jones do you really believe Russia would invade a the Baltics?

To be fair, the question of Russia invading the Baltics here is about whether Europe should re-militarise under the aegis of a treaty without the United States.

Other than the situation in Ukraine, what else would a re-militarised Europe be expecting to defend itself against, if not a Russian incursion into a Baltic state?

I guess the answer is that the situation in Ukraine may require European security guarantees, and NATO might no longer be a viable mechanism to deliver them. So something the EU cooks up in the next six months looks pretty likely.

      Mirth there is also the fact Russia's gambles have paid off and seen no significant push back. Maybe Russia didn't believe that the US would get involved if they went after a near neighbour. The lesson from this is America don't want to be involved and Putin is a gambler and he's been winning so it's not impossible he thinks he could out manoeuvre the west and they don't have the stomach to do anything.

          Mirth not buying it, Russia has been reactive in most conflicts so far. Sure you could look at hypothetical Russian strategic objectives that might pan out if NATO falls apart after the US pulls out and infighting in Europe causes the group to lose the "will" relevant but that'd be a bit weird when today you actually have German soldiers and tanks participating in military exercises 100 miles from St. Petersburg.

          The last paragraph is interesting but not sure I understood it correctly. You say the Americans Indians and Chinese have one world view opposed to that of Europe?

              Burnwinter I'm not sure I'd equate those questions but if the question is should Europe ramp up arms production then clearly the answer should be no? The only enemy that could overwhelm Europe is the US and they're not bridging that gap any time soon nor should we.

              Infrastructure decaying, economic standards dropping across the board, democracy failing with far right parties on the rise literally everywhere - but yea let's sink what little money is left to governments under self imposed austerity programmes in the black hole that's defence spending lol

                jones enduring is what matters,if he gets fully welcomed back to the fold and sanctions are dropped as US seen to want 3 years it's a price worth paying for invading a neighbour.

                  jones NATO is already undermined, does anyone believe that it would respond to an incursion on its eastern flank. Nearly 60 years of post war peace was based on the fact that was true. I don't think you could be confident of that right now and you can bet Putin would be thinking. What would that actually do. From the west's response to the recent crisis they will be annoyed but nothing of consequence.

                      awooga83 — I think it depends who you’re referencing on the Eastern front.

                      Poland being invaded would certainly trigger a response - partly because they’ve invested enough in their defenses/army that they wouldn’t need as much support. NATO as an organization, and its countries individually, would be far more bullish on a positive outcome which in turn makes support easier to sell and more compelling on the backside.

                      I do fully agree with you though that the Baltic countries may not be afforded that same support. An invasion of those countries would require NATO fighting back by forcibly attacking within Russia which is a far greater step than supporting defensive operations.

                      Hungary is another possible inflection point. Russia’s “invasion” there would more likely be via political influence, and softer actions, but would how would NATO (and the EU) respond to that tampering and potentially internal encouragement?

                          MistaT Russia owns Hungary for 20 years now. why would they attack them? And how? If they don't get all of Ukraine, and I don't think they will

                              Poland and the Baltics are members of NATO, the other members are formally committed to reacting as if they are directly attacked. Trump may refuse to do so, but the treaty commitment was ratified by the Senate, which makes it part of "the supreme Law of the land".
                              Putin's first goal is to conquer as much Ukrainian territory as possible and incorporate it into Russia. His second goal is to make sure that whatever remains of Ukraine cannot join NATO as Poland did.

                              HomeSteak -- I'm with you, and well aware of Russia's current influence.

                              I was responding to awooga and suggesting that while NATO may have postulated a standard (universal) response if a member was attacked, it's quite apparent that the response will not be standardized.

                                  MistaT recognize they don't need to do anything in hungry financially and as you said I don't mean a country like Poland. It's the Baltics I think he would be looking to test and I don't think it's as clear today what would happen in reality. Putin has operated on he takes these actions knowing the west is sluggish and often takes time to respond which then makes it hard to actually do anything.

                                    JazzG public debt can be eliminated in one year with a relatively limited but progressive capital tax. Even a one time tax. There is no need to gut the government. That's just what the billionaires who steal your money want you to believe.

                                    • Daz likes this.

                                      HomeSteak yeah this a scam and will become a front for blatant money laundering

                                        meanwhile, at a democrats consultancy retreat

                                        basically, run kamalas campaign again but with a white guy at the top of the ticket. 'move away from the dominance of small donors' is such a huge tell. trashbag party that repeatedly learns all the wrong lessons. they deserve to keep losing.

                                          Gazza M it works. It’s an admission that after half a century of the Cold War and centuries of slavery, this is a fundamentally right leaning country. Etched in its psyche. Win within that context unless you plan a revolution.

                                              if there's even functional elections in 26/28 and the democrats somehow Mr magoo themselves back into power, it will snap right back to the populists and rabble-rousers in short order.

                                              Claudius if you keep moving the Democrats to the right the Republicans also move to the right and you get what we have now with Trump, Musk and co.

                                                  Gazza M If the Democrats went looking for the votes of two in three citizens who heard about the UnitedHealthcare assassin and thought "Yeah I get why you'd do that", they'd be in better shape.

                                                  It's not enough to wait for Trump to get sent packing, the next candidate to oppose the phalanx of fascist meltdown needs a plan, a mandate and a battalion of picks to replace the Hegseths and Bonginos going into office now.

                                                  Speaking of not having a mandate, Starmer recording nett negative approval, and a majority of UK voters thinking Labour is incompetent just six months after their victory, tells you how that goes.