Polnischer Sicherheitschef: Die NATO-Ostflankenstaaten haben drei Jahre Zeit, sich auf einen Angriff Russlands vorzubereiten
by PjeterPannos
Polnischer Sicherheitschef: Die NATO-Ostflankenstaaten haben drei Jahre Zeit, sich auf einen Angriff Russlands vorzubereiten
by PjeterPannos
16 comments
I get the rationale for fear, but NATO’s air capabilities aren’t exactly impacted by the war. Any fight with NATO would result in NATO air superiority very very quickly. That would dictate the rest of the fight.
It’ll never end up in a Ukraine scenario, where you end up in a stalement after an initial wave of early gains by Russia.
Unlike Ukraine, NATO members can also atack back Moscow. I don’t see UK, for example, suck it up and wait to get bombed.
Every day and all support for Ukraine pushes this supposed tree year timeline further back. If Ukraine fell in two weeks as many predicted, further Russian attacks may already be under way. It’s become obvious.
*Send Ukraine all the military supplies to defend themselves and evict Russian occupiers.*
3 years to prepare for what? An Air Force that can’t find their ass with a map and 2 hands, the 4 tanks they have left after Ukraine and an army of draftees and prisoners who just want to go home? Does Russia not have YouTube? Do you see the shit the US has because something might pop off? And you want to fuck around with NATO? Did you also draw your battle plan in crayon?
so NATO will give Ukraine weapons next 3 year for defending and not enough to destroy russians?
Very unlikely. Russia uses around 10 million artillery rounds per year now and produces 2 million. They would need 10 years just to replenish their stocks. The estimation that Russia would be ready 5-10 years *after* the end of the Ukraine war seems more reasonable. That doesn’t mean Europe ~~should~~ shouldn’t expand its production capacities and stockpile a lot of ammunition.
Edit: stupid autocorrect
How can anyone possibly think that with the Russian military disaster in Ukraine, Russia could possibly be so stupid as to attack a NATO member state?
Doesn’t help that Trump likely gave away US munition stockpile information to foreign adversaries.
Russia brass is in shambles, I don’t see how they could pull something like this off, maybe 10 years, but 3? No I don’t think so, not gonna drink the kool-aid…
I’m gonna question this. Big time.
I understand why he says it, but that doesn’t make it so.
I am going to discount that Europe very much has its own military, and that Poland would execute Article 5 of its treaty.
There are 35,000 US troops in Germany alone. We have 3 East Coast MEUs that could be in Europe in a week. As much as I respect the Ukrainians (and I very much do, they are tough as shit) they aren’t us. I’m certain if they had the tech, training, and preparation we have, they could be just as formidable.
But they don’t. There is no other army like ours on the planet. We wouldn’t have the massive limitations the Ukrainians are forced to fight under. We could attack through the Baltic States, on multiple fronts, amphibious, and we could dominate the air space with what we all ready have in Europe, much less reinforcement.
But I understand our country wasn’t under the control of a foreign power as recently as thirty years ago.
Well, time to start working out then.
If Trump wins in 2024, the US may very well leave NATO. If Russia attacks further west under this scenario, the reality is 1939 all over again. A mad dictator will be running rampant wherever he wants while the US sits back and ignores Europe.
Does it mean that NATO estimates Ukraine to keep on resisting invasion for 3 more years and then collapse? What about Russia imminent defeat?
I think this would be the equivalent of suicide by cop. I would like to think Russia isn’t that stupid, but then again I look at Ukraine and think to myself yeah they really are that stupid…
**OR we could do more to ensure Ukraine wins** by sacrificing a little, risking a little, and giving them just 5% or so of our NATO stock.
Ukraine’s Army is a battle-hardened, motivated fighting force that has already fought the Russians to a standstill. Yet NATO member states have not given them even a tithe of their weaponry. While it is risky to donate weapons, this is our war. Wars involve risk. Inaction usually loses war. The war in Ukraine is the obviously existential, decisive confrontation for Putin, and the Ukrainians still have every possibility of outright defeating Russia’s army.
**Time is not our ally**. We need to acknowledge time is a risk and Putin is right to see it as one of his few cards left. Now, I personally believe Russia will implode. I personally think Putin will die soon, but we need to risk assess. Time is a risk that NATO members need to acknowledge.
**Because of America**. America is the root foundation of the NATO alliance’s strength. The Biden administration is the reason America has helped Ukraine so much. But Trump exists… Trump hates Zelensky and the very concept of alliances (weird take, since even from an amoral perspective, alliances ensure our goals are met with minimal loss of blood). And China exists… Since Obama, even America’s smarter strategists fucked up on several fronts while juggling resources from Europe to east Asia. If America’s alt-right takes charge and leaves or hamstrings NATO (as they have given every indication of wanting to do), or if China starts a war that consumes America’s strength, then NATO is going to be far less of a shield for Poland and the Baltics than most presume. Everyone will be in a far worse place, even if Poland has an extra 50 tanks or fighter jets.
Helping Ukraine should be everybody’s priority. Not only because it is the right thing to do. Ukraine can break the Kremlin without a drop of NATO blood being lost. We should help them do it, because otherwise the battleground could very likely shift to a current NATO nation, because America is already likely overextended and NATO’s unity is more fragile than many realize.
Meanwhile in Russia:
“Omg that is so russophobic, we must invade to protect ourselves!”