Diplomats say Putin’s brutalisation of Ukraine has brought back darkest memories of occupation under Stalin
Nato must be ready for Russia launching an “existential” war against the Baltic states “masked by a blizzard of disinformation”, ambassadors from the three countries have warned.
Writing exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph, the top diplomats to the UK from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania said that Russia could “pivot quickly” from Ukraine to invade the Baltic.
And they said that Vladimir Putin’s brutalisation of Ukraine is evoking the three countries’ “darkest memories” of occupation under Stalin.
The Estonian ambassador Viljar Lubi, the Latvian ambassador Ivita Burmistre, and Lithuania’s charge d’affaire Lina Zigmantaite, wrote the joint article to mark Friday’s 20 year anniversary of their countries acceding to Nato.
Is Russia really in any position to be trying to wage war on multiple new fronts? Poland just implied Russia is going to attack Europe. With what? Dry Russian wit and empty vodka bottles?
Russia still has a lot of men and has already transitioned into a war-time economy. All Europe has done is have Baltics and Poland (and probably also Finland) go through potential invasion strategies, the rest of Europe doesn’t even believe in the possibility of war. The only way circumstances could be better is if Trump gets elected because that old fuck will make sure to hamper US support. Other than that if you’re going to invade you couldn’t want better conditions.
I’m not saying it will happen. I’m going to say the invasion would the stupid and hardly beneficial for Russia and the logical thing would be to not invade. But I will add that I said the exact same thing about the invasion of Ukraine and we know how that went. I wouldn’t put it beyond the realm of possibilities.
The main difference here though is the consideration of NATO. If you attack Ukraine you’re attacking one country, if you attack NATO you’re attacking many, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, who have some of the largest military’s forces on the planet and access to nuclear weapons. Russia had reason to believe it might have actually win against Ukraine, there’s no possible way they can think that they could win against NATO.
He’s counting on NATO continuing to take the “let’s just sanction him” approach. He’s essentially hoping they’re bluffing while he tries to get the gang back together. (USSR)
They won’t do that if he’s actually invading though. NATO’s point is they won’t ever escalate a situation. That whole point is to try and prevent something like world war II happening again. So declining war on Russia while he’s attacking a non-nato country would be an escalation. But they’re all about responding in kind to an attack against them.
The idea in the previous comment is that Putin thinks NATO is bluffing about doing that, about responding in kind.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Just commenting so I can come back here when Russia invades another country
Why multiple fronts? The current conflict may be frozen under “right” circumstances, Putin will have several years to resupply. It doesn’t matter if Ukrainian allies have more economical and technological power than Russia if people in places like Germany cry that Currywurst now costs 1 EUR more than 2 years ago, and just want this to be over.
Interesting that you chose Germany specifically, which is one of the largest contributors, both total and relative to GDP.
That being said, everybody needs to step up their game, including Germany. Just send the Tauruses, Olaf.
If I remember right, most polls show people are against sending weapons. This might be why Scholz is cautious about sending Tauruses. The Baltic states have warned for years that Russia is a threat, even before Ukraine was invaded in 2022. But others didn’t listen to them then, and many still don’t take them seriously. The truth is, Russia is doing better than Ukraine’s allies because people think the conflict won’t reach them, and they prefer not to support politicians who would sacrifice short-term benefits for long-term security.
I’m not disputing your main point, I just think it’s interesting that you chose Germany as an example, which, as I wrote, is one of the top contributors, even adjusted for GDP.
And I explained why.
In that case, I fail to follow your explanation. What’s more important: Words/sentiments, or actions? For example, Macron talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk, as evidenced by France’s sub-par contributions.
In my opinion, the outcome is what matters. But also: Sign off the Tauruses, Olaf!
I think most people are missing the strategy of modern Russian warfare. Is Russian going to roll tanks and soldiers into the Baltics this year? Probably not.
Russia is using more of an asymmetrical approach to warfare with a ramp up. On the low end is the disinformation campaign. (News and religion: there are a lot of Orthodox in Latvia) Economic “Little Green men” Conventional warfare Nukes or the threat of nukes
I’m the Baltics they are in the disinformation and economic section of the ramp up and are worried about escalation.
Also note Russia goes up and down that ramp escalating and descalating as they did in Ukraine.
Yeah kinda, that’s how Russia has historically won wars and handled surplus population. Sort of why its so fucking big.
It muddies the water around, supporting the various states, and the public image of that.
The same thing for the Palestine genocide ongoing now, the US has a second war to supply.