this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
170 points (96.2% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2193 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Top NATO official Adm. Rob Bauer warned Thursday that a larger war with Russia and other adversaries is a real threat amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Bauer, chair of the Western security alliance’s Military Committee, said “not everything is going to be hunky dory in the next 20 years.”

“I’m not saying it is going wrong tomorrow, but we have to realize it’s not a given that we are in peace,” he said at a press conference in Brussels. “That’s why we have the plans, that’s why we are preparing for conflict with Russia and the terror groups if it comes to it.”

Bauer emphasized the security alliance is defensive and does not seek conflict or a wider war.

“But if they attack us, we have to be ready,” he added.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Based on the show they've put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don't think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Even so, NATO wouldn't kerb-stomp Russia.

Completely obliterating its government, industrial capacity, trade, and military would lead to a collapse of that country, fracturing of its territory, and probably heaps more political headaches down the road as the power dynamic is altered.

NATO would aspire to remove Russia from non-Russian territory in most areas, probably including Transnistria but excluding Syria and Africa. They would probably seek regime change, but the old guard of Russian politics would be preserved. They want to return the status-quo ante bellum.

The US and NATO would always seek the Japan option and not the Iraq option. Japan surendered and basically became an autonomous industrial client state of the US for a long time. Iraq dissolved into civil wars and became an unhealing wound that continually sprouted infections like ISIS and became a playground for bad actors like Iran.

Even after the collapse of the soviet union, the US financially propped up some industries in Russia, like their spaceflight industry.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Comparing Iraq to Japan is wild. One is a united country for long time, the other was created based on arbitrary lines on a map.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago

Nobody wants to own Russia either. As our eloquent former president said, it's a 'shithole country' with few redeeming qualities. But Russia might have a lot to gain in terms of plunder and valuable land in a war with more geographically blessed neighboring countries. Particularly ones with warm water ports. It's good to keep the fight up. Plus, unlike some countries, Ukraine really does want to be a sovereign country with a vibrant democracy. And it has the balls to go for the gold, too.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

NATO as a credible threat is mostly article 5, Something that is still intact, but under attack. Russia doesn't want the large European powers or America. They want to control Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkans. Say the political winds change a little, America moves to isolationism. Western Europe decides that it is better to give up on a few smaller states to protect its core countries. Maybe also China decided it is finally time to see if everybody is bluffing over protecting Taiwan. Suddenly NATO seems a lot less dangerous.

Could Russia take on NATO in a one on one conflict, not no not at the moment. Could Russia foment the weakening or break up of NATO and then use that to take on Small Pieces of NATO yeah that has been a plan in the works for a long time now.

Putin is reading this comment thinking, "How did everythingispenguins find my diary?"

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So... Putin can't take Ukraine and is losing a not insignificant part of their military capabilities and yet we're concerned that we're going to deal with more war with Russia? Are they going to be coming after Europeans with sharpened sticks?

[–] takeda@kbin.social 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Russia doesn't need Ukraine on its own, they need Ukraine to get access Poland, Romania and Moldova.

They already switched into war time production, and if they manage to get Ukraine they only need a year or two to replenish all military equipment.

People really underestimate Russia and that's the worst thing you can do to get caught pants down. If Russia senses there's a chance to succeed they will move on.

Another thing the West seems to be ignoring is that they think the war is just what is happening in Ukraine, when the majority of their operation is disinformation, subversion, and destabilization.

The popularity of far right politicians (who for some reason are friendly toward Kremlin) or BRExit shows how effective it is.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 months ago

Russia doesn't need Ukraine on its own, they need Ukraine to get access Poland, Romania and Moldova.

But why? Poland and Romania are already in NATO. Isn't that why they're attacking Ukraine now and Georgia in 2008, to prevent them from joining NATO?

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They already switched into war time production, and if they manage to get Ukraine they only need a year or two to replenish all military equipment.

And who's going to do all the replenishing? Disabled former soldiers, the single moms the dead ones left behind, or the almost nonexistent men over 55? Oh, maybe they could liberate the prison population, half of which has AIDS.

Edit: not to mention their enormous deficit in power projection, assuming they could replenish their equipment and find people to operate it. They barely have a navy, have essentially lost access to the Baltic, and other than Belarus have no allies who would let them use their territory for staging.

[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Prolly nukes. At which point who cares any more.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Considering the poor state of all their military equipment, I wonder how many of their nukes are actually functional.

[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

I hear this said a lot, but unfortunately if one is working that is one too many

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The nice thing about having 6000 nukes is you only need about half of them.

[–] LiamMayfair@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think a half of a half of a half of a half of half of that would probably do just fine too tbh

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Only need one

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Related stories (credit : @Hooverx@lemm.ee )

From Germany hooverx had 4 more sources :
Putin could attack NATO in ‘5 to 8 years,’ German defense minister warns – POLITICO
https://lemmy.world/post/10912750
originally :
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-germany-boris-pistorius-nato/

Russian spring offensive could lead to war with Nato, according to German defence scenario https://www.intellinews.com/russia-could-attack-nato-as-early-as-february-bild-reports-307785/

Germany warns of Russian attack on NATO within ‘5-8 years’ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-warns-of-russian-attack-on-nato-within-5-8-years-/3113783

Leaked German military documents laid out a doomsday scenario where Russia wins in Ukraine then invades Europe
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-military-docs-envision-russia-war-nato-in-2024-2024-1

2 from Poland :
‘Europe will be subject to a direct Russian attack in the next few years’ — Polish PM Tusk https://news.yahoo.com/europe-subject-direct-russian-attack-150500271.html

Polish PM warns of possible Russian aggression against Europe https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/polish-pm-warns-of-possible-russian-aggression-1704315471.html

and 2 from Estonia:
Europe has 3-5 years to prepare for threat from Russia's side - Estonian PM https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/15/7437368/

Russia's attack on NATO - Kaja Kallas says there is 3-5 years to prepare and calls for stopping Putin in Ukraine
https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-world/news-there-are-3-5-years-to-prepare-estonian-prime-minister-warned-of-possible-russian-aggression-against-nato-16-01-2024.html

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Rob Bauer warned Thursday that a larger war with Russia and other adversaries is a real threat amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Bauer, chair of the Western security alliance’s Military Committee, said “not everything is going to be hunky dory in the next 20 years.”

Bauer gave the dire warning as NATO announced large-scale exercises next week involving all 31 alliance members, as well as candidate nation Sweden.

The military drills, which run until May and are the largest since the end of the Cold War, will involve 90,000 troops and numerous vehicles, aircraft and ships spread across Europe.

When announcing the drills, NATO leaders emphasized this week that it was vital to prepare for conflict and maintain readiness, even as the alliance remains defensive by nature.

Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns that a Russian victory could pave the way for subsequent attack on NATO countries, while the Biden administration is fending off attacks from Iranian-backed groups across the Middle East as Washington seeks to contain a wider regional war from spilling out.


The original article contains 341 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] ULS@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I was banking on total world collapse within the next 20 years.

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Don't bank on it. It's a possibility of course, but it's at least as likely that it doesn't happen, so you should do reasonable preparations for if the society you're living in DOESN'T collapse.

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Be the change you want to see in the world. Collapse society yourself /s

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

if the society you're living in DOESN'T collapse.

I honesty can't tell if this is the bad ending or not.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In the Cyberpunk 2077 setting, survival is the unhappy ending.

from the soundtrack:

You see, there's no convenient apocalypse
Won't be no vaporizing cloud
Now we're gonna have to soak in what we created - too bad!
Just not in a pleasant, easily resolved, no questions asked, nuclear global happy ending with a big bow on top

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

from the soundtrack:

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

People have said that in the 1910s, late 1920s, late 1930s, late 1940s all the way up until the early 1990s, and then we started saying it for other reasons like climate change and AI. It’s always possible, but honestly not likely. The end of globalization will have some severe effects across the world like massive famine in countries that keep reproducing with no food security, but I don’t think we should constantly declare the sky is falling when we’ve proven just how resilient the world is in the wake of an all-out pandemic and supply chain crisis

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

From the Russian perspective, the world order already collapsed in 1991.

The problem is: for Romania, Poland, Ukraine, and many other countries, that's when life started to get better. Russia thinks the opposite, they want to return to the time of the Soviet Union.

Nostalgia for the 1980s wouldn't be a "collapse". But... it'd be good for Russia, bad for USA and especially bad for Europe. It would be incredibly unpleasant to Poland, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine.