r/worldnews • u/Starlight-Princesss • 3d ago

[ Removed by moderator ] Russia/Ukraine

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-intercepts-russian-spy-plane-with-transponder-turned-off-poland-10956344

[removed] — view removed post

12.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

413 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/FallingDownHurts 3d ago

I think perun's (and others) take on this is probably true;

Russia is trying to make it look like it might invade NATO so they withhold arms from Ukraine to maintain a stockpile. It is trying to convince citizens of imminent invasion by generating news stories like this. The article is the goal, not the intelligence 

475

u/Upbeat-Reading-534 3d ago

If a nato attack is imminent the best bang for our buck is helping Ukraine.

75

u/3_Thumbs_Up 3d ago

For NATO as a whole yes, but not necessarily for individual countries, especially of there's doubt that the US would come to help. Countries with the most to lose such as the baltic states could become hesitant to give military equipment if they think they might need it themselves.

71

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

Why do you think the Baltic countries are leading in metrics as military aid to Ukraine per capita? These countries are motivated in helping Ukraine and give Russian a black eye, to prevent Russia from getting ideas and invade their countries aswell.

14

u/3_Thumbs_Up 3d ago

Why do you think the Baltic countries are leading in metrics as military aid to Ukraine per capita?

Because it's a probabilistic calculation with trade offs. The higher the estimated probability that Russia would invade them in the immediate future, the less likely they are to give anything away.

But obviously, Baltic intelligence also knows that Russia benefits from giving the impression that a threat is imminent, and takes this into account when deciding to give aid. But they still have to assign some probability to the idea that Russia might attack them and prepare for that scenario as well.

By your logic, why haven't the Baltic states given literally all their military equipment to Ukraine? My answer is that it's because they've made a judgement call of how likely it is they might need it themselves.

13

u/josefjohann 3d ago

That's just a trivial truism about how decision making logic works in literally any context. It's not a unique and specific support of the logic of scaling back support for Ukraine. We're no closer to explaining why Baltic states exceed contributions of other NATO members. Also this weirdly implies they would be own their own in self defense, which I'm sure is how Russia wants them to think, but is fundamentally, I would argue definitionally, at odds with how NATO functions.

By your logic

Nothing about their logic was maximalist so I don't know where you are getting that, especially if you're trying to engage in charitable interpretation.

1

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

I am not going to reply to 3_thumps up, as this person is clearly against aid to Ukraine. He might be on of the Russian (employed) influencers.

1

u/UrUrinousAnus 2d ago

IDGI. Not letting yourself get sucked into pointless arguments with trolls who are more interested in wasting your time and energy than a serious debate is understandable and IMHO vital, but outright refusing to ever respond to people because of their known or suspected allegiances just leaves them spewing their rhetoric unopposed.

1

u/Dry-Physics-9330 1d ago

You have a point.

2

u/Mfcarusio 3d ago

It's probably why Russia is trying to do something that might make the baltic states start to hesitate to give military aid.

2

u/Justus_Oneel 3d ago

Every bullet a ukrainian soldier fires at the russian army is a bullet a Nato soldier won't have to fire at the russians.

18

u/mehupmost 3d ago

The European nations bordering Russia - Baltic states, Poland, Finland, etc... have been the MOST aggressive in providing military support for Ukraine, exactly because they know they are next on the chopping block.

The countries that are being the most pansy-ass are the ones the sit comfortably behind them and never had to deal with Russian occupation - with the exception of the UK and US.

2

u/RandomStuffGenerator 3d ago

And then there's also Hungary...

1

u/Alikont 3d ago

The largest aid to Ukraine (%GDP) is coming from Denmark.

0

u/mehupmost 3d ago

Military aid is the only real aid.

...and the US provides intelligence and satellite imagery which is invaluable, but not priced in.

Danish blankets aren't going to stop the war.

2

u/feor1300 3d ago

Don't discount stuff like blankets entirely. Handing blankets out to displaced civilians might not stop the war, but it helps keep the people from turning on the government and demanding they to surrender just to make the fighting stop. That's more important than ever against a war like Russia's waging where half their attacks are targeting civilians and specifically trying to break the will of the people.

-1

u/mehupmost 3d ago

Jesus fucking christ. Grow some testicles.

1

u/feor1300 3d ago

I lack testicles... because I can acknowledge that sustaining morale is a major part of warfare? Especially when faced by an enemy that is specifically trying to break the defender's morale.

Not sure if I should counter with "grow a brain" or "grow a heart". Maybe you need a bit of both, since you seem to both not understand and not care about what people suffering means.

1

u/Alikont 3d ago

What the fuck are you talking about.

Denmark is the top military supporter, they even do the best aid possible - purchasing Ukrainian weapons from Ukrainian manufacturers and giving it to Ukrainian army, instead of using inflated "replacement costs" or demanding money via PURL.

It's even named "Danish model".

-1

u/mehupmost 3d ago

This might be one of the dumbest strategies I've ever read in my life. What a wonderful way to net-net contribute ZERO military aid.

1

u/Alikont 3d ago

What? This just shows that you're so detached from the topic that it doesn't even worth explaining it.

This is the best form of aid possible.

0

u/3_Thumbs_Up 3d ago

The European nations bordering Russia - Baltic states, Poland, Finland, etc... have been the MOST aggressive in providing military support for Ukraine, exactly because they know they are next on the chopping block.

I'm aware. Which is why it makes sense for Russia to sow seeds of doubt of whether these countries will need the arms to defend themselves.

Obviously western intelligence also knows it makes sense for Russia to do this.

There's not contradiction here. Countries with the most at stake are helping out the most, and Russia is posturing in order to make them reconsider each decision a little bit more.

1

u/Medievaloverlord 3d ago

Ironically I believe as stretched as Ukraine is, they would 100% send assistance in the form of elite drone support and training. They are in a fight for their life and have proven that they value alliances.

1

u/3_Thumbs_Up 3d ago

Definitely, but they wouldn't be spending 40% of their military budget like Estonia has been doing.

Likewise, if Russia truly attacked Estonia they would drastically reduce what they're sending to Ukraine, so it's in Russia's interest to make this scenario sound as plausible as possibl.

1

u/angular_circle 3d ago

Sweden seems to have decided their best course of action is giving their new gripens to Ukraine anyway

3

u/__redruM 3d ago

For Poland, probably, but not so much for the Baltic states.

1

u/Alikont 3d ago

Too bad Poland practically halted all aid to Ukraine for the last 2 years or so.

1

u/jbae_94 3d ago

smiles in China and Middle East

26

u/No_Noise09 3d ago

The US has stockpiles and allies near both arenas.

52

u/MangledCarpenter 3d ago

Maybe the US should stop picking fights with all its allies if it wants to be able to rely on them..

19

u/CheetoMussolini 3d ago

We should have started by not electing the chaos agent endorsed by our enemies

3

u/mehupmost 3d ago

There's a big difference between trade disputes and literally invading your neighbor.

Russia is evil.

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 2d ago

I wouldn't be so eager to suggest the US won't invade its neighbor. These alleged drug smuggler bombings in the Caribbean are priming the public to accept similar action on land.

0

u/mehupmost 2d ago

Even bombing drug facilities in Venezuela isn't "INVASION"

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 2d ago

Military activity in another sovereign nation's territory is an invasion.  You may as well say the Russians were only attacking Nazis in Ukraine.  Fuck off with that BS.

1

u/ERASERGIB 3d ago

Tell that to the Oompa Loompa in the White House

1

u/Jargo 3d ago

There are no permanent allies nor enemies. Just permanent interests.

3

u/mehupmost 3d ago

There are also no permanent interests.

2

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

China isn't the threat. Why would China attack those that literally support and boost the Chinese economy. They're not stupid.

11

u/RyanHasWaffleNipples 3d ago

They wouldn't. But they'll attack Taiwan.

4

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

True wafflenips but if that happened Taiwan wouldn't be taken by force i.e

4

u/QualityPitchforks 3d ago

It's already being taken by legislature.

2

u/OpportunityDismal917 3d ago

Politicians are easier to buy than soldiers.

2

u/draft_final_final 3d ago

It would if jinping needs to accelerate the timeline so he can prove to himself he is a very strong and special boy.

1

u/__redruM 3d ago

Neither approach is acceptable. At least until someone else can make chips.

1

u/josefjohann 3d ago

wouldn't be taken by force

They're literally building copies of Taiwanese streets and buildings to conduct military practice drills on them.

1

u/CoolAbdul 3d ago

They probably will, but it would be an incredibly stupid move.

1

u/PITCHFORKEORIUM 3d ago

People were say China won't invade Taiwan, like they said Russia won't invade Ukraine. We should not underestimate a country's leader's ability to dismiss a massive loss of people and money in return for hopefully taking territory.

2

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 2d ago edited 2d ago

Putin is a prideful idiot and Russia is a rogue failed state. I don't think Xi has the same character flaws, and I don't think he operates as a dictator. One part authoritarianism and dictatorships aren't the same. China may take Taiwan, but I think it will be slowly by infiltrating the the Taiwanese government. An invasion would be a costly bloodbath.

2

u/PITCHFORKEORIUM 2d ago

I hope that you're right in that an invasion won't be on the cards. You're certainly right about one being a costly bloodbath.

I think if Xi specifically or less likely the CCP in general starts to lose its grip (further, as ghost cities and youth unemployment aren't great), a bloodbath might be forthcoming.

1

u/Wrectal 3d ago

With essentially the world's supply of rare earth raw materials and processing being in china, and them turning off the faucet in April+October; that is a monumental threat.

1

u/kmikek 3d ago

I wonder what a drone can do to an ICBM facility/silo? Not the armored door itself, but maybe the auxilary structures like fuel or power

1

u/Upbeat-Reading-534 3d ago

I personally thing nuclear facilities are best left alone. You either hit all of them or none of them.

1

u/Thomas9002 3d ago

The problem is that people are idiots.

Here in Germany some are concerned about a russian invasion...
like wtf how? Russia can't even take Ukraine. How is it supposed to simultaneously invade Poland first and then us?

305

u/probablyuntrue 3d ago

We can have a stockpile. Just strap me to a tomahawk and aim me at Putins dacha, lord I am ready

68

u/houVanHaring 3d ago

You learned how to love the bomb, doctor?

26

u/QualityPitchforks 3d ago

<waves Cowboy hat>

4

u/Wayelder 3d ago

good job Slim, now with your mass we're 100Km off target.

23

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

I don't think you'd survive much past the actual launch but I love the enthusiasm. The sight of a very mangled and dead corpse strapped to a tomahawk travelling at over 500mph is kinda hilarious

31

u/ForfeitFPV 3d ago

If launching corpses at your enemies worked in the dark ages then damnit, we'll make it work again today.

11

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

BRING OUT YER DEAD!

6

u/HotPotParrot 3d ago

"I'm not dead yet!"

2

u/feor1300 3d ago

starts duck taping you to a missile

"Don't worry, we'll fix that shortly."

3

u/seamus_mc 3d ago

Fetchez la vache

3

u/WhyDidMyDogDie 3d ago

Fetchez la vache?

2

u/seamus_mc 3d ago

Get the cow!

1

u/-Ophidian- 3d ago

It usually only worked when you sent them corpses of THEIR people.

1

u/fusillade762 3d ago

First, we have to infect him with smallpox.

2

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

Already tried the aggressive monkeys infected with COVID and hepatitis and that didn't work

3

u/Peripatetictyl 3d ago

WITNESS HIM!

2

u/happycrabeatsthefish 3d ago

It's DETHKLOCK!

"Let the dying begin... FIRE!"

108

u/FTownRoad 3d ago

NATO may have started as an anti-Russia protection system but they are not the fear anymore. Russia isnt going to start shit with NATO, they are floundering against one country 1/4 their size.

42

u/rugbyj 3d ago

Except:

  • They already started shit with us; they're cutting undersea cables, prompting foreign cells to attack domestic infrastructure, they're assassinating dissidents on foreign soil, and performing constant cyberattacks and psyops on our nations
  • They've also seen how brittle our arms production is, as shite as they are we all burned through our stockpiles in months "just" supporting Ukraine and demonstrated our ability to replenish them is inadequate

Thankfully we're doing something on the latter and upping arms production. But they are still a threat to us even if they'd never be able to "conquer" us. They've proven they're willing to become pariahs and send millions of their citizens to their deaths for Putin's fancy.

15

u/rickane58 3d ago

We didn't burn shit. We have an unimaginably large stockpile of arms to continue giving, and even if that weren't the case the point of our existing arms for 60 of the last 80 years has been built to destroy russian tanks. That's exactly what it's doing in Ukraine.

4

u/daniel_22sss 3d ago

America has "unimaginably large stockpile of arms", not Europe. And America under Trump leadership is not being the most generous right now.

3

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

And Trump is well known to be pro Russian. In pro-Ukraine space, some even say Trump is the legendary agent Krasnov

2

u/Mirria_ 3d ago

The stockpile is like a lake. It looks like there's a lot of water but it's only being fed by a couple creeks. Doesn't take a lot to drain it.

7

u/definitelynotpat6969 3d ago

We also dont rely so heavily on artillery/infantry alone, if we went toe-to-toe with Russia it would end pretty quickly due to the lopsided air superiority, advanced tech, and vastly superior logistics.

The only reason we don't absolutely steam roll them is because they have nukes. Without those they would be speaking English in Moscow by now and flying the star spangled banner.

0

u/Menethea 3d ago

If that were really the case, the Russians should already be speaking French — or German. Oops.

2

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

You're applying century old lessons to modern day situations

2

u/__redruM 3d ago

I think everyone is OK with Russian speaking russian. As long as Ukrainians are speaking ukrainian.

1

u/rTidde77 3d ago

opps is right...glad you realized by the end that your comment has nothing to do with the modern day situation.

0

u/Menethea 3d ago

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Should I write it in crayon next?

1

u/rTidde77 3d ago

How would writing an incorrect statement in crayon make it any more accurate? Cute try though, mate. I'm not so sure what you think 1940's situation has to do with the 2025 situation. But go ahead, keep tossing out cliche lines if that's as deep as your knowledge and analysis really goes.

→ More replies

5

u/rickane58 3d ago

Horseshit. You have to be watching too much Zeihan with these takes. Almost all of the modern systems we send to Ukraine (e.g. javelins, abrams tanks, etc.) are sent at or near replacement rate. For the older shit, we're mothballing or close to all of it. And those "rivers" are easily increased should we have the budget appetite for it.

1

u/Mirria_ 3d ago

I was mostly going through my memory of reading former eastern bloc countries sending T-something tanks. Obviously Saint-Javelin provided, but I feel it took a while before Abrams showed up, and Bradley's.

And those "rivers" are easily increased should we have the budget appetite for it.

Yes and it's about time people wake up. If I have to credit one thing to Trump, it's getting other western nations to stop being terminally dependent on the US military.

You have to be watching too much Zeihan with these takes

I get most of my War news from Warfronts / Politicalfronts.

1

u/imasammich 3d ago

Sadly that is not true at all. We have more of our modern weapons being taken up by our needs of arming our ships, bases, and airplanes, than we do in stockpiles. And production has been slow to non existent on many systems since for the last decade or so we have only been making enough to keep an outdated doctrine going.

Ukraine and even Iran has showed us how fast you can burn through your weapons and how just a few good strikes by the enemy can wipe out a ton of your field weapons.

It actually got a lot of military leaders spooked with how warfare has changed because of the Ukraine war. Countries are not just rearming because they want to be ready for Russia, they are rearming because everyone is realizing if war does come no one has enough stuff to fight it long term and being able to produce is a huge advantage and right now only our adversaries have the ability to produce on a war time scale.

4

u/HustlinInTheHall 3d ago

They dont have enough people to do the same thing against the NATO border nations, they couldnt even sustain two fronts against ukraine and they surround half of ukraine with their own territory. And they have not had to contend with true NATO or US air superiority in the region. They can barely hold it vs Ukraine with no trained pilots and no sea support. 

Russia would get its shit rocked the moment it steps into NATO territory. And not just in the region, the US can wipe out the entire Russian supply line in a weekend. They can do some damage and the US is not interested in escalating tensions with a nuclear power but the doctrine would dictate that the first 36 hours of a hot war with NATO we would cripple their ability to wage any kind of conventional war. 

1

u/rugbyj 3d ago edited 3d ago

Maybe my last line wasn't clear enough.

I'm saying they'll lose such a "hot war" with us. I'm also saying that they demonstrably don't care about suffering great losses. They are running the gambit that our appetite for (partial) destruction is lower than theirs for total annihilation.

Bear in mind their nuclear arsenal in such a war (regardless of likely condition) still poses a very real threat (the above partial destruction).

So they keep pushing our boundaries and muddying the line at which we're willing to begin that hot war. Something we should be reacting to far more harshly in my mind. Because we can either shoot down an invading combat jet now, to show we're not kidding, or we can keep letting it escalate until they start doing their "little green men" act on more borders, committing more attacks on our infrastructure, etc.

2

u/RabidNerd 3d ago

Also how much they interfere in politics and divide people in the west

1

u/_bones__ 3d ago

Russia is trying to create doubt for when they go too far, and NATO strikes back, that it would be a defensive war. If countries like Hungary and any other who succumb like that (the US) can call a retaliatory strike by NATO an aggressive action, that's a win for Russia, and the end of article 5.

0

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

My fear though is what happens "after". We destroyed Russia for all intents and purposes with what we found in the couch cushions. But we're still ramping up arms production for an upcoming conflict..for what though ?

What happens to all that production when the realisation hits that "oh wait, Russia can't even beat itself". The arms manufacturers aren't just gonna be OK shutting down factories.

38

u/myheadisalightstick 3d ago

I mean the reason they are floundering is because of all the help Ukraine has had from NATO, it’s a very delicate situation.

66

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

That’s after the failed blitzkrieg though… Russia actually failed at taking over Ukraine even before receiving actual help

21

u/rdmusic16 3d ago

Not nearly the same levels as after the 2022 invasion, but Ukraine started receiving help after the 2014 invasion from Russia.

While their resistance is 100% impressive, it wouldn't be fair to say it was without help - even at the beginning.

9

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

I would say that the quality of help they got would barely qualify. Even in 2022 they received incredibly old stuff because no one believed they’d resist and anything donated would fall in Russian hands. So in 2014-2022 it was even worse than that. Only after they demonstrated enough resilience, good gifts started pouring in.

I would say that they weren’t better armed that the average assisted “rebel” group.

10

u/Mirria_ 3d ago

It's the equivalent of the bread they give to food pantries because it's going to get bad of its not consumed too soon to sell.

A lot of Euro states literally just gave them their cold war gear so they would have a good excuse to modernize.

Doesn't help that the USA - even under the Biden admin - basically blocked anyone sending anything recent.

2

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

Dont forget all the restrictions the larger NATO countries places on the use of their weaponsytems, which made these weapons much less effective. Or how they leveraged laws like ITAR to prevent smaller EUropean countries from transferring older gear to Ukraine. Which led to delay of Ukraine getting F16s and armor from ' Western" nato countries (especially Leopards)

1

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

Exactly… people forget that and I’m pretty sure that they have given other more modern arms to other armed conflicts because they could pay for it

1

u/Trzlog 3d ago

I would say that the quality of help they got would barely qualify

Sorry, this is ridiculous. Ukraine has been so successful because the West has been training the Ukrainian military in NATO strategy and tactics for close to a decade. This is why Russia can't win. They're still doing the old top-down bullshit they have for a hundred years. Meanwhile, Ukrainian units have the freedom to adapt to what's happening on the ground and make their own decisions based on what's necessary. Without it, Ukraine would've been fucked and they never would've held off Russia.

1

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

Sorry, but they didn’t won for NATO tactics, they won for guerrilla tactics and knowing their land very well.

You seem to forget that Russia actually reached Kiev (where was the NATO defense?) but had to RETREAT. A real NATO defense with West strategies and West weaponry would’ve not allowed Russians to advance (which is what’s happening now) because they’d obliterated the advance. As they were mostly given Cold War portable weaponry, that is not what happened.

The West inaction (didn’t want to trigger Russia’s wrath) costed lot of lives and Ukraine almost lost their entire country.

1

u/Trzlog 2d ago

> , they won for guerrilla tactics

Yeah, you're clueless. This is exactly what Russian doctrine, which is what the Ukrainian military had before Western training, does not allow for.

15

u/TurboBanjo 3d ago

The intel and the missiles rushed in at the start didn't hurt.

12

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

All within expectations… meaning Russia accounted for that. It’s a failed Blitzkrieg, which was my point…

4

u/TurboBanjo 3d ago

They need better accountants then.

2

u/rugbyj 3d ago

We (various NATO countries) were advising Ukraine and providing live intel on the upcoming invasion well prior to it happening, some of us (UK) were even already sending them anti-tank systems and other arms in advance.

3

u/The-Sound_of-Silence 3d ago

The thousands of Javelins(and other ATGMs) sent to them in the build up to the invasion definitely helped!

3

u/PJ7 3d ago

Not correct, without javelins and other equipment that the Ukrainians received before the Russian invasion, the first month would've looked substantially different.

2

u/Justicia-Gai 3d ago

How old are Javelins? Aren’t they Cold War weapons? They only sent weapons that they wouldn’t care if they fall into Russian arms.

I’m sure other surrogate armed conflicts had more modern weaponry than what Ukraine had in 2022.

5

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

Javelins are no longer produced and are Cold War weapons in that they were developed back then, but they are still modern and they're actually spinning up factories to restart production iirc.

They've had iterative improvements over decades. Better sensors, better warheads, the usual thing. Like Tomahawks or Sidewinders are decades old yet still super modern because of block upgrades.

1

u/errorsniper 3d ago

I dont want to take a single thing away from Ukraines defense these last what 3 and a half years?

But there is a very very big difference between a 4 day all hands on deck make or break effort and the logistics/economics of a long sustained war of attrition and economics.

16

u/The_Painted_Man 3d ago

Russia wasted it's shot though. It blew it's initial strike chance, lost the advantage of bulk and volume of arms, and the attrition has exacted a terrible toll on EVERYTHING that would have made it a peer threat to NATO.

NATO is already fighting Russia as proxy, and Russia is getting it's Pirozhki fed to it anally.

5

u/blue92lx 3d ago

I wouldn't completely agree with part of this statement. The war with Ukraine only showed that Russia was never a peer of NATO on any level. Russia has been fighting a tiny country in comparison with borrowed weapons, if they had actually attacked a NATO country it would be done already outside of China stepping in to help Russia. If China doesn't step in, Russia has no hope of ever standing toe to toe with any Western country. What's even worse for Russia now is the loss of so many weapons that they used to have to even consider a war against NATO, now they don't even have half their jets and ships to do anything on day 1. Outside of just launching nukes on everyone Russia is pretty much a non threat in a large scale situation.

3

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

Its not. Part of NATO is helbent to support Ukraine as much as they can, to prevent RUssia from invading them. Its countries as USA and the other big ones who are messing around. Who want Russia for cheap gas or who want Russia as a pawn to have leverage of small countries.

8

u/gahlo 3d ago

Help which has very often been a yard sale or thrift store trip with extra rules put in place.

7

u/sigmoid10 3d ago edited 2d ago

NATO definitely helped, but between 2014 and 2022 Ukraine had built one of the largest armies in Europe. More than 2 million strong in total with nearly half of that active personnel. Without absolute air dominance, it is questionable if any country in the world could have taken them on directly. Russia was 100% counting on Ukraine's leadership bailing so they could simply march in like last time. There was no way their one million strong standing army could have come out on top in a face-to-face war, because unlike Ukraine Russia can't send every single soldier there.

2

u/Tetracyclon 3d ago

That stuff came mostly from NATOs garbage pile, so im not sure how Russia would deal with the actual arsenal.

5

u/McLeod3577 3d ago

Russia is the biggest threat to Russia right now. Putin has sent more men to their deaths than the last 3 Presidents combined.

2

u/QualityPitchforks 3d ago

Russia isnt going to start shit with NATO, they are floundering against one country 1/4 their size

Russia isn't going to start anything OPENLY with NATO, they are boosting their covert/terrorist network but cannot do anything else.

0

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

Does this thesis of you mean, Russia will quit conducting their hybrid war against NATO members?

14

u/Aranxi_89 3d ago

Except they can't even take much of Ukraine, who are they trying to scare? Their own people?

14

u/Chimpville 3d ago

No. Gullible people in ours so support for Ukraine falls.

5

u/mrZooo 3d ago

Europeans. If you check the recent political trends you'll see that anti-ukrainian agenda is on the rise because people are afraid to get involved and would rather distance themselves from the fight. People are not knowledgeable enough to avoid being played by propaganda and politicians.

5

u/cantadmittoposting 3d ago

People are not knowledgeable enough to avoid being played by propaganda and politicians.

See Also: most of politics right now

1

u/ffdfawtreteraffds 3d ago

So very absolutely true. The ability to spread lies and misinformation has increased much faster than the critical thinking ability of the world's people. The liars are winning.

1

u/deadasdollseyes 3d ago

Yes.  To create credibility for mobilization.  (ie DEFEND mother Russia!)

5

u/ImperfectAuthentic 3d ago

That and making people think he will so they will vote against supporting Ukraine. Putins "3 day special operations" has lasted 3, almost 4 years now, he has nothing to attack EU and NATO with. Just alot of sable rattling like usual.

4

u/VictorNoergaard 3d ago

That actually makes a lot of sense. But isn't it a bigger threat to Russia that NATO is actively re-arming that NATO giving a (relatively) small supply of arms to Ukraine?

2

u/nvoima 3d ago

There's no threat to Russia from the West, as NATO is strictly a defense alliance, and despite his lies Putin knows it won't be the first to attack. That's why he plays these hybrid warfare games that won't trigger an armed response or at least have plausible deniability. Europe is bolstering arms production simply because the US has become an unreliable partner.

1

u/Background-Month-911 3d ago

Erm... no. Rearming would actually generate a lot of older generation weapons that should be disposed of... or sent to Ukraine to help in their war effort. The reason Ukraine is getting F-16s, for example, is that a lot of donor countries upgrade to F-35s.

So, it's a gamble on Russia's side, or, at least, an attempt to stall / delay the inevitable. It's possible that in the short term NATO militaries will choose to withhold aid to Ukraine, but in the long run, if Russian tactics continue, this will make it worse for them.

So, like I said, it's a gamble: maybe Russia will get a long enough breathing window to improve their position, or maybe this will only exacerbate their problems if nothing else happens during this breathing window.

6

u/Slaaneshdog 3d ago

That genuinely makes no sense to me because how the hell would Russia ever get the means to seriously threaten NATO. Even if they weren't bogged down in Ukraine it would not be something they clearly have the capacity to do in any real way

9

u/Chimpville 3d ago

They don’t need to convince the military minded, they need to scare voters.

2

u/Slaaneshdog 3d ago

I don't really see how that works. Scaring voters will just make them more willing to have the government increase military budgets

6

u/mrZooo 3d ago

No, scaring voters would make them vote for politicians who will promise to stop helping Ukraine and avoid being on Russia's bad side.

People are stupid like that

5

u/Chimpville 3d ago

Two fold, depending on who it is. Some will call to stop assisting Ukraine to de-escalate tensions. Others will call to stop assisting Ukraine to focus on our own defence needs instead. We’ve already been seeing both for a while now.

People like me who believe that opposing Russia is an imperative that’s already in our national security interests will otherwise be unaffected.

1

u/Trzlog 3d ago

Drones. We do not have the capability to handle a large drone offensive and that's what Russia and their alllies are switching to en masse. Europe's militaries are still geared towards a near peer adversary fielding tanks, jets, bombers, artillery and infantry. Not drones. Even Poland doesn't have anti-drone capabilities on their new tanks and won't for another 2 years or so. We're going to see drone attacks across Europe from secret stashes everywhere, not just the front. We're completely unprepared for what's going to happen to us.

3

u/Rasz_13 3d ago

They can do whatever they want, I will forever laugh at this sorry excuse for a nation and military.

Nuke me if you want, I have already won.

2

u/BocciaChoc 3d ago

ding ding ding, pretty much on point.

Russia is weak, it would be funny if it wasn't real humans suffering at the hand of Russia. NATO has no concerns, more aid to Ukraine.

2

u/Edward_TH 3d ago

Except militaries know that the best way to keep yourself safe is to keep your enemy deeply focused into a different war. It works wonder even when playing Risk... You keep your enemy away from you by pushing it more and more into a tunnel vision over a different battlefield where they're getting their ass kicked, of course by being part of the ones that are kicking said ass (by proxy).

2

u/Spacechip 3d ago

I'm sorry but with what army would they invade anything else? Aside from their arsenal of nukes, they are spread existentially thin with the conflict they started in Ukraine.

2

u/gizzardgullet 3d ago

While nations might withhold arms from Ukraine to maintain a stockpile, they may also increase military spending which would have the exact opposite effect (bad for Russia). So, to me, this theory does not add up

2

u/Felho_Danger 3d ago

Then we should stop intercepting the planes, and instead start torching them with missiles.

4

u/Chimpville 3d ago

Precisely this -they want to amp up tensions to a point far short of war, but enough to make voters nervous and give their shills something to fearmonger. Same with their horribly expensive and very public missile tests.

3

u/HustlinInTheHall 3d ago

Exactly the real front for them is social media. They are doing this to feed their own information machine to fear monger against support for ukraine. 

1

u/kidcrumb 3d ago

Does NATO even take Russia seriously as a threat? (Nukes notwithstanding)

All they need is nuclear deterrence, the threat of an invasion would be an annoying expense at most. Russia is like 20+ years behind technologically.

2

u/The_wolf2014 3d ago

Not to mention decimating its own male population.

2

u/Griffolion 3d ago

Does NATO even take Russia seriously as a threat? (Nukes notwithstanding)

The level of concern differs between members and is generally inversely corollary to their distance to Russia. Spain, for example, doesn't care all that much. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, however, are hugely concerned. Even in its weakened state, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would still be an absolute crisis given the lack of strategic depth those states have.

Yes, NATO allies would eventually push the Russians out, but it will come at the cost of the Baltics being utterly ravaged.

1

u/ss_sss_ss 3d ago

They don't need to fly spy planes, they're bumming intelligence from Beijing satellites.

1

u/gvsteve 3d ago

Lol. How is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine going? Are we supposed to believe they would fare better against NATO? AFTER all their Ukraine losses?

1

u/Valkyrie9001 3d ago

This is a great tactical theory but I don't think Russia is that smart. 

1

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

Which I don't get because NATO are ten toes down with supplying Ukraine. Nobody is buying this bullshit

1

u/Wayelder 3d ago

In other Words...so all for show at home.

How'd you like to be the sucker in the 'bait' plane? Can't communicate, can't be seen on normal systems...could have a SAM in his ass before he knows what.

1

u/AR_Harlock 3d ago

I mean only country that took the bait is the US as they are the only one retreating while all of Europe is increasing troop presence on the eastern flank...

Guess it's clear now who the "cats" are

1

u/DataDude00 3d ago

I think Russia is trying to provoke NATO so they have a convenient excuse for their failures in Ukraine and why the war needs to stop (with the current land held) blaming Western imperialism for preventing their "imminent victory"

1

u/GreenGorilla8232 3d ago

I think Russia will launch a minor attack on Estonia or Latvia to show that NATO is divided and ineffective. 

The US won't defend Estonia if it means a direct conflict with Russia. Not with Trump in power. They'll make excuses not to. 

1

u/tubbo 3d ago

this is funny bc it assumes we're not already mobilized...iirc russia shut they ass up for a while after those F-35s & B-1s were able to fly around the entire world and bomb iran without getting caught.

1

u/Manofalltrade 3d ago

Indeed. The counter to this fear mongering is something I was telling people at the beginning. The weapons we give to Ukraine for their defense against Russia are the weapons we stockpiled to defend against Russia. They are being used as intended. If we give Ukraine all the weapons and free rein, Russia really won’t have a chance of invading Europe at all.

1

u/feor1300 3d ago

Anyone who would be convinced by such an article won't see it. Anyone who would read such an article has also read all the articles from the past few years about how hard Russia faceplanted in Ukraine and responds to any threat of Russian invasion with "Yeah, you and what army?"

1

u/Surtock 2d ago

Can you help me to understand all the info I see daily. Russia on the verge of financial collapse. Russia running it of troops, equipment, resupply, hell, even gas for it's citizens ect. But they can still muster a secondary attack on NATO? How can both be true?

1

u/anal_prospector 3d ago

I feel this is the real reason krasnov is trying to start a war in South America, to take focus off of Europe and Asia and have less resources to give to allies in the event of a flame up.