this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
36 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23322 readers
265 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

All this talk of EU and NATO countries needing to spend more on defense to counter the imminent Russian threat is obviously not the real motivation behind increased spending.

If one were to imagine such a world, for the sake of useless navel gazing, what else would need to be true for Russia to not only want to use military force to annex or occupy or even conduct limited air strikes on a NATO member or one of their allies but be confident that it's military could meaningfully conduct such a massive operation while defnding from the inevitable retaliation from the entire west?

Idk I'm baked at work and can't really understand why people are so easily sold on this idea that Russia is about to conduct full scale war on Europe

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

oh and will they succeed? Baltics are toast within a week, Poland will get a black eye but even with a comprehensive Russian mobilization Europe has a lot of bodies and a couple experienced units that can stall the advance before it gets too far. i mean assuming Europe jumps right in, any measure of hesitation and the Russians are fighting hollowed-out heaps of conscripts with days of ammo for weeks/months, who knows how far they'll punt em

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There is a small part of me that knows that even EU countries are too paranoid about each other to commit too hard. After all, historically, every single time one of them ever fights Russia (barring WWII) they may fight Russia to a draw, but then end up getting their teeth kicked in by another European power.

That said, I don't think Russia has the morale or internal justification going on enough to make something like that palatable to the Russian populace, without a previous invasion. Even though Russia is an oligarchy, much like our oligarchy, it does require popular buy in to do this kind of stuff.

[–] Renin@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You never know, the EU leaders might be requesting aid from Poutine to deal with the riots after December price hikes. please-save-me

This is the secret ending no one had foreseen.

This is the secret ending no one had foreseen.

Holy Alliance 2

[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

France is the only serious military force in western europe. Germany in the "working on it" stage but I'm not sure how that's progressing. hopefully melenchon gets elected and averts ww3 for the time being!

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

fr, i'm not sure even the suicidally fascist germans would go full-tilt without France's nukes, soldiers, and functioning arms industry behind them. all power to melenchon, genocide illimité on le heap de penne and horizon/en marche qin-shi-huangdi-fireball

[–] reaper_cushions@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

In total, all EU countries have about 2.5 million men under arms, which exceeds Russia‘s forces by about a million. And this is without any war time mobilisation or conscription. Add to that the Turkish military, which by virtue of multiple defence agreements would be aiding the European forces, and the Russian military is so far outmatched that there is no way in hell that the Russian Federation would ever dare strike anywhere west of Ukraine. The only “advantage” Russia has over a combined European army is a greater nuclear arsenal, but considering France has Overkill capacities, too, that particular point is moot. In a war of attrition, Europe, considering it has more than triple the population and contains economic powerhouses like Germany and France, would also be able to sustain such a campaign for far longer. And considering the slugfest the Ukraine war turned into, this scenario is more than likely, at least under the premise of war breaking out at all.

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Russia has myriad short-term tactical advantages that could be parlayed into a war-plan:

-No peer experience in Eastern Europe

-Lack of materiel because it was sent to Ukraine and not replaced (an enormous heap of ammo, 'obsolete' vehicles, missiles, etc etc. was sent to Ukraine under the premise of "modernization" of NATO forces, but mere grains of replacements from the US, UK, FR and ROK have actually materialized)

-Distance of potent NATO forces (France, US)

And if there's any doubt and delay in entry of Europe at large--that 2.5 million under arms is just paper. Would Turkey actually move troops from around Syria and Kurdistan if it's not under attack? Will France abandon its toe-hold in Françafrique? Will/can the US perform the logistical task of moving and supplying those European troops? Sweden and Finland have impressive numbers but how are they getting stuck in? Crossing the Baltic? Invading Karelia?

I know it's terrifying to admit but there's a quite plausible case for a(n imagined) brief supporting thrust against NATO to force the collapse and capitulation of Ukraine, if (as I posited in the OP) Ukraine is only holding on due to NATO defending it.