World News

277 readers

488 users here now

Rules:

Be a decent person
No spam
Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

378

World War III has officially begun, Ukraine’s ex-top general says (www.politico.eu)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

202 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Because in 2024, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine. Let's be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian 'Shahedis' are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame," said Zaluzhny, adding that North Korean and Chinese weapons are flying into Ukraine. Zaluzhny urged Ukraine's allies to draw the right conclusions. "It is still possible to stop it here, on the territory of Ukraine. But for some reason our partners do not want to understand this. It is obvious that Ukraine already has too many enemies. Ukraine will survive with technology, but it is not clear whether it can win this battle alone," he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I'm aware that Russia has been making gains slowly in Ukraine as of late. I'm just disagreeing with what you say about Russia not stopping until they get to France. I don't think that's a realistic scenario.

Russia will never attack a NATO country, or at least, that's the logical conclusion if you're someone who believes in NATO's effectiveness. To me, anyone who is worried about Russia fighting its way across Europe must have doubts about NATO.

Personally, I think the moment a Russian soldier sets foot in a NATO country, the whole illusion of safety in the organisation will collapse like a house of cards. But until that happens I suppose we can only assume that NATO is working.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Personally I question NATO effectiveness under a Trump presidency. Hope I am wrong about that but Trump's personal loyalties seem to be closer to Russia.

While the other countries are strong combined a lot of their plans and coordination depends on US being first responders. There has also been decades of military neglect by many of the countries, and many buy US weapons instead of home production.

There is also the concern that while Russia alone would be unlikely to attack NATO, they might if China, Iran, and NK join in as they have been slowly increasing support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

does the US have the ability to prevent other NATO countries from assisting each other? i'd hope that if shit goes to fuck that at least the nearby NATO countries would realize they ought to follow the terms of the agreement for their own sake.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Definitely do your own research on this. My understanding is that if any one country does not agree on Article 5 being invoked then there is no collective response. Even if it is invoked each country can choose what they want to do as a response.

The only time it has ever been invoked is after 9/11. Many countries just decided to not send military aid.

Countries can always decide to defend eachother outside of Nato as well.

With the US out of the alliance there is talk of setting up a European nuclear defense system that can't be disrupted by an election by one of the individual countries.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained

[–] grue 10 points 4 days ago

I mean, it might take a couple of decades, but if NATO and/or Europe is unwilling to actually stop Russia from invading and holding other countries' territory, it's just going to keep stealing more.

[–] TropicalDingdong 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I've been having this conversation with my European friends recently, but what do you expect the NATO treaty is worth once Trump is in power? Like, an honest question. How much faith to you put in it? Because as far as I can tell, Trump is very anti-NATO and its not clear to me that he or Republicans would respect that treaty.

To be clear, I agree with the general quoted in the article. Ukraines allies are not taking this seriously. "But NATO..." is passing the buck. I think the EU is stronger than it gets credit for and should flex its muscle to tell Russia to take a hike.

[–] Jesus_666 8 points 4 days ago

NATO without the USA loses a lot of logistical and conventional power but is still backed by French and British nukes. That should still make Putin wary of actually triggering Article 5.

Besides, Germany has already demonstrated how effectively it can use a war economy so a conventional war against NATO-without-the-States would probably either be quick or an attrition slog. And I don't think that Russia has the means to pull off either without directly bringing China into the war.

I do agree that Europe should do more, although Russian psyops have been effective over here as well – fringe parties are on the rise and conveniently all of them happen to like Russia. What a coincidence. That plus the economic downturn expected after Trump takes a sledgehammer to global trade again puts a damper on our effectiveness.