The caption is a little misleading, the article is discussing red line’s for NATO’s possible entry into the conflict, things like a provocation against NATO members or an expansion of the war involving Belarus, etc.
You almost took my life dear redditor. Please take my humble up vote.
I was ripping the bong when I read that and I swear smoke blew out my damn ears laughing. 🤣
General: ”Get me the RED crayon!”
Soldier: ”Sir? Are you sur…”
General: ”THE RED CRAYON DAMMIT!”
Soldier: ”Gulp… Yes.. YES SIR!”
General: ”We have some lines to draw….”
The whole article is misleading. NATO isn't going to go to war for Moldova, or a Belarus corridor. They will for Poland though, if Putin touches Poland he has his arse handed to him.
They have a few brigades in country to harass Ukrainian positions but nothing serious. If we saw troop buildups like we did before Ukraine it's possible NATO conventionally attacks those staging grounds.
I mean it's not just Poland as the only NATO member feeling the heat from the war in Ukraine. The Baltics are all under just as much of a threat from Russian expansion.
Their only protection from Russia is their NATO & EU memberships. Even then, if the US were to pull out of NATO like 45 planned to do, then they would be in deep trouble.
Exactly, you'd be surprised how many people question this. That's my point. Russia would be at war with all of NATO including the U.S if it attacked Poland
I've studied history and I absolutely understand how you feel. I also follow the alliances we have now and I do not think they'd stand back and let Russia take Poland. The horrors of the past are why we have these alliances. Imagine the public pressure, the world would go mad if Russia invaded Poland. I'm telling you, you'd have protection.
Edited typo: No we would not stand aside and allow Russia to invade Poland.
Exactly! And when they won the war all the Polish people were grateful and celebrated because they had their country back... oh wait that's not what happened at all, they forgot all about Poland and let the Soviets have it.
"Let the soviets have it".
The Red Army was absolutely massive and with no trace of the incompetence from the Winter War or Barbarossa left. Were the Western allies supposed to start a new war, just when everyone was celebrating the defeat of nazism?
>As a Polish person that read history books, I have zero expectations for west helping us out in a war. West europe are all a bunch of cowards.
Yeah, but a failure on the part of the US to defend a NATO member would mean a collapse of US standing around the world, which would throw a massive amount of US power, influence, and control out the window and likely shift a whole lot of countries toward China. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm not saying I'd count on Western Europe either if I were you, but as an American, I'd be shocked, appalled, and horrified if we didn't throw everything into the defense of a NATO ally who legitimately invoked Article V.
UK and France obviously \*did\* declare war and fight it in 1939. Italy was on the wrong side but that is hardly a good reason to call them "cowards". Spain was also on the wrong side but had the decency to stay out. Pretty much your critique would only apply to Belgium. Belgium was quite clearly neutral. The countries that said they would defend Poland actually did sacrifice many lives to destroy the 3rd Reich.
Here in Estonia, the politicians have been repeating non-stop "NATO will come to our aid and save us if Russia attacks", for years. And when Ukraine war started, there was this big article saying that "Article 5 doesn't actually say they have to send troops to help us"...
Nuclear weapons are the only real guarantors of peace.
Recent history has shown NATO willing to commit troops. A nuclear exchange has unacceptable consequences.
There is not really any reason to doubt the Navy or Air Force capabilities. The "danger" admirals in USA worry about is that Finland and Estonia could sink Russia's Baltic fleet before they get an opportunity to show off.
From the Marine Corps perspective the counter attack can come in Kamchatka, Murmansk, Georgia, any of the Stans that are up for it, or Mongolia. A major push from Scandinavia is likely. Whether or not Belarus joins Russia in this hypothetical makes a huge difference on the map. Vilnius looks disturbingly close to the border. NATO would likely move fast both to evacuate civilians and to try and thwart the capture.
From satellite Estonia looks like a tough nut to crack. Huge lakes on the border. Forest between those. A Russian attack there would be rash. Though that certainly does not guarantee that Putin would not have tried it. Overall Russia sticking its army into Estonia would have the effect of making the work of destroying it much easier. I'm sure Estonians would not appreciate the virtues of this scenario. I could imagine generals preferring to push through Minsk toward Moscow instead of diverting troops to break a siege on Tallinn.
>when Ukraine war started
Ukraine is not a NATO member. They're not even a major ally. Yet we've been pumping equipment, ammunition, cash, training, and pretty much everything else can without triggering a direct conflict with Russia into Ukraine since the start. And Ukraine is the first to admit it's the only thing that's given them a chance.
Given how poorly things have gone for Russia fighting old western weapons handed to people with basic training on how to use them, they'd be suicidal to attack a NATO member state. The US would end all air operations for Russia in about 3 days and then the A-10s come. No Russian equipment or personnel would be able to move without dying, even before any major ground response arrived.
Yeah, it is just way too hard to title it "NATO defines 'red lines' for entry into Ukraine's war with Russia". Someone might need a masters in English to be able to reword it like that - I am surprised that I could do it with my lack of one...
officially not but according to local residents in deoccupied territories troops with belarussian insignias were seen. Looks like potato fuhrer wanted to share parade in Kyiv but after witnessing fierce resistance said "hell no"
how ironic that putin after investing in making strongman for so long couldn't find enough courage to declare a war, and still mumbling about "special military operation"
pathetic
They did but the Belarusian military didn't directly join the fighting (although they did likely provide the Russian military with their Soviet era stockpiles).
> Apparently nobody read article.
This is Reddit. Nobody ever reads the article.
You can be happy if people read the full headline if it's more than 5 words long lol
So basically if Belarus become neutral before inevitably being invaded, ww3 starts.
If they don’t, we sit back and tell Putin off.
Come on Belarus, don’t take the whole world with you, become a front and save the world. For now.
See why couldn’t nato have postured like this regarding the original invsasions… then ukraine wouldn’t be fighting and russia would still be an ignorant bumbling idiot of a country with no idea of its internal military problems. Appeasement never works.
Edit: even if it wasn’t a complete NATO front, any sort of coalition formed of NATO members would have probably dissuaded Russia and made them back down. You know like we did in the GWOT.
Because you are talking about an alliance of 30 (now 32) members that have to agree on a posture. Sure, some probably would have made the red line an invasion of Ukraine. But then we are talking about possibly millions of lives on the line for a non-member nation.
I’m sure I’m backchannels (and also public statements) individual nations have made their redlines known.
It would have been the equivalent of making Ukraine a defacto member. There's no way that all of NATO would have agreed to that, especially when relations with Russia were lukewarm at worst.
Even after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 there was very little motivation to do anything about it.
Not only that, but you have to keep in mind that the consequences for the whole alliance getting involved mean a lot more to some members than others. Turkey and Poland, for example, would immediately become the front line of WW3 if Russia didn't back down, and understandably don't want that kind of risk if it's avoidable.
all the nations/peoples that got butchered for one reason or another (Nazis/Soviets/Japanese expansion) have a "never again" rule
* Israel (Jewish people)
* Poland
* Korea
they've worked hard to ensure that if they are ever attacked like that again there's going to be hell to pay
This baseless speculations about Poland allegedly willing to be directly involved in the war always makes me laugh. Fact that you can find this nonsense only on reddit shows how much it is divorced from reality.
Actually, overwhelming majority of Poles are strongly against sending any number of Polish troops to Ukraine, even in purely non-combat role. And all the Polish political parties shares this view. Sentiment against any form of our direct involvement in this war is so strong that it would be a political suicide for any politician to merely suggest considering it.
Also in our military, as you can conclude from interviews with retired Polish generals, there is absolutely zero apetite for any form of "action" in Ukraine.
Only on reddit? So I guess Poland hasn't said things like to the effect that of Russia used a nuke and had fallout hit their lands that they wouldn't get involved?
They never said that if Belarus got involved that they would get involved?
They never said that the west shouldn't fear war with Russia but the other way around?
Probably land never issued a warning that NATO has three years to get ready for war with Russia?
Among numerous other comments that indicate that they would love to take it to Russia?
Huh. Guess I must be existing in an alternate world where the BBC and other outlets are making bogus reports and claims about what Poland is saying. Fascinating.
Polish governement has **never** said that Poland is going to be directly involved in hostilities, or bring war to Russia. You are making this up and spreading some insane fake news here. If you have a link supporting your claims, from BBC or other media outlets, I'd love to see them.
Yes, Polish politicians said - similarily as politicians from multiple other NATO countries - that there may be some form of Russian agression in the next 2-3 years against eastern NATO members,, so NATO should be prepared to repel it. It obviously doesn't has anything to do with considering any involvement in hostilities in Ukraine.
And yes, or FM (IIRC) said that it's Russia who should be afraid war with NATO, in this very clear sense, that in case Russia starts agression against any NATO member, there will be strong response from the whole alliance. Reading that as if it was a threat of starting a war against Russia is so ridiculous that I have no words to describe it.
I think there something deeper than having to agree with many members. Ukraine has had more impact on everybody's opinions and on politics now than the other invasions did before. But I can't figure what is the specific thing that made it different.
For example, Macron received a call when the russians invaded. (in the video recording the call with Zelensky) He seemed surprised, despite russian's history of invasions. Like, it was something bigger somehow than previous invasions.
In the days leading up to D-day, no one believed the US intelligence that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. But US intelligence also incorrectly predicted that Ukraine would fall relatively quickly, and so I think the emphasis was to bolster up Ukraine border states (NATO allies) to deter further Russian aggression. Had the US and our allies understood how the war would unfold, I'd like to think we would have taken a very different approach.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/)
Yeah, NATO planners probably took one look at the outset of the war and said "anything we send will just be captured by Russia anyway"
No one expected Ukraine to even survive long enough to have guns supplied, so it's unimaginable how well they could have done properly armed day 1
It’s kind of incredible when you sit back and think about it. Russia is supposedly this “world power” and they have been invading a country for over 2 years with like a fraction of the GDP of the invading country.
This is because they launched their invasion with the assumption that the government would collapse, Zelenskyy would flee and Ukrainian military left with no government would offer little to no resistance. Putin intended that to be just an occupation. Thats why there were news of Russian troops running out of fuel and getting lost at the start of the war, they didn't expect an actual fighting to take place.
If NATO had put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia and dared Putin to kill a single one of them and start a nuclear war, he never would have invaded Ukraine and all this death and destruction would have been avoided
NATO is a defensive treaty that members must meet thresholds to join. Eg Human rights, Anti corruption. You don't just send NATO troops internationally that's not how it works.
And asking for it to change how it works would be like asking a car to fly. You can make it work but then it would be an aeroplane...
This is tricky because 1) Ukraine also wasn’t convinced that Russia was going to invade, so how do you deploy troops to a country that doesn’t invite your presence. And 2) ironically, Russia could have portrayed the action of putting NATO troops along the border of Russia in a non-NATO country as threatening, and thus provided them with the perfect excuse for a preemptive strike.
>If NATO had put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia
How does NATO put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia? They'd have to put troops in countries that are not theirs. Are NATO the ones invading in this scenario?
Suppose Putin called bluf. Suppose he did invade. Would you drop the bomb? Would you condemn millions to death because Putin wanted Eastern Ukraine. Would you want your country to blow up voronezh and everyone in it the moment Russian troops cross the border.
Deciding ultimatums is easy when you are not responsible for following up on them. But Putin might have been crazy enough to call the bluff on this threat and if he did the credibility if NATO would be non existent.
> no one believed the US intelligence that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.
Surely some people believed it? I personally believed it. Biden is not Trump, major statements by the US are true the vast majority of the time.
The US claim was specific, extraordinary and unique. I correctly reasoned that the US would not have made it, if it was not true. And there was little obvious benefit for the US to lie about it.
I would bet a lot of US intel members didn’t even truly believe RU was gonna do it. Like, RU has/had material reasons why annexing Ukraine might be worthwhile. But it came knowing they’d be sanctioned to high hell. In a time where it felt like RU was possibly heading in the right direction internationally.
But like you said, literally nobody thought Ukraine would resist like they did. And if you were loooking at live Ua maps at the beginning, it really did feel like Russia was days away from winning. So perhaps Russia thought they’d repeat what happened in Crimea.
A quick annexation with heavy sanctions that would ultimately fade away as the west lost political interest in the situation. Eventually the sanctions would lift and Russia would have essentially restored its Soviet era empire with Ukraine being a huge resource boon to their economy.
Instead the RU-UK war is as relevant as ever two years in. RU has lost hundreds of thousands. Their economy has been blasted by sanctions. NATO has expanded as a direct result of this prolonged conflict. The sanctions will not end any time soon. And they have hardly any territorial gains to show for it. Big miscalculation huh?
Actually, if I remember correctly, French intelligence predicted that Ukraine could hold her ground.
Though that also predicted that Russia wouldn't invade at the time..
I feel like predicting Ukraines quick fall was a massive over correction by the intelligence community after the embarrassment of their predictions about Afghanistan.
Yes. An I agree that nobody could have predicted the army and government just rolling over like that. That said the US government was prepared to fly Zelensky out like they did the Afghan government. So I think they were prepared to see a repeat
Irak has a significant responsibility in why no one wanted to listen to US and UK intelligence again.
The French intelligence did not believe in the invasion because there would have been easier way for Putin to reach his goal and they assessed correctly that Ukraine would not fall easily.
Each ally had pieces of information but the specter of the Irak bullshit prevented proper action
I get that but the US intelligence community was very different before the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Its continuously improving, and probably why it was able to accurately predict an invasion.
From what I remember the major difference was that US had an in in Kadyrov inner circle. The order for invasion was a surprise for most of the military, the US predicted it due to having the right man in the right place rather than extensive analysis
Furthermore the issue did not laid in competency but in the trustworthiness of US president which is not something anyone would rely on again after 2003 and after Trump.
Only the public warning came from the president. There had been military and intelligence officers communicating the threat to the Ukrainians and NATO for weeks before the Biden admin's announcement.
The slow response had little to do with trusting the US persident and more to do with naivete, denial, inaccurate assumptions and a desperation to avoid escalation and maintain the status quo. E.g. Zelenski did little because he felt couldn't afford to antagonize the Russians, Sholz did nothing because blowing up Russian-European relations was 'unthinkable', etc.
Outside of Eastern Europe and the Anglosphere, practically everyone was in denial over the threat, or even existance of, a revanchist Russia.
Most of the intelligence community believed Russia on paper stats were pumped up a lot. What they didn't account for was how absolutely corrupted the entire system was. A Norwegian intelligence report from 10 years ago estimated 10 up to 30% of the active military were engaged in corruption and the time training was almost zero because fuel was sold twice once to the military and then somewhere else. So planes, vehicles ect didn't have all of their training time.
So while that report covered some it didn't really show how unprepared and corrupt everything was and how determined the "we are European" faction was which started with college campuses taking on snipers during Obama's term.
We all talk about how Putin fucked up, and he did, but Russia was dangerously close to succeeding. Zelenskyy runs or the Russians holds the airport and this is a wildly different conversation.
Exactly.
It doesn’t have to be all of NATO, just a few members could have formed a coalition to militarily deploy some forces to Ukraine. Strategic posturing like that would have made russia’s invasion plans untenable due to the escalatory effects.
I just think it sucks in the grand scheme of things that we let Russia get a wake up call in the form of a special military operation. The reason I believe US int predicted a fall was because just like Russian high command, they thought the military was a semi professional force (probably because they were receiving the same reports). It’s no different from what they did in Korea and Vietnam but the fact remains that Russia probably would have thought twice about invading and the forced evolution we are seeing now in the Russian military would never have occurred.
Because it's a defensive alliance that has very cleay defined red lines in its charter. NATO is already overreaching (which I agree with) so to posture like that some sort of entitlement to NATO's aid is weird to me.
The only real weakness that might end up causing Russia to cross those defined red lines is a lack of unity. So they have slow rolled into the understanding that all of Europe is at threat but its necessary to avoid the ultimate goal of Putin which has always been the breaking of NATO through causing disagreement on the how's and when's of defending itself.
That was never on the table. There’s no leverage behind that “redline,” because it would be obviously untrue. NATO engaging in direct war with Russia is tantamount to a declaration of WWIII. Even if NATO had said they would declare war on Russia if it invaded Ukraine, Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyway know that it’s a bluff. This was all well discussed and understood in the ramp up to the conflict.
Russia attacking a NATO member is a whole different ballgame and would be an extreme escalation equivalent to Russia declaring WWIII.
Geopolitics isn't that easy lol...the West is playing is smart. You think if NATO mobilized and fought for Ukraine from the jump, that wouldn't cascade into some horrific shit for the whole world right off the bat? This isn't a fucking video game. There's a lot of shit at stake when the words "United States" "Russia" and "Ground War", can be put together.
Or world war III kicks off and we have mutually assured nuclear destruction.
It's very easy for you to say but do we really want to test that insane leader...
Conspiracy theory time.
NATO countries are slowly ramping up the assistance to Ukraine because they want the war to drag out to damage Russia. Had the West given Ukraine in the beginning of the war the support they gave later, Ukraine would have already of won. Ultimately, Western nations will directly intervene to keep Russia from winning so there is really no risk to letting the war wage on. We are effectively destroy Russia with Ukraine the same way we destroyed the Soviet Union with Afghanistan, Russia cannot afford a long term war and we can.
"It's high time NATO draws the line." 💯
To be fair though, it does take more time to process things in the long-run as opposed to just the short-run. I was pleasantly surprised at the second red line: "In turn, the [Main Intelligence Directorate named the terms](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-to-take-baltics-in-7-days-nato-s-reaction-1714687029.html) within which Russia could capture the Baltic countries. According to Ukrainian intelligence representative Vadym Skibitskyi, the Russian army would only need a week for this. However, a NATO response would take a whole decade."
- [https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/nato-defines-red-lines-for-ukraine-s-entry-1714908086.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/nato-defines-red-lines-for-ukraine-s-entry-1714908086.html)
\*Article Basically Says: Attack on NATO member state/Baltic states or Moldova to the surprise of no one. Nothing about entering the conflict in Ukraine if the situation on the ground their changes, and no new statement by NATO.
Edit: Read the article if your curious; just noting this is an unofficial interpretation of NATO policy without a source. Not a statement by NATO as the poorly worded, and confusing (Ukraine's entry into war with Russia???), title may lead you believe.
>NATO has confidentially and unofficially identified at least two "red lines" that could lead to the Alliance's direct intervention in the war in Ukraine, according to to Repubblica.
I think the point is that if Russia attacks NATO, they wouldn't stop fighting when the NATO state is defended, they would continue the defense into Ukraine
Every single measure beyond boots in the ground should be implemented immediately. This has gone on for far too long. If we want this to end and send China a strong message about Taiwan bitch slapping those poxy mongrel Russians back across the border should be done today.
Russia wont attack NATO, because it is and was never part of the plan. All the postering and nuclear Saber rattling is all posture to prevent Nato from entering to assist Ukraine
Because Russia knows it it won't win if NATO got directly involved.
Russia plan was to conquer Ukraine install puppet regime friendly towards Russia, and reap all that oil and gas, and keep Europe sucking on Russias breast teet for oil and gas.
When their 3 day military operation failed, and has continued for three years, Putin is in too deep to fall back now, because if he did he would look weak and probably be killed and kicked out of office.
I'd argue that Ukraine taking back Chrimea would probably be the catalyst of Russia losing the war because Putins top brass would be unhappy that this 3 day military operation caused them to lose what they stole back in 2014.
Russia won't openly attack NATO. But Russia is already attacking NATO in less open ways. This includes financing political parties and movements (AFD, LePen, Reform/Brexit, and so in) and outright murders and arson attacks.
The West needs to wake up to this and respond. But instead we are still allowing Russians to travel here freely and allow Western companies to do business in Russia.
Likely because that would be insanity on ru's part.
The redlines mentioned also don't mention further incursion into Ukraine, which others like France and Poland have mentioned.
There is one thing that the UN and NATO can do that even China would agree with.
That is to secure the nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhiia and the old site in Chernobyl.
Those two are global threats and need immediate cordoning.
Read the article. The title is crap, likely written by a non-native English speaker. It lays out what it would take for direct nato involvement rather than the indirect involvement that has been the norm for the past couple of years.
Belarus was already involved in this war, definitely more directly than any of NATO forces. This is a nothing burger like Marcon’s empty postering. NATO’s inaction now will only make it harder for the rest of the world when there is a wider conflict.
We might want to take a breath here. I know the Germans would rather this kind of talk be a little less aggressive. They wouldn't want to be seen as escalating things after all. In fact maybe we should cede some land. Not doing so might be seen a provocative and escalatory!
Also note the location of the Baltic capitals. Tallinn and Riga are coastal and defensible by sea, but Vilnius is inland very close to Belarus border and near Suwałki Corridor and Poland. A fight over latter would involve at least that corner of Belarus and quite possibly Minsk.
Honestly I don’t think Russia is that silly to fire shots at Poland. Don’t they have a pretty huge military? Plus they have some pretty good vodka that they could fire over and keep the opposition distracted.
The caption is a little misleading, the article is discussing red line’s for NATO’s possible entry into the conflict, things like a provocation against NATO members or an expansion of the war involving Belarus, etc.
Titling is hard
You mean titling gets hard?
Tickling makes me hard
You almost took my life dear redditor. Please take my humble up vote. I was ripping the bong when I read that and I swear smoke blew out my damn ears laughing. 🤣
Im glad smartphones weren't a thing during my bong days...
Tittling means ' a penis' in my language 🤭 laughed so hard
NATO draws red lines for halting Russian aggression
How titillating.
Titling, sounds like a pre puberty breast…
Settle down Drake.
As a non native English speaker I suspect my comment got a lot of upvotes for unexpected and unintended reasons 🤔
Tilting though? Not as much. Just add windmills!
Windmills are big
Tits!
9/10
Is it..titillating ?
Famous British headline from the 70's: Drive to ban horse whipping mushrooms.
> things like a provocation against NATO members So, like, jamming GPS across several NATO countries? I can go with that.
General: ”Get me the RED crayon!” Soldier: ”Sir? Are you sur…” General: ”THE RED CRAYON DAMMIT!” Soldier: ”Gulp… Yes.. YES SIR!” General: ”We have some lines to draw….”
*Marines frantically shoving their fingers down each other's throats, trying to regurgitate just 1 red crayon for the cause.*
Dammit the spicy ones are the best.
Give me purple or give me death
red crayon best crayon
Semper F-*urrrrrrrghhh*
"Now get me a sandbox. And a stick!"
Good luck pulling it out of Gunny’s ass.
You can go with that... to the front lines?
The whole article is misleading. NATO isn't going to go to war for Moldova, or a Belarus corridor. They will for Poland though, if Putin touches Poland he has his arse handed to him.
Russian troops will have to mass in Belarus for a polish attack which I think NATO is saying it wont tolerate.
Are they still sending troops to Belarus for R&R and Training? Or did they move that stuff back to the Urals for protection
They have a few brigades in country to harass Ukrainian positions but nothing serious. If we saw troop buildups like we did before Ukraine it's possible NATO conventionally attacks those staging grounds.
I mean it's not just Poland as the only NATO member feeling the heat from the war in Ukraine. The Baltics are all under just as much of a threat from Russian expansion.
Probably more so, I’d argue due to the geography of the Baltic states, and the existence of Kaliningrad
Also ethnic Russians in Baltics. Russia could use the same justification for invasion as Donetsk to "protect Russians".
Their only protection from Russia is their NATO & EU memberships. Even then, if the US were to pull out of NATO like 45 planned to do, then they would be in deep trouble.
More so.
But Poland's in NATO. Who would be questioning or need to be informed that this would be the case?
Exactly, you'd be surprised how many people question this. That's my point. Russia would be at war with all of NATO including the U.S if it attacked Poland
As a Polish person that read history books, I have zero expectations for west helping us out in a war. West europe are all a bunch of cowards.
There are literally US military bases in Poland. There are 10,000 US troops stationed there right now.
I've studied history and I absolutely understand how you feel. I also follow the alliances we have now and I do not think they'd stand back and let Russia take Poland. The horrors of the past are why we have these alliances. Imagine the public pressure, the world would go mad if Russia invaded Poland. I'm telling you, you'd have protection. Edited typo: No we would not stand aside and allow Russia to invade Poland.
Probably ought to clarify that unfortunate typo then.
Lol oops, I'm at work.
You said the opposite of what you meant at a crucial spot there
Strange since that’s what caused France and the UK to enter WW2
They didn't act in any way until Germany invaded France.
Exactly! And when they won the war all the Polish people were grateful and celebrated because they had their country back... oh wait that's not what happened at all, they forgot all about Poland and let the Soviets have it.
"Let the soviets have it". The Red Army was absolutely massive and with no trace of the incompetence from the Winter War or Barbarossa left. Were the Western allies supposed to start a new war, just when everyone was celebrating the defeat of nazism?
Hmm. What happened to Poland after the war was over?
>As a Polish person that read history books, I have zero expectations for west helping us out in a war. West europe are all a bunch of cowards. Yeah, but a failure on the part of the US to defend a NATO member would mean a collapse of US standing around the world, which would throw a massive amount of US power, influence, and control out the window and likely shift a whole lot of countries toward China. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm not saying I'd count on Western Europe either if I were you, but as an American, I'd be shocked, appalled, and horrified if we didn't throw everything into the defense of a NATO ally who legitimately invoked Article V.
UK and France obviously \*did\* declare war and fight it in 1939. Italy was on the wrong side but that is hardly a good reason to call them "cowards". Spain was also on the wrong side but had the decency to stay out. Pretty much your critique would only apply to Belgium. Belgium was quite clearly neutral. The countries that said they would defend Poland actually did sacrifice many lives to destroy the 3rd Reich.
As a Croatian I say there is no honor in war, but huge pride in the generations before you. That is more than enough. Glory to fighters.
Here in Estonia, the politicians have been repeating non-stop "NATO will come to our aid and save us if Russia attacks", for years. And when Ukraine war started, there was this big article saying that "Article 5 doesn't actually say they have to send troops to help us"... Nuclear weapons are the only real guarantors of peace.
Recent history has shown NATO willing to commit troops. A nuclear exchange has unacceptable consequences. There is not really any reason to doubt the Navy or Air Force capabilities. The "danger" admirals in USA worry about is that Finland and Estonia could sink Russia's Baltic fleet before they get an opportunity to show off. From the Marine Corps perspective the counter attack can come in Kamchatka, Murmansk, Georgia, any of the Stans that are up for it, or Mongolia. A major push from Scandinavia is likely. Whether or not Belarus joins Russia in this hypothetical makes a huge difference on the map. Vilnius looks disturbingly close to the border. NATO would likely move fast both to evacuate civilians and to try and thwart the capture. From satellite Estonia looks like a tough nut to crack. Huge lakes on the border. Forest between those. A Russian attack there would be rash. Though that certainly does not guarantee that Putin would not have tried it. Overall Russia sticking its army into Estonia would have the effect of making the work of destroying it much easier. I'm sure Estonians would not appreciate the virtues of this scenario. I could imagine generals preferring to push through Minsk toward Moscow instead of diverting troops to break a siege on Tallinn.
>when Ukraine war started Ukraine is not a NATO member. They're not even a major ally. Yet we've been pumping equipment, ammunition, cash, training, and pretty much everything else can without triggering a direct conflict with Russia into Ukraine since the start. And Ukraine is the first to admit it's the only thing that's given them a chance. Given how poorly things have gone for Russia fighting old western weapons handed to people with basic training on how to use them, they'd be suicidal to attack a NATO member state. The US would end all air operations for Russia in about 3 days and then the A-10s come. No Russian equipment or personnel would be able to move without dying, even before any major ground response arrived.
Eh doesn't stop Russia using nerve agents
Such a dumb title. My first thought was "good for Ukraine not being in any war currently then ..."
Yeah, it is just way too hard to title it "NATO defines 'red lines' for entry into Ukraine's war with Russia". Someone might need a masters in English to be able to reword it like that - I am surprised that I could do it with my lack of one...
"If you test us, we will torch you" is the more succinct headline.
Why war involving Belarus is a red line ?
yeah, because Belarus was already involved when russians tried to capture Kyiv
Belarus was complicit but so far hasn’t entered the war in any official manner. Keeping it a 1v1 fight. Once your buddy jumps in so does mine.
officially not but according to local residents in deoccupied territories troops with belarussian insignias were seen. Looks like potato fuhrer wanted to share parade in Kyiv but after witnessing fierce resistance said "hell no"
Russia hasn't entered it officially either.
how ironic that putin after investing in making strongman for so long couldn't find enough courage to declare a war, and still mumbling about "special military operation" pathetic
russa: "there is no war in ukrain." Also russia: "we are at war with NATO." 🙄
Thanks! That was more than a little misleading.
Read article and it is largely about whether Belarus becomes a front or remains quasi-neutral. Apparently nobody read article.
I’m confused, I thought Russia launched troops from Belarus at the very beginning
They did but the Belarusian military didn't directly join the fighting (although they did likely provide the Russian military with their Soviet era stockpiles).
Yes then had to pull back after 6 weeks instead of risking rebellion in Belarus
> Apparently nobody read article. This is Reddit. Nobody ever reads the article. You can be happy if people read the full headline if it's more than 5 words long lol
Huh? I stopped reading after This is Reddit
I saw the post was in r/worldnews and jumped right into the comments looking for a fight
Wait. We can read the article??
You guys are reading the article???
What is "an article"?
So basically if Belarus become neutral before inevitably being invaded, ww3 starts. If they don’t, we sit back and tell Putin off. Come on Belarus, don’t take the whole world with you, become a front and save the world. For now.
This title is fucked up. Makes it sound like ukraine went into this willingly.
Certainly a pro-Russian narrative that Ukraine is somehow the imperialist in all of this.
See why couldn’t nato have postured like this regarding the original invsasions… then ukraine wouldn’t be fighting and russia would still be an ignorant bumbling idiot of a country with no idea of its internal military problems. Appeasement never works. Edit: even if it wasn’t a complete NATO front, any sort of coalition formed of NATO members would have probably dissuaded Russia and made them back down. You know like we did in the GWOT.
Because you are talking about an alliance of 30 (now 32) members that have to agree on a posture. Sure, some probably would have made the red line an invasion of Ukraine. But then we are talking about possibly millions of lives on the line for a non-member nation. I’m sure I’m backchannels (and also public statements) individual nations have made their redlines known.
It would have been the equivalent of making Ukraine a defacto member. There's no way that all of NATO would have agreed to that, especially when relations with Russia were lukewarm at worst. Even after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 there was very little motivation to do anything about it.
Not only that, but you have to keep in mind that the consequences for the whole alliance getting involved mean a lot more to some members than others. Turkey and Poland, for example, would immediately become the front line of WW3 if Russia didn't back down, and understandably don't want that kind of risk if it's avoidable.
I get the feeling that Poland is itching for an excuse. Something tells me they want payback for what the Soviet Union put them through.
They're certainly armed for it this time.
all the nations/peoples that got butchered for one reason or another (Nazis/Soviets/Japanese expansion) have a "never again" rule * Israel (Jewish people) * Poland * Korea they've worked hard to ensure that if they are ever attacked like that again there's going to be hell to pay
This baseless speculations about Poland allegedly willing to be directly involved in the war always makes me laugh. Fact that you can find this nonsense only on reddit shows how much it is divorced from reality. Actually, overwhelming majority of Poles are strongly against sending any number of Polish troops to Ukraine, even in purely non-combat role. And all the Polish political parties shares this view. Sentiment against any form of our direct involvement in this war is so strong that it would be a political suicide for any politician to merely suggest considering it. Also in our military, as you can conclude from interviews with retired Polish generals, there is absolutely zero apetite for any form of "action" in Ukraine.
Only on reddit? So I guess Poland hasn't said things like to the effect that of Russia used a nuke and had fallout hit their lands that they wouldn't get involved? They never said that if Belarus got involved that they would get involved? They never said that the west shouldn't fear war with Russia but the other way around? Probably land never issued a warning that NATO has three years to get ready for war with Russia? Among numerous other comments that indicate that they would love to take it to Russia? Huh. Guess I must be existing in an alternate world where the BBC and other outlets are making bogus reports and claims about what Poland is saying. Fascinating.
Polish governement has **never** said that Poland is going to be directly involved in hostilities, or bring war to Russia. You are making this up and spreading some insane fake news here. If you have a link supporting your claims, from BBC or other media outlets, I'd love to see them. Yes, Polish politicians said - similarily as politicians from multiple other NATO countries - that there may be some form of Russian agression in the next 2-3 years against eastern NATO members,, so NATO should be prepared to repel it. It obviously doesn't has anything to do with considering any involvement in hostilities in Ukraine. And yes, or FM (IIRC) said that it's Russia who should be afraid war with NATO, in this very clear sense, that in case Russia starts agression against any NATO member, there will be strong response from the whole alliance. Reading that as if it was a threat of starting a war against Russia is so ridiculous that I have no words to describe it.
I think there something deeper than having to agree with many members. Ukraine has had more impact on everybody's opinions and on politics now than the other invasions did before. But I can't figure what is the specific thing that made it different. For example, Macron received a call when the russians invaded. (in the video recording the call with Zelensky) He seemed surprised, despite russian's history of invasions. Like, it was something bigger somehow than previous invasions.
Don’t think millions would end up dying. NATO would crush Russia.
You forgot these little things called nuclear weapons
Nobody would use those cause it’s the end for Russia even if not one of their nukes will reach it target
In the days leading up to D-day, no one believed the US intelligence that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. But US intelligence also incorrectly predicted that Ukraine would fall relatively quickly, and so I think the emphasis was to bolster up Ukraine border states (NATO allies) to deter further Russian aggression. Had the US and our allies understood how the war would unfold, I'd like to think we would have taken a very different approach. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/)
Yeah, NATO planners probably took one look at the outset of the war and said "anything we send will just be captured by Russia anyway" No one expected Ukraine to even survive long enough to have guns supplied, so it's unimaginable how well they could have done properly armed day 1
It’s kind of incredible when you sit back and think about it. Russia is supposedly this “world power” and they have been invading a country for over 2 years with like a fraction of the GDP of the invading country.
2014 is 10 years ago. Not 2.
This is true.
This is because they launched their invasion with the assumption that the government would collapse, Zelenskyy would flee and Ukrainian military left with no government would offer little to no resistance. Putin intended that to be just an occupation. Thats why there were news of Russian troops running out of fuel and getting lost at the start of the war, they didn't expect an actual fighting to take place.
If NATO had put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia and dared Putin to kill a single one of them and start a nuclear war, he never would have invaded Ukraine and all this death and destruction would have been avoided
NATO is a defensive treaty that members must meet thresholds to join. Eg Human rights, Anti corruption. You don't just send NATO troops internationally that's not how it works. And asking for it to change how it works would be like asking a car to fly. You can make it work but then it would be an aeroplane...
This is tricky because 1) Ukraine also wasn’t convinced that Russia was going to invade, so how do you deploy troops to a country that doesn’t invite your presence. And 2) ironically, Russia could have portrayed the action of putting NATO troops along the border of Russia in a non-NATO country as threatening, and thus provided them with the perfect excuse for a preemptive strike.
>If NATO had put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia How does NATO put a line of their troops all along the border with Russia? They'd have to put troops in countries that are not theirs. Are NATO the ones invading in this scenario?
Well, now there are NATO members that border Russia.
Suppose Putin called bluf. Suppose he did invade. Would you drop the bomb? Would you condemn millions to death because Putin wanted Eastern Ukraine. Would you want your country to blow up voronezh and everyone in it the moment Russian troops cross the border. Deciding ultimatums is easy when you are not responsible for following up on them. But Putin might have been crazy enough to call the bluff on this threat and if he did the credibility if NATO would be non existent.
> no one believed the US intelligence that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Surely some people believed it? I personally believed it. Biden is not Trump, major statements by the US are true the vast majority of the time. The US claim was specific, extraordinary and unique. I correctly reasoned that the US would not have made it, if it was not true. And there was little obvious benefit for the US to lie about it.
I would bet a lot of US intel members didn’t even truly believe RU was gonna do it. Like, RU has/had material reasons why annexing Ukraine might be worthwhile. But it came knowing they’d be sanctioned to high hell. In a time where it felt like RU was possibly heading in the right direction internationally. But like you said, literally nobody thought Ukraine would resist like they did. And if you were loooking at live Ua maps at the beginning, it really did feel like Russia was days away from winning. So perhaps Russia thought they’d repeat what happened in Crimea. A quick annexation with heavy sanctions that would ultimately fade away as the west lost political interest in the situation. Eventually the sanctions would lift and Russia would have essentially restored its Soviet era empire with Ukraine being a huge resource boon to their economy. Instead the RU-UK war is as relevant as ever two years in. RU has lost hundreds of thousands. Their economy has been blasted by sanctions. NATO has expanded as a direct result of this prolonged conflict. The sanctions will not end any time soon. And they have hardly any territorial gains to show for it. Big miscalculation huh?
Actually, if I remember correctly, French intelligence predicted that Ukraine could hold her ground. Though that also predicted that Russia wouldn't invade at the time..
But Putin said it was just a training exercise. /s
I feel like predicting Ukraines quick fall was a massive over correction by the intelligence community after the embarrassment of their predictions about Afghanistan.
[удалено]
Yes. An I agree that nobody could have predicted the army and government just rolling over like that. That said the US government was prepared to fly Zelensky out like they did the Afghan government. So I think they were prepared to see a repeat
Irak has a significant responsibility in why no one wanted to listen to US and UK intelligence again. The French intelligence did not believe in the invasion because there would have been easier way for Putin to reach his goal and they assessed correctly that Ukraine would not fall easily. Each ally had pieces of information but the specter of the Irak bullshit prevented proper action
I get that but the US intelligence community was very different before the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Its continuously improving, and probably why it was able to accurately predict an invasion.
From what I remember the major difference was that US had an in in Kadyrov inner circle. The order for invasion was a surprise for most of the military, the US predicted it due to having the right man in the right place rather than extensive analysis Furthermore the issue did not laid in competency but in the trustworthiness of US president which is not something anyone would rely on again after 2003 and after Trump.
Only the public warning came from the president. There had been military and intelligence officers communicating the threat to the Ukrainians and NATO for weeks before the Biden admin's announcement. The slow response had little to do with trusting the US persident and more to do with naivete, denial, inaccurate assumptions and a desperation to avoid escalation and maintain the status quo. E.g. Zelenski did little because he felt couldn't afford to antagonize the Russians, Sholz did nothing because blowing up Russian-European relations was 'unthinkable', etc. Outside of Eastern Europe and the Anglosphere, practically everyone was in denial over the threat, or even existance of, a revanchist Russia.
Most of the intelligence community believed Russia on paper stats were pumped up a lot. What they didn't account for was how absolutely corrupted the entire system was. A Norwegian intelligence report from 10 years ago estimated 10 up to 30% of the active military were engaged in corruption and the time training was almost zero because fuel was sold twice once to the military and then somewhere else. So planes, vehicles ect didn't have all of their training time. So while that report covered some it didn't really show how unprepared and corrupt everything was and how determined the "we are European" faction was which started with college campuses taking on snipers during Obama's term.
We all talk about how Putin fucked up, and he did, but Russia was dangerously close to succeeding. Zelenskyy runs or the Russians holds the airport and this is a wildly different conversation.
Exactly. It doesn’t have to be all of NATO, just a few members could have formed a coalition to militarily deploy some forces to Ukraine. Strategic posturing like that would have made russia’s invasion plans untenable due to the escalatory effects. I just think it sucks in the grand scheme of things that we let Russia get a wake up call in the form of a special military operation. The reason I believe US int predicted a fall was because just like Russian high command, they thought the military was a semi professional force (probably because they were receiving the same reports). It’s no different from what they did in Korea and Vietnam but the fact remains that Russia probably would have thought twice about invading and the forced evolution we are seeing now in the Russian military would never have occurred.
Because it's a defensive alliance that has very cleay defined red lines in its charter. NATO is already overreaching (which I agree with) so to posture like that some sort of entitlement to NATO's aid is weird to me. The only real weakness that might end up causing Russia to cross those defined red lines is a lack of unity. So they have slow rolled into the understanding that all of Europe is at threat but its necessary to avoid the ultimate goal of Putin which has always been the breaking of NATO through causing disagreement on the how's and when's of defending itself.
That was never on the table. There’s no leverage behind that “redline,” because it would be obviously untrue. NATO engaging in direct war with Russia is tantamount to a declaration of WWIII. Even if NATO had said they would declare war on Russia if it invaded Ukraine, Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyway know that it’s a bluff. This was all well discussed and understood in the ramp up to the conflict. Russia attacking a NATO member is a whole different ballgame and would be an extreme escalation equivalent to Russia declaring WWIII.
Why would Putin want WW3? He would be killed if ever attempted that. None of his underlings want to die.
Geopolitics isn't that easy lol...the West is playing is smart. You think if NATO mobilized and fought for Ukraine from the jump, that wouldn't cascade into some horrific shit for the whole world right off the bat? This isn't a fucking video game. There's a lot of shit at stake when the words "United States" "Russia" and "Ground War", can be put together.
Grand alliances are notoriously sloppy and unwieldy.
Or world war III kicks off and we have mutually assured nuclear destruction. It's very easy for you to say but do we really want to test that insane leader...
Conspiracy theory time. NATO countries are slowly ramping up the assistance to Ukraine because they want the war to drag out to damage Russia. Had the West given Ukraine in the beginning of the war the support they gave later, Ukraine would have already of won. Ultimately, Western nations will directly intervene to keep Russia from winning so there is really no risk to letting the war wage on. We are effectively destroy Russia with Ukraine the same way we destroyed the Soviet Union with Afghanistan, Russia cannot afford a long term war and we can.
Yeah but then the republicans withhold funding again and suddenly the front line collapses
It's high time NATO draws the line. Guess the saying, better late than never applies
It's the inherent nature of security: it's only ever introduced when it's too late - after pain and loss has proven possible.
"It's high time NATO draws the line." 💯 To be fair though, it does take more time to process things in the long-run as opposed to just the short-run. I was pleasantly surprised at the second red line: "In turn, the [Main Intelligence Directorate named the terms](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-to-take-baltics-in-7-days-nato-s-reaction-1714687029.html) within which Russia could capture the Baltic countries. According to Ukrainian intelligence representative Vadym Skibitskyi, the Russian army would only need a week for this. However, a NATO response would take a whole decade." - [https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/nato-defines-red-lines-for-ukraine-s-entry-1714908086.html](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/nato-defines-red-lines-for-ukraine-s-entry-1714908086.html)
\*Article Basically Says: Attack on NATO member state/Baltic states or Moldova to the surprise of no one. Nothing about entering the conflict in Ukraine if the situation on the ground their changes, and no new statement by NATO. Edit: Read the article if your curious; just noting this is an unofficial interpretation of NATO policy without a source. Not a statement by NATO as the poorly worded, and confusing (Ukraine's entry into war with Russia???), title may lead you believe. >NATO has confidentially and unofficially identified at least two "red lines" that could lead to the Alliance's direct intervention in the war in Ukraine, according to to Repubblica.
I think the point is that if Russia attacks NATO, they wouldn't stop fighting when the NATO state is defended, they would continue the defense into Ukraine
You're ignoring the bit that suggests the defence of Ukraine in the event that Belarus joins the war.
*Baltic countries, not the Balkans.
> NATO defines 'red lines' for Ukraine's entry into war with Russia If you read that more than once, it will bend your brain.
What is going on with that headline? And the article isn’t much better.
Seems to be translated from Ukrainian maybe ai translation
May Putin & all his buddies expire
Every single measure beyond boots in the ground should be implemented immediately. This has gone on for far too long. If we want this to end and send China a strong message about Taiwan bitch slapping those poxy mongrel Russians back across the border should be done today.
NATO's entry into war, Ukraine is already at war.
Is the red line at the bottom of the Russian Flag?
Russia wont attack NATO, because it is and was never part of the plan. All the postering and nuclear Saber rattling is all posture to prevent Nato from entering to assist Ukraine Because Russia knows it it won't win if NATO got directly involved. Russia plan was to conquer Ukraine install puppet regime friendly towards Russia, and reap all that oil and gas, and keep Europe sucking on Russias breast teet for oil and gas. When their 3 day military operation failed, and has continued for three years, Putin is in too deep to fall back now, because if he did he would look weak and probably be killed and kicked out of office. I'd argue that Ukraine taking back Chrimea would probably be the catalyst of Russia losing the war because Putins top brass would be unhappy that this 3 day military operation caused them to lose what they stole back in 2014.
Russia won't openly attack NATO. But Russia is already attacking NATO in less open ways. This includes financing political parties and movements (AFD, LePen, Reform/Brexit, and so in) and outright murders and arson attacks. The West needs to wake up to this and respond. But instead we are still allowing Russians to travel here freely and allow Western companies to do business in Russia.
This article is so fucking stupid. There are so many BS assumptions.
Was using chemical weapons not a red line?
It was but they painted over it and made new lines
Lemme title a news article *cracks knuckles. " war communism slams NATO and 911! experts report" do you like it?
Sounds like Charlie from Its Always Sunny.
They don't say a word about the use of nukes
Likely because that would be insanity on ru's part. The redlines mentioned also don't mention further incursion into Ukraine, which others like France and Poland have mentioned.
Let me guess, they draw the lines at nato territory, but like literally
There is one thing that the UN and NATO can do that even China would agree with. That is to secure the nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhiia and the old site in Chernobyl. Those two are global threats and need immediate cordoning.
That title is incoherent. Did AI write it?
NATO defines 'red lines' ~~for~~ in Ukraine~~'s~~ *for* entry into war with Russia
This is pure russian propaganda where they pretend NATO is a political entity that makes decisions.
I'm sorry, have I just been having a fever dream for the last two and a half years? Are they not at war already?
Read the article. The title is crap, likely written by a non-native English speaker. It lays out what it would take for direct nato involvement rather than the indirect involvement that has been the norm for the past couple of years.
I did, the title is just garbage lol
Lol, I guess you created a definition of war to suit your own narrative. No, Nato is not in war.
I think they were referring to the terrible title which makes it seem like *Ukraine* isn’t already at war with Russia.
Alright, who let the abominable intelligence write the article titles?
Chemical weapons were considered a red line and now when Russia is using them we're redefining the red lines...
Belarus was already involved in this war, definitely more directly than any of NATO forces. This is a nothing burger like Marcon’s empty postering. NATO’s inaction now will only make it harder for the rest of the world when there is a wider conflict.
Basically scenarios they know won't happen.
Stupid title
Good, I can't wait for my defense portfolio to go to the moon.
We might want to take a breath here. I know the Germans would rather this kind of talk be a little less aggressive. They wouldn't want to be seen as escalating things after all. In fact maybe we should cede some land. Not doing so might be seen a provocative and escalatory!
Also note the location of the Baltic capitals. Tallinn and Riga are coastal and defensible by sea, but Vilnius is inland very close to Belarus border and near Suwałki Corridor and Poland. A fight over latter would involve at least that corner of Belarus and quite possibly Minsk.
Honestly I don’t think Russia is that silly to fire shots at Poland. Don’t they have a pretty huge military? Plus they have some pretty good vodka that they could fire over and keep the opposition distracted.
All red line that were before already crossed so for doing nothing we made up a new ones, pathetic
Source?
But Russia’s the one with the Red Army. Me confuse