all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 2 months ago (7 children)

They can't handle one, so they'll take on like 30 more? What...?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I’ve seen speculation that it would be an internal face-saving maneuver where losing to NATO is preferable to losing to the Ukrainians. Theory being that it’s the most likely scenario where Putin doesn’t get ousted and KGB‘ed to the back of the head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    But losing to NATO would most likely cause him to lose to both, unless he's counting on us to be so selfish that we stop supplying Ukraine just to hoard weapons for our own war effort. No, this "it's better to lose to NATO" story has never made any sense to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I agree, it’s extremely stupid reasoning but I haven’t seen anything intelligent from Russia since getting an asset into the US presidency.

    I would imagine they wouldn’t want to antagonize NATO like they’re doing unless they’re planning on Trump using it as an excuse to have the US pull out of NATO, but even that seems farfetched.

    Russian Oligarchic leadership may have pushed themselves into a corner, internally, that’s lead to a death cult around Putin. The fact that they failed their perceived quick operation in Ukraine back in 2022 suggests that the people making decisions are either extremely stupid or being told lies from the bottom up. Both are signs of a flailing autocracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's not "losing to NATO is better than losing to Ukrainians". They already lost their own war against Ukraine. Attacking NATO would be a complete destruction of Russia and of Putin himself. Assuming there would be a war between NATO and Russia, they have nothing left. Russia cannot win. But what would happen after? It's not like Putin would be forced to flee or be killed, replaced by someone "better" and it's back to daily business. They'd potentially establish a buffer zone under NATO control to prevent that from ever happening again, to also keep Belarus in check. Russia would lose access to Crimea and the black sea, and probably St Petersburg and the Baltic Sea. They'd potentially lose most of their remaining allies, except for those who do not care about NATO or EU anyway, like NK, where both would probably keep the same amount of relevance in world politics and economy. And what's worse, while losing to Ukraine is a political loss and the military loss can be propagandized as "if only the NATO wouldn't have supported them I would've won, trust me bro", a war with NATO would be a total, complete, no longer explainable loss. There is no propaganda that can save from that. And given that weird patriotism (victory day and the bullshit parade), there is always the more or less subtle notion of military and ethical supremacy, and this whole idea would break down as well. Losing to NATO will only make it worse in all aspects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I’m wondering if antagonizing NATO actually has the purpose of pulling more Chinese support for their war. As you said, traditional hostilities against NATO would end in a loss of a lot and potentially a power grab of a NATO friendly government in Russia that China doesn’t want.

    Then again a collapsing Russia is a land grab for China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Exactly. China doesn't really want to openly antagonize Europe either. They do their stuff, Europe does their stuff, and mostly both try not to interfere with each other's business too much. Sure, there is stuff happening that could be counted as offensive, like some tariffs and the evil Chinese hackers and spies, but in general it's a "live and let live" situation. The trade relations are mutually beneficial for both sides, so there's nothing too crazy happening. They won't openly commit into a war in front of European doorstep.

    In my opinion, China has no real interest in Russia anymore, after they've shown they're a dud. China's foreign policy is pretty aggressive, as it mostly seems to be the question of "does this benefit us", and if it doesn't they simply won't do it. There aren't really diplomatic ties with China, since they are also often presented as the enemy and the "bad guys" in western media and politics, and it seems like they've embraced it, focused on themselves and did their own shit. As long as there is a cash flow, the relations to Russia are held up, but as soon as it's no longer profitable, which seems more of a "when" and not an "if" question, I don't think that there will be a lot of friendship left over.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    shoulda woulda coulda

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    No he won't

    He can't hold the line with his single invasion of a relatively tiny country, that has wrecked his military and economy, opening up a second front against Europe? Good luck with that.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Nah,OP is a Russian bot

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    WSJ referencing US intelligence as a source. Still trying anything to hunt the reds, huh.

    Putin already lost all face to the outside world, and lost most face in Russia too. Just to put it into relation: WWII had about 8.4 million dead soviet soldiers on the east front, Putin's "military special operation" is at 1.4 million dead and wounded. Infrastructure, supplies, and military equipment is basically non-existent, in relation to Russia being the aggressor and the size and resources of the country. People are being forced and coerced into the Russian military to keep fresh meat coming. Ukraine got a bunch of expensive western toys and managed to surpass pretty much anything that Russia did somehow.

    Attacking a NATO country would be the end of Russia as it exists and would be the end of Putin. It's suicide. There is no face to save, and there is zero chance for any positive outcome for Putin in that.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Hell, they could attack NATO in 5 min, that doesn't mean that they will, or that it would be successful.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    To everyone going 'nah certainly not going to happen', I was just like you up to February 23rd, 2022.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    Aren't they tired of winning yet?

  • source
  • 43 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 82 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    This doesn't make any sense. NATO is much stronger than it was before the war. Russia is much weaker.

    The Baltic States started the war isolated, partially surrounded by Russia. Today they sit in a NATO lake that can not only support the Baltics, but threaten St Petersburg.

    Russia would have to defend a front stretching from the Black sea to the Arctic sea.

    Even if the US declined to help, Russia starts in a position of great weakness. And worse still, everyone knows it.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Putin needs a defeat from NATO, not from Ukraine alone. If he loses to the biggest military alliance of the world, he might be able to somewhat sell it to the public on the home front. It would also play right into the propaganda they've been spewing that Russia is fighting the collective West.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Are they specialised in this new type of war, though? I saw something about Americans being wiped out in simulated exercises against Ukrainian drone operators - and the Russians will be bringing that kind of experience to someone who has only been learning in classrooms from Ukrainians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Although they did initially get "wiped out", but (from the article):

    by repeating the training scenario throughout the two-week exercise, US Army troops got better at figuring out how to disperse and hide from the drones while using countermeasures such as electronic warfare.

    Which is the point of these exercises. It’ll still take time to modify doctrine and train, but the US is now more practically informed on this type of warfare.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    It makes a lot of sense. You're ignoring what a realistic action and response would look like.

    The goal wouldn't be to conquer large swathes of NATO territory. The goal would be to test the integrity of the NATO alliance, and to see if the Russian sympathizer sitting in the White House will renege on the US's obligations.

    Imagine Putin sends a few hundred troops over the border and seizes a small amount of land. NATO is not going to use that as an excuse to launch a total war against Russia. Sure, if the full might of the Russian army comes storming into Poland, NATO would let loose everything we have. But a limited incursion like in Georgia? If NATO is living up to its promises, sufficient force would be deployed to drive them out. There would be no need to launch a total war.

    This would be a way to test the NATO alliance at relatively low cost and risk. We don't actually know how Trump would respond to this. He could very well say, "not our problem" and refuse to render aid. If he did command the US military to defend NATO territory, then the cost to Russia would be small. A few hundred casualties in a war that's caused hundreds of thousands. A rounding error. A small price to pay.

    But imagine what Putin gains if Trump doesn't offer assistance against even a small incursion. NATO's guarantees will have proven fruitless. Even if someone more friendly to NATO gets elected after Trump, the promise will still be broken. Every NATO member from then on knows that the NATO guarantees cannot be relied upon. A guarantee that is subject to the whims of which American political party is in power is not a guarantee that nations can rely on for their national defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    If he does send a few hundred to steal some land, and gets pushed out, its not simply a matter of small price to pay, it could potentially change the entire landscape of the Ukraine war by changing how other countries support them. Its a pretty big gamble that they'll do nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The opposite could also happen. Countries facing direct threats to their own territory are less able to provide military aid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    and to see if the Russian sympathizer sitting in the White House will renege on the US’s obligations

    That bus has already left the station, and the other NATO countries know it. The only open question is how weak Putin will have to be before Trump flip-flops so that he can still be on what he perceives to be the winning side.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    This is a half-formed thought but Russia is quite strong in exactly one way: nuclear warhead count. That doesn’t help him resupply Crimea but perhaps he’s trying to change the scope or scale of the conflict in a way that would make this strength more relevant?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    any article with a hypothetical in the headline is ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and I refuse to read them.

    Russia COULD attack NATO next month .... or it could disintegrate tomorrow just like the USSR

    https://tenor.com/view/gino-d'acampo-gino-dacampo-this-morning-grandmother-wheels-gif-1270420353161197650

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Do you understand the difference between the two forms of could used below?:

    In theory, I, a regular person, could put in a lot of time, effort, and money, and become an Olympic athlete.

    I am an Olympic athlete. I am set to compete in the Olympics tomorrow. I've regularly placed in the top levels of my sport. I could win a gold medal tomorrow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    English is not my first language but I do understand the difference, I know it's not the same use of the conditional tense but I figure it was close enough to make a gag about my point.

    Press sensationalism is something I've noticed has gotten significantly worse in the last few years

    DW is one of the few news sources I still trust, but this article is a ball of nothing. A news source, reporting on a story by a less reputable and much more biased source not listing the original report or what is based on.

    ...............

    need I say more?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This isn't a language issue. The two forms I'm contrasting use the same definition of "could." But there is a world of difference between:

    1. A scenario which is uncertain, but real information indicates there is a decent chance of happening. (The "could" used in the article.)

    2. A scenario which theoretically could happen, but is unlikely and there is no particular evidence available that the scenario is likely. (The "could" you're using in your hypothetical about Russia disintegrating.)

    An infinite number of things are theoretically possible. The article isn't some baseless speculation saying, "hypothetically, there's nothing in the laws of physics preventing Russia from invading NATO." The article is instead saying, "while the intelligence is still uncertain, intelligence indicates a substantial probability of Russia invading NATO territory."

    It's an issue of probability. The article is probably talking about a scenario with a 30% chance of happening in the next year, a scenario that has real evidence suggesting it's likely in the near-term. You're raising a scenario that probably has less than a 1% chance of occurring in the next year, one backed by pure speculation with no evidence at all behind it.

    Intelligence is never certain. That doesn't mean it's useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Do you have any idea how insufferable you are being in this thread? Since you seem clueless, I'm here to let you know - it's bad. Real bad. After seeing interactions like this, I increasingly understand why the rest of the world hates us...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    This is The Wall Street Journal article from August 6, 2026 that the above Deutsche Welle article is referencing. DW did so without linking WSJ directly; I had to go find it manually, but fortunately a number of outlets reported on it.

    The original WSJ report is far more nuanced than this headline might indicate, and talks about the possibility of a Russian attack on NATO over the coming years. One of the more credible things it said is

    Putin’s goal in attacking NATO during a continuing war with Ukraine, if it happens, would be to fracture the alliance, the U.S. officials said. “The question mark is how the United States would respond in that case,” said Heather Conley, senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, on a possible Russian incursion. “It has always been a goal [of Russia’s] to challenge the credibility of NATO and to separate the United States from its allies.”

    It's a good article. For those who'd like to read the original, here are the links:

    U.S. Intel Finds Putin Could Test NATO’s Resolve With Limited Incursion -- The Wall Street Journal (behind paywall)

    Archive link -- there are known problems with the site but it has the content; use at your own discretion

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    That makes a lot more sense. May test NATO with limited incursion. I think it would be a very bad idea though for Putin to try this. He has already ground his military down to the nub and has not been able to ramp up Russia's war machine.

    The last thing he needs is to turn more against his cause which would likely end up giving Ukraine more resources to fight. I do worry that by drawing in his allies (North Korea, China, USA) that it could change the situation for the worse and get WWIII going more than it already is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Yeah and I could hit oil in my back garden. Only, I won't.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The article claims that MAGA Intelligence (an oxymoron) thinks Russia will attack an unknown NATO country in a month?

    These idiots can't even figure out how to use the entire US military apparatus to deliver groceries to a ship in nine months, they have no fucking idea what Russia is up to. Stop listening to MAGA, they're beyond stupid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    I personally feel as the Ukraine conflict drags on Russia will throw a hail Mary, get its ass completely kicked and Putin either tops himself or is off'd by his own.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago*

    Please recall that the CIA and like organizations have been doing this for about 70 years. It's how they get their budgets increased. Their massive black budgets that we are not allowed to know about.

    Recommend "Legacy of Ashes" by Weiner. The CIA hates this book, and used to specifically attack it on their website. The absolute best possible endorsement, in my opinion.

    No matter how bad you think it is, it's worse.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    That's a bold strategy cotton...

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    loosing war

    Opens another front

    Surely this will fix things

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Is this the new "bad guy secretly has nukes, trust us bro"?

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    According to a Wall Street Journal report citing US intelligence

    Yeah OK, you can stop reading there. Two of the biggest propaganda outlets in the western world, both hawkish, would fucking love an open war with Russia and have been saying it's imminent for decades.

    This scenario is a right wing fantasy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    People were scoffing at US warnings that Russia might launch an attack against Ukraine back in 2022.

    It feels illogical for Putin to attack NATO but he would rather lose to "The West (tm)" than against little Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I look forward to seeing a red stain on the streets of Moscow knowing it used to be Putin

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Analysts cited in the report suggest Vladimir Putin may seek to open a new front rather than risk being remembered as the leader who lost Ukraine

    Does Putin play Weiqi/Baduk/Go? A common strategy when a player is losing in one part of the board is for them to open up new "fronts" in other areas of the board, hoping that they're more successful in one of these other areas and that this will yield a new advantage in the original area they had been losing in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; what it usually comes down to is whether they're able to "read" the game further ahead than the opponent, in the hopes that the opponent won't see how developments in Area B will affect Area A.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The big difference here is the other front is another player. If they actually do strike NATO they are basically putting down another board and play with another player without additional piece.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Not gonna lie, I kinda hope they do.

    Kick their fucking asses once and for all.

    NATO should have made a no fly zone over Ukraine years ago. Call their pissant little bluff. Red lines my asshole.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    A no-fly zone isn't just "we make their planes go away". It means you need to fly there. And that means you need to take out their AA, and their airborne radar outside the zone, and their ground based radar. You need to take out their ability to fly, so you need to kill the airfields, which means taking out the close range AA at those fields.

    To establish a no-fly zone, you need to bomb the ever living shit out of Russia, not just inside Ukraine but deep within Russian borders too. The 2011 no-fly zone over Libya involved attacking 600 tanks, for example (insert turret-toss joke here), and thousands of ground-attack sorties.

    Make no mistake, a "NATO no-fly zone" is just a declaration of war, without any boots crossing the border at ground level.

    Not that I think we shouldn't, but it's not exactly easy

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Russia is steadily occupying Ukraine, that much is clear from the battle maps. It's not a deadlock and time is not on Ukraine's side. This is a proxy war started by the billionaire class of America, aided and abetted by billionaire class of Europe. Everyone else is in the crossfire and ends up as collateral damage.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments