politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're vastly overestimating Russia's capability and underestimating Europe Nato's capability. Russia can't even invade Ukraine, one of the poorest countries. There's no way they can take on Europe Nato in an actual war. And UK's and France's nuclear umbrella is plenty.
The only good part of your statements is number 4 where Russia acts as a terrorist state. There's no good way out of a nuclear power acting as a terrorist.
The Institute for the Study of War:
Provocations increase, a mistake is made, skirmishes break out, Russian make surprisingly quick (short term) advances, ...
They're likely to make significant gains in the Suwalki gap, especially if the US has defacto left NATO and the EU is divided (Wilders, Orban, etc.). Wikipedia:
...
In a scenario where the US has left NATO, and the EU is divided (Orban, Wilders, Le Pen, ...), would the UK or France risk starting a nuclear war over a small sparsely populated area in the Baltics? Russia might gamble that NATO would not be willing to risk nuclear armageddon, after they abandoned Ukraine.
TLDR: high risk. Important to dissuade Russian stupidity by increasing defense spending. Important that the US stays in NATO.
"is by no means impossible". Like really that says it all. They don’t say it will happen. They don’t say it’s likely. All they do is rule out that it’s impossible.
Except they lost all their highly skilled troops. And their tanks. The aircraft they used before grounding them. And their BMPs. And most of their other equipment. And spent all their shells, they're getting shells from North Korea FFS. Having a higher troop number doesn’t mean all that much. Industrial base? Sure they can remake that but it will take at least a decade, if not two.
Ah yes like the sanctions on Iran have eroded... This can go on a long time if the west wants. And we really have no reason to want to trade with Russia. Russia’s gas and oil is slowly being cut off, both because of war and climate change. They have very little to offer. China may pick up the slack but what happens when you only have 1 buyer? The buyer has price control.
What’s more likely is that the technological, industrial, and economic difference between Russia and the west / EU will continue to widen.
Written before Russia showed they are barely more than a farce. And before the recent war showed how things can be brought to a crawl with guided missiles and drones. What else, and how Russia’s military is now degraded. And how Sweden and Finland will soon become part of Nato. I guarantee you Nato is rewriting their plans to hold the gap and Baltics.
..........Are you serious? No they will not start a nuclear war. They will start a conventional war. You sure jump the gun to nukes.
The whole point of Nato is going to war for allies. We all saw how appeasement and letting Hitler take one country at a time worked in WW2. This is literally the whole impetus and whole reason for Nato. Everyone saw how WW2 played out. Europe knows better than we ever will.
Abandoned Ukraine? Are you serious? It was not part of Nato.
Increase spending? Sounds good. But Russia couldn’t even deal with Ukraine’s budget plus old cold war era surplus from the west. They certainly can’t deal with Europe’s modern military or budget/economy.
Important to keep the US in? Sure. If the US leaves, will everyone give up, let it crumble into pieces, and let Russia take them over? Lol no.
I think I'm done here. Cheers.
The experts cited largely disagree with your assessment, which is why they are so worried about Trump withdrawing from NATO, why leaders are ramping up military spending, and why countries like Japan and South Korea are having serious discussions about acquiring their own nuclear deterrent for the first time in decades. They wouldn't do this, if they weren't genuinely worried.
I get the idea that you're angry about what these experts write.
Given this is an emotional reaction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're not suffering from a cognitive bias.
It is possible that the reason you are annoyed is because you don't want the experts to be right about how dangerous the current situation is. It is very scary stuff. Fear can cloud our judgement on stuff like this.
You're knowingly citing things from before this war when everything they thought about Russia was thrown out. In addition to the new information about the effectiveness of guided missiles and drones.
And yes people are worried about the US pulling out of Nato. That does not mean that nato will fall into pieces and let russia take them over if the US leaves. Different things. And that does not mean they will not increase their own budget to deal with an ~~emergent~~ terrorist russia. Different things.
You're conflating and confusing a ton of things, in both this response and the previous ones.
Ah the strawman. I really think that wraps things up. Cheers.
The Institute for the Study of War published the first article I cited on December the 14th 2023.
I'll quote another relevant bit:
They don't have to conquer the entirety of Europe. Just a small territory like the Suwalki Gap, something NATO without the US might not want to risk a nuclear war over. Present NATO with a fait accompli at a time when it's weaker than it's ever been, due to a US withdrawal. Severely undermine NATO credibility and trust in the alliance.
Once again, I understand you don't agree and that you're getting angry, but I am simply repeating what plenty of experts say on the matter.
As you say, agree to disagree.
Seems like you don't understand the role of NATO.
Once one nation is attacked, all band together to fight the invader. They aren't going to just sit by and wait. It is explicitly stated that they won't. Even if Europe feels divided.
Because every single one of those nations knows that if NATO breaks, they will be the next target in Putins campaign of terror. And they will not be able to defend themselves alone. Even the right-wing politicians know this.
So if you think France or the UK will just sit by when a sparsely populated NATO area is invaded, then think again. Because if they don't then no country will help them when Putin arrives.
NATO is a pact of egoistic altruism. Help others to help yourself. Right-wingers are all about helping themselves.
No kidding huh. He has no idea why NATO was formed and exists.
Populists are surging across Europe and the western world.
We are commenting on an article about a right wing populist with ties to Russia called Trump. He likes to help himself. He's on record as saying NATO is dead and that the US wouldn't help NATO allies.
You will find similar articles about Wilders(the Netherlands), Le Pen(France), Orban(Hungary), Fico(Slovakia), Kneissl(Austria), Schroeder(Germany), Wilders(Belgium), Farage(UK), Salvini(Italy), AFD(Germany) and many many others who have (suspected) ties to Russia and/or China.
IRC Kneissl, the former Austrian foreign minister, now lives in St. Petersburg. Salvini's embarassed himself. Other populists have replaced them. Former German chancellor and mainstream politician Schroeder receives a million a year from Russian energy companies and continues to criticise the West, not Russia. He is also quite good at helping himself.
It's very scary, but all it takes for a mistake to happen, is for Russia to think that Europe and NATO is less united than it is, especially after a Trump win, populist gains, and Ukraine losing the war due to Western support drying up.