224
Putin tells Poland any aggression against Belarus is attack on Russia
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
224 points (96.3% liked)
World News
32291 readers
624 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cool. Poland ain’t gonna start shit.
Any attack on Poland will trigger Article 5.
Poland won't, but according to Hitler in September 1st, 1939, Nazi Germany was defending itself from Polish attacks.
I think putin is thinking of forcing Belarus with Wagner to attack Poland and see how NATO will react when the threat would be war with Russia (if NATO will respond, which I hope it will, I think Belarus will get the same help as Armenia).
I think NATOs response would have to be a strong, decisive one. No NATO member wants the Alliance to look weak. Nobody wants World War III, either, but I think they’d conclude that showing weakness is riskier than calling Putin’s bluff.
Whcih I hope it will.
Less bloodthirsty person from the imperial core.
Poland is a major supply hub and has lost plenty of boots on the ground. Art 5 isn't automatic. US won't risk nuking for expendables. All Europe is expendable.
Europe has nukes, and an industrial capacity that dwarfs Russia multiple times over and is roughly equal to the US.
Russia has about as much chance attacking Europe as Japan would attacking China on their own.
Also without Europe, the US has no capacity to develop semiconductors better than what Russia has. In the extremely unlikely event Europe falls to Russia, the US will not be far behind.
Europe does not have an industrial capacity that comes anywhere close to Russia as is clearly evidenced by the fact that Europe can't even produce basic things like artillery shells at this point. Furthermore, European industrial capacity needs energy to function and the cost of that has gone up significantly. All of this is well documented in mainstream western media, so it's kind of shocking that somebody could be this misinformed https://archive.ph/61ruk
Just read the first line of that article you linked below the title.
It's not that the West has run out of artillery shells. It's that the West's MIC is not willing to ramp up production, since we are not at war, and there is no guarantee that additional manufacturing capacity will pay off for weapons manufacturers once the war ends and there is no need for it any longer.
The EU, particularly Germany has gone through a massive disarmament since the Cold War. It still spends twice as much on its military in absolute terms as Russia. If we are talking total industrial capacity, the EU has 8 times the GDP of Russia.
Just on artillery shells, the 5th biggest artillery force in the world just joined NATO. Do you expect their reserves to be empty?
Uh yeah welcome to capitalist economic relations. Companies aren't going to build giant factories to pump out weapons and ammunition unless they make their money back. Given that EU is now going into a recession and the standard of living is dropping rapidly, gonna be hard to justify all the government subsidies needed to convince your capitalists to start manufacturing weapons.
Meanwhile, GDP overall doesn't mean shit. It's the industrial that actually matters. Most of EU GDP comes from ephemeral things like tourism and service industry. The only major industrial power left in EU is Germany, and it's becoming rapidly deindustrailized as we speak.
Yeah I do, because if they weren't empty US wouldn't be sending cluster munitions to Ukraine right now. US even forced South Korea to send them shells before that happened. NATO lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons at the rate they're being expanded, and anybody who's been paying attention can see it.
On the other hand, Russia inherited the military industrial complex from USSR days and unlike the west it never privatized or dismantled it. Now it's been ramped up and to a capacity that NATO can only dream of.
Russia has no interest in attacking Europe. US/NATO is the executive arm of longterm geopolitical interests that strive for total global dominance. They utilize sophisticated multipronged longterm strategies attempting to bring the rest of the planet under their control. Russia is a small part of that parcel.
The ultima ratio regum part of it considers some geographies more expendable than others. Egress of core industries from the EU is deliberate part of the strategy. Vassals are ruled by compradors, so populations are captive. It's direct oligarch control on the other side, so it's simpler.
MAD still applies. Both sides go to great lengths to avoid it, since the outcome is deterministic and global. Which is why the US would be a second target, if not already part of first strategic strike.
Wars are confusing places, so potential for fatal mistakes is exponentiated.
Where have you been the last few years?
If you think you understand the conflict, you are not understanding the conflict. I have spent decades and lately far too much time on sources inaccessible to most, and I still feel underinformed.
I noticed I commented on world news. My mistake. Lemmy keeps dropping the subscribed filter.
Enlighten me, what are the attacks on Russians neighbours if not war? Please tell me how the Nato forced Russia to attack Georgia or Ukraine? Maybe you should question your "unaccessible to most" (lol) sources if your result is, that Russias not at fault here.
Which is totally why we sent millions of troops in WW2.