War may be coming. Are we psychologically ready?
bbc.comIt is my current view that this BBC article and the recent announcement by national security advisor Powell are conditioning the public mind not for an actual hot war, but for a "tough winter" of eye-watering price rises, possible shortages, and maybe even utility supply problems if we are particularly unlucky. While talk of war increases, a glance at the state of the military suggests to me this is unlikely. What we have is rather limited, and even that is only about 1% deployable within 6 months. Much of Europe the same (Poland being an exception).
That said, I also believe that there is fairly widespread, low intensity, grey-zone action across Europe at the moment. Not every random fire or infrastructure failure is "The Russians", but I'd be surprised if none of them were. Indeed some of them have already been formally attributed.
It is, however, correct to attribute all sabotage and random failures to Russia until proven otherwise. No matter if we like it or not, Russia has decided to be hostile, and is actively committing sabotage.
It would be foolish to still just wring our hands about it. We have to name the enemy, Russia, and both support Ukraine's fight and do our own active hybrid actions on Russian soil. And yes, military buildup is required.
And to be clear, this will not end anytime soon. The war in Ukraine is but one aspect of Russia's imperial ambitions. It's fully possible we will not see friendly relations again in our lifetimes.
It is incorrect to blame everything onto some entity, otherwise we'll miss the real things due to being desensitised. It's a version of boy who cried wolf but crying Russia.
The correct answer.
A major difference, IMHO, is the abandonment of the rules-based, rights-based, international order. Within it, international war (as opposed to civil war) was nearly impossible - it hardly existed for generations. While you need to prepare for the worst, you need to work for the best, for progress, like so many generations before us in much more difficult circumstances. Preparing for warfare doesn't mean accepting it; we must also work for freedom, including a just peace. It doesn't happen without work.
Again in this era, reactionary and nationalist messaging has dominated and somehow, despite generations of extraordinary success, despite being born into it and seeing its success and superiority, many/most think such an order is infeasible or even undesireable. At the same time, I've seen American leaders in the military industry advocate for becoming accustomed to mass destruction and death.
And shockingly, even the experts and practioners abandoned it and at nearly the height of its success. It's as if a messaging campaign insisted cloud computing was impossible and absurd, and so everyone just stopped using what was obviously working. For the rules- and rights-based order, yes there were outliers and setbacks and threats; that's life. But the entire free, wealthy, industrialized world subscribed, and were untouchably allied, free, safe and prosperous. Now, having abandoned it, all those things have diminished.
What's missing is not acceptance of warfare but ultimate commitment and work for freedom and peace.
> Threat from Russia
Right. Mighty Russia that has been fought to a standstill by its much smaller neighbour is going to provoke a military alliance absolutely dwarfing it into outright war. Not even China is going to back that after having a look at who the more valuable trading partner is.
Being ready for war is reasonable, being afraid or worried is a waste of time, and even irrational in this case.
From the article, starting in the next paragraph after the one your quote was in:
> But what is the threat? In 1940 the danger of a German invasion of the UK was very real. But the chances of Russian tanks rolling up Whitehall are surely negligible.
> "It's not the tanks you need to worry about," says historian Margaret MacMillan, author of War: How Conflict Shaped Us.
> "It's the cutting of cables on the ocean floor. It's the hacking into systems on which so many things depend. The possibility for asymmetric war, for cyber war, is growing by leaps and bounds."
Case in point, Russia has been fought to a standstill by its much smaller neighbor using asymmetric warfare. There is no reason Russia would not turn around and do the same to other countries.
One may argue it has already done so in the past via election interference, except now it also has AI in its arsenal, which won’t even need ICBMs to be delivered to its targets.
Dude, you have no idea about the modern warfare. The only country Russia is actually afraid of is the USA. And nobody except probably the USA or maybe Turkey is even remotely ready for modern war. Russia is having "military operation" right now. If they start the "war".
Second of all, the "much smaller neighbour" is any European country to them. Ukraine is the biggest country on European continent if we include the occupied territory. And it's actually has the most capable armed forces military-wise. Russia took over 116k sq km of Ukraine. All three Baltic states are 175k sq km combined and they literally can't defend themselves in case USA decides to withdraw.
And last but not the least, Russia's war is irrational. It makes no sense from any rational viewpoint. So relying on common sense in this case is wrong. You need to understand russian ideology and Putin's specifically.
Just leave it. There are so many Russian apologists on this forum it’s exhausting. You’d think the fact that Russia is in the middle of an unwise and unnecessary war of aggression wouldn’t itself be an argument for concerns of more attacks on NATO countries and allies.
But to prebut whataboutism, I also don’t like American imperialism.
> it makes no sense from any rational viewpoint
Didnt they start almost immediately trying to setup like mineral processing facillities in areas they were able to nominally gain control of?
Wonder what the impetus for this was, were the elites embezzling too much or low oil prices or something that motivated them to pillage to make up the difference? Or typical greed in the absence of any asscovery...
I’m not quite sure what the disagreement is here. I was just saying asymmetric or other unconventional warfare can be extremely effective, as Ukraine’s resilience has shown, and there’s no reason Russia could not adopt similar means. In fact it has been doing so in the past. Somehow that makes me a Russia apologist, as sibling comment implies? Genuinely confused.
It's not so much about how powerful Russia is as the attitude of it's leadership that seems determined to go attacking.
It's already gone provoking with the drones at Leipzig and the like.
And the place which is not overflowing with spare cash has been building 20,000 hosptial beds near the Baltics https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-plans-16-000-20-000-ho...
> 20,000 hospital beds
The trolling never stops, as if they have any intention of fixing anyone broken
Invading Ukraine was idiotic on its own, and that happened.
It's not irrational to notice that irrational actors do irrational things.
How rational is killing others when someone tell you? You need strong propaganda of fear to makes other to kill each other. Something like those articles.
Yet again: we're making the Russians do it?
Whats the point of using methods that you fight against?
Seems off-topic for HN, but let's look at it technologically: if Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated anything, it is that drones are like guerilla warfare squared: even the smallest player can land hits and deny areas to the largest forces.
It might be tending towards impossible to achieve regime change militarily at this point. Maybe we all should just figure out how to get along.
This article shows the biasses of the press. Everything is about public perception, so the problem is that the public don't perceived that there might be a war. This is stupid, public perception can shift very quickly. The actual problem is not maintaining investment and critical industries. The UK was able to shift commercial manufacturing to wartime production for world war II. That doesn't work if you've offshored everything.
Russian war with Europe would be ‘very short’ – Lavrov
As would the special military operation. Three days short, it was promised.
Well, then may be you should volunteer.
That was promised by US General Miley, not by any Russian official or citizen.
So we have in this nugget an example of why you shouldn't trust western media, but not an example of why the west wont fold like a cheap deck.
Some people said two days, some said ten days. Russian officials thought they would get a short war, and they were wrong. Wikipedia will point you to a bunch of references.
A Russian war with Europe would not be the short war that the original poster alludes to by invoking statements from a Russian official.
Oh it was Milley who sent the Russian column of armor toward Kyiv with no logistical support. Thank you for clearing that up.
Indeed, Europe would roll over russia really quickly.
> “We’ve said repeatedly that we have no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently addressed this issue in detail, emphasizing that we have no interest in doing so,” he said.
Where have I heard this before?
Read between the lines. He's saying "Mess with us, we'll nuke you." They mean it. Putin is desperate enough to do it. Anyone responding to this with Euro-bravado is an idiot. Some of y'all didn't grow up during the cold war and your blind spot is showing. No one wins in a nuclear war.
So what do you think the rational response to the nukebullies should be? Give him all he wants? How are reasonable deterrence preparations "Bravado"?
Deterrence is exactly what we should be doing. Many responses here were some variation of "he'd never try" or "let him try, we'd win". That's not deterrence - that's ignorance and provocation, respectively.
They never mean it, it's a threatening tactics. Their children live in western countries and their money is there. They wouldn't allow nuking western countries just like that. ESPECIALLY if they know they attacked first. Even their own doctrine doesn't allow using nukes for anything except the direct external threat to their statehood.
Russia has been making that sort of threat roughly weekly for a decade or two. It's kind of their thing.
They are unlikely to nuke Europe - there's a lot of it and they only really have a couple of decent cities which could be gone rapidly.
Russia will never start an open war with the UK or any EU country. They can barely handle Ukraine imagine that plus any other country.
"Russia will never start an open war with Ukraine"
Was the common talking point even in early february of 2022
The current situation is completely different to 2022. To begin with Russia is almost exhausted after these years of war.
Russia has a million man standing army that's now thoroughly blooded and well versed in modern warfare, and an industrial base that's retooled to supply such an army (i.e., drones and missiles). The only problem for them is that they're facing the only other large, experienced army in the world.
Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere, then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed. Now imagine that a half million Russian soldiers show up on the border of Estonia, Finland, Kazhakstan, or Georgia.
Yes, Russia is exhausted and doing deep structural damage to its economy. It still has one of the best land forces in the world at the moment. The way Ukraine always smokes NATO forces in exercises is a strong indicator of what would happen if Russia decided to "liberate" the Baltics.
Very good points in your replies!
> Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere,then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed.
They'd have to give up a big chunk of the occupied land to do that, since creating that line within 50 km of the front line would now be much harder than it was 3 years ago. Who knows, maybe that's what's stopping them from attacking another country as you described.
They wouldn't need to give up anything. Defending needs less people than attacking.
Ukraine is the biggest country on European continent. It has the most capable military in Europe right now. And it's backed by Europe economically. Saying that Russia can't defeat them is not the insult you think it is. If Russia mobilized 1M people and went full on war in a month, they'd easily take over the Baltics, took half of Poland and bombed the F out of Germany and France. They'd lose eventually if Europe woke up from its delusions, but they definitely can take over most of Eastern Europe.
The most capable military in Europe is NATO, if that counts.
Russia doesn't have the armor or logistics to "easily take over the Baltics", particularly considering it would trigger Article V.
The Russian Air Force could not hope to bomb anything beyond the range of standoff munitions.
NATO has virtually no experience in modern warfare, which is substantially different than how they're organized now. NATO is well equipped for an armor-centric battle of maneuver, but Ukraine showed that's not at all how it has to be fought.
Russia wouldn't use armor or logistics to take over the Baltics. They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out, under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for (and the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth).
> Ukraine showed that's not at all how it has to be fought.
You're taking a regional conflict between militaries using cold war gear and drones and saying "this is what warfare is now".
> They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out
A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them. I see those swarms are especially effective at defending energy infrastructure, something that's of particular concern when you're fighting an alliance with stealth aircraft.
> under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for
This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
Please explain what you think this means.
I'm taking a regional conflict where the total manpower of both sides outnumbers all the rest of the armies of NATO without the US. Where one side, Ukraine, sends OPFORs to NATO exercises and wins handily with drones because NATO doesn't know how to fight drones, or how to operate in a front line that's 20km deep and the enemy knows everything going in it and it's impossible to mass forces because tube artillery is still cheap.
And yes, this is what warfare is now. When Russia invaded in 2022, it was using its new armored battalion tactical groups, and they failed to reach Kyiv at all, or to conquer Kharkiv or Sumy--they just surrounded them and stretched out along the highways, where infantry teams with Javelins destroyed them in detail.
The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare, and a big part of that change that Ukrainians and Russians have learned is total force dispersion. You can't assemble an armored fist because it's bombed to oblivion before it ever sees the enemy, or encounters an artillery deployed minefield that didn't exist the night before.
NATO will take years to ingest the obvious lessons from Ukraine and adjust its doctrine to handle them. Until that time, they face an adversary who knows them in its bones.
> A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them.
Could NATO take a million+ casualties and still be fighting with another million in uniform and the nation not yet undergoing general mobilization?
> This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders, what chance would you give the Estonians?
>> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
> Please explain what you think this means.
It means the most expedient way for the US to learn to apply the lessons of the war in Ukraine was just discontinued. The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
> NATO doesn't know how to fight drones, or how to operate in a front line that's 20km deep and the enemy knows everything going in it
Source: youtube I imagine. Speculation is fine but here you are making assertions without evidence.
> The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare
And it began 20 years ago.
> Could NATO take a million+ casualties
This is a weird argument for the effectivness of your Russian drone infantry.
> If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders
They teleport now too? This is getting serious. I imagine within a week Putin would be meeting Gaddafi's fate. Attacking NATO is nothing like bullying a smaller country with no defense pacts. China and India would stop being patron states. You'd see a half dozen Prigozhins as the oligarchs would realize it's not survivable.
> The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
Anduril, GA, Boeing, and Lockmart absolutely inconsolable right now.
Do yourself a favour and read this: https://texty.org.ua/projects/116021/20-kilometers-of-the-gr...
Then follow the Kyiv Independent and Kyiv Post, and the ISW's daily reports. Listen to War on the Rocks and read Philips O'Brien's substack.
I hope NATO leadership isn't as blythe as you about the changing face of war.
ETA: is the Wall Street Journal sufficiently credentialed for you to pay attention? https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nato-has-seen-the-future-and-is-...
> I hope NATO leadership isn't as blythe as you about the changing face of war.
I am fairly confident they are not. And I'm not blythe about it, I just don't see Russia as being some sort of dominant drone army and believe the location that 20 km-wide no man's land is pretty strong evidence. And that there are many aspects of armed conflict we are not seeing in Ukraine.
> WSJ (links an editorial)
> Saying that Russia can't defeat them is not the insult you think it is
Well I never said that.
If it were only the Ukraine the war would have long been over. The West block has supplied more than $500 billion in aid to the Ukraine, that's more than twice the US lend/lease to the Soviet Union in 2026 dollars. Plus intelligence information and probably other things I'm forgetting. The more dollars are sent to Kiev, the more blood and lives the Ukrainians are expected to invest. That's the deal.
... because American or European boots on the ground would be viewed as escalatory by an extremely embarrassed Russian state.
War is already here, just at least in America we haven’t realized it yet.
This is a BBC article about the UK being at war. Not the USA.
That said, it argues that the various pre-war preparations fail to include "psychological preparedness". I think this is largely true for America as well, since war is something that the USA almost exclusively engages in offensively in distant countries, with only one small exception for one day on 9/11.
I know, I read the article I’m just saying, we Americans have no idea how big of a conflict we’re in right now, and we are not psychologically prepared for what it will mean to be bombed by hypersonic missiles or shaheds or what have you either.
I work with some Ukrainian refugees, we are not prepared.
War has always been here. It sadly just have been too removed from those countries doing it. Not enough enemy combatants have died on their own land.
You guys literally started it.
We certainly didn’t help - but I’m wondering if this wasn’t inevitable after the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Totally not a fan of the guy we have driving the bus right now, I didn’t vote for him, and oppose all war. But now that we’re in it, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to be quite a bit more violent and terrible than we have the stomach for?
I mentioned above I work with some Ukrainian refugees. We are not prepared mentally for what is coming.
As a Ukrainian, I can tell you that it's not as bad as you imagine, and it's much worse than you think. The war is very grim and gruesome but you guys will adapt to it quickly after the initial shock. Articles like this are just trying to minimize that shock (it won't help).
Can you recommend any way that people can psychologically prepare for the kind of situation Ukraine finds itself in?
Russia invaded Ukraine.
You can make the (somewhat weak) case that Russia was provoked, but the first violent strike was made by Russia and Russia alone.
government != population
Our congress is taken over, in case you haven’t been paying attention to the complete lack of justice on Epstein. It’s not all that difficult to see who is in charge.
As always, in the last 70 years at least.
Also - Downvote me all you want you...the US is an awful influence on the world and if you disagree with that, you're part of the problem. I grew up thinking the US was the good guys, what a absolute load of shit that turned out to be.
That reads a little like the zeal of the convert. The US is still a more humane nation than most, though it's not immune to the diseases that come from being a great power.
I don't know about that. Honestly, idea of Americans self-ranking themselves as more humane is the kind of absurdity that lead us to where we are today. How many people making such claims have actually travelled to the nations they villainize?
For a long time I wanted to believe you, and in the past I'd have looked at work camps in China and said "thats bad". Now i look at the US prison industry and go "Is it really that different?". The examples don't end there...
Well, your thought process is "fine" we are still evil, but right now it's a matter of picking the least evil guys, and hoping they win.
I'm an American and sometimes I'm not sure which is the "least evil game here." Like, the Iranians and Russians are pretty evil, the IRGC killed a lot of people last winter and I'm friends with quite a few Ukrainians. But then also we have the ongoing insanity with ICE and the Epstein files...
The way I see it right now, we have "The Epstein Alliance" versus "The Axis of A-holes." Nobody involved in this is great, but I would rather live in America or the EU than Russia, or Iran.
To be fair, as an American, I don't know enough about what life is actually like in China to form an educated opinion? But by the sounds of it, they suck too.
My intuition is that this whole charade will come crashing down over the next few years as AI starts replacing more and more jobs.
There are no good guys buddy. That’s the problem. Not us, not the Canucks? The Brits nor the Iranians nor the Russians.
People are great, countries are pretty much all evil.
Completely agree.
Up close everyone is great, far away, like from space, everything looks great. It's the middle distances that are problematic.
Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, that the US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. True then, and true today.
The ignorance of the American people enables this violence-- this is by design. William J. Casey, CIA director under Reagan, "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false". The CIA has employed many hundreds of journalists working at major networks and newspapers like CBS, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Reading the comments on this story, it appears that much of what Europeans believe is false, as well. Someone presented a detailed and accurate account of the recent* history leading up to the illegal, but absolutely provoked, Russian invasion of Ukraine but was accused of lying. Several comments indicate a complete lack of concern about provoking the nation with the largest nuclear stockpile in the world into a direct hot conflict. Even if it stayed conventional, which appears unlikely, Russia has a much larger military than all of Western Europe combined. Insane.
* The history should start much earlier, with US assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand, and then Clinton and all subsequent US administrations betraying these promises.
We've been in one war or another for most of my adult life.
We are in a perilous position right now in Europe, very close to a major escalation of the Ukraine conflict. This would entail direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
I find it deeply troubling that no mainstream party in most European countries seems to think this is a bad idea.
I think all of them do, but the alternative is to let the Russians do what they want and that ends worse for all of us.
Letting russians take the Crimea without any consequences in 2014 is what led the world to all of this. I dare to say, ALL of it, not just the war in Ukraine.
Letting them do even more horrible lawlessness will only lead to worse outcomes.
Yeah, that's precisely the attitude.
What is a bad idea? Defend yourself against an unprovoked military aggression?
Hot war in Europe. We're doing incursions well into Russia. Attempts have been made on the life of Putin and Zelensky, a drone was dangerously close to a bunch of very senior Europeans the other day.
It's dangerously out of control. We should be seeking de-escalation for our own sakes. The last two major European wars destroyed empires. We're playing with fire here.
I do not want to live through, or die in WW3. I'm worried it's already started.
Europe, Ukraine and the west do want to de-escalate and end the war that Russia started, it's Putin who has repeatedly said to negotiators directly and on TV he wants to continue escalating and believes it's still possible to take over Ukraine and parts of eastern Europe.
It's hard for one side to de-escalate when the other side is an avowed irredentist attempting to rebuild the Russian Empire before they die.
I've not heard a plausible scenario for how this ends.
We've had this stagnant wound festering in the middle of Europe for a decade.
No one is winning. No one can win, except those who are benefiting from it.
To be honest, while Putin is obsessed with irredentism it's either: let him take back all the old Soviet states (which simply won't be tolerated by people there or Europe) or keep up the ongoing defence and make the cost for Russia high enough to stunt them until Putin dies either naturally or by falling out a window.
People like Trump and Elon think a deal can be done with Putin or he can be placated, or there's some sort of solution like you're waiting to hear, but all attempts to even begin negotiation fail because Putin is dead set on rebuilding the Empire. Apparently in any discussion about his war he spends hours talking about Russia's historical claims and ownership and shows old documents and books etc.
I'm sorry it seems to you like no one has come up with a good solution but it's either give Russia one or more countries (and then he'll want more...) or defend until he loses power or dies.
irredentism is a hell of a drug. Putin is fully locked in.
Regardless of Putin's obsession with Ukraine, the problem is that his clan views this war (and future wars like this) as a campaign to create a new world order where the EU and the US withdraw from supporting countries in what they consider their sphere of influence, and, ultimately, give up any ideas of affecting change inside Russia.
It's an age-old story of a crime family holding on to its mafia state.
Yeah, it's this "we continue fighting until Putin eventually dies" line of thinking which horrifies me. Is that our war strategy? That's a recipe for permanent war.
It's based on several flawed assumptions: that Putin's death will happen soon, that Putin's death will lead to a leader with a radically different and more amenable geopolitical vision.
Do understand that the popular narrative in Russia mirror's the ours exactly: "We can't just roll over and let the West have Ukraine".
I'm sorry, but "keep fighting until Putin has a heart attack" is stupid beyond belief. The only way to safely end this conflict is to freeze it. Continuation risks catastrophic escalation.
Of course it's stupid. This is a stupid war. No one on the Ukraine or EU or western side wants to be in this war. If you're saying defence is not an option are you suggesting we roll over give Putin back the old Soviet states? Let him do his ethnic cleansing? Putin does NOT want to freeze this war, he honestly, truely believes he can continue to weaken the west and Ukraine until he can rebuild his empire. Go read any of his writings or interviews for the last 10 years. He's an irridentist to his bones. This is not the Korean war where a DMZ will be agreed to. While Putin lives he will keep the war going, keep trying to take over Ukraine entirely and the old Soviet states. He sees the loss of the ex Soviet states to the EU as a historic mistake and catastrophe that he intends to set right via military action. While the front might grind to a halt, there's no scenario where he would agree to end the war with just the land he's captured today.
Incorrect, there are lots of people in the West with a vested interest in keeping this war rolling. We're selling guns, doing R&D, Europe now buys its gas from America (at a higher price) instead of Russia, Zelenskyy does not need to face election.
Groups of people in the West are benefiting massively. Most Ukrainians are not. Most normal citizens of Western countries are not, we're shouldering the cost in rising cost of living, elevated military spending.
We have a hot war on our continent. I repeat, this is very fucking dangerous. WW1 was a brutal, grinding land battle with immense costs for all its European participants. It also led to WW2, which culminated in the absolute decimation of European cities and the eventual use of nuclear weapons. This is the path we're retreading.
You continue to personalise this around Putin. It is incredibly naive to think that Putin disappearing will resolve the problem. It will not.
Kinda tired of all this warmongering and constant increasing of pressure on civil society.
It does not help that we keep electing extremely selfish strong appearing individuals in winner-takes-all democracies.
“Strong appearing individuals“ just expose what is already there.
That is why Voldemort always comes back in real life
War is here.
It is clear we are not generally physiologically ready.
Russia is a nuclear power
So are UK and France.
So it's obvious we will not have a conventional war
UK elite tries to distract from the class war about to explode, more at 11. Or perhaps that's what he really meant.
[flagged]
The simple truth many have come to realize is a European leadership that insists mass migration is not a problem and head-in-the-sand denies the critical importance of cultural unity and shared identity for the maintenance of stable and liberal democracies is a much clearer and present danger than Russia.
War a nation can recover from, but from an erosion of cultural unity and shared identity it cannot.
Remind us what happened last time Europeans got too obsessed with cultural unity and shared identity?
Are you saying the only conceivable policy positions are genocide and unchecked migration?
I like that you said genocide and not me. But what I like more is enjoying the long slide into irrelevancy of opinions like the one you expressed in your original comment. I look forward to the day we can have constructive discussions about capital investment and migration which feature no mention of such puerile and ignorant notions of ethnicity and nationalism.
Irrelevancy? The opinions I expressed are ascendent and accelerating across the Western world.
Constructive, reasoned discussions on migration are precisely what have not occurred due to the dominant ideology stifling all contrary opinion.
Cultural unity and shared identity is cause of many (many) wars…
They're not. Rather, the organizers of war – typically rich and powerful people in or close to London or Washington – use their propaganda networks to play these popular cards of culture and identity. Don't confuse the cause and the means.
yea, you are right, I recall from my high school education when Hitler came to Washington and then London, fun times
After all Canada, Australia and New Zealand are such hot-beds of crime and mayhem; we should avoid following their example as much as possible.
Their experiments in cultural erosion are merely a few decades old, and accelerating only recently.
You're basically pointing at a smoker who started a year ago and concluding because they don't have cancer yet cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Those three have been letting in large numbers of people from outside the UK for at least 125 years, not a few decades.
it's funny to write a headline like this and put it behind a paywall. just objectively kind of funny.
Its not behind a paywall if you're in the UK
It's only behind a paywall for US users, for making their country great again a second time.
I'm in the US; opened fine for me. Though I am using uBlock origin.
somebody wants some extra funding
Answer: NO
who would want to go to war with nato ?
> china ? why ? they just want taiwan
> russia ? lol, they can't even manage Ukraine ( with our aid )
> iran ? why ? they just want to kill you know who
This is just a fearmongering article.
> russia ? lol, they can't even manage Ukraine ( with our aid )
And that's why they want to attack Europe. They hope that it will either cause eu to stop supporting Ukraine or at least that it will give them good negotiation position (e.g. we'll stop attacking baltic countries but Ukraine has to let go of their territory).
if they end up attacking Nato, I think we would just go until boots are in Moscow. our tech is better and we have more men ( we dont need North Koreans to fight)
If our boots get anywhere near Moscow we get nuked.
That's the issue, a belligerent neighbor that permanently sabotages you but which you can't ever get too close to losing.
More like America going to war with NATO at this point
The US lacks the political will for a war with NATO, I'm speaking of the soldiers and citizens. The worst case for NATO is US withdrawal and explicit or tacit support of NATO enemies. Some soldiers would blindly follow orders to march on Europe, but we can't even win a war against Iran right now so I'm not sure how much Europe has to worry about a US invasion. Canada, maybe, but that's probably even more unpopular in the US than invading Europe.
And it'd also be the end, economically, for the US. We'd be hosed, that isn't to say current leadership wouldn't try and end up fucking us all over, but the effect would be another loss for the US.
I'm happy you have that confidence, I think it would only take 1 generation of conditioning to get us to centralized autocratic rule. It won't be trump in power, it'll be Vance or someone else less popular but smarter.
Russia has been probing NATO for several years now. NATO is a paper tiger that seems to be content to do nothing. As long as the probing is in the lesser members: the Baltics, Romania.
When (likely not if) Russia decides to attack the Baltics, NATO will just shrug and send a strongly worded memo.
Probes are not worth going to war for. Russian boots on Baltic grounds would be.
Some years back when a Russian jet breached Turkish airspace just for a few seconds, it was shot down.
Now it's nothing but strongly worded thoughts and prayers
Were any of these 'probes' actual territorial threats? Cause if not what you're calling a paper tiger is just a cool head.
An actual confrontation would probably go like the battle of Khasham.
At the time when the jet violated Turkish airspace it wasn't a territorial threat either. Strangely enough no jet has violated Turkish airspace since (but a few drones have landed in Turkey during the war in Ukraine).
Meanwhile Russian drones, cruise missiles (!) and planes violate NATO airspace almost daily it seems. And are being launched from within NATO arispace quite frequently (see Germany).
And no, the drones are not the "Amazon delivery drones".
E.g on September 8 Geran-4 flew 120 km unopposed through Romanian airspace, took a leisurly turn above a small town with population of ~20k people, and then flew back, eventually crashing in Moldova.
No big deal.
So not a territorial threat. You just wish NATO were big and powerful like... Turkey.
Turkey is in NATO. And had no issues downing a military Russian jet that entered its airspace for a few seconds.
Meanwhile Russian military jets violate NATO airspace in the Baltics. Russian Geran drones leisurely cruise in NATO airspace.
And nothing happens. Not even when a drone strikes a residential building.
Oh, I guess "it's just Romania who cares". It's also in NATO.
The US is in NATO. Iran isn't being bombed by NATO.
This is a British article for Britons. The British press is nuts: everything is taken to extremes: events, statements and political moves. Unfortunately, every day the USA press grows more like the British press, moving leftward and increasingly alarmist. Look at what happened to Drudgereport, It once supported Trump and now it's practically a British tabloid of its own.
Take Rolf Dobelli's advice - don't listen to the news:
> Unfortunately, every day the USA press grows more like the British press, moving leftward and increasingly alarmist.
The British press is not, on aggregate, left-leaning. That's just a weird weird wrong idea.
Here is a strange idea: the sides should negotiate!
Russia wants a non-NATO buffer zone around its western periphery. None of those countries want to be 'unaligned' no-man's-lands.
There is nothing to negotiate.
Peripheral countries are demilitarized but maintain Article V status, Putin is exiled to Saint Helena and required to spend the remainder of his life lecturing Tucker Carlson on Russian history.
Oh for goodness sake, stop feeding the Russian bots. They love it too much!! :)