110
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 01 May 2024
110 points (95.8% liked)
Ukraine
7672 readers
738 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh fun. He's not going to start anything, right? This has to be paranoia, right?
As soon as Belarus touches a NATO country they're fucked though
Or an EU country. We've got a whole separate defense union. Historically it hasn't mattered too much since almost all the EU is in NATO, but with Trump looking actually re-electable that's a whole separate alliance he can't directly interfere with.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
That’s the idea. But are we sure? Are we really really sure? Is President Trump really going to send the full might of the U.S. army into East because Latvia was invaded?
A lot is riding on that answer, and it has never been more in doubt than it is now.
I mean one of the poorest nations in Europe stopped Russia. Nato without the US is fine.
NATO has a bigger problem if the US doesn’t honor its obligations
Are you going for technically true? Because at this point I think NATO without US can laugh at Russia. Only problem is the baltics have no strategic depth.
I’m not sure if NATO without the U.S. is even able to scratch its own butt. We’d be missing a lot of assets that are not easily replaceable, especially in intelligence collection and logistics.
Not to mention the industrial capacity to keep the show going past the first few weeks.
EU is more populous with a similar GDP to USA. In what fantasy universe of yours could Belarus or Russia without nukes make even a dent in NATO (-USA)?
Just want to say France and UK have enough nukes for deterrence.
France alone fwiw.
Let’s just say there has been a marked divergence in investment in defense capability and industry between the EU and the US, historically in general, but especially since 1991 or so.
Things are getting better, but we have lot of ground to cover before we are equal partners.
Doesn't matter how EU measure up to USA, we are talking about a poor, tiny country and a Russia that is deep into a bloody war against Ukraine. If Russia can't even beat one of the poorest European countries, how in the world would they threaten EU? Without nukes, it would be a steamroll in EU's favour.
The illusion of Russia being a military powerhouse that can take on Europe is outdated by several years.
The reason Ukraine has done so well is because they have been trained and equipped by nato since 2014, those efforts were ramped up significantly when Russian actually invaded.
Yes, Europe could likely defend Ukraine but your point falls apart when you realize that Ukraine held Russia off when the USA was dumping money and equipment on them and when one party here stymied those efforts the battlefield shifted.
Yes. Europe could do it, however right now Europe isnt doing it and hasn’t been doing it without the USA being the biggest contributor and leader.
This is not some point of pride of me as a American, I wish we were able to spend more money domestically and I wish we could fight poverty and inequity and our schools being shit with this money. It is simply the nature of the world right now:
Yes, Europe could do it. But they aren’t right now.
Unless I've missed something, this thread is about Belarus/Russia attacking EU, not about support for Ukraine.
Its an active example of the thing we’re talking about, on /c/ukraine
Example in argument for what though. That EU/NATO is incapable of protecting themselves without the US? It's not comparable.
Intelligence yes, from what I know.
Industrial capacity? It's not like the rest of these countries are not industrialized. There would be some adjustment aches, but let's not act like the rest of Nato can't find its own ass.
I’m talking specifically about military industry. We have some really nice EU defense companies that can produce all sorts of war fighting equipment, but we’re nowhere near the levels of the pork-barrel fed US military industrial complex.
No. Fucking. Shit. And I replied in the context of military industry.
how the fuck do you think belarus has more industrial capability than fucking the entire of europe, ok they mabe they can't keep a full blown war for months BUT IT'S FUCKING BELARUS HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK BELARUS CAN WIN IN INDUSTRIAL CAPABILITY THAT THE FUCKING ENTIRE EUROPE hell you need a reality check
what russians dumbass the same 400000 that died to ukraine? for 80 years old NATO equipment? if you think 2 third world countries can offer any true threat to the rest of europe your are a lost case, too delutional to even reason with hell ffs
I’d like to point at the Soviets fighting the greatest fighting force in the world at the time and losing terribly for years before winning because they could feed the meat grinder the longest.
Russia ought not win and on paper won’t, but they can probably feed the meat grinder longer than everyone else.
That’s how they intend to win.
feeding the meat grinder against the entire europe?, europe has much more people to put into war, and more equipment, and more advanced ones, is going to be exactly USA inbiraq, the difference is that the european force are going to be pissed, also, belarussia is surrounded, you can't feed a meat grinder to your entire border, same with russia
You know stalemate right? And that's with being the one of the poorest country, with commanders that gave in, and getting delayed scraps. Russia wouldn't be able to do anything against a proper military lol. Ciao.
Exactly why he can’t become president again (amongst a plethora of other reasons)