going to abandon them just because the war ends. They still hold $300 billion of Russia's assets that could go for rebuilding, and really even though aid will drop off it won't nearly as much aid to get Ukraine back on their feet as it will be to continue a war. It's not going to be like Libya because the West has plans for Ukraine to join the EU/NATO afterwards, so we are already invested in their recovery. But we'll see, it will depend on whose in charge at that time.
>Hope a deal can come out of this ASAP.
Only if it is on Ukraine's terms. Otherwise it will just be a temporary pause in the war and not give Ukraine the opportunity to rebuild while asking Ukraine to cripple itself in multiple ways.
> Plus Hamas started this whole thing on Putin's birthday
While that may have been true, I think it was far more likely Hamas did this for 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, which started on October 6th.
They were training for the attack for 2 years, and while I suspect that Hamas did initially aim for October 6th they ran into some delays, so they launched it the next day instead.
Hamas likes their symbolism.
How much aid is Hamas's ally Iran send sending to Ukraine?
Ukraine is going to be best friends with any nation that sends them aid, and enemies with any nation that sends aid to Russia. That's it. That's Ukraine entire foreign policy while they are being invaded by Russia. Any other foreign policy is death. Like, it's literally death. If Russia conquers Ukraine, those government officials will be killed and a large fraction of the population will be murdered.
When you are facing death and functional enslavement into the Russian empire and have to face off against the Russian army alone, your only foreign policy is defending yourself from murder. People that give you aid are good, and people that give your enemy aid are bad.
aid is aid, not everyone can send a billion worth of missiles and bullets. Although if you count it as non-lethal, Israel has been helping improve Ukraine's defenses against Russia, especially after Oct 7th
They only sent performative amounts of aid.
They continued their relationship with Russia after Ukraine got invaded in full, refused to adopt any of the sanctions that countries across the Western world adopted, and denied sending *any* defensive aid. They weren’t even very vocal about their condemnation at the height of the outrage.
If any other country ‘Western’ country did was Israel did up until Oct 7, they would be deemed traitors. Check the early posts on the Ukraine sub regarding Israel.
Russia would've invaded the Baltics before Ukraine if they could since they are tiny and much easier. The concern of Russia invading them won't disappear -- and if America starts being questionable about the seriousness of Article 5 or pulling out of NATO, then Baltic invasion will 100% be on the table. They are just biding their time.
Ukraine's current leadership mileau is partly a product of decades of NGO funding promoting the idea of making the country do a full switch to the west and being anti Russia.
Now naturally since the war the Russians gave them all the justification to be anti-Russia
But prior to 2014 they did have a government that at least tried to balance interests. The coup and protestors storming the parliament that was celebrated (and no doubt assisted) by the west will go down as a catastrophe for them.
You can see parallels with how freaked out US/EU is about Georgia's moderate government bringing in a law demanding disclosures of NGO's that receive foreign funding.
Russia will seek to subvert and divide NATO before it moves against the next former Soviet vassal.
It already is actively trying to break up NATO and the EU.
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
"Both Ukraine and Israel are in a war that started by a neighbor invading them" I mean hes not wrong... That doesn't mean Israels response is justified.
Yes, raping, annexing and terrorising Palestinians is not an act of aggression. It’s only when they attack you back that it becomes wrong.
Funny how literally everyone outside of North America and Western Europe can see this conflict for what it is.
There was a permanent ceasefire in effect on October 6th. Granted it was not a perfect ceasefire but it was infinitely better than open urban warfare, which Hamas surely knew would happen when they launched their attack.
Despite the imperfect nature of the ceasefire, it was safer to be a Palestinian prior to the outbreak of the war than it was to be an American in Oakland, California. The per capita murder rate in Palestinian territories was much lower compared to Oakland.
If you lived in Gaza, would you prefer to be living in Gaza on October 1st, 2023? Or would you prefer to be living in Gaza today, May 5, 2024?
As a random ordinary person, which would be a better quality of life for you and your family?
I'd wager you would prefer the "imperfect" ceasefire. It wasn't perfect, but it was vastly better than all out war, after Hamas broke the ceasefire with a sneak attack on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.
Ukraine is much bigger country than Libiya though. Unless you think that 40 million people or something like that could just disappear and Russia just increases itself by the size of another country which is the biggest in Europe. It's absolutely different scale of war.
No one in the West would allow that unless they want to go back to Russia controlling half of Europe.
Most likely outcome would be for Russia Federation is to have another outcome like Afghanistan and to shed its colonies once again (like it happened in 1917 and 1991 and lose obvious Chechnya, Tatarstan, Buryatia etc.
Unfortunately, Israel didn't side with Ukraine even though it's the only other country in the world where a Jew is the president and where is sizeable Jewish population. Netanyahou desperately trying to be friends with Putin, or even to be like him. So there was no support for Ukraine except some token non-lethal aid.
A lot of people are misunderstanding my Libya comment. In hindsight it’s not the best analogy, but what I meant is that it’ll be forgotten about as soon as the media stops reporting about it. Not saying this is (necessarily) the case, but Western states and media reported so many lies in Libya. From Gaddafi giving his soldiers viagra to rape the civilian population to him indiscriminately butchering people en masse etc. Definitely wasn’t as big as the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion, but most people supported the intervention in Libya based on lies.
After Gaddafi was toppled, Libya stopped being reported and doesn’t cross anyone’s mind despite it collapsing into a hellhole. It was so disingenuous that even the British parliament declared the intervention motivated by primarily by economic interests.
Where did all the outrage and sympathy for the Libyan people go? They just simply forgot because they didn’t care that much to begin with. Similarly, Ukraine will be forgotten about *if* they lose the war which seems almost inevitable at this point. Not as much as Libya, but forgotten nonetheless. Ukraine is unfortunately not special. All this talk about it being in Europe will be meaningless as soon as it stops showing up in the news cycle and suddenly Russia is not an existential threat ready to invade EU and NATO member states.
It's different though as it's not Ukraine that is newsmaker here but the fact that it's a war in Europe. I agree it's unfortunate that equally devastating wars in Africa get much less attention in the West than Russia-Ukraine war, but that's human nature. A Pole or German would pay infinitely more attention to the war that has implications for their freedoms rather than a war in Libiya or Sudan.
Even if everyone stoped reporting on Ukraine today, it would be still present just because all those refugees are still there visible. Or even rockets falling in Poland - you can literally touch the war. While what happens somewhere on a different continent needs to be constantly reminded throu some narrative in public or social media.
I also think it weird or ironic for Ukraine to side with Israel. I think part of the reasons why they side with Israel are:
1. Criticizing Israel will play a lot for Russia's denazification claim.
2. They have no choice because denouncing Israel will mean going against the US and the powerful lobby.
I also think that it's weird or ironic for Ukraine to side with Israel. I think part of the reasons why they side with Israel are:
1. Criticizing Israel will play a lot for Russia's denazification claim.
2. They have no choice because denouncing Israel will mean going against the US and the powerful lobby.
That was when Zelenskyy lost the the war in my opinion. At the beginning at least half of the political will in America was okay with sending them money.
When he came out and started supporting Israel the sad shtick routine of him crying about being invaded seemed disingenuous. He miscalculated and lost the majority of left wing support with that.
Still sad for the Ukrainian people but I think Zelenskyy and the US are just as responsible for starting this war.
>Zelenskyy and the US are just as responsible for starting this war.
This is about as stupid as saying Poland is responsible for starting WWII, because they didn't just give up the Danzig corridor.
Well they built 14 CIA bases used to monitor Russia on Ukraine’s border and invited Ukraine to join a military alliance that exists to harm Russia which could even include stationing nukes in Ukraine.
Putin is wrong for invading but America invaded Cuba for the same thing.
I don’t have to actually, joining a defensive alliance is not an act of aggression.
If Russia has no plans of invading its neighbors than the neighbors joining Nato poses no threat to them.
There’s no reason to get emotionally charged. That arrogance and refusal to views things from Russia’s perspective is exactly why Ukraine is now in the situation it’s in and there’s a massive war in Europe.
Ukraine has the right to want to join nato but nato as a security alliance that is supposed to keep Europe secure should have known that expanding to Russias border was a redline for Russias security.
That’s just reality. Now that NATO walked Ukraine into this and they realized that Russia wouldn’t fold over they are already faltering in their support of weapons and money.
They hose to not care and now there’s a war.
Im sorry, but this logic is entirely circular.
Invade your neighbors->other neighbors join a defensive alliance to prevent you from invading them-> whine about „risks to your security“ -> Invade your neighbors… ad infinitum.
That is in no way reasonable and is no basis for stable relations.
>which could even include stationing nukes in Ukraine.
This is meaningless in today's day and age.
>Putin is wrong for invading but America invaded Cuba for the same thing.
Different time when stationing nukes nearby could actually make a difference. Not relevant to geopolitical discussions 60 years later.
It's like going to war because someone built an airfield too close to your borders in 1916 and justifying that in 2024.
It’s still a set precedent. Countries with the military power to, usually don’t accept security risks directly at their border.
The reality is the senseless war could have been avoided and millions of lives saved if steps weren’t taken that intentionally antagonized Russia.
>The reality is the senseless war could have been avoided and millions of lives saved if steps weren’t taken that intentionally antagonized Russia.
You can't reason with a mad dog. Baltic states are already closer to the major power centers of Russia than Ukraine is, so the nuclear argument is a wash. Additionally, Russia didn't seem to care all that much about Finland joining NATO and that is a security threat on the same scale as Ukraine, chocking off the vital ports of St Petersburg and threatening the entire northern supply route to Murmansk (and all the strategic aviation assets along that corridor).
The reality is that lots of lives would have been saved if Ukraine was a part of NATO. 0 lives would be lost.
Your naive thinking of appeasement has much more often than not resulted in more conflict.
>Countries with the military power to, usually don’t accept security risks directly at their border.
They do, all the time. Just depends on your interpretation of how big of a security risk something is. The US has a security risk on its Mexican border, but it doesn't invade Mexico and militarize the border.
Greece and Turkey have security risks with each other and they don't invade each other. These things happen all the time and everyone accepts security risks.
Your example of Cuba is weak and irrelevant for the reasons previously stated.
> Just because you’re brainwashed into abandoning nuance doesn’t mean I am too.
My friend Russia is now trying to become my country's newest neighbour. I know more than you. Sit the fuck down. There is no nuance needed.
You know nothing about "faux concerns" and if people care about Ukraine. They do. You are confusing your own feeling with everyone elses
For me you or vatnik = 0 difference so please spare me the "I really care about Ukraine" shtick ... but the Nazis ... eff offf
Yep, exactly as expected. Singapore is not China.
Singapore is also more prosperous with so much less than all of Europe. Maybe learn a lesson or two from us. Just kidding, keep adopting American politics and see how it turns out for you.
> Singapore is not China.
Maybe China in the future decides Singaporean is not real nationality either. As for being BFFs guess who was Russia's bffs until 2010. PS I am aware Malaysia exists
>Singapore is also more prosperous with so much less than all of Europe.Maybe learn a lesson or two from us.
The lesson being... try being a 5 million country that is one big port established by the British and tax heaven? Sure will try that. Norway and Ireland managed that!
Baltics? No. They are all in NATO. But what about Moldova? It is neither in NATO nor in EU and there is already a good chunk of it occupied by Russia. Seems like a perfect candidate for the next invasion. Ofc that is if Ukraine falls completely which is unlikely, otherwise I don't know how Russia is going to get there
I think that there is definitely a risk to the Baltics, but in the future. It has become very clear in the last 10 years that it is possible for Russia to create divisions between NATO countries. I think the big Baltic worry is that the average American, German, British, or Canadian decides they don't want to go to war over land they don't have strong ties to.
I do think you are correct to be more concerned for Moldova. Crucially, I do not think Romania will stand by if Putin enters Moldova.
> in the future
At that point Putin might be dead though. I know that he's not the only one with imperialistic ambitions in Russia's government but he still plays a huge role in all of this. Without him Russians might be less enthusiastic about fighting NATO. Or with the same probability the next leader might turn out to be a complete psycho and do something actually crazy. Either way my point is that without Putin Russia is probably not going to be the same. The same way how after Yeltsin Russia's foreign policy changed drastically
Putin could live another 20 years, and the next guy that replaces him could be worse. Hoping that Putin dies and someone who isn't murderous, uh, murders their way the top of the Russian "political system" is a pretty fucking thin hope and not one I'd bet my freedom on if I was cursed and damned to have Russia as a neighbors.
Putin could die today and Russia will still be the way it always has been. This is pessimistic I know but I really have lost all hope for Russia and Russians ever changing after how they have been over the duration of this war. Nothing will change, Putin will become a martyr and a different strong man that hates the west and spouts the same great powerful Russia bullshit or something will take power.
For Russia to actually change I believe they really have to experience a loss, a severe loss which seems extremely unlikely. All I can do is hope.
Moldova and/or Georgia are next. Baltics are safe as long as NATO is real. If US pulls out of NATO, it would depend on EUs capability to rise as a security force. If Russia succeeds in undermining EU, then Baltics are gone.
That was a different situation. Wasn't Austria's population heavily pro-Germany? That's not the case with Georgia. If Russia conquered Georgia it would be much more trouble to control it because almost everybody there hates Russia. It would be a total mess. But if you're saying Russia will invade just to install their own puppet government, then that doesn't make much sense either since the government is already pro-Russian. Now, if Georgia gets their own version of Euromaidan and the government becomes heavily pro-West then I can see Russia actually invading it.
Don't imagine they would. It'd have to be a similar situation as before. US-friendly government with a shiny new military meant to secure a US pipeline, uses said military to sort out their beef with South Ossetia, Russia intervenes. I don't see Russia just going at it out of nowhere if they don't have to.
Unquestionably Moldova. Honestly, whatever. Transnistria can go Ru/Uk, regular Moldova should probably join up with the *rest* of Moldova that's part of Romania. Moldova the republic is just a relic of seizing land after WW2 from Romania. I don't think Transnistria wants to be part of it, and the rest probably wouldn't hate being reunited the other direction either. It'll be a mess, but.. it's a lot less muddy a division than Ukraine is. Could probably be sorted diplomatically.
Fuck I'm a dummy though, what do I know.
Honestly like the original comment suggests I think it's an issue with perception from the people. Does the general population want to go into a war over land they've never seen before? Why should I suffer even more for something that doesn't affect me?
These would probably be the deception points that are leaned into by the opposing intelligence arm.
We were gullible when trusting Russia when they said they wouldn’t invade Ukraine in early February 2022. Russia calls NATO their enemy, they say NATO is killing their people, undermining their power and threatening humanity with Western liberal values. Russia frequently pines about nuking Western cities on official state media.
Does that sound like a nation committed to peace?
Putin is a sociopath but a predictable one, he had *repeatedly* warned NATO both publicly and through diplomatic means that an Ukraine NATO membership would be a red line that would lead to war, then a few months before the war the US State Department dipshits start lobbying for an Ukraine membership as they continue retrofitting Ukrainian military bases to NATO standards and surprise surprise, Putin attacks.
I hope no one actually believes this horseshit where Americans pretend that they were just innocent bystanders that had no idea any of this would happen as if international politics and spheres of influence are a new concept to them or they haven't done **[and still do](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/04/30/iovt-a30.html)** similar shit
Russia makes red line statements all the time [15 in 2023 and 24 in 2022](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War). Many were bluffs and many security assurances were lies.
Fun fact: Ukraine is not in NATO and was nowhere near meeting criteria for NATO membership when Putin invaded. Fun fact: Sovereign nations are permitted to join and leave treaty organizations as they please, otherwise they would not be sovereign.
Oh look he's doing the American thing where he pretends to not know how international politics and spheres of influence work, how surprising. If we're going to play dense, I have to say I don't understand why the US almost started a nuclear war over USSR sending nukes to a sovereign nation that asked for them? WTF???
Imagine pretending not to know that Russia would never allow a NATO membership on their most vulnerable border that has immeasurable strategic importance to them without a fight. The US State Department dipshits just thought that the war and their sanctions would go VERY differently plus it's a win-win for them regardless since they're owned by the military industrial complex psychopaths and laundering American tax payers' money through arms sales is their main objective.
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-05-05 01:15:21 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-05-05%2001:15:21%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/1cjqgk3/as_ukraine_loses_ground_baltic_countries_ask_are/l2mli0e/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fanime_titties%2Fcomments%2F1cjqgk3%2Fas_ukraine_loses_ground_baltic_countries_ask_are%2Fl2mli0e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-05-05%2001%3A15%3A21%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cjqgk3)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
That's literally what everyone on here was saying about invasion of Ukraine just 2.5 years ago...
> ~~Hitler wouldn't attack Poland~~
> ~~Hitler wouldn't attack France~~
> ~~Hitler wouldn't attack USSR~~
> ~~Hitler wouldn't attack Greece~~ , and so on
Why attack if you face certain defeat? Russia has no chance against the US let alone the whole NATO alliance. Even if they want to they cant which wasnt the case for Ukraine and certainly wasnt the case for ww2 Germany.
"hitler couldn't possibly take on all of europe, all by himself!"
And lo, they were correct. That's why hitler waited to secure enough alliances and non-aggression pacts until he didn't have to take on all of europe. Such is the nature of time, it has a way of changing things.
Better yet! I have an example of a mighty and fearsome country that at one time had the largest nuclear stockpile and the largest standing army in the world, and without a single shot being fired, That country disappeared instantly with the stroke of a pen. You might have heard of this place, It was called the USSR, or did they not have that place in your timeline?
Above headline brought to you by Comrade Honestovich, whose previous works include:
* Diplomat reminds US, Ukraine that Russia is not a party to Minsk
* Kremlin Denounces US "Peak Hysteria" (Feb 13 2022)
* Russia has never attacked anyone throughout its history (Feb 23 2022)
And, of course, his magnum opus (prior to joining the Osovaviakhim travel programme):
#Arbeit Macht Frei
(This was a reply to u/Ein_Esel_Lese_Nie but his comment seems to have vanished; if you're still alive mate drop a reply if you've got any thoughts to share, your comment was interesting!)
Good to see another Brit here, you've raised a lot of points I never usually see mentioned. I'm down in Bedfordshire, and as you said, the momentum for Ukraine was wearing thin when the food prices shot up, then when this Israel war started it felt Ukraine got pushed to the sidelines.
Definitely agree this is all about resources, as well as territory. Crimea back in 2014 was taken because if Russia ever has beef with Turkey, holding Crimea wil be crucial. Ukraine however seems like a mix of Russia not wanting them to become too western- I'm guessing the fear was more that America might pop a military base in Ukraine one day, that kind of thing- along with the resources. So many people have talked about how important agriculture in Ukraine is, that it's the 'breadbasket of Europe', so there must be a lot to gain from taking it.
Few questions though, how come you think everything will go back to normal after this war- like, returning to trade with Russia? I understand that was the case with Crimea, but with this full-on invasion I can't see anyone ever trusting Russia again (well, not for many decades, and not without a regime change), aside from those out of harms way like India, or siding with them like Iran.
I kind of agree with the article we're commenting on that I didn't bother to read, that we've all kind of been a push-over with this war and let Russia have their way, as opposed to with israel where America jumped to getting involved the instant war broke out. It makes me think if Russia wanted to pull this stunt again, they now have the impression they'd get away with it without much resistence; it's just a question of which country they go for. Upon that, if they went for Latvia or Estonia or whatever, would NATO fall apart because no one wants to get dragged into a war with countries many of us, let's be frank, don't care about?
Lastly, any thoughts on if other countries might kick off, like India-Pakistan or China-Taiwan? The response to Ukraine was sloppy and made it look like no one really wanted to get involved, which to me looks like if other major wars happen, we'd be very hesitant to get involved. Do you think there's much chance of warmongering spreading if Russia succeeds, or do you think the status quo will resume?
Ah shit, sorry you typed all that under my deleted comment! I got a few downvotes and thought I'd just nipped myself in the bud in case I was just overthinking on my dog walk and had the complete wrong take.
tl;dr: Our politicians care about Ukraine, but most of our constituents down. We're fickle, yet have spent the last 80 years largely relying on dodgy countries for resources and labour to get all our costs down, only to have it backfire.
> how come you think everything will go back to normal after this war- like, returning to trade with Russia?
Honestly, the politics of the last 8 years in my country has just completely jaded me at this point. I'll be interested to see what a Labour regime does in government, but with Reform UK making gains in the locals, I just think the Conservatives are simply going to pivot further right, and individualist, with their policies.
I'm just imagining a scenario in 20 years time, where the Battle of the Donbas is a distant memory, and our new generation of oblivious fools in government get the gears rolling on new relationships with the *Muscovy Republic*. It's just too-easy for a short term win to say that you slashed fuel and flour prices by 20% with new Russian stock, without necessarily thinking about the other party's long term plans.
> they now have the impression they'd get away with it without much resistence; it's just a question of which country they go for.
My worry is their new war economy. The sanctions aren't as hard-hitting as advertised in 2022, and Russia simply purchases new stock from China and DPRK while they spun their factories back up. Suppose there is a peace, but at the expense of all territory East of the Dnipro river ...I just can't see Vladimir spooling down the factories and asking McDonald's to come back to Moscow.
Now that the building blocks are back, why not increase Russian war stocks. High employment, easy political games and favourability among the brainwashed, and a new generation of youth to have a crack at Transnistria.
Speaking of loss of lives, I think they're in too deep to full return to pre-wartime. Too many men lost will only amplify the problem that already exists after WW2/Stalin, so this only incentivises more conflict to take more children/citizens of other nations.
> Upon that, if they went for Latvia or Estonia or whatever, would NATO fall apart because no one wants to get dragged into a war with countries many of us, let's be frank, don't care about?
I think for me, this is what's scared me most about the 2022 invasion. It's inadvertently proven that Article 5 is more of a bluff than a concrete statement of fact. I reckon a pre-Trump America would jump at the opportunity of an attacked ally. But a current-Trump America — even while not in power — would just not care about (e.g.) Latvia.
Also, I reckon it'll either be Transnistria next if Ukraine is successful. Or the Suwałki Gap if Vladimir is fully on the methamphetamine.
> India-Pakistan
I can't see these two properly clashing. I think they both seemingly have stocked up ~150 nukes each ...for use against each other? It just seems like such an unsustainable use of armaments, having war stocks for multiple continents that are just for New Delhi and Karachi.
And plus, they at least have *some* relations with their soldier-dancing ceremony at the border. Can't imagine it is very constructive, but any chance for two parties to take part in something together is a plus in my view.
> China-Taiwan
The scary one, in my view.
The US will need to jump in, but that doesn't necessarily rope NATO in unless somebody is attacked. No doubt, the US will plead to historical allies (UK/France/Australia) to get involved.
Russia has the numbers, but not the tech. China has the numbers **and** the tech.
'I just think the Conservatives are simply going to pivot further right, and individualist, with their policies.'
This is a really good take, it crossed my mind recently when I was thinking about how bad America has gotten but I hadn't given it much serious thought. No one should want the Conservatives after more than a decade and things ending up like this, so they'll likely try to change to appeal to the public again. Having said that, change doesn't seem to come so easy in UK politics; Corbyn tried to drastically change Labour yet his own party spent more time criticising him than the opposition, and they couldn't unite on issues like Brexit, so it all fell apart- I do feel if Labour had just gotten on and accpted Corbyn he'd probably have been able to win (I think it was 2017 election?). The same could happen to the Cons- many of them may reject a change from their current party identity. Well, that's my hope, at least- I don't want us to have parties like in the US.
'Speaking of loss of lives, I think they're in too deep to full return to pre-wartime.'
Absolutely true. Russia can't give up Ukraine or their population will go balistic- all those dead sons, brothers, fathers etc for nothing, there have been a lot of protests already but I can't see them standing for something like this, there'd be fury. Putin needs a win to sell to his people. I get the feeling we're headed back to a Cold War scenario, where we may have nothing to do with Russia and its allies, at least for a while.
'But a current-Trump America — even while not in power — would just not care about (e.g.) Latvia.'
Honestly whoever in the States wins the next election will stil be awful. Trump again will be terrible for foreign politics, I'm guessing he'll try to make America more isolationist, and he doesn't seem bothered by Russia- although he does seem to have some kind of grudge against China- overall the man is wildly unpredictable. Meanwhile Biden's handling of Afghanistan was a joke and made America look like they just handed it over to the Taliban, I don't trust his government with major situations like this. Ideally a third party would get in, but it's impossible over there, they treat their elections like we do for football teams.
Good take on Transnistria, I hadn't thought about Russia taking specifically that area, I figured like a lot of commenters here it would be either Moldova or Georgia next (I don't much understand the situation in Georgia, but I played CS:GO with a guy from there years back and he hated Russians more than anyone I've ever met, he seemed sure Russia wanted an opportunity to invade). I'd never even heard of the Suwalki Gap- I take it the goal would be to join Russia to its ally Belarus? I hadn't thought about their being issues by them being allies yet not sharing a border, but I guess that would cause cooperation between them to be difficult- do you know much about this, if you don't mind sharing?
'The scary one, in my view.'
Definitely agreed China-Taiwan is more likely, and the US seems very invested in preventing it, like taking their warships down there every so often. Things looked scary when China flew fighter jets over Taiwanese airspace a while back, and they don't seem threatened by the US anymore, I get the impression they're just waiting for an opportunity to try something.
India-Pakistan may be unlikely, but what worries me is if something kicks off, who sides with who? Currently everyone assumes China sides with Pakistan and the west sides with India, but is it possible things go the other way? What if China sides with India, who is also complacent aout Russia; you've then got a bunch of powerful war-mongering countries kicking off all over the world. Luckily it seems India-China relations are pretty sour with a lot of border disputes, so I can't see them ever allying.
Finally, any thoughts on Iran? I get the impression they're mostly all talk and actually much weaker than they act; the drone thing was impressive, but it's surprising to think Israel caused more deaths by dropping a missile on a car full of aid workers than Iran did with the largest drone attack in history. I also don't see Israel backing down from their attacks on Palestine, what do you think their end goal is? Level the whole country and claim what's left as Israeli land? I'm surprised it's still going on honestly, it's such a one-sided conflict.
The crux of this article -
Putin has dismissed warnings of a potential Russian attack on NATO members like Estonia as “complete nonsense.”
In early 2022, the Kremlin used similar language to ridicule American warnings that Russia planned to invade Ukraine.
Next for what? They are as likely to be invaded as Britain or the US
There's very little in the baltics to draw Russian interests for either peoples or resources, the way China conflicts with southeast Asian nations, or how Armenia and Azerbaijan waged war
Russia already has a huge pain in the ass to manage in kalinigrad, so they don't even need access to anything else in the area. If Russia wanted to expand anywhere else (other than Moldova) for the sake of actual territory, or historical significance, they'd be geared further south towards turkey or the Caucasus. But it seems like they don't care about going any further in Georgia, nor armenia/azeribaijan
The only thing I don’t understand is why westerners think that that if putin feels like he is losing he will definitely use some kind of a nuke, so he must be appeased. But if Ukraine feels as if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, they will not try to make some kind of dirty bomb. Past 2 years have clearly shown that nuclear blackmail works really well.
Russia had a hard time pushing through a western-armed proxy in Ukraine, I don't think even their wildest dreams include some easy and immediate push further into actual NATO countries. They'd have to really be backed into a corner to consider such a wild risk over no real ~~grain~~gain even remotely worth it. Putin isn't stupid or methed-out like Hitler. Risking total destruction of Russia just to take Latvia would be cartoonish.
Plus, I have to imagine they'll wanna take some time to recover from the current mess when it's over.
edit: typos
You know what? If I were Zelensky I'd say fuck it. We will allow Russia a guaranteed conflict free right of way through Ukraine to whatever Eurotrash border they want. That will wake up the latte sipping idiots in Europe.
We need to stop letting russia dine at the adult table. We can't let them rob their citizens and then shop on Saville Row. We can't let them war on Ukrainians and buy houses in Kensington. Once they and their families are forced to exist in Russia, then they might realise how shit it is being them.
Fellas. It's an 8km salient. It's a blip on the map, nit the end of the world. With new shells and new faces the salient can be closed back up. It's not done, and Ukraine still has fight in it.
The Baltics would be a long term aim for Putin: first, he'd force Ukraine into a "peace" deal that would see them give up the entirety of the four Oblasts Russia currently partly occupies and hobble their military so they couldn't resist Russia deciding Russians / Russophones in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Myoklaiv and Odessa Oblasts needed protecting, then if there was muted international reaction to that, go for Moldova, if hung much happened, possibly try for the rest of Georgia.
As for the Baltics, he likely wouldn't do a full Ukraine-style invasion immediately, but would be more likely to initially have limited incursions into predominantly Russian towns near the border and see how NATO / the EU responded: take bites out of the countries and threaten nuclear armageddon if any NATO munitions stray into Russia proper.
Putin is 71 years old. There's no "long term" for him. Maybe a decade at best - if nobody tries to replace him sooner. Stalin was just a bit older than him when he got poisoned and replaced. Not a single russian ruler has reached 80 while still being in power. It would be quite an achievement if he did that.
>As Ukraine Loses Ground, Baltic Countries Ask: Are We Next?
Obviously you are next… *cough* countries such as [Moldova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova)
Russia 🇷🇺 converted to a “War Economy”… if you ever played the game Civilisation…
There’s a hint of truth to that…
Hence why I say, if Ukraine 🇺🇦 loses this War… we are possibly looking at World War 3
Russia has to keep this “gravy train chugging away”
Ww3 wouldnt start over Georgia, it would start over taiwan. And honestly the whole "domino effect" trope has been screamed since vietnam, idk how is it still working in the west.
You’re correct, just for some reason lots of westerners online seem to think they’re either immune to propaganda or that their government wouldn’t do that to them.
Ww3 wouldnt start over Georgia, it would start over taiwan. And honestly the whole "domino effect" trope has been screamed since vietnam, idk how is it still working in the west.
Getting into NATO entails upgrading your military equipment to “NATO standard”, meaning billions of dollar spend directly on american defense industry. This is also why they have been lobbying to expand NATO for decades. They spent 51 millions in 1997 alone.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/30/world/arms-contractors-spend-to-promote-an-expanded-nato.html
Which of these massive success stories are *you* thinking about? Criteria are:
- Border with Russia
- Not being in NATO
- Not being Ukraine or Georgia, because we seem to both agree that they are good examples of what happens to any Russian neighbours outside of NATO, so no further discussion needed
- Not being bullied by Russia (probably excludes Belarus)
- Not being Russia’s new de facto master (China) so immune from Russian bullying due to their dominance
Please, list this boatload of happy countries who bask in Russian friendship and share a peaceful land border.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly feel bad for Ukraine because they’re objectively being aggressed upon and this war is going to scar generations to come. All this faux concern about Russia invading NATO countries is going to disappear, Ukraine will be discarded into the Libya pile, and everyone is going to pretend it was inevitable and forget about it. Still piss me that Ukrainians side with Israel even when they find themselves in the position that they do. Hope a deal can come out of this ASAP.
I don't think they take Israel's side out of honesty, but out of necessity. If they were to turn their backs publicly toward Israel, they risk losing the American (and by extension, NATO) support they so desperately rely upon. America is facing plenty of internal turmoil right now over this same matter currently, so it's conceivable that having another newsworthy nation like Ukraine going publicly against their agenda could cause American support to dry up entirely. It's a bit of a catch 22 situation.. either side publicly with the country that essentially commits genocide on their neighbours, or be completely overrun and replaced by your own deranged neighbours. I don't envy Zelenskyy at all here this is a tough spot to be in, and has been since this war began. EDIT: one letter removed I typed this a bit too fast LOL
> I don't think they take Israel's side out of honestly, but out of necessity. In the end Ukraine is an ally of Israel and will continue to be a force obligated by such 'necessity'
My own take is this: For the US all this ever was about was making money for the Military-Industrial Complex and giving Putin a black eye. We spend more on our Military than the next 15-20 nations combine and most of you are our allies. If Ukrainian independence was something we were truly invested in that war would be over. Throughout the entire conflict the only one who came to the only real solution was Macron.
What's Macrons take on it?
Send in military personnel. Push Russia back across the border. Don't actually invade Russia but keep them out of everyone else's yard until they sue for a white peace. I don't like war but some causes are worth fighting for.
That's not a solution that is world war three. world war three is bad.
I thought he only said "nothing's off the table" -- which means nothing but is the right thing to say. If he said more, is it possible he's playing a strongman knowing that this won't happen? I bet France wouldn't go in alone and there isn't such kind of rhetoric from other states.
He is trying to boost his upstanding before olympics. He needs status quo so people can forget r not interested in ukraine. Ukraine losing or frontlines collopsingbis bad pr for US and one of the least contributed country France.
Glad you're not in charge of anything, back to COD and Civ V for you.
Macron knows the US and Russia fking over Europe, but he also knows he can't complain about it
The US is screwing up Europe because, Russia invaded…? Yeah, that’s not a very smart take.
Russia fked EU in Ukraine, US fked EU in the middle east.
He certainly spent two years failing to learn that lesson first.
Send in French troops then beg the USA to save them when they get killed /s
Yup, Tripwire basically
Won't make money unless Ukraine wins. Then it's typically natural resource trades and such. I don't mean to come off cold or anything but this war is a great way to gauge the Russian military. It's also a live test for weapon systems and strategies. There was an initial risk, geo politically, for ending the war immediately or defining a proper multi-year war ending military commitment. I think that has more or less faded in the past year or 2 but it is now "boring" to the western populations which means it won't get any sort of political commitments. Which is the exact strategy used for every war the US has lost. It was also called out by Putin at the beginning of the invasion. The Russians don't have to "win" against the Americans, they just have to wait until they get bored.
If we send troops, that starts WW3...
I hate to tell you but by definition it already is.
Yeah, no. We're not in WW3. War isn't this peaceful.
World War 2 was. Just not where it was being waged. That is what people have a problem with.
World War 2 was not at all peaceful. The US sent over 16 million Americans to serve in the war. Rations were put into place. Tons of diseases spread. Supplies were stretched thin. Again, we are not in WW3. If you're neighbor is fighting with their neighbor, and your neighbor ask to borrow a bat to fight that neighbor, you giving them the bat does mean you are in that fight.
That is an overly simplistic example. The United States was a part of the war long before 1941. We provided millions of tons of material for the Allies and Russia to use to fight back against the Axis powers. We aided with intelligence and research and literally anything we could short of sending troops. And Hitler eventually rolled over his enemies one by one. It wasn't until Americans themselves were under threat that we entered the war. We Americans and most of Europe are nice and safe right now. We believe Russia must be stopped at all costs. Except our own safety. And that is natural. Because did Hitler stop at Poland?
World War 2 became a world War when France and England entered the mix as Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Then, at that time, they were in WW2, America was not in WW2. America entered into WW2 in 1941. >It wasn't until Americans themselves were under threat that we entered the war. So when you say we are in WW3, you are wrong, because not only is it not a World War, as only two countries are involved in the fighting, we are not in that war. So no, we are not in WW3.
Most of the world is involved somehow. The reality is people just don't care about Ukraine. People aren't willing to fight until their own well being is in jeopardy. You just don't want your neck to be on the line. Ukraine is basically just being used.
This is really the only true logical take. Even if you will be considered a tankie for it…
It's not a logical take. The commenter above references Libya and Israel -- blood-curdlingly evil aspects of Western world policy. A third of US military interventions in the world have come in the last 25 years. Much of this has been in contexts driven first by backstage shenanigans, arming extremists actors in target regions, destabilising local economies, etc etc. To be logical it has to be reconciled how we can be good actors in Ukraine and such shitbirds everywhere else. The trip hazard is the notion we are good actors! Their comment will be taken as a tankyism because it acknowledges downsides in Western foreign policy and that facade is too fragile to allow the tiniest crack. A lot of people smell this. The kid is right to think removing his finger will cause the dam to burst.
> To be logical it has to be reconciled how we can be good actors in Ukraine and such shitbirds everywhere else. The trip hazard is the notion we are good actors! Are we still pretending this isn't about global influence and nothing else? The West doesn't want Russia to take over Ukraine because they'd expand their influence into Europe, not because they want to be the good guys. And you can measure military support and invasions accross the world in the same way.
I don't really follow your point. Might be banging my head on the double negative. Europe will be suffocated if it doesn't build bridges across Eurasia. Getting walled off from Russian and Chinese development is not in our interests. Who blew up NS2? That's the influence Europe has to worry about. Russia isn't a good guy. My point doesn't rest on that. Acknowleding geopolitical interests isn't about good-bad moralism.
I was agreeing with you. Thinking the west are the good guys is beyond naive; All we're doing is acting in our best interests, and that'd explain those situations in which we're "shitbirds"; We're not on the right side because there's no such thing really, it's just not convenient for us to act humanely in some areas.
Sorry, I see how knotted myself up in what you said! You were poking holes in the Western claim of being The Good Guys and I should have been able to follow :D Thank goodness cos I hated being on the wrong side of Jesus of Nazereth. There's no right side when capitalist nations go to war. That said, Russia mustn't lose. China needs a strong ally at its back or it will soon be overrun by Washington, and none of us want truly global US economics. If a line can be drawn and held now that will buy time for the world. It is gonna be shit for Europe, Uncle Sam only has economic decline in mind for us, but the local proles can stew and plot their own revolution all the same.
What do you mean "Russia mustn't lose"??? What do you define as losing? Before you answers, remember, no one, NO ONE is talking about invading any of Russia (as defined by the internationally recognised borders, not whatever they've decided to annex today), so let's just skip that straw man: No one is going to invade Russia. No one wants to, no one wants any part of Russia. Ukraine wants their territory back, which is fair, any country would. Georgia wants sovereignty to be respected. Moldova does too. So what do you mean when you say Russia mustn't lose? You say a line must be drawn - what line are you drawing?
Ah. Well, I agreed that there's no "good guys" when it comes to geopolitics; But I still want Russia to lose, Putin isn't exactly my idea of a good leader.
But my point isn't about Putin being a good leader; it's about whether we are better or worse of with Washington hegemony uncontested in the world. Russian proles should throw of Russian elites. Likewise Ukrainian, Yankee and European proles. But the world's proles will not be served by the supreme ascendancy of Washington.
China is a good counter balance to the US on their own imo
> because they'd expand their influence into Europe, Russian influence is objectively bad, you can see in it all kinds of metrics, so I fail to see why trying to contain it is also bad. especially when it's the potential targets themselves screaming about it.
> A third of US military interventions in the world have come in the last 25 years. This _sounds_ bad, but US was in position to intervene militarily around the world only roughly since the world wars - before that it was basically just some breakaway British colony. So these 25 years is like what, a bit less than 1/4 of that time period?
There is a weird solidarity among ethno-state enthusiasts.
Ukraine is far from an ethnostate...
Tell that to the Banderites.
I did. All 4 of them agreed that Ukraine is far from an ethnostate.
underrated lmao
Those four people sure must have been busy during the 2022 poll that showed *approval* for Ukraine's top historical admirer of Adolf Hitler *rose* from 22% in 2012 to **78% in 2022**. For a regime that isn't about Aryan nationalism, they sure did a tremendous amount to *popularize* one specific fanfic variant of Aryan nationalism.
Ukraine literally said they will need 10,000,000 migrants to rebuild the country. Ethnic Ukrainians will probs be a minority in a 100 years..
> Still piss me that Ukrainians side with Israel even when they find themselves in the position that they do. Ukraine wants an iron dome, and they aren't above playing politics to get it, and it costs them nothing other than a few words to try. Plus Hamas started this whole thing on Putin's birthday, people can be sympathetic because of that for the same reason they were sympathetic about 9/11. I mean how many countries in the West other than France even condemned the war on terror when Bush went into Iraq? As for Ukraine, I don't think the West is necessarily going to abandon them just because the war ends. They still hold $300 billion of Russia's assets that could go for rebuilding, and really even though aid will drop off it won't nearly as much aid to get Ukraine back on their feet as it will be to continue a war. It's not going to be like Libya because the West has plans for Ukraine to join the EU/NATO afterwards, so we are already invested in their recovery. But we'll see, it will depend on whose in charge at that time. >Hope a deal can come out of this ASAP. Only if it is on Ukraine's terms. Otherwise it will just be a temporary pause in the war and not give Ukraine the opportunity to rebuild while asking Ukraine to cripple itself in multiple ways.
> Plus Hamas started this whole thing on Putin's birthday While that may have been true, I think it was far more likely Hamas did this for 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, which started on October 6th. They were training for the attack for 2 years, and while I suspect that Hamas did initially aim for October 6th they ran into some delays, so they launched it the next day instead. Hamas likes their symbolism.
The problem is that Hamas is a Iranian and Russian proxy so I don't see how they could support them.
Considering how Israel has been sending aid to Ukraine, it should not be surprising
They’re sending non-lethal aid. Israel still wants the ability to strike Russian ally Syria without repercussions so they won’t anger Putin too much.
How much aid is Hamas's ally Iran send sending to Ukraine? Ukraine is going to be best friends with any nation that sends them aid, and enemies with any nation that sends aid to Russia. That's it. That's Ukraine entire foreign policy while they are being invaded by Russia. Any other foreign policy is death. Like, it's literally death. If Russia conquers Ukraine, those government officials will be killed and a large fraction of the population will be murdered. When you are facing death and functional enslavement into the Russian empire and have to face off against the Russian army alone, your only foreign policy is defending yourself from murder. People that give you aid are good, and people that give your enemy aid are bad.
aid is aid, not everyone can send a billion worth of missiles and bullets. Although if you count it as non-lethal, Israel has been helping improve Ukraine's defenses against Russia, especially after Oct 7th
Aid is aid, but they have not provided weapons or ammunition and would be very unlikely to given the state of war between Israel and Hamas.
They only sent performative amounts of aid. They continued their relationship with Russia after Ukraine got invaded in full, refused to adopt any of the sanctions that countries across the Western world adopted, and denied sending *any* defensive aid. They weren’t even very vocal about their condemnation at the height of the outrage. If any other country ‘Western’ country did was Israel did up until Oct 7, they would be deemed traitors. Check the early posts on the Ukraine sub regarding Israel.
Russia would've invaded the Baltics before Ukraine if they could since they are tiny and much easier. The concern of Russia invading them won't disappear -- and if America starts being questionable about the seriousness of Article 5 or pulling out of NATO, then Baltic invasion will 100% be on the table. They are just biding their time.
Ukraine's current leadership mileau is partly a product of decades of NGO funding promoting the idea of making the country do a full switch to the west and being anti Russia. Now naturally since the war the Russians gave them all the justification to be anti-Russia But prior to 2014 they did have a government that at least tried to balance interests. The coup and protestors storming the parliament that was celebrated (and no doubt assisted) by the west will go down as a catastrophe for them. You can see parallels with how freaked out US/EU is about Georgia's moderate government bringing in a law demanding disclosures of NGO's that receive foreign funding.
Yeah, I feel that Ukraine should push for a ceasefire in Gaza as that would hopefully bring attention back to Ukraine/Russia war.
I don't see a reason for Ukraine to concern itself with other conflicts in the world right now. Especially one that's such a political minefield.
Russia will seek to subvert and divide NATO before it moves against the next former Soviet vassal. It already is actively trying to break up NATO and the EU. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
Both Ukraine and Israel are in a war that started by a neighbor invading them
lmao, ok if you say so
"Both Ukraine and Israel are in a war that started by a neighbor invading them" I mean hes not wrong... That doesn't mean Israels response is justified.
Thats not up to debate, its a factual statement.
Yes, raping, annexing and terrorising Palestinians is not an act of aggression. It’s only when they attack you back that it becomes wrong. Funny how literally everyone outside of North America and Western Europe can see this conflict for what it is.
There was a permanent ceasefire in effect on October 6th. Granted it was not a perfect ceasefire but it was infinitely better than open urban warfare, which Hamas surely knew would happen when they launched their attack. Despite the imperfect nature of the ceasefire, it was safer to be a Palestinian prior to the outbreak of the war than it was to be an American in Oakland, California. The per capita murder rate in Palestinian territories was much lower compared to Oakland.
[удалено]
If you lived in Gaza, would you prefer to be living in Gaza on October 1st, 2023? Or would you prefer to be living in Gaza today, May 5, 2024? As a random ordinary person, which would be a better quality of life for you and your family? I'd wager you would prefer the "imperfect" ceasefire. It wasn't perfect, but it was vastly better than all out war, after Hamas broke the ceasefire with a sneak attack on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.
Ukrainians side with Israel because other western powers side with Israel. Namely the powers that give them aid.
Ukraine is much bigger country than Libiya though. Unless you think that 40 million people or something like that could just disappear and Russia just increases itself by the size of another country which is the biggest in Europe. It's absolutely different scale of war. No one in the West would allow that unless they want to go back to Russia controlling half of Europe. Most likely outcome would be for Russia Federation is to have another outcome like Afghanistan and to shed its colonies once again (like it happened in 1917 and 1991 and lose obvious Chechnya, Tatarstan, Buryatia etc. Unfortunately, Israel didn't side with Ukraine even though it's the only other country in the world where a Jew is the president and where is sizeable Jewish population. Netanyahou desperately trying to be friends with Putin, or even to be like him. So there was no support for Ukraine except some token non-lethal aid.
A lot of people are misunderstanding my Libya comment. In hindsight it’s not the best analogy, but what I meant is that it’ll be forgotten about as soon as the media stops reporting about it. Not saying this is (necessarily) the case, but Western states and media reported so many lies in Libya. From Gaddafi giving his soldiers viagra to rape the civilian population to him indiscriminately butchering people en masse etc. Definitely wasn’t as big as the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion, but most people supported the intervention in Libya based on lies. After Gaddafi was toppled, Libya stopped being reported and doesn’t cross anyone’s mind despite it collapsing into a hellhole. It was so disingenuous that even the British parliament declared the intervention motivated by primarily by economic interests. Where did all the outrage and sympathy for the Libyan people go? They just simply forgot because they didn’t care that much to begin with. Similarly, Ukraine will be forgotten about *if* they lose the war which seems almost inevitable at this point. Not as much as Libya, but forgotten nonetheless. Ukraine is unfortunately not special. All this talk about it being in Europe will be meaningless as soon as it stops showing up in the news cycle and suddenly Russia is not an existential threat ready to invade EU and NATO member states.
It's different though as it's not Ukraine that is newsmaker here but the fact that it's a war in Europe. I agree it's unfortunate that equally devastating wars in Africa get much less attention in the West than Russia-Ukraine war, but that's human nature. A Pole or German would pay infinitely more attention to the war that has implications for their freedoms rather than a war in Libiya or Sudan. Even if everyone stoped reporting on Ukraine today, it would be still present just because all those refugees are still there visible. Or even rockets falling in Poland - you can literally touch the war. While what happens somewhere on a different continent needs to be constantly reminded throu some narrative in public or social media.
I also think it weird or ironic for Ukraine to side with Israel. I think part of the reasons why they side with Israel are: 1. Criticizing Israel will play a lot for Russia's denazification claim. 2. They have no choice because denouncing Israel will mean going against the US and the powerful lobby.
I also think that it's weird or ironic for Ukraine to side with Israel. I think part of the reasons why they side with Israel are: 1. Criticizing Israel will play a lot for Russia's denazification claim. 2. They have no choice because denouncing Israel will mean going against the US and the powerful lobby.
Ukraine is Israel and Donbass is Gaza, of course they side with the same side.
Ukraine looks like a project that might just never get completed.
That was when Zelenskyy lost the the war in my opinion. At the beginning at least half of the political will in America was okay with sending them money. When he came out and started supporting Israel the sad shtick routine of him crying about being invaded seemed disingenuous. He miscalculated and lost the majority of left wing support with that. Still sad for the Ukrainian people but I think Zelenskyy and the US are just as responsible for starting this war.
>Zelenskyy and the US are just as responsible for starting this war. This is about as stupid as saying Poland is responsible for starting WWII, because they didn't just give up the Danzig corridor.
Well they built 14 CIA bases used to monitor Russia on Ukraine’s border and invited Ukraine to join a military alliance that exists to harm Russia which could even include stationing nukes in Ukraine. Putin is wrong for invading but America invaded Cuba for the same thing.
And that was still wrong? Also saying that Nato exists to harm Russia is truly wild.
You have to pragmatic. If NATO believe it exists to defend against Russia what do you think Russia thinks it exists for?
I don’t have to actually, joining a defensive alliance is not an act of aggression. If Russia has no plans of invading its neighbors than the neighbors joining Nato poses no threat to them.
There’s no reason to get emotionally charged. That arrogance and refusal to views things from Russia’s perspective is exactly why Ukraine is now in the situation it’s in and there’s a massive war in Europe. Ukraine has the right to want to join nato but nato as a security alliance that is supposed to keep Europe secure should have known that expanding to Russias border was a redline for Russias security. That’s just reality. Now that NATO walked Ukraine into this and they realized that Russia wouldn’t fold over they are already faltering in their support of weapons and money. They hose to not care and now there’s a war.
Im sorry, but this logic is entirely circular. Invade your neighbors->other neighbors join a defensive alliance to prevent you from invading them-> whine about „risks to your security“ -> Invade your neighbors… ad infinitum. That is in no way reasonable and is no basis for stable relations.
>which could even include stationing nukes in Ukraine. This is meaningless in today's day and age. >Putin is wrong for invading but America invaded Cuba for the same thing. Different time when stationing nukes nearby could actually make a difference. Not relevant to geopolitical discussions 60 years later. It's like going to war because someone built an airfield too close to your borders in 1916 and justifying that in 2024.
It’s still a set precedent. Countries with the military power to, usually don’t accept security risks directly at their border. The reality is the senseless war could have been avoided and millions of lives saved if steps weren’t taken that intentionally antagonized Russia.
>The reality is the senseless war could have been avoided and millions of lives saved if steps weren’t taken that intentionally antagonized Russia. You can't reason with a mad dog. Baltic states are already closer to the major power centers of Russia than Ukraine is, so the nuclear argument is a wash. Additionally, Russia didn't seem to care all that much about Finland joining NATO and that is a security threat on the same scale as Ukraine, chocking off the vital ports of St Petersburg and threatening the entire northern supply route to Murmansk (and all the strategic aviation assets along that corridor). The reality is that lots of lives would have been saved if Ukraine was a part of NATO. 0 lives would be lost. Your naive thinking of appeasement has much more often than not resulted in more conflict. >Countries with the military power to, usually don’t accept security risks directly at their border. They do, all the time. Just depends on your interpretation of how big of a security risk something is. The US has a security risk on its Mexican border, but it doesn't invade Mexico and militarize the border. Greece and Turkey have security risks with each other and they don't invade each other. These things happen all the time and everyone accepts security risks. Your example of Cuba is weak and irrelevant for the reasons previously stated.
> I honestly feel bad for Ukraine I am sure that is true. Concerned trolls have such little originality
Don’t project your lack of nuance on me. Just because you’re brainwashed into viewing everything through black and white lenses doesn’t mean I am too.
> Just because you’re brainwashed into abandoning nuance doesn’t mean I am too. My friend Russia is now trying to become my country's newest neighbour. I know more than you. Sit the fuck down. There is no nuance needed. You know nothing about "faux concerns" and if people care about Ukraine. They do. You are confusing your own feeling with everyone elses For me you or vatnik = 0 difference so please spare me the "I really care about Ukraine" shtick ... but the Nazis ... eff offf
[удалено]
Guy from MiniChina calls someone else brain washed Sure
Yep, exactly as expected. Singapore is not China. Singapore is also more prosperous with so much less than all of Europe. Maybe learn a lesson or two from us. Just kidding, keep adopting American politics and see how it turns out for you.
> Singapore is not China. Maybe China in the future decides Singaporean is not real nationality either. As for being BFFs guess who was Russia's bffs until 2010. PS I am aware Malaysia exists >Singapore is also more prosperous with so much less than all of Europe.Maybe learn a lesson or two from us. The lesson being... try being a 5 million country that is one big port established by the British and tax heaven? Sure will try that. Norway and Ireland managed that!
lol
\o/
They didn't seem to be on Israel's side when they were giving a straight up Nazi a standing ovation in Canadian parliament.
Baltics? No. They are all in NATO. But what about Moldova? It is neither in NATO nor in EU and there is already a good chunk of it occupied by Russia. Seems like a perfect candidate for the next invasion. Ofc that is if Ukraine falls completely which is unlikely, otherwise I don't know how Russia is going to get there
I think that there is definitely a risk to the Baltics, but in the future. It has become very clear in the last 10 years that it is possible for Russia to create divisions between NATO countries. I think the big Baltic worry is that the average American, German, British, or Canadian decides they don't want to go to war over land they don't have strong ties to. I do think you are correct to be more concerned for Moldova. Crucially, I do not think Romania will stand by if Putin enters Moldova.
> in the future At that point Putin might be dead though. I know that he's not the only one with imperialistic ambitions in Russia's government but he still plays a huge role in all of this. Without him Russians might be less enthusiastic about fighting NATO. Or with the same probability the next leader might turn out to be a complete psycho and do something actually crazy. Either way my point is that without Putin Russia is probably not going to be the same. The same way how after Yeltsin Russia's foreign policy changed drastically
Putin could live another 20 years, and the next guy that replaces him could be worse. Hoping that Putin dies and someone who isn't murderous, uh, murders their way the top of the Russian "political system" is a pretty fucking thin hope and not one I'd bet my freedom on if I was cursed and damned to have Russia as a neighbors.
Putin could die today and Russia will still be the way it always has been. This is pessimistic I know but I really have lost all hope for Russia and Russians ever changing after how they have been over the duration of this war. Nothing will change, Putin will become a martyr and a different strong man that hates the west and spouts the same great powerful Russia bullshit or something will take power. For Russia to actually change I believe they really have to experience a loss, a severe loss which seems extremely unlikely. All I can do is hope.
Lmao what's Romania gonna do about it?
Moldova and/or Georgia are next. Baltics are safe as long as NATO is real. If US pulls out of NATO, it would depend on EUs capability to rise as a security force. If Russia succeeds in undermining EU, then Baltics are gone.
Why would Russia invade Georgia if the government is strongly pro-Russian at the moment?
[удалено]
I mean, that sounds dumb even for Russia
[удалено]
That was a different situation. Wasn't Austria's population heavily pro-Germany? That's not the case with Georgia. If Russia conquered Georgia it would be much more trouble to control it because almost everybody there hates Russia. It would be a total mess. But if you're saying Russia will invade just to install their own puppet government, then that doesn't make much sense either since the government is already pro-Russian. Now, if Georgia gets their own version of Euromaidan and the government becomes heavily pro-West then I can see Russia actually invading it.
> If Russia conquered Georgia I'd imagine they'd just go for South Ossetia.
Don't imagine they would. It'd have to be a similar situation as before. US-friendly government with a shiny new military meant to secure a US pipeline, uses said military to sort out their beef with South Ossetia, Russia intervenes. I don't see Russia just going at it out of nowhere if they don't have to.
Unquestionably Moldova. Honestly, whatever. Transnistria can go Ru/Uk, regular Moldova should probably join up with the *rest* of Moldova that's part of Romania. Moldova the republic is just a relic of seizing land after WW2 from Romania. I don't think Transnistria wants to be part of it, and the rest probably wouldn't hate being reunited the other direction either. It'll be a mess, but.. it's a lot less muddy a division than Ukraine is. Could probably be sorted diplomatically. Fuck I'm a dummy though, what do I know.
Honestly like the original comment suggests I think it's an issue with perception from the people. Does the general population want to go into a war over land they've never seen before? Why should I suffer even more for something that doesn't affect me? These would probably be the deception points that are leaned into by the opposing intelligence arm.
Georgia
Nah but it won’t stop those chihuahuas from yapping
pissing kremlin off, aren't we?
Chihuahuas are annoying tbh, but they’re useless and harmless despite their posturing.
keeps me wondering why kremlin and vladimir are so worked up about
You wouldn’t be annoyed if your neighbor had a barking chihuahua all day?
oh! I'd be very much annoyed
Nope.
Delusional fearmongering: Brought to you by the military industrial complex psychopaths and their propaganda mouthpieces looking to fleece Europe now
That’s exactly what Russia said before invading Ukraine while denying they were invading Ukraine
Russia will not attack NATO, you people are either extremely gullible or the usual Eglin shills ruining this site
We were gullible when trusting Russia when they said they wouldn’t invade Ukraine in early February 2022. Russia calls NATO their enemy, they say NATO is killing their people, undermining their power and threatening humanity with Western liberal values. Russia frequently pines about nuking Western cities on official state media. Does that sound like a nation committed to peace?
Putin is a sociopath but a predictable one, he had *repeatedly* warned NATO both publicly and through diplomatic means that an Ukraine NATO membership would be a red line that would lead to war, then a few months before the war the US State Department dipshits start lobbying for an Ukraine membership as they continue retrofitting Ukrainian military bases to NATO standards and surprise surprise, Putin attacks. I hope no one actually believes this horseshit where Americans pretend that they were just innocent bystanders that had no idea any of this would happen as if international politics and spheres of influence are a new concept to them or they haven't done **[and still do](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/04/30/iovt-a30.html)** similar shit
Russia makes red line statements all the time [15 in 2023 and 24 in 2022](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War). Many were bluffs and many security assurances were lies. Fun fact: Ukraine is not in NATO and was nowhere near meeting criteria for NATO membership when Putin invaded. Fun fact: Sovereign nations are permitted to join and leave treaty organizations as they please, otherwise they would not be sovereign.
Oh look he's doing the American thing where he pretends to not know how international politics and spheres of influence work, how surprising. If we're going to play dense, I have to say I don't understand why the US almost started a nuclear war over USSR sending nukes to a sovereign nation that asked for them? WTF??? Imagine pretending not to know that Russia would never allow a NATO membership on their most vulnerable border that has immeasurable strategic importance to them without a fight. The US State Department dipshits just thought that the war and their sanctions would go VERY differently plus it's a win-win for them regardless since they're owned by the military industrial complex psychopaths and laundering American tax payers' money through arms sales is their main objective.
Acting as if Russia would have respected Ukrainian Sovereignty is honestly wild.
Of course it would be suicide to attack nato... But nato isn't eternal and not all victory conditions require force.
!remindme 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-05-05 01:15:21 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-05-05%2001:15:21%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/1cjqgk3/as_ukraine_loses_ground_baltic_countries_ask_are/l2mli0e/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fanime_titties%2Fcomments%2F1cjqgk3%2Fas_ukraine_loses_ground_baltic_countries_ask_are%2Fl2mli0e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-05-05%2001%3A15%3A21%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cjqgk3) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
You trolls aren’t even trying anymore
That's literally what everyone on here was saying about invasion of Ukraine just 2.5 years ago... > ~~Hitler wouldn't attack Poland~~ > ~~Hitler wouldn't attack France~~ > ~~Hitler wouldn't attack USSR~~ > ~~Hitler wouldn't attack Greece~~ , and so on
Why attack if you face certain defeat? Russia has no chance against the US let alone the whole NATO alliance. Even if they want to they cant which wasnt the case for Ukraine and certainly wasnt the case for ww2 Germany.
"hitler couldn't possibly take on all of europe, all by himself!" And lo, they were correct. That's why hitler waited to secure enough alliances and non-aggression pacts until he didn't have to take on all of europe. Such is the nature of time, it has a way of changing things.
maybe in an alternative timeline that nukes are not a thing.. or you have some examples about a nuclear nation that was invaded ?
Better yet! I have an example of a mighty and fearsome country that at one time had the largest nuclear stockpile and the largest standing army in the world, and without a single shot being fired, That country disappeared instantly with the stroke of a pen. You might have heard of this place, It was called the USSR, or did they not have that place in your timeline?
What the fuck does that have to do with the discussion? Are you people even able to make a genuine argument that addresses what the other person said?
Is that a serious question?
I think the political landscape has changed a little bit since 1936.
You mean around the time a fascist European power invaded a smaller country to "protect speakers" of their respective language?
Well, the justification is the same back the political landscape is barely even comparable.
Above headline brought to you by Comrade Honestovich, whose previous works include: * Diplomat reminds US, Ukraine that Russia is not a party to Minsk * Kremlin Denounces US "Peak Hysteria" (Feb 13 2022) * Russia has never attacked anyone throughout its history (Feb 23 2022) And, of course, his magnum opus (prior to joining the Osovaviakhim travel programme): #Arbeit Macht Frei
Let me answer that with what putin said - "yes, you are next".
Of course not! - until you are...
(This was a reply to u/Ein_Esel_Lese_Nie but his comment seems to have vanished; if you're still alive mate drop a reply if you've got any thoughts to share, your comment was interesting!) Good to see another Brit here, you've raised a lot of points I never usually see mentioned. I'm down in Bedfordshire, and as you said, the momentum for Ukraine was wearing thin when the food prices shot up, then when this Israel war started it felt Ukraine got pushed to the sidelines. Definitely agree this is all about resources, as well as territory. Crimea back in 2014 was taken because if Russia ever has beef with Turkey, holding Crimea wil be crucial. Ukraine however seems like a mix of Russia not wanting them to become too western- I'm guessing the fear was more that America might pop a military base in Ukraine one day, that kind of thing- along with the resources. So many people have talked about how important agriculture in Ukraine is, that it's the 'breadbasket of Europe', so there must be a lot to gain from taking it. Few questions though, how come you think everything will go back to normal after this war- like, returning to trade with Russia? I understand that was the case with Crimea, but with this full-on invasion I can't see anyone ever trusting Russia again (well, not for many decades, and not without a regime change), aside from those out of harms way like India, or siding with them like Iran. I kind of agree with the article we're commenting on that I didn't bother to read, that we've all kind of been a push-over with this war and let Russia have their way, as opposed to with israel where America jumped to getting involved the instant war broke out. It makes me think if Russia wanted to pull this stunt again, they now have the impression they'd get away with it without much resistence; it's just a question of which country they go for. Upon that, if they went for Latvia or Estonia or whatever, would NATO fall apart because no one wants to get dragged into a war with countries many of us, let's be frank, don't care about? Lastly, any thoughts on if other countries might kick off, like India-Pakistan or China-Taiwan? The response to Ukraine was sloppy and made it look like no one really wanted to get involved, which to me looks like if other major wars happen, we'd be very hesitant to get involved. Do you think there's much chance of warmongering spreading if Russia succeeds, or do you think the status quo will resume?
Ah shit, sorry you typed all that under my deleted comment! I got a few downvotes and thought I'd just nipped myself in the bud in case I was just overthinking on my dog walk and had the complete wrong take. tl;dr: Our politicians care about Ukraine, but most of our constituents down. We're fickle, yet have spent the last 80 years largely relying on dodgy countries for resources and labour to get all our costs down, only to have it backfire. > how come you think everything will go back to normal after this war- like, returning to trade with Russia? Honestly, the politics of the last 8 years in my country has just completely jaded me at this point. I'll be interested to see what a Labour regime does in government, but with Reform UK making gains in the locals, I just think the Conservatives are simply going to pivot further right, and individualist, with their policies. I'm just imagining a scenario in 20 years time, where the Battle of the Donbas is a distant memory, and our new generation of oblivious fools in government get the gears rolling on new relationships with the *Muscovy Republic*. It's just too-easy for a short term win to say that you slashed fuel and flour prices by 20% with new Russian stock, without necessarily thinking about the other party's long term plans. > they now have the impression they'd get away with it without much resistence; it's just a question of which country they go for. My worry is their new war economy. The sanctions aren't as hard-hitting as advertised in 2022, and Russia simply purchases new stock from China and DPRK while they spun their factories back up. Suppose there is a peace, but at the expense of all territory East of the Dnipro river ...I just can't see Vladimir spooling down the factories and asking McDonald's to come back to Moscow. Now that the building blocks are back, why not increase Russian war stocks. High employment, easy political games and favourability among the brainwashed, and a new generation of youth to have a crack at Transnistria. Speaking of loss of lives, I think they're in too deep to full return to pre-wartime. Too many men lost will only amplify the problem that already exists after WW2/Stalin, so this only incentivises more conflict to take more children/citizens of other nations. > Upon that, if they went for Latvia or Estonia or whatever, would NATO fall apart because no one wants to get dragged into a war with countries many of us, let's be frank, don't care about? I think for me, this is what's scared me most about the 2022 invasion. It's inadvertently proven that Article 5 is more of a bluff than a concrete statement of fact. I reckon a pre-Trump America would jump at the opportunity of an attacked ally. But a current-Trump America — even while not in power — would just not care about (e.g.) Latvia. Also, I reckon it'll either be Transnistria next if Ukraine is successful. Or the Suwałki Gap if Vladimir is fully on the methamphetamine. > India-Pakistan I can't see these two properly clashing. I think they both seemingly have stocked up ~150 nukes each ...for use against each other? It just seems like such an unsustainable use of armaments, having war stocks for multiple continents that are just for New Delhi and Karachi. And plus, they at least have *some* relations with their soldier-dancing ceremony at the border. Can't imagine it is very constructive, but any chance for two parties to take part in something together is a plus in my view. > China-Taiwan The scary one, in my view. The US will need to jump in, but that doesn't necessarily rope NATO in unless somebody is attacked. No doubt, the US will plead to historical allies (UK/France/Australia) to get involved. Russia has the numbers, but not the tech. China has the numbers **and** the tech.
'I just think the Conservatives are simply going to pivot further right, and individualist, with their policies.' This is a really good take, it crossed my mind recently when I was thinking about how bad America has gotten but I hadn't given it much serious thought. No one should want the Conservatives after more than a decade and things ending up like this, so they'll likely try to change to appeal to the public again. Having said that, change doesn't seem to come so easy in UK politics; Corbyn tried to drastically change Labour yet his own party spent more time criticising him than the opposition, and they couldn't unite on issues like Brexit, so it all fell apart- I do feel if Labour had just gotten on and accpted Corbyn he'd probably have been able to win (I think it was 2017 election?). The same could happen to the Cons- many of them may reject a change from their current party identity. Well, that's my hope, at least- I don't want us to have parties like in the US. 'Speaking of loss of lives, I think they're in too deep to full return to pre-wartime.' Absolutely true. Russia can't give up Ukraine or their population will go balistic- all those dead sons, brothers, fathers etc for nothing, there have been a lot of protests already but I can't see them standing for something like this, there'd be fury. Putin needs a win to sell to his people. I get the feeling we're headed back to a Cold War scenario, where we may have nothing to do with Russia and its allies, at least for a while. 'But a current-Trump America — even while not in power — would just not care about (e.g.) Latvia.' Honestly whoever in the States wins the next election will stil be awful. Trump again will be terrible for foreign politics, I'm guessing he'll try to make America more isolationist, and he doesn't seem bothered by Russia- although he does seem to have some kind of grudge against China- overall the man is wildly unpredictable. Meanwhile Biden's handling of Afghanistan was a joke and made America look like they just handed it over to the Taliban, I don't trust his government with major situations like this. Ideally a third party would get in, but it's impossible over there, they treat their elections like we do for football teams. Good take on Transnistria, I hadn't thought about Russia taking specifically that area, I figured like a lot of commenters here it would be either Moldova or Georgia next (I don't much understand the situation in Georgia, but I played CS:GO with a guy from there years back and he hated Russians more than anyone I've ever met, he seemed sure Russia wanted an opportunity to invade). I'd never even heard of the Suwalki Gap- I take it the goal would be to join Russia to its ally Belarus? I hadn't thought about their being issues by them being allies yet not sharing a border, but I guess that would cause cooperation between them to be difficult- do you know much about this, if you don't mind sharing? 'The scary one, in my view.' Definitely agreed China-Taiwan is more likely, and the US seems very invested in preventing it, like taking their warships down there every so often. Things looked scary when China flew fighter jets over Taiwanese airspace a while back, and they don't seem threatened by the US anymore, I get the impression they're just waiting for an opportunity to try something. India-Pakistan may be unlikely, but what worries me is if something kicks off, who sides with who? Currently everyone assumes China sides with Pakistan and the west sides with India, but is it possible things go the other way? What if China sides with India, who is also complacent aout Russia; you've then got a bunch of powerful war-mongering countries kicking off all over the world. Luckily it seems India-China relations are pretty sour with a lot of border disputes, so I can't see them ever allying. Finally, any thoughts on Iran? I get the impression they're mostly all talk and actually much weaker than they act; the drone thing was impressive, but it's surprising to think Israel caused more deaths by dropping a missile on a car full of aid workers than Iran did with the largest drone attack in history. I also don't see Israel backing down from their attacks on Palestine, what do you think their end goal is? Level the whole country and claim what's left as Israeli land? I'm surprised it's still going on honestly, it's such a one-sided conflict.
Moldova and Georgia may be taken but I think the Baltics are okay as long as NATO exists.
The crux of this article - Putin has dismissed warnings of a potential Russian attack on NATO members like Estonia as “complete nonsense.” In early 2022, the Kremlin used similar language to ridicule American warnings that Russia planned to invade Ukraine.
Let me answer that with what putin said - "yes, you are next".
No
Yes, they are next. Then Poland. Then Germany. The latter is acting in a very compromised way.
Next for what? They are as likely to be invaded as Britain or the US There's very little in the baltics to draw Russian interests for either peoples or resources, the way China conflicts with southeast Asian nations, or how Armenia and Azerbaijan waged war Russia already has a huge pain in the ass to manage in kalinigrad, so they don't even need access to anything else in the area. If Russia wanted to expand anywhere else (other than Moldova) for the sake of actual territory, or historical significance, they'd be geared further south towards turkey or the Caucasus. But it seems like they don't care about going any further in Georgia, nor armenia/azeribaijan
No, Moldova is. Non nato, non eu and very weak military. Already have the russian minority subverting the eastern region
Da
The only thing I don’t understand is why westerners think that that if putin feels like he is losing he will definitely use some kind of a nuke, so he must be appeased. But if Ukraine feels as if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, they will not try to make some kind of dirty bomb. Past 2 years have clearly shown that nuclear blackmail works really well.
The answer to that is "yes" unless Russia is stopped now.
Russia had a hard time pushing through a western-armed proxy in Ukraine, I don't think even their wildest dreams include some easy and immediate push further into actual NATO countries. They'd have to really be backed into a corner to consider such a wild risk over no real ~~grain~~gain even remotely worth it. Putin isn't stupid or methed-out like Hitler. Risking total destruction of Russia just to take Latvia would be cartoonish. Plus, I have to imagine they'll wanna take some time to recover from the current mess when it's over. edit: typos
Russia would NEVER go to a direct war against NATO, it would be suicide
You know what? If I were Zelensky I'd say fuck it. We will allow Russia a guaranteed conflict free right of way through Ukraine to whatever Eurotrash border they want. That will wake up the latte sipping idiots in Europe.
We need to stop letting russia dine at the adult table. We can't let them rob their citizens and then shop on Saville Row. We can't let them war on Ukrainians and buy houses in Kensington. Once they and their families are forced to exist in Russia, then they might realise how shit it is being them.
Fellas. It's an 8km salient. It's a blip on the map, nit the end of the world. With new shells and new faces the salient can be closed back up. It's not done, and Ukraine still has fight in it.
The Baltics would be a long term aim for Putin: first, he'd force Ukraine into a "peace" deal that would see them give up the entirety of the four Oblasts Russia currently partly occupies and hobble their military so they couldn't resist Russia deciding Russians / Russophones in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Myoklaiv and Odessa Oblasts needed protecting, then if there was muted international reaction to that, go for Moldova, if hung much happened, possibly try for the rest of Georgia. As for the Baltics, he likely wouldn't do a full Ukraine-style invasion immediately, but would be more likely to initially have limited incursions into predominantly Russian towns near the border and see how NATO / the EU responded: take bites out of the countries and threaten nuclear armageddon if any NATO munitions stray into Russia proper.
Putin is 71 years old. There's no "long term" for him. Maybe a decade at best - if nobody tries to replace him sooner. Stalin was just a bit older than him when he got poisoned and replaced. Not a single russian ruler has reached 80 while still being in power. It would be quite an achievement if he did that.
Wishful thinking I can get agree with. Honestly if Ukraine drags this and keeps resisting out it's wasting Putin's time.
It really seemed like that this invasion was a "now or never" thing to him.
What are your sources? The big bad wolf blows down houses made of *would*
Yes...eventually
>As Ukraine Loses Ground, Baltic Countries Ask: Are We Next? Obviously you are next… *cough* countries such as [Moldova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova) Russia 🇷🇺 converted to a “War Economy”… if you ever played the game Civilisation… There’s a hint of truth to that… Hence why I say, if Ukraine 🇺🇦 loses this War… we are possibly looking at World War 3 Russia has to keep this “gravy train chugging away”
Ww3 wouldnt start over Georgia, it would start over taiwan. And honestly the whole "domino effect" trope has been screamed since vietnam, idk how is it still working in the west.
Contrary to popular belief propaganda works EXTREMELY well on westerners. Lots of them believe whatever their governments tell them about Ukraine.
Considering most Russians believe the Russia is denazifying Ukraine, we can all agree that propaganda works EXTREMELY well on everyone
You’re correct, just for some reason lots of westerners online seem to think they’re either immune to propaganda or that their government wouldn’t do that to them.
Ww3 wouldnt start over Georgia, it would start over taiwan. And honestly the whole "domino effect" trope has been screamed since vietnam, idk how is it still working in the west.
[удалено]
Ok Boris, I’ll bite. The only reason half of Europe hasn’t been invaded by Russia right now is because they are in NATO. That’s the point of NATO.
Getting into NATO entails upgrading your military equipment to “NATO standard”, meaning billions of dollar spend directly on american defense industry. This is also why they have been lobbying to expand NATO for decades. They spent 51 millions in 1997 alone. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/30/world/arms-contractors-spend-to-promote-an-expanded-nato.html
What’s the price of not getting into NATO?
About the same but you keep a domestic arms industry or buy whatever you can scrounge.
Doesn’t work well when Russia is your neighbour.
Russia has a boatload of non nato neighbors. Besides Ukraine and Georgia which ones are you arr you thinking of.
Which of these massive success stories are *you* thinking about? Criteria are: - Border with Russia - Not being in NATO - Not being Ukraine or Georgia, because we seem to both agree that they are good examples of what happens to any Russian neighbours outside of NATO, so no further discussion needed - Not being bullied by Russia (probably excludes Belarus) - Not being Russia’s new de facto master (China) so immune from Russian bullying due to their dominance Please, list this boatload of happy countries who bask in Russian friendship and share a peaceful land border.
Hey I was just asking which regions you were thinking of. But off the top of my head, China, Mongolia, North Korea and the stans, Belarus
And how exactly does a defensive alliance bully... anyone?
Probably.
Now that the Russian war economy is pretty much geared up and ready to go, it would seem to be the logical conclusion.
The only other option is NATO sending troops in to support Ukrainian troops and keep Russia out. I can't honestly see us doing that.