The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
Why do we fucking still Need to use military confrontation for everything?
Fr in this modern world with phones, internet and much more, why do we have to confront by sending young people in a year grinder?
I am ashamed of my species
Well because no amount of “phones internet and much more” is going to stop a foreign invading soldier with a gun from taking your shit and killing you, would be the very short answer.
Apperently yall havent got this isnt a realistic thing but a call on how war isnt that good you know?
ok, well if the point you were trying to make is “war isnt that good you know?” then hard agree from me, but that’s a serious motte-and-baily retreat from your original words wondering why we still sometimes need armed confrontation even in today’s world.
Aremed confrontation as in military, especially if the people dont want to be there fighting, Isnt good.
Unfortunately with some governments you cant treat in peace and the people Will Need to arm themselves and do stuff.
I still Think that in any case there should be the leasts deaths possibile
No one is arguing otherwise.
But your original question is why do we still need the military when we have smartphones, and of course the answer is because the existence of smartphones does not dissuade the likes of Putin, because why would it?
It was and example to show how we developedand how we progress but still do something as primitive as war
The funny thing is Russia should know full well how effective psyops are. They’re installing friendly far right assholes abusing the senility of boomers. They legitimately have a ton of countries on the path to destroy themselves. They could just… wait a decade and win.
“Everything in Europe is Russia’s fault” is not good analysis. Europe literally invented fascism the previous century, and it’s not just boomers voting far right, plenty of young men too. Europeans predominantly consume non-Russian social media such as Instagram, Facebook or Twitter (increasingly TikTok), and the far right surge is a radical response to a system which for the past 20 years has worsened peoples’ living conditions and has allowed no left-wing outlet for such tensions. The far right problem is NOT primarily manufactured by Russia but by our own governments’ inabilities to respond with anything else than austerity, austerity and more austerity.
Is Putin going to be alive in a decade? He doesn’t give a shit about Russia, he only cares about his own glory. What good is controlling the world after he’s dead? He’d rather control Ukraine now and let the entire country crumble after he’s dead.
There is a growing division of the AfD in Germany between eastern and western oriented politicians. I am not sure if Russia can rely on controlling those parties in 10 years.
That’s because the hard rights world philosophy is based on hate. They invariably turn on each other. Hard right political parties are always in a transient state of existence.
Could that also be said about the divided left?
The left are divided because each individual has a different opinion of what their utopian society would look like. But no one pays any attention to them because they’re all crazy.
UH OH - you did a ‘leftism’ in the warmongering liberal instance. you get sentenced to several downvotes and a brainwashed accusation!
deleted by creator
Warmongering in this case being defined as discussing the possibility of another nation state attacking them.
the situation in ukraine did not happen in a vacuum. there are reasons why russia decided to invade.
there is no logical explaination why russia would want to attack NATO and trigger article 5.
but hey as long as the fear exists we can watch line go up in rheinmetall, saab & dassault stocks so the capital of a stagnating empire can save itself.
Yeah the reason being that they believe that Ukraine had little in the way of defence and that they would be able to get away with it. Hence why military posturing is necessary, to convince the Russians they wouldn’t be able to get away with it.
If some disaster took down Poland’s electrical and communication network Russia would be in there like a shot. Don’t try and claim otherwise they have form of taking advantage.
This is bad analysis. You may disagree with the invasion and call it illegal while simultaneously understanding that NATO is a military alliance created specifically against the USSR and should have been dismantled (as was promised to former Soviet citizens during the dissolution of the country). NATO was never supposed to get to Poland, let alone Ukraine or Finland.
Add to that the Victoria Nuland leaked audios discussing which president the US would put in place during the Euromaidan in 2014, the anti-Russian policies the Ukrainian government has taken for the past decade towards ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and you have plenty more arguments than “Russia just wanted to invade Ukraine and spoil their economic and diplomatic relations with all of Europe just because Pootin bad”.
Again, you can still oppose and criticize the invasion, but try to do some realistic geopolitical analysis beyond the Lord of the Rings “Sauron is very evil and so are the Orcs”.
I don’t know what Nita was never supposed to get to Poland is supposed to mean. NATO was a defence pact to defend against any threat to its members, the idea was to prevent something like what happened in the first world war where everyone ended up fighting each other because of all of the complicated interrelations that had all been independently agreed.
The reason they ended up being butting heads with the USSR was the USSR was constantly interfering with Western affairs. Just as Russia is doing today.
NATO has a policy of never initiating an attack the only reason the military would ever enact would be if a threat was made against one of its member states.
There is zero reason for Russia to consider NATO a threat. But they clearly do so NATO has to defend itself that’s not fear-mongering that’s just being pragmatic.
My problem is your interpretation of NATO’s fairly logical response to a potential threat as seditious or part of some evil conspiracy on the part of the industrial military complex. Sure they’re benefiting from this but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re involvement isn’t partisan.
What a wild thing to say about supporting a sovereign nation in defending its borders.
“Preparing to confront Russia” (post title) is not supporting any nation in defending its borders.
Warmongering… that sounds so unhinged in the current situation of the world.
Surely that’s always been what propaganda always said. “It’s not warmongering, my national propaganda tells me this is a defensive war!” has been used since WW1 by all sides, whether correct or incorrect.
Haaai :3 i already saw you a couple times herw on lemmy.
Yeah btw these fuckers are everywhere .
Ik Surprised no One told me to go kms yet