Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Legal_Refuse t1_j6nn6qa wrote

Lithuania has some really good reasoning for that too. Mainly it's next to Russia's exclave and Belarus.

221

TaiwanBandit t1_j6nq97h wrote

Good point. They are looking out for the future with no Putin, although the next leader may not be any less of a threat.

60

Okbuddyliberals t1_j6ntjds wrote

> although the next leader may not be any less of a threat.

This is very important to remember

In the event that the current Russian government falls and sees some sort of return to democracy, freedom, and respect for neighbors, there will be a desire among some in the west to embrace this, to trust Russia, to expand trade with them and be friendly. But this already happened before and then Russia went back to the bad old days. And it can happen again. If Russia sees a change in leadership and a turn inward, the west mustn't get overly trusting - instead it should keep decoupling from the Russian economy, expanding NATO up to Russian borders as much as possible, and investing not in rebuilding Russia but in boosting the neighbors bordering Russia. If Russia still tolerates it, then a slow cautious thaw in relations can occur, and if Russia seethes with rage and quickly goes back to the bad old days again in response, well, the west will be more ready and more of Russia's neighbors will be defended by the NATO nuclear MADman umbrella

51

VehicularVikings t1_j6p2ch7 wrote

>there will be a desire among some in the west to embrace this, to trust Russia, to expand trade with them and be friendly. But this already happened before and then Russia went back to the bad old days.

Tell me you have no clue what actually happened with Russia in the 90s without telling me you have no clue what happened with Russia in the 90s

6

maminidemona t1_j6p83jp wrote

History should learn us that push an ennemy on his kneese is not as good as it seems What happened after WW1 pushed rhe Germans in the arms of Hitler because they had no hope and nothing to lose anymore Of course it is possible with little countries such as Palestine f.i. but not with counties like Russia or Germany The only way after Ukrainian victory il to educate people and take examples on what was done with Japan and Germany after WW2

2

viperabyss t1_j6ntg0q wrote

Exactly this. Kaliningrad and their close proximity to Belarus effectively make them cut off from the rest of the NATO country, should a war break out. The only way would be to support them via the sea (and air).

14

Feruk_II t1_j6ojf26 wrote

Lithuania also borders Poland.

7

viperabyss t1_j6ov3kn wrote

It's only 100km wide though. Lithuania - Kaliningrad border is almost 3 times longer, and Lithuania - Belarus border is 6.7 times longer.

If war breaks out, and Belarusian / Russian / Soviet troops starts from Grondo to meet up with troops from Kaliningrad, Lithuania (and Estonia / Latvia) would be cut off.

12

Reselects420 t1_j6o0hx0 wrote

The NATO plan of action is to let the baltics fall and then reclaim them over the following months. (If I remember correctly)

3

OneWithMath t1_j6o68be wrote

>The NATO plan of action is to let the baltics fall and then reclaim them over the following months. (If I remember correctly)

There are multiple NATO formations in the Baltics, and the Baltic Sea is full of NATO ships and ports. While I'm sure there are contingencies, the plan has never been to cede the Baltics.

17

Reselects420 t1_j6o6le2 wrote

Cede would suggest surrendering the Baltics. I believe the plan was to fight but expect to lose until the rest of the squad arrives.

7

speedstars t1_j6ojdbv wrote

Yes because it would take time for the US to ship a big enough army over across the Atlantic. The NATO forces currently Europe would basically try to stall as much as they can.

8

viperabyss t1_j6o13nn wrote

I can see the logic in that, especially Soviet Union / Russia launches a surprise attack.

Can't say the people of the Baltic State would be very happy about such plan though.

8

IvorTheEngine t1_j6p1bfx wrote

That's always been the problem. If you spread your defences along the border, the enemy can concentrate and punch through anywhere they like. Instead you need a decent reserve that can stop an attack and hopefully cut them off.

If you really don't want to ever lose any ground, you need significantly superior forces right at the border - which looks like you're about to invade and really worries the nuclear power on the other side.

5

Tall-Elephant-7 t1_j6o7bi1 wrote

Yes but they also don't have the capabilities to even understand the logistical challenges of what they are proposing.

Even if they could guarantee that Russia wouldn't respond, most of this can't actually be achieved without months to years of planning.

2

Legal_Refuse t1_j6obti7 wrote

It's most definitely self preservation. I'm surprised the US is sending Abrams tbh. The logistics of that must be a nightmare.

2

ericvwgolf t1_j6o85qk wrote

The entire international community should tell any aggressor that they cannot annex or take territory from anyone else. If they want more land, possibly they could buy it or negotiate with the sovereign state from which it would come. Military annexation and commandeering of neighboring territory should be absolutely forbidden and the aggressor should be cut off at the shoulder. There is no way that Putin should be allowed to take one square inch of Ukraine, including Crimea. The problem was he was let to get away with it then and now he thought he could do it again. Any neighboring state of his has every reason to be worried that they could be next. Again, the international community must put a stop to annexation of territory... Full stop.

55

DivinePotatoe t1_j6ougwy wrote

Sadly that kind of thing relies on a UN security council to work, but it is by design useless because two of the three big permanent members in China and Russia are expansionist dictatorships, and the UN also by design cannot simply kick them out or ignore them to craft a response to any actions they make. They've essentially defacto moved the responsibility for policing world peace to NATO...

9

bot420 t1_j6ocmhw wrote

That or the weapons and the death.

1

x_is_mad t1_j6pj45p wrote

Lithuania? A country in NATO? You are more than welcome to provide them with weapons. Oh wait you cant..... be quiet and let the big boy countries handle this.

−26

YaKnowMuhSteezz t1_j6pb07s wrote

As an American, this should be voted on by the people who are paying for it. Enough with Eastern European demands.

−30

OKImHere t1_j6pgwum wrote

"Nobody is sending tanks, get past that dream." - this genius, 2 weeks ago.

26

EagleChampLDG t1_j6o250i wrote

A hypothetical. What happens when NATO gives all the weapons and Russia just takes over or Ukraine switches course?

Folks really don’t like hypotheticals.

Happens in Civ when you’re allied with a C/S and supplying them military units, to keep them sovereign and offering the benefits, then a spy for another Civ has a successful coup and now those units you supplied are attacking you.

−33

RegularStain t1_j6ob4q6 wrote

Ukrainian population will never change its course. We kicked out already a pro russian president before, and will prematurely end another one if any.

27

Drewby30 t1_j6ol8w1 wrote

Yea a lot people commenting don’t remember that Ukraine already went through this.

While it’s not the entire story, there is a documentary about how they were fighting for their freedom (and won) in 2015.

What started as a protest led to a full on revolution.

Winter on fire: Ukraines fight for freedom

Guess it’s free on YouTube now.

10

RegularStain t1_j6onv95 wrote

Yup, that's one of the many revolutions Ukraine had. Granite revolution of 1990 (before soviet collapse), orange of 2004 and Maidan of 2013. We always fought for freedom, democracy and prosperity. Unlike another neighboring nation.

Thanks for sharing the Winter on fire movie, appreciate it a lot

11

Drewby30 t1_j6oojdb wrote

Absolutely, can’t do much on this side of the planet but I’ll definitely try to spread the word about Ukraine and it’s beautiful people.

It was both beautiful and extremely hard to watch.

Slava Ukraini!

4

[deleted] t1_j6oym78 wrote

[removed]

−10

RegularStain t1_j6p8iva wrote

And things were only getting better and better. The economy grew, society got more control over politics, bribery and corruption reduced, the police have changed, most of the communist leftovers were expelled from power, bigger cities thrive with more taxes from business, smaller villages got their sh*t together and got new fancy roads and shops, whole bureaucracy got reduced, education system became better than it ever was. Yeah, it has lost and lots of shortcomings. But people, the government and the country as a whole got better. What good would happen if no one gave any shoot just like russians do? Nothing.

8

cykboydev t1_j6nz345 wrote

it’s easy for countries without nukes to suggest nuclear powers should go to war

−42

negrocrazy t1_j6p71g0 wrote

If nukes start flying everybody will pay the price , i dont think this is a valid argument

13