I find it funny how if you marginally, but consistently, offend a geopolitical entity (Europe), you can actually train it to reduce the limits of what it considers acceptable. Just like a dog, or a person, I guess.
If that's what you're hoping for, Ukraine is very grateful for volunteers. There's a bunch of Swedes who did go there to fight. There's a bunch who are there right now.
Or is it "somebody else" who has to show a backbone and take action?
You are right that there are more ways to support. But demanding or asking that somebody else does something is not doing something. A majority of the population consider themselves to be great heroes for making symbolic gestures or for telling their friends over coffee or drinks that "somebody really should do something".
But reality is reality and they have done nothing. They will never do anything voluntarily either – for any cause.
I understand. But I don't know if there's been any lacking in condemnation on his part. As far as I remember, most leaders of nations have condemned the war completely since day one. What do you wish for him to achieve by condemning it harder?
Europe is a case of being crippled by assistance, like a man who uses an electric wheelchair until his leg muscles atrophy. They've leaned on US security guarantees so long that most countries have no functioning deterrent (look up the German air force sometime if you want to be sad).
Usually, good times create agricultural surplus, transport infrastructure, better organization and larger, healthier armies. But in the specific case of being dependant on a larger, benevolent state for protection, that gets undermined. Anyway, hard times create desperate people, not exactly strong ones. And then something about interesting times, but that's a different saying.
>being dependant on a larger, benevolent state for protection,
<benevolent> not really. we bougth a ton of USA weapons and also our soldiers died in USA started wars, it was an alliance and now USA just betrayed us , the blood and money we sacrificed was for nothing, I hope the cheap eggs from Trump satisfies MAGA idiots for this international betrayal .
That trope has been well debunked. It makes a nice saying, but it isn't true. There are plenty of examples of good times creating strong people; and others of hard times creating weak people.
> I have several issues with this quote from the manosphere. The manosphere was infested with both Russians and Ukrainians who were busy "preparing for the big war" with lifting etc. since at least 2014. Now they are in a trench warfare and barely make any progress in either direction.
Could it be that talking up war for so many years leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy?
The people doing most of the talking of course are "public intellectuals" who tell others to go lift and prepare for war. TV commentators on the Russian side, Lindsey Graham and a couple of RedPill folks on the Ukrainian side.
Now the weak EU leaders who barely have 20-30% public support have a big mouth and tell others to go to the gym (metaphorically).
In a thread full of hatred and calls for more senseless violence and calls to sink all ships etc.
I don't know if wealth makes us weaker, but it apparently don't make us less prone to be manipulated by emotions.
Well, implied bothsidism where Ukrainiens are somehow equally to blame for Russian invasion and attempt at genocide would be a good reason to downvote that.
It was an unprovoked aggression from the Russia, made because Russia wants to annex territories. Full stop. That current American or whatever leadership sees annexation and expansive wars as a cool thing is unrelated to that.
And for that matter, Canada did not started issues between US and Canada either. It is purely American made aggression.
The "bothsidism" of this flagged post did not equate the responsibilities of the Ukrainian and Russian government in the current war, which would indeed be worthy of downvotes. It equated the hatred and the willingness to confront each others, and the now equaly miserable position of being engulfed in a muddy trench waiting for death from above.
Meanwhile, people calling for "sinking all the ships" that have nothing to do with that, can freely spread warmongering from the comfort of their distant continent? And on top of that pretend to have the moral upper hand??
> Europe has past its good times phase and is hitting the reality of the hard times.
> The question is if it can overcome the next phase without another Adolf or war.
This whole thread is a joke right? The US is the one who just elevated the modern day Hitler to world leader and is now cheering him on as he collaborates with the Russia to commit genocide in Ukraine, and the Israelis to commit genocide in Gaza.
Sanctions are partial, the shadow fleet is operating, support for Ukraine is partial, China and India are not experiencing notable repercussions for supplying Russia, Europe is buying Russian gas. There's a lot Europe could do to show that it's serious about security, without troops in Ukraine. Oh, troops and training personnel in Ukraine's rear is another one.
My guess is that this is how much they can do before seriously impacting people's cushy lives. Wouldn't want to inconvenience your population in any way, would you? /s
The leaders of free countries have the issue that if they increase the cost of living too much they'll be voted out by voters angry enough to listen to Russian agitprop. The Western narrative is very damaged especially in our own underclasses.
If you aren't willing to move to conflict (or whatever the next step is) at some point, then you are, in fact, just bluffing, and you are being called out on that bluff.
You can choose what that point is, but it's weird not to expect enemies to continually test where your line is, and walk you right up to it.
I'm not sure what you expect to see here?
Let's assume for a second armed conflict is the "natural" next step.
Either you are willing to get into an armed conflict over it or not. If you aren't, and they are willing to accept everything other than armed conflict (sanctions, etc), why should they care at all what you think or do? They already know you won't escalate past a certain point. As long as they are willing to accept how far you are willing to escalate, ....
Russia existed before mongol invasion (Ghenghis Khan was from Mongolia, and not Russian). For example, one of great Russian kings hanged his shield on the gates of the capital of Eastern Roman Empire, the city of Konstantinople in 10th century (it was located where modern Istambul is, but the shield sadly isn't there anymore).
EU is just being out greyzoned by RU in this area - greyzone because under UNCLOS subsea infra regulations, RU suppose to pay for indemnities but we know that's not going to happen unless EU returns siezed RU $$$. TBH RU still has 100B+ more worth of cables to sabatoge and other shenanigans going forward in response to EU shooting firt with greyzone seizing of RU assets. People calling for blockades / shooting ships think that's worth escalating to actual kinetic war, in which case EU will simply be the relative larger loser since a 20T EU economy vs 2T RU economy has much more to lose, i.e. would be fairly easy to just fuck up EU energy / energy import infra.
Yes, this all comes back to Russia calling our bluff on war. They can continue to harass and invade and pursue their territorial expansion, because they have less to lose than the EU.
But, at some point there is a limit. If the EU does choose, as you call it, kinetic war, Russia will be toast. They cannot win a conventional war against a far larger economy. Just like Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia.
Undersea cable breaks have been an ongoing issue for decades. To the tune of hundreds per year. Usually it's completely accidental and sometimes just environmental (it is a pretty hostile environment).
It became newsworthy and a part of the zeitgeist so every incident is heavily reported on now, making it seem like there has been a big uptick when this stuff has always been happening.
As to those countries being soft, this is happening in international waters and they have been seizing ships. Not sure how much more they are supposed to do. Anti-ship missiles?
There is an uptick on what looks strongly like intentional breaks. The question is how many of those "accidents" in the past where not, but we didn't realize it.
Any recommendations? Or is this a case of double secret probation[0], or putting the invisible locks on the door[1]?
Frankly, the EU is guilty of neglect in this respect for years. Poland, for example, had been urging things like more energy solidarity since it joined the EU, something Germany consistently shot down or waved away. Mustard after the meal in some ways.
A stronger response will require more defense investment to counter hybrid warfare.
Should European countries position military craft at 1km intervals on the surface along the route of every cable? Or do you mean they should start cutting Russian cables?
But when they want to escalate, any convenient pretext they can fabricate will be spewed out
Appeasement ONLY encourages aggressors. They can ignore any statements and rhetoric and correctly conclude: "I did X, no real consequences, therefore I can do more X".
The ONLY language they understand is force or consequences with real cost to them. Vladimir Lenin said it very clearly:
>>"We probe with bayonets. Where we find steel we withdraw, where we find mush we press on."
When delaying reciprocal action, the cost for the next round ALWAYS increases.
Delaying response is a fools' game.
Democracies always play that fools' game because for any one politician, it is easier to kick the can down the road with bad reasoning like you posted.
But when the situation finally becomes unavoidable, it is a deep serious problem. Here we are.
Hmm. Although I've never read that tome, it would not surprise me to find he expresses similar strategies.
It's really just the Imperialist Autocrats' standard playbook, and it is little different from the schoolyard bully — "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is up for grabs".
They all just keep aggressing until they get hurt, then they find someone else to harass and steal from.
If that's actually the framework, then you need to respond not reciprocally or in kind or 'tit for tat', but to overwhelm. Speed, surprise, and violence (literal or metaphorical) of action.
Lack of reciprocal action is called self deterrence. Or in simpler words, it's what happens when you keep doing what the bully at school asks you to do, more and more, because he could escalate, even if you are as strong as him or stronger.
No, there is a VAST menu of effective retaliation or response measures. The response absolutely does NOT need to be exactly in kind or 1:1.
The key is that the measure must cost the aggressor more than they gain, and of course be reasonably proportional.
Plus, even if we stick to your irrelevant requirement, response is better. It is less bad to have no subsea cabling for everyone vs making no response and ending up with only the aggressors having subsea cabling.
That's one possibility, but another is that they're deterred. Suddenly doing the bad thing hurts, so there's a good chance you'll go find some other person to pick on.
But of course you can't /know/ the outcome beforehand, which is what makes it a high-stakes game. The only thing you know is that if you keep doing nothing they'll have no reason to stop.
Ban, arrest or damage "shadow fleet" tankers that transport Russian oil. Control their supply chain e.g. stop selling them spare parts for stolen planes. There are many things, all the way to taking hostages, but EU needs to grow some spine to do that.
Non-credible: Cover the coasts with Anti-Submarine Torpedo Rockets, and the moment you detect an issue in your submarine cables / pipelines, launch at the position :D
Even more non-credible: Use the nuclear-armed version with a small nuclear warhead
Because it is not the entire crew of those vessels which are complicit in these actions. It is far more likely that one person dropped the anchor - which does not seem to register on the bridge, no warning lights seem to be installed if I can trust what I've read and seen on this subject - so it would bounce over the bottom. The autopilot will take care of keeping the vessel at its programmed course and speed until the anchor gets stuck (which seems to have happened the last time a cable was cut somewhere off Gotland, the vessel suddenly went from 6 kts to 0 kts and staid around that speed for about 30 minutes).
That does not mean such vessels should be let off. They should be held at anchor until the responsible person(s) have been identified and the vessel's owners should be held financially responsible for the damages. Once a few owners have been made to pay up they'll make sure it becomes impossible for an individual to go out to the bow at night to drop an anchor without anyone noticing.
But just a few weeks ago us Swedes released a ship that was pretty obviously acting with malicious intent because of limited research or due to incompetence.
While I agree in principle, we can't throw the rule of law overboard just because others don't respect it. It was a commercial vessel with Maltese/Bulgarian links and russian crew if I'm not mistaken. While I'd hope that such vessels stop serving russian ports and would get rid of any involved crew there would be a need to prove intent do directly penalise and impound the vessel/owner.
The diplomatic option: Severe penalties for such damage and requiring insurance/bonds for it could be one option. Let the insurance companies figure it out. Insurance companies might decide that ships with a Russian crew or going to/from Russian harbors are uninsurable or very expensive.
The "language that Russia understand" option: "If you do this one more time, ships going to/from your harbors won't be allowed through the straits anymore, IDGAF what international law says". Should it happen again, inform any such ship that they're not allowed passage and will be fired upon if they try. If they try, follow through.
Won't happen, at least not in any meaningful form.
Baltics or Poland are existentially threatened by Russia, Spain or even Germany are not, even if Russia can do a limited damage to them. What is supposed to create "unity" in that regard? What would force Spain to contribute as much as, let's say, Finland? We can see even now, with all these US threats, not every NATO country was willing to increase its spending on military.
And even more importantly, who is going to command such EU army? Commission?
Baltics and Poland are only threatened by Russian TV commentators and sometimes Dugin, who depending on the mood of the day says that Poland and the Baltics are not part of the Eurasian project, and on other days says that Estonia is in the German influence sphere (!) but Latvia and Lithuania are in the Russian sphere. These people foam at the mouth and have little influence.
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
Invasion is not necessary. It is sad that any discussion limits politics and rivalry between countries to full-scale invasion.
Poland and Russia have opposing interests. Period. Russia wants to be a part of Europe, Poland doesn't want Russia to be a part of Europe. Poland wants to be sovereign country that keeps growing economically, Russia doesn't want that.
Russia doesn't need to invade Poland, it is enough to "reshape the European Security Architecture", reduce Polish chances to develop and growth etc.
well until 2022 no serious Russian politician (is there such a thing among the sock puppets ?) said Ukraine needed a invasion . Dictatorships.. if the boss pops a hemoroid in the morning , you march according to plan in the evening .
Well, Macron is probably the only European leader that, declaratively at least, would like to push for more agency for Europe. Issue is that, for now, he offers only words. He already is trying to back down from the idea of sending troops to Ukraine (and number that was proposed was pathetic, considering intensity of this conflict).
Nukes are but a one thing, useful only in specific circumstances, but not sufficient. It is unrealistic to expect France using nukes if Russia attacks Lithuania, for example. Stakes are not justifying such escalation.
European countries lack conventional means: UAV, artillery, missiles. And soldiers.
At this moment, the Russian military is very weakened. Europe doesn't have overwhelming force but could easily kick Russia out of Ukraine. (Except it won't for political reasons.)
It is easy to talk about war, Europe would win the battle for Ukraine if they entered the war, no doubt about it. What that means for the EU politically makes an intervention in Ukraine a pipedream.
I lived when the defense industry got money during the cold war, of course they need more money to win and obviously they will do everything they can to get more funding.
I, on the other hand (as an EU citizen), would like to not be drafted to fight in a conflict by two random governments of countries I don't live in and share nothing ideologically with. Sure, we can all do taxes together, share the currency, etc. I know that NATO already is that way, but the EU is not a military alliance and should never be.
> I, on the other hand (as an EU citizen), would like to not be drafted to fight in a conflict by two random governments of countries I don't live in and share nothing ideologically with.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
I would like to see unified command and control facilities, interoperability agreements, combined purchasing and a within EU military industrial plan. Most of this already exists in the form of NATO and can be repurposed for near $0.
There is no need for anything more, nor are the institutions really designed for a single president / general to direct everyone in a conflict. Putting in place all the capabilities to work together in a conflict should be done however.
Yes (I don't know why you were downvoted), and others, but unfortunately I find it highly unlikely to happen. Or at least, it'll only happen when it's already too late, and Russia starts steamrolling more of Europe while the US does nothing (or actively supports it - the current admin is highly pro Russia).
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
I could be wrong, but imo the EU is looking more rickety than the Russian Federation. It's not far fetched for the future to feature a militarised and experienced in war Russia starts breaking apart the EU and nibbling parts off.
He was actually one of the presiding members (forgot their title) who was completing his term. He got emotional over the gravity of the transition. To shed tears is not a mark of weakness. It serves as that signal only for the emotionally repressed.
The European countries needs to stop being so soft.