At what point are the western European countries going to start fighting back? The EU itself can’t really, because they let the problem spread and need unanimity for certain things.
I don't think he cares about Wagner, he wants to see if NATO backs up Poland if Poland is attacked as a response to Poland "attacking" Belarus.
BTW: Poland doesn't have stellar reputation in the west, primarily because of politicians who attack west and strangely are warm towards Russia. One might say "what do you mean? Poland is very anti Russia" and this is true with most Poles, but the ruling party still continues fighting with the west, some even say that they don't know which enemy is worse, west or east, like WTF? Then there's a Konfederacja populist party by Russia which is fully against west and its leaders advocated to improve relations with Russia. Most members of course are less open and saying that we should give Russia what it wants or we get attacked.
That was also the only party that demanded our politicians to apologize when a protester splashed Russian ambassador with red paint at the beginning of the full invasion.
The amount of pearl clutching and disinformation Russia does when ukraine does literally anything, means we have to point out the bs when we see it against ukraine. But yes it would be better if people weren’t killed.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There’s lots to criticise Russia for but this ain’t it.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it’s journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we use similarly sized nuclear weapons on Belarus. It’s the only non-escalatory, tit-for-tat response we have.
If retaliatory nuclear weapons are on the table, why would we launch them at Belarus instead of at Moscow? Not saying we should use nukes, btw. I would think that a better response to Putin nuking Ukraine would be a more precise attack against Putin himself and senior officers involved in greenlighting a nuclear attack on Ukraine. We can’t just go eye for an eye when it comes to tens of thousands of civilians. We need to ensure no more dead innocents, not give them the same number of dead innocents. Especially because people like Putin just straight up don’t give a shit about civilians, including the ones on his side. He’s a sociopath who cares only about what benefits him personally, so nuking Belarus accomplishes nothing.
Attacking Russia mainland or Russian leadership is an instant ticket to global nuclear annihilation.
We need an option that shows we are not afraid to use nuclear weapons, but nor are we willing to escalate. A proportional response in the only option we have, unless we believe we’ve reached the end-game, in which case there can be no precision strike or small escalation; then go all in, launch everything now, all at once.
So, what options do we have that mirrors what Russia might do in Ukraine. Can’t be North Korea, they are nuclear-armed themselves and would mean pulling Japan or South Korea into the exchange.
The only ally Russia have that are semi-implicated in the war, with Russian assets that at the same time aren’t full-bloodied Russian state-troops, are Wagner in Belarus.
So, two nukes in Ukraine from Russia = two nukes on Wagner in Belarus.
Why do you think nuking Russia would be unacceptable in the hypothetical situation of Russia instigating by launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine first? Why do you think that only we are responsible for being mindful of mutually assured destruction in the event that Russia is the first to use a nuclear strike in this war?
Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Belarus? Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Wagner, a group that recently planned to march on Moscow to engage in a coup? What am I missing here?
Do you understand that a nuclear strike on Ukraine means nuclear fallout kicked up into the atmosphere? And that wind will definitely carry that fallout into NATO airspace? And that this would be recognized as an attack upon NATO which would trigger article 5?
Russia is making incredibly stupid decisions, but I don’t think even they are dumb enough to launch a nuke at Ukraine. At a time when they already appear to be villainous weaklings, this would just invite direct action to ensure complete destruction of Russia. So far in this campaign, they’ve only seen the results of a few allies donating weapons, ammunition, and training to Ukraine to use in defense; imagine all branches of militaries of the west directly involved in an offensive with the goal of showing the world what happens when you nuke our ally without cause.
If they launch a nuke in this war, it should be viewed for what it is: the frustrated whimpering of a dying nation, desperately gasping for breath while its lungs fill with blood.
I don’t think nuking Russia is unacceptable. I think the step beyond even a single nuke landing inside Russian borders will lead to doomsday annihilation for all. So if you’re going down that route, go 110% all out. There’s no point thinking we can contain Russia’s response. They will then respond by nuking a western NATO ally, or America itself. After that we’re in, feet first. So if we go down that route I’m saying we might as well start where we end up as that will maximise our chances of having some/any population surviving the exchange.
My suggestion to respond with a nuclear attack on Belarus is based on reciprocal response if Russia uses a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. They bomb an ally of ours. We bomb an ally of theirs. Same yield, same count, same distance to Russian border to bring about same consequences on Russia.
The aim in this case would be to show that we will follow Russia up the nuclear ladder but that we don’t intend to START a nuclear holocaust.
Poland won't, but according to Hitler in September 1st, 1939, Nazi Germany was defending itself from Polish attacks.
I think putin is thinking of forcing Belarus with Wagner to attack Poland and see how NATO will react when the threat would be war with Russia (if NATO will respond, which I hope it will, I think Belarus will get the same help as Armenia).
I think NATOs response would have to be a strong, decisive one. No NATO member wants the Alliance to look weak. Nobody wants World War III, either, but I think they’d conclude that showing weakness is riskier than calling Putin’s bluff.
Poland is a major supply hub and has lost plenty of boots on the ground. Art 5 isn’t automatic. US won’t risk nuking for expendables. All Europe is expendable.
Europe has nukes, and an industrial capacity that dwarfs Russia multiple times over and is roughly equal to the US.
Russia has about as much chance attacking Europe as Japan would attacking China on their own.
Also without Europe, the US has no capacity to develop semiconductors better than what Russia has. In the extremely unlikely event Europe falls to Russia, the US will not be far behind.
Russia has no interest in attacking Europe. US/NATO is the executive arm of longterm geopolitical interests that strive for total global dominance. They utilize sophisticated multipronged longterm strategies attempting to bring the rest of the planet under their control. Russia is a small part of that parcel.
The ultima ratio regum part of it considers some geographies more expendable than others. Egress of core industries from the EU is deliberate part of the strategy. Vassals are ruled by compradors, so populations are captive. It’s direct oligarch control on the other side, so it’s simpler.
MAD still applies. Both sides go to great lengths to avoid it, since the outcome is deterministic and global. Which is why the US would be a second target, if not already part of first strategic strike.
Wars are confusing places, so potential for fatal mistakes is exponentiated.
If you think you understand the conflict, you are not understanding the conflict. I have spent decades and lately far too much time on sources inaccessible to most, and I still feel underinformed.
I noticed I commented on world news. My mistake. Lemmy keeps dropping the subscribed filter.
Enlighten me, what are the attacks on Russians neighbours if not war? Please tell me how the Nato forced Russia to attack Georgia or Ukraine? Maybe you should question your “unaccessible to most” (lol) sources if your result is, that Russias not at fault here.
Europe does not have an industrial capacity that comes anywhere close to Russia as is clearly evidenced by the fact that Europe can’t even produce basic things like artillery shells at this point. Furthermore, European industrial capacity needs energy to function and the cost of that has gone up significantly. All of this is well documented in mainstream western media, so it’s kind of shocking that somebody could be this misinformed archive.ph/61ruk
Just read the first line of that article you linked below the title.
Defense contractors are under pressure to ramp up production but want long term government guarantees of sales
It’s not that the West has run out of artillery shells. It’s that the West’s MIC is not willing to ramp up production, since we are not at war, and there is no guarantee that additional manufacturing capacity will pay off for weapons manufacturers once the war ends and there is no need for it any longer.
The EU, particularly Germany has gone through a massive disarmament since the Cold War. It still spends twice as much on its military in absolute terms as Russia. If we are talking total industrial capacity, the EU has 8 times the GDP of Russia.
Just on artillery shells, the 5th biggest artillery force in the world just joined NATO. Do you expect their reserves to be empty?
Uh yeah welcome to capitalist economic relations. Companies aren’t going to build giant factories to pump out weapons and ammunition unless they make their money back. Given that EU is now going into a recession and the standard of living is dropping rapidly, gonna be hard to justify all the government subsidies needed to convince your capitalists to start manufacturing weapons.
Meanwhile, GDP overall doesn’t mean shit. It’s the industrial that actually matters. Most of EU GDP comes from ephemeral things like tourism and service industry. The only major industrial power left in EU is Germany, and it’s becoming rapidly deindustrailized as we speak.
Just on artillery shells, the 5th biggest artillery force in the world just joined NATO. Do you expect their reserves to be empty?
Yeah I do, because if they weren’t empty US wouldn’t be sending cluster munitions to Ukraine right now. US even forced South Korea to send them shells before that happened. NATO lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons at the rate they’re being expanded, and anybody who’s been paying attention can see it.
On the other hand, Russia inherited the military industrial complex from USSR days and unlike the west it never privatized or dismantled it. Now it’s been ramped up and to a capacity that NATO can only dream of.
reuters.com
Oldest