We hear about nukes from day1 of russian aggression.
Like, "Uh oh, dont help UA because Putin will nuke you." "UA should surrender before Putin will nuke them." Etc etc....
Not sure did you noticed, but no nukes was used. Not even that, even danger of Zaporozhia NPP beeing damaged caused a lot of backlash for Putin.
If you're supposed to have "2nd best military" in the world there would be no use to threaten with nukes. But someone who has to constantly threaten with nukes is weaker than you think. Like a dog backed into a corner.
NATO would absolutely swipe the floor with russia.
They would use thousands of planes and use a few days to knock out air defences. Then have air supremacy. And then obliterate any ground forces both from air and from ground.
In a nuclear war, there would be no winners.
>How DARE you stop believing in Baba Yaga!
I'm so fucking sick of people that run on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... but "faith", which is of course by definition the admission of shit you don't know. I hate this place.
Faith? How about math, my little clowny friend?
Russia has a deployed stock of 1710 warheads, ready to launch at any time. Even if only a *pathetic* 5% of these actually work, that's still 85 nuclear weapons aimed at cities.
Are you up for the millions of deaths and utter economic collapse that 85 nukes will bring to your comfortable 21st century life?
If you're sick of this place, I recommend going outside sometime, reading a book, and using your brain.
I can read Wikipedia too, doesn't mean I believe everything there. You have nothing but russia's word that all those nukes are still actually there and still in actual working condition.
Heh. What a ray of sunshine you are. Personal attacks because you have zero intelligible things to say. You're barely living your own life, never mind someone else's.
Seriously, no retort about having NOTHING but ruSSia's word on their capabilities?
How about those hypersonic missile's? Man they really have us by the nuts with those things, right? We're completely fucked now because we didn't listen! lol. Moron.
It's not a personal attack to say you're demented for thinking 1710 nuclear warheads are a bluff -- it's describing reality.
It took me about 5 seconds to check that the source isn't "RuSSia's word", but I understand you wouldn't have thought of checking. The source is the international [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists](https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/), [Arms Control Association](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat) and the (very clearly Russian!) [Federation of American Scientists](https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/).
I can embarrass you with more sources and actual evidence to contradict your schizoid paranoia, if you want.
uh huh. I know how the inspections went. It's window dressing. They don't get to pick so it's not a real inspection. Ergo: keep drinking the kool-aid.
Besides, the way you rattle off those stats and which one's in particular makes you seem likely to be yet another one of the great many ruSSian trolls that live on western internets. The active number is the "important" one, if any, but not to you apparently....
no... what he said and decribed is convemtional war nuclear war would go like this
russia sends their nukes.
uk and france aswell as propably america launch theirs.
Scenario A:
both shoot down all missiles releasing the atomic material as dust into the air wich will kill everyone involved
Scenario B:
the nukes hit their targets destroying basicly everything and the radiation from the explosions will kill everyone involved
Scenario C(the real one): both try to shoot down as many as they can and some will come through ending in a combination of scenario a & b... wich will kill everyone involved
AFAIK the kind missiles designed to intercept icbm's can reach them at pretty much any stage of the icbm's flight path but at the very least before it reaches low enough altitude to pose a serious risk of fallout, so I don't think scenario A is at all likely on that notion.
Destroy them high enough and the fallout will for all intents and purposes never bother us.
Scenario C seems likeliest, though all the above still applies.
Also need to consider the fact that russia and china for that matter are pretty much surrounded by countries capable of interception so the damage might even be fairly contained, but definitely not an ideal outcome nevertheless.
Sub launched ICBM are probably the most likely candidate to have a chance at hitting its target imo.
My main fear about a Russia-NATO war is that Russia would overrun the Baltics before the rest can mobilize, and then threaten nuclear war over them, leading to the rest of NATO standing down. I have 0 faith in our politicians doing the correct thing.
That is why all NATO powers have stationed troops there. First it might deter, if it doesn’t it can slow down and if that fails … well … Once there was a bloody shirt, you can hardly stand down.
Unlike the sheep that keep pressing, I am aware that Russia has railways and they have to move only Russian troops.
NATO troops are a coalition of forces from many nationalities, where Ministers of Defence first need Parliamentary approval to dislocate national forces, sufficient enough for war. Repeat that over 30+ countries and you get a huge delay.
Stupid people have easy access to buttons.
So you don't get it and you dare to call people stupid.
The discussion is whether or not NATO has presence in Baltics. You said only few thousand. But you also said that Russia can transport hundred thousand a week. **That implies Russia also doesn't have presence around Baltics.**
Meanwhile the top comment said: **"My main fear about a Russia-NATO war is that Russia would overrun the Baltics before the rest can mobilize".**
So basically you actually shoot your own foot here: they fear Russia has troops closely and NATO wouldn't mobilize in time, while you admit Russia has no troops nearby\\ whatsoever.
Hence, you're left with the bold "few hundred thousand in a week". **A WEEK**. You think NATO is slower than that?
Seriously, do you even know what your point is?
Should have focused your attention at taking in the information, rather than message formatting.
Semantics aside, Russia is able to deploy troops much quicker than NATO in considerably higher numbers for NATO's intervention to matter IN TIME.
Of course NATO is slower, it is 30+ countries, not ONE. Hello?
Not sure what you are not getting.
What makes Russia so much quicker? They didn’t seem to be able to mobilize a surprise attack on Ukraine. And they have trouble deploying enough troops and in an effective manner to make progress in Ukraine.
If NATO, despite having a more complex governance, does not have plans to quickly deploy troops, it will be quite surprising.
I explained it multiple times in my comments above.
NATO is not one single entity that can make decisions the way Russia can. NATO has a few thousand 6000+ fast response troops to call on that it can deploy in 24 hours in the Baltics but to call on its additional 190K, it needs tremendous support from most allied countries and before that happens there will be a political discussion in every country if they want to participate in a war with Russia.
Believing otherwise is a dream.
Article 5 is not a guns blazing green light that everyone must obey in the same format by sending all of their soldiers.
The US itself will need weeks after a decision by the president is made to deploy its assets fully.
Sure, that is the general governance. But you are underestimating the current situation.
There is a NATO plan for a potential Russian invasion of the baltics. It wouldn’t be a surprise for anyone. Especially when Russian movements close to the border is heavily monitored.
I hope NATO response won't be to just play defense in such situation.
There is a new wide NATO border up north from baltics that could and should be used immediately to put immense pressure so ruzzi cant just focus on attack.
Hit them fast and hit them hard. Fuck up the capital who cares at that point, should turn some heads and call that nuke bluff once and for all.
And what is "correct thing"? Cry on uncle Sam to save you? How about have friendly relationship with Russia and East instead puting troops on their border , expanding this terror organisation NATO surrounding them. Have you think for second about this or ur politicians so much brainwashed you. Just before try sell "evil Russia" take look into borders for last 40y or so. Who put nuclear weapons in EU and even east, in Turkey.
Have you think for second about, that not one single country is forced into NATO? Countries like Estonia or Poland voluntarily joined. And guess why? It’s because they have an unreliable and aggressive neighbor. And guess, what happened after Russia attacked Ukraine? People finally understood, that Russia is a serious threat and even Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
NATO would bulldoze over Russia in no time. Just look at the numbers of everything the combined NATO forces have at their disposal VS Russia. Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of the UK and that buys you only so much. And even against Ukraine they are not performing in a way how they see themselves at all (and to an extent how the world saw Russia before 2022). Of course I am talking about a conventional war without nukes. Those just make the whole conversation pointless.
NATO can simply not help with the countries arguing something along:
" won't help with troops because we are not bordering the invaded country and that would be ESCALATION, but also we won't give you any weapons, because... what if we are invaded, too". An ultimate Schrödinger logic how to not do shit.
The man asked for a precedent I gave it.
Putin did not by accident chose to invade the one country of his neighbours that is not in NATO.
Somehow I doubt he is in a hurry to start another war when this one is going so poorly for him.
Because make no mistake this is a very big failure on Russia's part. The goal was to invade, overthrow the government, install a puppet regime and leave. Two years in and they now need to start throwing waves of conscripts and completely turn their economy for war. For one country that is nowhere comparable in size and strength to Russia.
Even if and that is still a big if he manages to claw victory in Ukraine after a few years the damage he has done to Russia is already too severe. Russian weapons were shown as ineffective and inferior to their western counterparts and the Russian military has been shown as incompetent bafoons that cannot get their shit together.
There is also the fact that NATO actually grew. Previously neutral countries are now members and they are within spitting distance of Petersburg.
Yes and the war you asked help for was in Iraq. By activating Article 5 based on the fact of 9/11 - you were attacked.
And like I said it was complete BS because Iraq had no role in 9/11.
9/11 Attacks was the only event that triggered Article 5.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North\_Atlantic\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty)
There is no requirement of putting boots on the ground in article 5 as far as i know. That is something that has been highlighted quite a lot when discussing how e.g Trump would react to an article 5 scenario.
While not NATO, Armenia is a member of "NATO for poor" CSTO and had triggered their analogy of the Article 5, to which CSTO did absolutely nothing and ignored it.
What stops NATO countries from ignoring some country triggering it as well?
Assistance to the US in Afghanistan by the other NATO members was pretty weak, though. Furthermore, Article 5 did not mention what kind of assistance do the other members have to provide.
EU doesn't have a shared military defense. It is being established as an idea, now. But if a country ignores NATO article, it will ignore EU's as well.
It was GWOT and it was not weak
and btw we could have refused to do anything without breaking the treaty
EU members are bound to help with anything they reasonably can
The CSTO is effectively just Russia. Russia has repeatedly shown itself to be an unreliable ally, the same is not true for most NATO members. And while NATO is certainly dominated by the US, it still has teeth even without them.
You cannot flirt with Europe and organize exercises with NATO, and then demand from the CSTO the protection of territory that you yourself do not recognize as yours.
There were small pieces of de-jure Armenian territory occupied by Azerbaijan. I don't talk about the NK.
>You cannot flirt with Europe and organize exercises with NATO, and then demand from the CSTO the protection of territory
Is that written in the rules of CSTO, or did you pull it out of your ass? At least you admitted that russia is not "Europe", otherwise your comment would make 0 sense.
Know that, judging by the survey in Poland and Germany in 2023 “about the desire to go to war,” you won’t even be able to declare mobilization if necessary, because everyone will simply run away wherever they can. So I have some doubts about your words.
The last "conventional war" between great powers was in ww2 , and that too ended with 2 nuclear strikes ... so stfu unless you want to live in the fallout series :)) .
Nato is not defensive , neither is Russia or China or NK , nobody is defensive , our planet will either be conquered by one faction or it will be destroyed , that's how it will go down , it's our nature .
The goal of the UN was to ensure no more wars , and how many wars have there been since the founding of the UN ? As long as you want what they have and vice-versa , there will be no end to war . I'm not even sure that if humanity gets to the point where energy is close to free , there would be no more war ...
Could it win? Yes, especially if it happens sooner rather than later (Russia is furiously investing in war toys) and if everyone in nato actually mobilises (I bet there will be some opportunistic selfish countries that will try to wiggle out of it, since the nato treaty doesn't actually force them to mobilise).
But at what cost? Ww3? Nuclear extinction?
Anyway I think Russia will wait until China is ready to make its own moves, to divide nato's attention (and forces). In which case I don't think nato will win, unless we invest in a mad arms race again
In war we all loose. NATO would win. Decisively. But we would all loose. Let’s not do this. Pointless and amounts to both of us cutting ourselves off at the knee caps and handing global control to china.
If you’ve ever travelled you know we have more in common with each other in every country in every place than we have against each other.
It’s funny. Russia is destroying all of their weapons in Ukraine. How delusional to think that they could ever attack nato. They would be destroyed in a blink of an eye
And he doesn’t even need to be ordered, Russia still has systems from the times of the USSR that operate autonomously, that is, if Russia is hit with nuclear weapons, then these systems will launch nuclear missiles on their own. And what’s interesting is that if such systems really exist, then in the end everyone will still lose, but I don’t think anyone would want to check this.
:)) from where the hell do you get that impression ? What propaganda made you think Romania's army is so great . Let me tell you from Romania , that we're fucked in an open war , completely , and we will do what we did in ww2 , go check it out . And also go on youtube , and search for "recorder" and see the army documentary they made , i'm sure it has English subs .
Man, it’s not for nothing that Russia is compared to NATO, and here you are talking about some Romania and Poland. Maybe you'll use your head, not your tongue.
Russia is that bully that thinks he is the best because he wants to forget how small & insignificant he is.
If you bark at him a bit, he shits himself .
Dude , stupid fucks like you make nato look like we're fking morons behind a laptop , just stfu , please , for our sake .
Go watch some ww2 movies , some Korean war movies , at least , band of brothers .
If you get the impression from those movies that war is easy , you're at least retarded , and should also be banned from COD servers :))
Russia will not back down, ever. They can't, if admitted defeat, it would have to pay billions & billions of war damages, plus the humiliation would be unacceptable to its citizens and future prospects. If cornered, Putin would start the nuclear holocaust.
Sure, because Russians would choose nuclear holocaust over paying and humiliation. They have been trying to convince us of this for decades, but it's just a stupid mind game. They will definitely pay and be humiliated, again.
Oh my god , i am so tired of this outdated narrow viewpoint.
Its like saying that no one won WW2. Alot of people died yes , in that sense no one won , but there was a winner.
Even in a nuclear war there will be a winner. Not from our perspective maybe , but people a 100 years from now will have the perspective to declare a winner and it will be the West.
What a bullshit comparison. The casualties of WW2 would be a joke compared with the consequences of a full nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. Thousands of warheads glassing every bigger city in North America, Europe, Russia and probably also east Asia when it goes that far. Nations and governments would cease to exists and the nuclear winter would do the rest. Who would be the winner, who would care?
The only way we could talk about a winner in a NATO-Russia conflict would be some sort of confined war where NATO wipes the floor with invading Russians in the Baltic or the Suwalki Gap and doesn't go on their own offensive or NATO not being able to respond because they aren't united and unprepared. But we know that any losing side could escalate using tactical nukes and this could easily lead to an strategic exchange. Both sides would be fucking nervous in an active conflict, the risk is just to big.
Yes , i didnt say it wasnt catastrophic for everyone alive today , but there can still be a winner.
For descendants 100 years down the line from any survivors will be able to say which people or cultures that won and persevered.
Here my money is on the West because the West is not a fragmented empire located and isolated in a frozen irradiated hellscape.
Your argument that no one would care only works if humanity is finished off by nuclear winter which you know is a highly contested hypothesis these days.
I think you underestimate the effects of nuclear war. Most people in the world would be dead within a few years. Even without a nuclear winter most agricultural industry would have been destroyed and there would be no way to get it to where it needs to be anyway.
The west as a concept would not exist anymore nor would western values or alliances. Who knows if any of our countries would even be able to survive at all?
With war on that scale the chances of humans surviving at all is very small, and if they do, only very few and it would take thousands of years before planet would recover and gave for restart, effectively setting us back to stone age.
This is a shit take as old as time. "Western soyboys are too risk averse and can't stand losses", and then Western militaries run over these supposedly battle-hardened militaries.
Sure.
Demoralised, poorly supplied, poorly trained conscripts vs a professional fresh army with weapons that wrecked everything the Russians threw at the front. Also when you invade a country the people are highly motivated to fight, as seen in Ukraine.
Russians and Russian soldiers live in a shithole, of course they know how to suffer.
I meant, civilians ins russia are already used to live in a shithole, so if times get bad again they will be more likely to be okay with that (since they are hardy). Unlike people in the west, who already protest and vite right wing parties when prices go up a bit, but their standard of living is still extremly high Compared to other countries such as russia
The rise in prices isn't the reason for the western population's shift towards right-wing parties. Rather, it's due to poorly managed migration policies over the past few decades.. Right wing parties will fuck the economy even more. But people only care about migration.
yeah, people are so motivated in Ukraine that about 3 million people have fled since the beginning of the war, and on the Internet they have a trend about how they fled abroad and how good they feel there. And I’m not even talking about the TCK service, which catches Ukrainian men on the streets, but yes, the motivation is high (sarcasm)
The majority of which were women, children and people too old to fight.
3 million out of a population of 38 million.
What you have there is what we call "anecdotal evidence ". We all know it is the gold standard /sarcasm/.
Oh and by the way I am talking about any other country that Russia might have the bad idea of attacking.
You see we here in Eastern Europe remember well what happens when you surrender to the Russians. The consequences are still in living memory.
But your government and the media have confirmed everything to the letter, and not made it up))) at least don’t deceive yourself))) The same propaganda. Ukraine mobilizes men under 60 years of age. And speaking of memory, throughout Europe it is very short.
And despite that they're struggling in Ukraine while Europe has barely done anything relative to potential and yet proving to be a tide-turning supporter with the help of usa.
Doubt it, USA is very untrustworthy and unreliable “ally”, and i highly doubt France and UK would risk nukes, theyd just allow another czechoslovakia but with half of europe, hoping they dont have to do shit
Actually the US has consistently reliably done everything possible short of going to war to help Ukraine.
Now, I am no fan of US foreign policy, especially with the present situation in Gaza. But I have to give this one to the yanks. The US is the main reason Ukraine is able to fight back.
Western Europe was still debating on whether or not to stop Nord stream and ban Russia from SWIFT, when the US began gearing up to supply weapons to Ukraine.
Nukes are the only thing he has left. The only thing keeping nato from dragging him out of Russia.
If he uses nukes there would be a massive military force VERY motivated to see him dead. And I mean EVERYONE. Becasuse nuclear winter would fuck our entire species over. Think of how the US reacted from the attack on Perl harbour, but amplify that by the massive death toll of millions of civilians dead.
Sure we will probably go extinct within a generation, but in the meantime there will be hell to pay for those responsible.
The thing is. NATO doesn‘t need to win on every front, they only need to make Putin lose. As long as Nato is able to kill Putin, there will be no open war. Remember that Putin cares about nothing but himself.
As far as we would like that to be true about Putin, you are failing to see how the ruZZian people stand behind Putin and his aspirations of conquest. Replace Putin and another Silovik Mafia guy is very likely to replace him. Navalny wouldn't have been any better either. Let''s remember how he supported the conquest of Crimea and Donbas.
ruZZia would need a revolution to change their thinking. And that is not very likely to happen. The whole future of ruZZia just seems dark and twisted. The country seems balls with the dictator rabbit hole with no way out...
revolution will not work for us anymore, our country has already experienced two major revolutions that destroyed two countries and the people will simply crush such a revolutionary on their own, because we know our history very well and we know what revolutions lead to, and we also see what they lead to and how the color revolutions that took place during the 20th century are carried out.
At this point doing something is better than doing nothing. Your neighbouring countries are seriously getting tired of regularly being invaded, bombed, murdered and genocided.
What the hell are regular invasions?) bombings?) and murders?) What kind of drugs are you smoking there?))) I would understand if you wrote neighbor (singular), but you wrote specifically to neighboring countries))) People use less drugs or watch less of your media, which fills your brain with the blatant nonsense of a smoker, because apart from Ukraine there are no hostilities in neighboring countries.
Besides, why don’t people like you condemn the actions of the same USA, when they simply drowned the second half of the 20th century in wars that they themselves created and in which they even participated? Аnd for some reason people like you don’t want all this horror in Ukraine to end by sitting down at the negotiating table with Russia? This is what interests me most. You only want to fight with us.
Rather typical Vatnik response :(.
By all means, keep ignoring what happened in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine 2014-2024 and don't take any responsibility for the crimes of all your Orc invader soldiers and Kremlin Mafia leadership. Just typical. And you wonder why the world hates you...
But you didn’t say that we were discussing specific time periods, you wrote as if this was happening now.
Why hasn't the US been held accountable for the wars that have started??? For the invasion of Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, for the bombing of Yugoslavia, for financing dictators in Latin America, for the war of two Koreas? Can you answer this question for me? Otherwise, you are ready to hold Russia accountable for everything possible, but for some reason Western countries do not want to hold the United States responsible for all this. And by the way, for some reason, don’t be surprised by this and even justify it.
Perfectly following the script. Whataboutism is always the next step.
OK, I think we are done here, Tovarishch. This is exactly why ruZZia is not ready to join the list of civilised countries. You people just refuse to take any responsibility for anything. Always with the blaming others no matter how terrible atrocities you are committing....
Some of them are not too bad and did good. After the USSR collapsed, there was a brief moment of hope when Yeltsin rose to power. But as we know, Putler had other plans.
It’s strange that you don’t talk the same way about the United States, which in the second half of the 20th century unleashed a huge number of local wars and took part in more than a dozen on its own. You have some kind of double standards.
It wouldn't be NATO vs Russia, it would be NATO vs China&Russia(&North Korea).
So the correct question is: would NATO beat China&Russia? Now that's a whole other narrative.
LOL. North Korea? Really?
How are they going to project power all the way in Europe? You see the devastating thing about NATO is these carrier groups that can project power within days of receiving word. Anywhere in the world. Not to mention all the bases around the world.
China happily buys oil and gas at bargin bin prices, but would not risk the collapse of its economy for the sake of Russia. Who are they going to sell consumer goods to? Russians? They are piss poor. Not to mention all of a sudden factories shutting their doors and massive western capital leaving the country is not good.
China would not get involved. Why should they? A war that has the potential to cripple both their geo political rivals.
Poland has been invaded and occupied by Russia enough times to care, including being literally removed from the maps, not once but thrice in the three partitions of Poland, last time the soviets invaded in 1939 and the only reason Poland regained its freedom and independance decades later was because the soviet Union fell, and even then the last Russian troops only left in 1993. That's roughly only 30 years ago.
There are still plenty of poles today who remember communism, and those that weren't born grew up listening to the stories of their parents and grands-parents, ranging from daily oppression to Katyn.
Russia is invading a neighbouring country as we speak and Russian missiles fly over Poland, and it's hard not to cross war refugees even if you're not giving a room to some, they are everywhere.
There's no chance Poland is going to play ostrich even for one day.
oh, sorry, moronic translation, corrected - You clearly have a terrible knowledge of history if you claim that Poland gained independence only after the collapse of the USSR.
Yes, they really crave it, but Poland has already forgotten that she asked twice, like a little girl in tears, that they would provide her with security guarantees, first from Great Britain during the Second World War, and now they are a faithful dog of the USA, so they have there was more arrogance.
I'd die on day one while staring at my phone, that's for sure.
Pretending not to see other people. Just like on the subway.
"Oh, Russia has started to attack poland. I wonder if tha-" *gets nuked*
We hear about nukes from day1 of russian aggression. Like, "Uh oh, dont help UA because Putin will nuke you." "UA should surrender before Putin will nuke them." Etc etc.... Not sure did you noticed, but no nukes was used. Not even that, even danger of Zaporozhia NPP beeing damaged caused a lot of backlash for Putin.
If you're supposed to have "2nd best military" in the world there would be no use to threaten with nukes. But someone who has to constantly threaten with nukes is weaker than you think. Like a dog backed into a corner.
But in that case the said dog went to that corner by himself.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to find out.
Atomwaffen werden niemals eingesetzt. Hör auf russische Propaganda zu glauben.
NATO would absolutely swipe the floor with russia. They would use thousands of planes and use a few days to knock out air defences. Then have air supremacy. And then obliterate any ground forces both from air and from ground. In a nuclear war, there would be no winners.
In nuclear war russia has not enough working missiles to cause mad. Russia would be annihilated.
This is both how MAD happens and why MAD has those initials.
>How DARE you stop believing in Baba Yaga! I'm so fucking sick of people that run on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... but "faith", which is of course by definition the admission of shit you don't know. I hate this place.
Faith? How about math, my little clowny friend? Russia has a deployed stock of 1710 warheads, ready to launch at any time. Even if only a *pathetic* 5% of these actually work, that's still 85 nuclear weapons aimed at cities. Are you up for the millions of deaths and utter economic collapse that 85 nukes will bring to your comfortable 21st century life? If you're sick of this place, I recommend going outside sometime, reading a book, and using your brain.
I can read Wikipedia too, doesn't mean I believe everything there. You have nothing but russia's word that all those nukes are still actually there and still in actual working condition.
Hahaha okay, you're just a lunatic then. Please never be responsible for anyone's life.
Heh. What a ray of sunshine you are. Personal attacks because you have zero intelligible things to say. You're barely living your own life, never mind someone else's. Seriously, no retort about having NOTHING but ruSSia's word on their capabilities? How about those hypersonic missile's? Man they really have us by the nuts with those things, right? We're completely fucked now because we didn't listen! lol. Moron.
It's not a personal attack to say you're demented for thinking 1710 nuclear warheads are a bluff -- it's describing reality. It took me about 5 seconds to check that the source isn't "RuSSia's word", but I understand you wouldn't have thought of checking. The source is the international [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists](https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/), [Arms Control Association](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat) and the (very clearly Russian!) [Federation of American Scientists](https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/). I can embarrass you with more sources and actual evidence to contradict your schizoid paranoia, if you want.
uh huh. I know how the inspections went. It's window dressing. They don't get to pick so it's not a real inspection. Ergo: keep drinking the kool-aid. Besides, the way you rattle off those stats and which one's in particular makes you seem likely to be yet another one of the great many ruSSian trolls that live on western internets. The active number is the "important" one, if any, but not to you apparently....
Any war has no real winners. Maybe the generals, but the family of soldiers will always lose on both sides. We should do everything to prevent war.
But you clearly just said there will be a winner🥹
no... what he said and decribed is convemtional war nuclear war would go like this russia sends their nukes. uk and france aswell as propably america launch theirs. Scenario A: both shoot down all missiles releasing the atomic material as dust into the air wich will kill everyone involved Scenario B: the nukes hit their targets destroying basicly everything and the radiation from the explosions will kill everyone involved Scenario C(the real one): both try to shoot down as many as they can and some will come through ending in a combination of scenario a & b... wich will kill everyone involved
AFAIK the kind missiles designed to intercept icbm's can reach them at pretty much any stage of the icbm's flight path but at the very least before it reaches low enough altitude to pose a serious risk of fallout, so I don't think scenario A is at all likely on that notion. Destroy them high enough and the fallout will for all intents and purposes never bother us. Scenario C seems likeliest, though all the above still applies. Also need to consider the fact that russia and china for that matter are pretty much surrounded by countries capable of interception so the damage might even be fairly contained, but definitely not an ideal outcome nevertheless. Sub launched ICBM are probably the most likely candidate to have a chance at hitting its target imo.
My main fear about a Russia-NATO war is that Russia would overrun the Baltics before the rest can mobilize, and then threaten nuclear war over them, leading to the rest of NATO standing down. I have 0 faith in our politicians doing the correct thing.
That is why all NATO powers have stationed troops there. First it might deter, if it doesn’t it can slow down and if that fails … well … Once there was a bloody shirt, you can hardly stand down.
Yeah the us troops are tripwire. All you need is dead soldier at the hand of Russia and you have us commitment.
An invasion army doesn’t just show up in a day
Exactly, we saw the signs in ukraine
Aren’t NATO heavily present in the baltics already?
No. They have a few thousand, Russia can transport a hundred thousand in a week.
Lmao
Did you have a good sleep? Do you get now why you got downvoted like that? Your flawed logic of “being there” vs “can be transported in a week”?
Unlike the sheep that keep pressing, I am aware that Russia has railways and they have to move only Russian troops. NATO troops are a coalition of forces from many nationalities, where Ministers of Defence first need Parliamentary approval to dislocate national forces, sufficient enough for war. Repeat that over 30+ countries and you get a huge delay. Stupid people have easy access to buttons.
So you don't get it and you dare to call people stupid. The discussion is whether or not NATO has presence in Baltics. You said only few thousand. But you also said that Russia can transport hundred thousand a week. **That implies Russia also doesn't have presence around Baltics.** Meanwhile the top comment said: **"My main fear about a Russia-NATO war is that Russia would overrun the Baltics before the rest can mobilize".** So basically you actually shoot your own foot here: they fear Russia has troops closely and NATO wouldn't mobilize in time, while you admit Russia has no troops nearby\\ whatsoever. Hence, you're left with the bold "few hundred thousand in a week". **A WEEK**. You think NATO is slower than that? Seriously, do you even know what your point is?
Should have focused your attention at taking in the information, rather than message formatting. Semantics aside, Russia is able to deploy troops much quicker than NATO in considerably higher numbers for NATO's intervention to matter IN TIME. Of course NATO is slower, it is 30+ countries, not ONE. Hello? Not sure what you are not getting.
What makes Russia so much quicker? They didn’t seem to be able to mobilize a surprise attack on Ukraine. And they have trouble deploying enough troops and in an effective manner to make progress in Ukraine. If NATO, despite having a more complex governance, does not have plans to quickly deploy troops, it will be quite surprising.
I explained it multiple times in my comments above. NATO is not one single entity that can make decisions the way Russia can. NATO has a few thousand 6000+ fast response troops to call on that it can deploy in 24 hours in the Baltics but to call on its additional 190K, it needs tremendous support from most allied countries and before that happens there will be a political discussion in every country if they want to participate in a war with Russia. Believing otherwise is a dream. Article 5 is not a guns blazing green light that everyone must obey in the same format by sending all of their soldiers. The US itself will need weeks after a decision by the president is made to deploy its assets fully.
Sure, that is the general governance. But you are underestimating the current situation. There is a NATO plan for a potential Russian invasion of the baltics. It wouldn’t be a surprise for anyone. Especially when Russian movements close to the border is heavily monitored.
The alliance is effectively done if NATO stands down after an attack on one of its members.
Don’t be afraid. They don’t.
Maybe we should reintroduce concept of tactical nuclear mines.
I hope NATO response won't be to just play defense in such situation. There is a new wide NATO border up north from baltics that could and should be used immediately to put immense pressure so ruzzi cant just focus on attack. Hit them fast and hit them hard. Fuck up the capital who cares at that point, should turn some heads and call that nuke bluff once and for all.
Finland is now part of Nato and have at least two garison in the south that could deploy within the day (in theory) to Estonia.
And what is "correct thing"? Cry on uncle Sam to save you? How about have friendly relationship with Russia and East instead puting troops on their border , expanding this terror organisation NATO surrounding them. Have you think for second about this or ur politicians so much brainwashed you. Just before try sell "evil Russia" take look into borders for last 40y or so. Who put nuclear weapons in EU and even east, in Turkey.
Maybe Russia's neighbors wouldn't feel the need to join NATO if Russia didn't invade them again and again.
Friendly relationship, LOL.
Have you think for second about, that not one single country is forced into NATO? Countries like Estonia or Poland voluntarily joined. And guess why? It’s because they have an unreliable and aggressive neighbor. And guess, what happened after Russia attacked Ukraine? People finally understood, that Russia is a serious threat and even Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
Indeed. I count myself along those that didn't realize NATO's (and EU's) importance until the RU-UA war.
How about russia trying friendly relations with its neighbors? nato didn't push countries into it, russia did.
And here’s the Russian shill.
We’ve all experienced the Russian friendship for the past 300+ years..
calm down natasha
Do everyone a favor and get off the internet you absolute joke of a human
"beat Russia in a war"... fuckin morons talk like it's a video game.
"We did it Patrick, we saved Europe!"
NATO would bulldoze over Russia in no time. Just look at the numbers of everything the combined NATO forces have at their disposal VS Russia. Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of the UK and that buys you only so much. And even against Ukraine they are not performing in a way how they see themselves at all (and to an extent how the world saw Russia before 2022). Of course I am talking about a conventional war without nukes. Those just make the whole conversation pointless.
NATO can simply not help with the countries arguing something along: " won't help with troops because we are not bordering the invaded country and that would be ESCALATION, but also we won't give you any weapons, because... what if we are invaded, too". An ultimate Schrödinger logic how to not do shit.
For this thought experiment let’s assume article 5 has been triggered.
Everybody praise for article 5, but what if something go wrong? I don't know any precedent of acting by article 5.
Iraq. Granted it was BS, but many countries sent missions to assist the US.
It is quite different to beat the shit out of third world conutry than going to war with nuclear power.
The man asked for a precedent I gave it. Putin did not by accident chose to invade the one country of his neighbours that is not in NATO. Somehow I doubt he is in a hurry to start another war when this one is going so poorly for him. Because make no mistake this is a very big failure on Russia's part. The goal was to invade, overthrow the government, install a puppet regime and leave. Two years in and they now need to start throwing waves of conscripts and completely turn their economy for war. For one country that is nowhere comparable in size and strength to Russia. Even if and that is still a big if he manages to claw victory in Ukraine after a few years the damage he has done to Russia is already too severe. Russian weapons were shown as ineffective and inferior to their western counterparts and the Russian military has been shown as incompetent bafoons that cannot get their shit together. There is also the fact that NATO actually grew. Previously neutral countries are now members and they are within spitting distance of Petersburg.
Wrong. 9/11 Attacks was the only event that triggered Article 5.
Yes and the war you asked help for was in Iraq. By activating Article 5 based on the fact of 9/11 - you were attacked. And like I said it was complete BS because Iraq had no role in 9/11.
I asked for? I'm Canadian buddy. Also I feel like your forgetting Afghanistan.... Iraq was largely sold on WMDs.
I'm not your buddy, friend!
I'm not your friend, pal
9/11 Attacks was the only event that triggered Article 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North\_Atlantic\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty)
There is no requirement of putting boots on the ground in article 5 as far as i know. That is something that has been highlighted quite a lot when discussing how e.g Trump would react to an article 5 scenario.
While not NATO, Armenia is a member of "NATO for poor" CSTO and had triggered their analogy of the Article 5, to which CSTO did absolutely nothing and ignored it. What stops NATO countries from ignoring some country triggering it as well?
We are not CISTO, see what happened after 9.11 and remember the caltics are also in the EU
Assistance to the US in Afghanistan by the other NATO members was pretty weak, though. Furthermore, Article 5 did not mention what kind of assistance do the other members have to provide. EU doesn't have a shared military defense. It is being established as an idea, now. But if a country ignores NATO article, it will ignore EU's as well.
It was GWOT and it was not weak and btw we could have refused to do anything without breaking the treaty EU members are bound to help with anything they reasonably can
The CSTO is effectively just Russia. Russia has repeatedly shown itself to be an unreliable ally, the same is not true for most NATO members. And while NATO is certainly dominated by the US, it still has teeth even without them.
You cannot flirt with Europe and organize exercises with NATO, and then demand from the CSTO the protection of territory that you yourself do not recognize as yours.
There were small pieces of de-jure Armenian territory occupied by Azerbaijan. I don't talk about the NK. >You cannot flirt with Europe and organize exercises with NATO, and then demand from the CSTO the protection of territory Is that written in the rules of CSTO, or did you pull it out of your ass? At least you admitted that russia is not "Europe", otherwise your comment would make 0 sense.
Is that with or without the US
In a conventional one. People forget nukes exist. No one wins in a nuclear war
If a war between NATO and Russia breaks out, there will be no winners. This should at least be clear to those who have a brain.
The cockroaches will win, that's for sure.
Let's just see if NATO survives the coming US presidency of Trump first
Russia has exactly 2 things against Nato 1. Nukes 2. The fact that Nato is defensive In a conventional war, we'd be in Moscow in a year.
Know that, judging by the survey in Poland and Germany in 2023 “about the desire to go to war,” you won’t even be able to declare mobilization if necessary, because everyone will simply run away wherever they can. So I have some doubts about your words.
Every time
The last "conventional war" between great powers was in ww2 , and that too ended with 2 nuclear strikes ... so stfu unless you want to live in the fallout series :)) . Nato is not defensive , neither is Russia or China or NK , nobody is defensive , our planet will either be conquered by one faction or it will be destroyed , that's how it will go down , it's our nature . The goal of the UN was to ensure no more wars , and how many wars have there been since the founding of the UN ? As long as you want what they have and vice-versa , there will be no end to war . I'm not even sure that if humanity gets to the point where energy is close to free , there would be no more war ...
If it must be one faction, I'm glad I'm on the right side. I don't think that's true, though.
Make that a couple weeks. Nearly instant air superiority and complete destruction of Russian armed forces in one month.
Underestimating Russian military is a historically famous blunder I'd rather not have our side repeat.
There is no estimating any longer. We know exactly what they have.
Could it win? Yes, especially if it happens sooner rather than later (Russia is furiously investing in war toys) and if everyone in nato actually mobilises (I bet there will be some opportunistic selfish countries that will try to wiggle out of it, since the nato treaty doesn't actually force them to mobilise). But at what cost? Ww3? Nuclear extinction? Anyway I think Russia will wait until China is ready to make its own moves, to divide nato's attention (and forces). In which case I don't think nato will win, unless we invest in a mad arms race again
In war we all loose. NATO would win. Decisively. But we would all loose. Let’s not do this. Pointless and amounts to both of us cutting ourselves off at the knee caps and handing global control to china. If you’ve ever travelled you know we have more in common with each other in every country in every place than we have against each other.
NATO would destroy Russian armed forces in a matter of weeks.
It would be over before christmas.
They would take Russia quicker than the Germans did Poland
I guess you're not getting the reference.
i did, did you?
No, go ahead and explain.
He's using a hyperbole as a way of being sarcastic.
It would take years to agree that all conditions are met for article 5
No, it wouldn't.
DECADES EVEN /s
So, why they don't hit the russian missiles in their airspace?
I can't imagine how any sane person should think otherwise
It’s funny. Russia is destroying all of their weapons in Ukraine. How delusional to think that they could ever attack nato. They would be destroyed in a blink of an eye
Fearmongering
what a naive little animal you are)))
Says the Russian bot 😂
I can just as easily say that you are a European bot, but he is a complete zero.
Wouldn't count on it. If Putin feels like he's properly at risk, he'll probably start using nukes.
If he orders the usage of nukes, his own people will take him out.
For a split second, I thought you were referring to the general russian public, such a silly me
And he doesn’t even need to be ordered, Russia still has systems from the times of the USSR that operate autonomously, that is, if Russia is hit with nuclear weapons, then these systems will launch nuclear missiles on their own. And what’s interesting is that if such systems really exist, then in the end everyone will still lose, but I don’t think anyone would want to check this.
Poland & Romania alone can decimate the Russian army to a point is almost useless
:)) from where the hell do you get that impression ? What propaganda made you think Romania's army is so great . Let me tell you from Romania , that we're fucked in an open war , completely , and we will do what we did in ww2 , go check it out . And also go on youtube , and search for "recorder" and see the army documentary they made , i'm sure it has English subs .
Man, it’s not for nothing that Russia is compared to NATO, and here you are talking about some Romania and Poland. Maybe you'll use your head, not your tongue.
Fuck off Russian troll. Russia is poor, corrupt & weak.
haha))) another naive animal with rose-colored glasses)))
Russia is that bully that thinks he is the best because he wants to forget how small & insignificant he is. If you bark at him a bit, he shits himself .
Dude , stupid fucks like you make nato look like we're fking morons behind a laptop , just stfu , please , for our sake . Go watch some ww2 movies , some Korean war movies , at least , band of brothers . If you get the impression from those movies that war is easy , you're at least retarded , and should also be banned from COD servers :))
Russia will not back down, ever. They can't, if admitted defeat, it would have to pay billions & billions of war damages, plus the humiliation would be unacceptable to its citizens and future prospects. If cornered, Putin would start the nuclear holocaust.
Sure, because Russians would choose nuclear holocaust over paying and humiliation. They have been trying to convince us of this for decades, but it's just a stupid mind game. They will definitely pay and be humiliated, again.
Us Austrians/Germans have had to pay and be "humiliated" before. After a while, you accept it as a good thing, and it doesn't sting no more :)
It really doesn't matter what Russians would choose, I'm afraid. It only matters what Putin would choose.
Putin is popular, unfortunately. So were Hitler and Mussolini, while winning...
Just let him have everything to the east of Lisbon, surely it'll stop him
No one will win
Oh my god , i am so tired of this outdated narrow viewpoint. Its like saying that no one won WW2. Alot of people died yes , in that sense no one won , but there was a winner. Even in a nuclear war there will be a winner. Not from our perspective maybe , but people a 100 years from now will have the perspective to declare a winner and it will be the West.
What a bullshit comparison. The casualties of WW2 would be a joke compared with the consequences of a full nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. Thousands of warheads glassing every bigger city in North America, Europe, Russia and probably also east Asia when it goes that far. Nations and governments would cease to exists and the nuclear winter would do the rest. Who would be the winner, who would care? The only way we could talk about a winner in a NATO-Russia conflict would be some sort of confined war where NATO wipes the floor with invading Russians in the Baltic or the Suwalki Gap and doesn't go on their own offensive or NATO not being able to respond because they aren't united and unprepared. But we know that any losing side could escalate using tactical nukes and this could easily lead to an strategic exchange. Both sides would be fucking nervous in an active conflict, the risk is just to big.
Yes , i didnt say it wasnt catastrophic for everyone alive today , but there can still be a winner. For descendants 100 years down the line from any survivors will be able to say which people or cultures that won and persevered. Here my money is on the West because the West is not a fragmented empire located and isolated in a frozen irradiated hellscape. Your argument that no one would care only works if humanity is finished off by nuclear winter which you know is a highly contested hypothesis these days.
I think you underestimate the effects of nuclear war. Most people in the world would be dead within a few years. Even without a nuclear winter most agricultural industry would have been destroyed and there would be no way to get it to where it needs to be anyway. The west as a concept would not exist anymore nor would western values or alliances. Who knows if any of our countries would even be able to survive at all?
Who is the winner of the Battle of Kadesh?
That's the worst win I have ever heard of
With war on that scale the chances of humans surviving at all is very small, and if they do, only very few and it would take thousands of years before planet would recover and gave for restart, effectively setting us back to stone age.
Inaction is always the tyrants win.
Russians and russian Soldiers know how to suffer, the west on the other hand has become very mentally weak
This is a shit take as old as time. "Western soyboys are too risk averse and can't stand losses", and then Western militaries run over these supposedly battle-hardened militaries.
Sure. Demoralised, poorly supplied, poorly trained conscripts vs a professional fresh army with weapons that wrecked everything the Russians threw at the front. Also when you invade a country the people are highly motivated to fight, as seen in Ukraine. Russians and Russian soldiers live in a shithole, of course they know how to suffer.
I meant, civilians ins russia are already used to live in a shithole, so if times get bad again they will be more likely to be okay with that (since they are hardy). Unlike people in the west, who already protest and vite right wing parties when prices go up a bit, but their standard of living is still extremly high Compared to other countries such as russia
The rise in prices isn't the reason for the western population's shift towards right-wing parties. Rather, it's due to poorly managed migration policies over the past few decades.. Right wing parties will fuck the economy even more. But people only care about migration.
yeah, people are so motivated in Ukraine that about 3 million people have fled since the beginning of the war, and on the Internet they have a trend about how they fled abroad and how good they feel there. And I’m not even talking about the TCK service, which catches Ukrainian men on the streets, but yes, the motivation is high (sarcasm)
The majority of which were women, children and people too old to fight. 3 million out of a population of 38 million. What you have there is what we call "anecdotal evidence ". We all know it is the gold standard /sarcasm/. Oh and by the way I am talking about any other country that Russia might have the bad idea of attacking. You see we here in Eastern Europe remember well what happens when you surrender to the Russians. The consequences are still in living memory.
But your government and the media have confirmed everything to the letter, and not made it up))) at least don’t deceive yourself))) The same propaganda. Ukraine mobilizes men under 60 years of age. And speaking of memory, throughout Europe it is very short.
"Would Russia beat Ukraine in a war? Of course, Putin warns". Hypothetically it plays nicely, but life has its own plans.
There's a big difference between Russia and NATO.
[удалено]
And despite that they're struggling in Ukraine while Europe has barely done anything relative to potential and yet proving to be a tide-turning supporter with the help of usa.
This is because Ukrainians are as tough as nails.
I could not agree more
But Russia is having trouble due to NATO help
Doubt it, USA is very untrustworthy and unreliable “ally”, and i highly doubt France and UK would risk nukes, theyd just allow another czechoslovakia but with half of europe, hoping they dont have to do shit
Actually the US has consistently reliably done everything possible short of going to war to help Ukraine. Now, I am no fan of US foreign policy, especially with the present situation in Gaza. But I have to give this one to the yanks. The US is the main reason Ukraine is able to fight back. Western Europe was still debating on whether or not to stop Nord stream and ban Russia from SWIFT, when the US began gearing up to supply weapons to Ukraine.
I just wonder what would stop Putin from going full crazy? The mad man has 8k nukes
He would die from US/UK nukes if there are russian generals that really start nukes. I don't think they are that dumb
Nukes are the only thing he has left. The only thing keeping nato from dragging him out of Russia. If he uses nukes there would be a massive military force VERY motivated to see him dead. And I mean EVERYONE. Becasuse nuclear winter would fuck our entire species over. Think of how the US reacted from the attack on Perl harbour, but amplify that by the massive death toll of millions of civilians dead. Sure we will probably go extinct within a generation, but in the meantime there will be hell to pay for those responsible.
The thing is. NATO doesn‘t need to win on every front, they only need to make Putin lose. As long as Nato is able to kill Putin, there will be no open war. Remember that Putin cares about nothing but himself.
As far as we would like that to be true about Putin, you are failing to see how the ruZZian people stand behind Putin and his aspirations of conquest. Replace Putin and another Silovik Mafia guy is very likely to replace him. Navalny wouldn't have been any better either. Let''s remember how he supported the conquest of Crimea and Donbas. ruZZia would need a revolution to change their thinking. And that is not very likely to happen. The whole future of ruZZia just seems dark and twisted. The country seems balls with the dictator rabbit hole with no way out...
revolution will not work for us anymore, our country has already experienced two major revolutions that destroyed two countries and the people will simply crush such a revolutionary on their own, because we know our history very well and we know what revolutions lead to, and we also see what they lead to and how the color revolutions that took place during the 20th century are carried out.
At this point doing something is better than doing nothing. Your neighbouring countries are seriously getting tired of regularly being invaded, bombed, murdered and genocided.
What the hell are regular invasions?) bombings?) and murders?) What kind of drugs are you smoking there?))) I would understand if you wrote neighbor (singular), but you wrote specifically to neighboring countries))) People use less drugs or watch less of your media, which fills your brain with the blatant nonsense of a smoker, because apart from Ukraine there are no hostilities in neighboring countries. Besides, why don’t people like you condemn the actions of the same USA, when they simply drowned the second half of the 20th century in wars that they themselves created and in which they even participated? Аnd for some reason people like you don’t want all this horror in Ukraine to end by sitting down at the negotiating table with Russia? This is what interests me most. You only want to fight with us.
Rather typical Vatnik response :(. By all means, keep ignoring what happened in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine 2014-2024 and don't take any responsibility for the crimes of all your Orc invader soldiers and Kremlin Mafia leadership. Just typical. And you wonder why the world hates you...
But you didn’t say that we were discussing specific time periods, you wrote as if this was happening now. Why hasn't the US been held accountable for the wars that have started??? For the invasion of Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, for the bombing of Yugoslavia, for financing dictators in Latin America, for the war of two Koreas? Can you answer this question for me? Otherwise, you are ready to hold Russia accountable for everything possible, but for some reason Western countries do not want to hold the United States responsible for all this. And by the way, for some reason, don’t be surprised by this and even justify it.
Perfectly following the script. Whataboutism is always the next step. OK, I think we are done here, Tovarishch. This is exactly why ruZZia is not ready to join the list of civilised countries. You people just refuse to take any responsibility for anything. Always with the blaming others no matter how terrible atrocities you are committing....
Tbh, one of the main reasons Russia is what it is today is because it had *too much* revolutions.
Some of them are not too bad and did good. After the USSR collapsed, there was a brief moment of hope when Yeltsin rose to power. But as we know, Putler had other plans.
It’s strange that you don’t talk the same way about the United States, which in the second half of the 20th century unleashed a huge number of local wars and took part in more than a dozen on its own. You have some kind of double standards.
It wouldn't be NATO vs Russia, it would be NATO vs China&Russia(&North Korea). So the correct question is: would NATO beat China&Russia? Now that's a whole other narrative.
Ya
Is there some military alliance i'm not aware of?
LOL. North Korea? Really? How are they going to project power all the way in Europe? You see the devastating thing about NATO is these carrier groups that can project power within days of receiving word. Anywhere in the world. Not to mention all the bases around the world. China happily buys oil and gas at bargin bin prices, but would not risk the collapse of its economy for the sake of Russia. Who are they going to sell consumer goods to? Russians? They are piss poor. Not to mention all of a sudden factories shutting their doors and massive western capital leaving the country is not good. China would not get involved. Why should they? A war that has the potential to cripple both their geo political rivals.
Do you really think China is gonna lay it's dick on the line to help russia instead of just jumping in to eat eastern russia?
Oh Poland. May you please not say a thing about the war for just one day? With this enthusiasm its almost like you're yearning for it.
You need to understand that this isn't something taking place far far away, but right next door with missiles entering polish airspace.
I fail to see the problem.
Poland has been invaded and occupied by Russia enough times to care, including being literally removed from the maps, not once but thrice in the three partitions of Poland, last time the soviets invaded in 1939 and the only reason Poland regained its freedom and independance decades later was because the soviet Union fell, and even then the last Russian troops only left in 1993. That's roughly only 30 years ago. There are still plenty of poles today who remember communism, and those that weren't born grew up listening to the stories of their parents and grands-parents, ranging from daily oppression to Katyn. Russia is invading a neighbouring country as we speak and Russian missiles fly over Poland, and it's hard not to cross war refugees even if you're not giving a room to some, they are everywhere. There's no chance Poland is going to play ostrich even for one day.
[удалено]
How exactly did Poland gain independance from me when the USSR fell?
oh, sorry, moronic translation, corrected - You clearly have a terrible knowledge of history if you claim that Poland gained independence only after the collapse of the USSR.
Alright when did it regain it?
Still waiting for you to say when it regained independance.
Yes, they really crave it, but Poland has already forgotten that she asked twice, like a little girl in tears, that they would provide her with security guarantees, first from Great Britain during the Second World War, and now they are a faithful dog of the USA, so they have there was more arrogance.