He shifted the question from "if" to "when" which is completely nonsensical if you know anything about economies, military power and consequences of this potential conflict. Absolute horse c***
I'm in Finland. Having all these discussions across the media talk about how a war between NATO and Russia is a real possibility, while living in a frontline-country (a country that was mentioned as a likely target for Russian aggression on this very channel) is.... troubling.
I´m so happy you joined NATO. Having the formal membership and direct communication and response in place before an attack on Finland is at least somewhat reassuring. Greatings from Denmark.
You guys aren't the primary target though. Most likely the Baltics have the higher priority in the eyes of Russia. And even the Baltics are not at the front of the line. Kazakhstan seems to be the lowest hanging fruit. It is a worse copy of Ukraine (with all its downsides and no upsides). And it's neither NATO nor EU.
As a Russian i haven't seen any possibility of us having war. It's impossible to sell idea of Russo-Finnish war to Russians. But that was until you joined NATO. Now government have an excuse for that.
When analysts predict a "war" everyone immediately imagines a large scale conflict and you're very right to point out that there are a lot more possibilities than just that.
@nightbot263 How it is propoganda and wormongering? At this exact time ruzzia is an aggressor in war of conquest. It's only rational to assume it will continue doing what it was doing since 2000s.
Yes, that's right. He just wants war, war, war. It's all he ever talks about. He just punches random people in the face sometimes. I say "Puck, Puck stop!" but he just doesn't listen. He's just trying to start something. He went and hit a Granny in the face the other day because she said something about his knitted sweaters. "Puck what have you done now" I said, but he just laughed. "I want to start a war" he said. What can you do? Thank God there are SMART people like you who are on to his game!@nightbot263
Russia will do whatever they have to in order to defend Russia, Homeland security has reported massive infiltration of US core infrastructure from power grid to water treatment center computer systems by Chinese hackers... China and Russia are likely to invoke a joint attack, since it's pretty much the world against Russia-China. Their attack is not likely to be in the be in the form of a mushroom cloud, but instead complete shutdown of core infrastructure, followed by Electronic Impulse attacks destroying most electronic equipment taking us back to the stone age... At that point a society built on consumption on capitalism will no question completely self destruct... With all supply chains and distribution shut down, we're looking at Cannibalism within weeks of the events, basically the stuff of nightmares.... We should be minding our own business. Defend our NATO allies, but not put our nose where it doesn't belong.... If Russia could wipe us off the planet without damaging the environment, of course they would and the technology exist to do that.
I follow geopolitics since i cannot remember, and I follow Ukraine war in real time since de beginning. I follow French, American, Austrian and of course Ukrainian bloggers that I consider credible, without ignoring the propaganda content that will always seeps trough. None of the sources I can find is close to be as good as you. Your calm, factual and knowledgeable analysis are far beyond everyone else that is available. And the fact that you post not so often and relatively short videos emphasises the concept that you post when you have something to say, say what is needed and move on. This is a far cry from most of the « content creators that gets trapped in the reward system of platforms. Thanks for the content, thanks for the help understanding how it works.
If you enjoy Anders, you may also like Perun. Incredibly high quality work from that guy, with the same level-headed approach. He's an expert on defense economics, and is the only person I've ever seen make 1-hour PowerPoint presentations consistently engaging and entertaining.
Considering what an asinine stance the current dictator of Hungary has taken past and present, if Putler attacked Hungary, it is doubtful any other European countries would come to Hungary's asinine leader's aid.
I suspect it's going to be the little green men in the Baltics. Latvia is especially vulnerable with its eastern region of Daugavpils with ~50% ethnic Russian population many of whom support Russia.
I can't help thinking that Latvia should ask their citizens where they would like to belong, just to have it on record if and when Russia sends their green men. And if a village close to the border says that they want to be Russian, let them - like when Denmark and Germany agreed on their border post WWI through elections.
Opening a second front will probably have the same outcome for Russia as the germans during WWII. It can give short term relief for the pressure in Ukraine, but in the long run they will be dealt with.
It doesn't have to be starting a conflict. Suppose Trump gets elected, and he pulls out US 'tripwire' forces in Baltics and Poland. Then Russia conducts a military exercise near the border to Baltic countries or in Belarus. That may be enough to scare EU politicians to prioritize stockpiling over giving to Ukraine.
If you mean the second front fought by Germany then yes. But if you mean the second front fought by Japan so that could have been the decisive moment if they attacked USSR again in 1941. So my guess is that Russia will try to pressure someone else to open the second front.
It's surprisingly funny that you people think a war between nato and russia will stay conventional,it will go nuclear fast and it will be kinetic with thousands of nukes hitting each other.
It's so obvious that giving Ukraine support is so much cheaper and effective than any other defense spending. Why can't the West, Europe in particular step up? All that has been given is surplus. Russia has so many weak spots. Transdniestra, Kaliningrad, Georgia, Syria. At very least the information war could be massively tilted in the favor of the West.
Again a very interesting video. For me it could even happen tomorrow that Russia in a disguised way could attack Estonia to help the Russian speaking people there. Make it look like a "civil war" like in 2014 in the Dombas.
As a matter of fact, the Estonian border town of Narva (with its 90% ethnic Russian population) has a track record of separatist activity: * 1991: the locals formed paramilitary units to fight Estonian govt * 1993: an illegal referendum on the topic of secession from Estonia (and subsequently joining Russia) was held. Most of the voters voted for secession. Not sure how the locals may behave should stuff hit the fan this time.
@@AlexP-mi2bccompletely undemocratic, if a regional majority wants to join another country ? Only if a minority (in particular the tip of the pyramid represented on the 1 dollar bill) in and outside Ukraine wants war with Russia, it is democratic.. Wasn’t Mr. Zelensky elected with around 80%, because he wanted to normalize the relationship with Russia? The majority of „democratic „ elected western leaders stick to their election promises, by doing the exact opposite.. And those, who do actually what they have promised (Blocher in Switzerland, Strache in Austria, Orban in Hungary, Trump in the US are demonized by media, and thrown out of office, or executed as Kennedy after canceling the federal reserve act (first action of his successor: putting the fed act back in place.. Everything is fine in the west? It doesn’t mean that everything is fine in the east, but the main hurdle to solve big problems effectively is the antisocial crowd elite structure, imo.
@@AlexP-mi2bcThat referendum went nowhere, but the present day Putin regime could easily dig it up and claim it gives them the right to 'defend their people'.
The three Baltic states should be scared! Due to Kaliningrad, will Russia - via Belarus - try to start something like Gleiwitz against Lithuania, and then "come to the aid of Belarus"? Or stirring things up in Latvia, with a huge Russian presence that are known to be hugely backwards to a rapidly modernised, liberal and inclusive Latvia. It's a reason its very important to have a strong NATO presence in those countries of troops from several NATO members.
I think the Gleiwitz scenario might look quite differently. Imagine a "serious accident" (ie technogenic) in Kaliningrad takes place with certain risks to civilians. Russia requests NATO (Poland and Lithuania) to allow its personnel and equipment in through the Suwalki Gap from Belarus. NATO refuses pointing to Russia's access to Kaliningrad via sea route from St Petersburg. Russia insists it needs land route and makes an ultimatum to NATO to let its forces cross. This also echoes Putin's interview with Tucker where he claimed Poland was to blame for WW2 because it did not let Germany cross.
To a large extent, the Ukrainians are getting older materiel and the supporting countries are buying and/or creating new materiel for themselves. So, they ARE improving their own inventories, as well as rebuilding their manufacturing capabilities.
All the US have done is dumped their past its sell by date rubbish on Ukraine. They'll let it go on until they've ripped them off for their decades old F16s.🙄
I dunno, I think the russian military is such a joke that at this time russia would lose a war even against the 3 baltic countries lol.
6 месяцев назад
There is no dilemma at all. The first place NATO would head is Ukraine and completely destroy what is left of Russia's conventional military. I think what you are missing in this discussion is just how powerful Europe is even without US of A. Go do your fact finding and you will learn very quickly that Europe is far and away militarily way ahead of Russia at this point in time. So why is Puck spreading a false narrative?
But what we are not doing is buying increased capability. Our stocks that we are building now, will be needed by Ukraine in a years time. So where are NATO's stocks? What we need, to send a clear message to Russia and the CCP is that we are ready to wage a war. Far cheaper to build a deterrent and say we are ready, than to actually fight a war, just look at 80 years ago. So although we are doing some improvements, they are not enough. The is a clear and present danger of imminent war, our politicians need to stop looking at their own careers and business interests and start serving the communities that have voted them in to govern the country. Personally I'm sick and fed up of personal politics in government, Donald Trump is a narcissistic twat, I don't know if he seriously thinks he can amend the constitution like Putin did to make him dictator for life, but there is a huge difference between the USA and Russia. Russians have had hundreds of years of being told to stay out of politics and politics will stay out of their lives. USA is only a couple of hundred years old and has continually told it's government, stay out of our lives and we will leave you alone. Trump is going to waste another 4 years in office doing nothing but complaining, like he did last time, and then get booted out (if he doesn't end up being the fifth assassinated president). Wake up Yanks, stop the rot.
Respectfully, I think you may have misunderstood Anders’ main point. You are correct in pointing out that NATO would not place the same constraints on their own direct military engagements with Russia that they place on the Ukraine, especially with their air power. Anders is arguing that it would not necessarily require complete Russian military victories in whatever NATO state they invaded next for that second ‘Special-er Military Operation’ to cause NATO into dilemma decision making-mode, and for their support for Ukrainian defense to dry up as a result of their reactions.
@@GetFochDgiven what the UK the largest non EU military is in utter shambles and the defence department begs for money. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. France has already been spinning up the defence industry since before this.
@@tmike_tcyou probably have no clue what its like to fight against country with nuclear arsenal. Until NATO will not provoke Russia they would keep ground operation in Ukraine. But when it will provoked, NATO neighbors will face carpet bombing, tactical and not nuclear silos. It will not be like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both sides would cease to exist, so it makes me wonder why you are being happy with that. This chap is nothing but warmonger.
@@skodbruger5344Now how likely is it that Russia invades Denmark only. And how likely it is that its immediate neighbors, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Poland won't do anything about it. I still hope that Denmark has got plans in place to replenish their artillery ammunition (that's what Denmark actually plans to supply in total to Ukraine now).
For the sequential scenario, does it matter who wins the war? In my view, Russia losing will decrease the chance of them attacking NATO countries. In any case, Europe needs to scale up weapons production a.s.a.p.
Yup. That is a point the video is lacking. If Ukraine makes a huge breakthrough and ends up expelling all Russian forces and stands on the verge of marching on Moscow before Russia surrenders, then they are not going to invade a Nato country. If Russia manages to keep the occupied territory, even if the rest of Ukraine is allowed to remain sovreign. Or if Ukraine loses the war entirely, then Russia will invade another country.
If we assume no more us aid is coming and Trump wins, then even the strongest supporter of Ukraine, like me, will have to accept Ukraine probably will not regain big chunks of land. More like they will lose more, because we europeans are just to weak and slow to do anything. So right now i see it going Putins way and he will be even more likely to finish Ukraine and Nato once and for all. You have to give it to Russia. They took on the West and won losing just prisoners and losers. Just by buying off the right americans and making Europe believe we could abandon our military. They are good a chess in Russia and we are soon check mate
There is no dilemma at all. The first place NATO would head is Ukraine and completely destroy what is left of Russia's conventional military. I think what you are missing in this discussion is just how powerful Europe is even without US of A. Go do your fact finding and you will learn very quickly that Europe is far and away militarily way ahead of Russia at this point in time. So why is Puck spreading a false narrative?
Pasting your otherwise-astute comment which ends with your “false narrative” accusation, all through the comment section, negates its value almost completely.
Half right, it doesn't ask for permission, as it's the 'last argument' - but it's gradual steps that are very noticeable laying the seeds for future conflict.
The cessation of the war in Ukraine frees the resources that are needed to reinforce NATO in preparation to defend against any future Russian attack. But there must be an overlap to permit the procurement, recruitment and training (all the DLODs) to be brought up online, which was my question recently to some senior officers - do we feel the demand signal is being sent quickly enough and urgently enough to industry? I don’t feel like it is.
Take a Baltic state for example, they can fight at home and with their own people, or they can do it via proxy at arms length. The choice is pretty clear, in which case all they need worry about is production.
@@mikemunro811Same reasoning applies to the United States: Our support of the Ukraine’s defense is the most effective, most economic use of American foreign policy and defense dollars imaginable. The West is bringing the Russian Bear to its knees, and China has taken full notice, too.
In order for the simultaneous situation Anders proposes to work it would need to both use very few russian resources and also require such a large response from the European countries that they would have to seriously reduce Ukraine support. I can't see what kind of operation that would be, it seems unlikely
Additionally, if it was big it also removes some Russian pressure from Ukraine. If it was small it could backfire, because the EU could decide to double down on helping Ukraine. Not wanting to be directly involved would not be a blocker any more because the EU would be already attacked in this scenario. So helping Ukraine could be seen as Uno-Reverse-Card to try to make Russia stopping the attack to prevent loosing in Ukraine.
Nuclear experiment on Russia's own territory. Russian nuclear bomb capable planes patrolling inside Russia close to NATO. Doesn't spend much resources yet can send Europe into panic mode.
It just has to scare Europe enough that a European politician can score political points by reducing aid to Ukraine in the name of preparing for a dorect confrontation woth Russia. It doesn't have to be a real confrontation. Riots in Estonia backed by Russia with Putin noting that Estonia belongs to Russia. The a (potential/actual) President Trump saying "Germany doesn't contribute 2%, so I don't care what Russia does." He doesn't actually have to attack Estonia outright. And then we have a battle hardened Russia on a semi wartime dooting threatening Estonia, Europe has stockpiled some extra ammo, but lacks experience and ability to actively replenish stockpiles as quickly as Russia for the next 2+ years. So they rapidly decide they have no choice but to accept Russia's complete occupation and ethnic cleansing of Ukraine. Not saying it will happen, but it seems like a Tactic Russia would use. And of course that raises the risk of a miscalculation.
Looking at how Russia has acted in Georgia, Ukraine and even by a smaller extent in Moldova (Transnistria) it's very evident that Russia is going by "divide and conquer" strategy. It's never gonna try attacking NATO directly, but it will do all it can to weaken it. My guess is that before any direct wars happen in the Baltics, we'll see instability due to Transnistria and Kosovo (Serbia remains supportive of Russia for a reason). Maybe even Greenland or Malta, as both of these islands aren't formal NATO members. As far as the Baltics go there will be attempts to rile up resistance factions or even civil wars, allowing Russia to weaken these countries without technically ever setting foot inside them. To put it another way, the less people are worried and prepared for a war, the more likely it is of happening. Likewise, the more people are concerned and ready for a war, the less likely it is that Russia's sabotage attempts will succeed.
Yeah, lets talk about Georgia. Still an independent sovereign country after war with Russia. No slavery as we've been led to believe. Anyone understand what happened?
@@lancerevo9747 Nobody did or said much of anything about the war really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it happened in 2008, right as Europe was dealing with the subprime mortgage and was beginning to enter the Eurozone crisis. Maybe it's also because not many people consider the Caucuses as European?
@@lancerevo9747It was similar to Crimea. There was no war. Russia just took over an area before the much smaller country could properly respond. Georgia is confronted with the choice of starting a war with Russia which it could never win, or just try and get international support, which is mostly falling on deaf ears. Crimea and Transnistria in Moldova were the same. The international community failed to act accordingly. These successes slowly made Russia cocky enough to go for all of Ukraine eventually, and if Russia wins in Ukraine then who knows...
Thanks for another interesting insight, also quite surprised how Danish military perceives the situation in comparison to other nations. Any logical explanation to this discrepancy?
Anders is the voice of clarity in the cacophony of RU-vidrs and commentators. He has the appropriate frame of reference, and does not project emotional hyperbole or detachment. He does not couch his points in excessive psychology or historical supposition. It has long been clear that Europe needs an integrated defense. It is the toughest political project. With in NATO the Baltic 8 have been meeting but do not have nuclear deterrence, which is key.
So - if US stepped out, we should: Pull all support to US missions. Buy hardware in Europe, Türkiye, Israel and kinda anywhere but US. Trump understands one language, money. There are app 2 mio in the arms industry, so they can start by laying off 200,000. While we don’t have to throw boys and money at US missions. Europe first, kinda.. whatever the outcome, we can’t trust US anymore-and we are in a freaking hurry. Great upload!!
Add South Korea and Japan to the list of potential suppliers. Also, consider Israel has offered a military alliance with Europe (you can write in a clause to exclude terrorism and disputed territories, only full scale war among mutually recognized countries).
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, only after they’ve tried everything else. - Winston Churchill. In all seriousness, don’t trust my country. Many Americans are ignorant of how peace in Europe benefits America, and want to totally abandon you guys to your own defenses. Americans on the right and left definitely feel that way, some going so far as to say they prefer Russia to France or Germany. There is a good chance we stop supporting you all militarily in November.
@Anders Puck Nielsen • Anders: I always find your videos informative and useful. You put into stark contrast the difference between a sequential and a simultaneous scenario. I have been worried that Russia would do something to provoke NATO/OTAN while it is still fighting in Ukraine merely because Russia has been flying its cruise missiles over NATO/OTAN territory. I'm less worried now because I now know that people with your knowledge and expertise are aware of this potential scenario so can make plans for it. 💪🇺🇦🕊🌻
@@geraldproctor2359 • How do you know? Are you sitting in meetings? Are you giving the President’s Daily Brief (PDA)? Your hypothesis that the U.S.A. is incapable of producing people as knowledgeable and competent as Anders Puck Nielsen seems to come more from your own negative outlook than from any rational foundation.
@@yvonnetomenga5726 Oh the US is very capable of producing those people. But if you’ve been paying attention you would know that it only takes a few incompetent people in congress to disrupt. I assume you’ve noticed congresses’s inability to function lately cause the rest of the world has. I wasn’t citing the current administration or anyone particular with the original comment just congress, breathe .
Why Russia will start the war with NATO by themselves?It has enough resources and territory. Why NATO start to build build bases in each county in circle of Russia and deploy tanks,jets etc?Who is expanding?
That's why I wonder if it wouldn't instead be an attack on a non NATO country, but one that Europe felt obligated to defend, and America in its current state couldn't get out of gridlock to defend. Hence the wedge.
Why would that matter? Once war with nato is fact Ukraine becomes an instant military ally and would open for performing nato operations on Ukrainian territory. Also it removes any objection to Ukraine joining nato since nato would already be at war with russia
If Trump is elected, could you imagine a faster timeline? If I was Putin I would move while he's in office. One thing I've always wondered was why Putin did not invade Ukraine while Trump was in office? That seems like a big strategic mistake. As I doubt Ukraine would have got as much US support if any.
He likely assessed, that Trump would want to be the radical strongman and just send it. As in, training, weapons, intel sharing, everything. He didn't want to gamble on a coin flip and create even stronger bipartisan support. I don't know Trump too well but populists either go overboard or nowhere usually
I have n doubt that it was trumps idea that Putin attack saying he would not intervene plus it serves trump as revenge for Ukraine not helping with his feud against the Bidens !
Trump has given Putin a list of targets - countries spending less than 2% GDP on defence. Which lines up nicely with Anders previous video target of the Arctic Finland / Norway / Russian border.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" (Publius Flavius Vegetus) I think the simultaneous scenario makes *much* more sense. Russia could even right now. Isn't the israel/Gaza wsr part of this operation? Or the Houthis attacking international shipping? Or the Venezuela/Guyana threats? However, I do think Putin will wait until November, he doesn't want his poodle to lose again. So Europe has a few months. European arms production needs to be ramped up *fast* .
"It's about diverting resources from Ukraine" As if ruzzia on itself has an extra resources which it somehow can't deploy against Ukraine but magically will be able to deploy against some NATO member))
There is a possibility to strike fast into an undefended place with relatively minor resources. And even if they were repelled after their initial success, they might still accomplish the goal of challenging article 5. In any case, it would scare the heck out of other nations and make them rush to fortify their boarders, possibly at the cost of supporting Ukraine. To counter that scenario, let's not leave undefended areas where Russia could even imagine to invade. The defense probably won't need to be massive since the attack won't be either. But the defense needs to exist.
A lot of EU countries are starting to implement a mandatory military service period. Here in Croatia, its said it will begin by the start of 2025. And we are all ready calling for our reserve troops to be retrained. Things ain't looking good. Seems like everyone is preparing for something.
As a Serbian I do not know what to feel at all. I just imagine our local overlord announcing a retake of Kosovo the moment a larger Russia-NATO war breaks out. Not sure how probable that is.
Would the simultaneous scenario actually result in resources diverted away from Ukraine? My thought was that those countries that do respond to article 5, however few they may be, might attempt to limit escalation by attacking Russian troops in Ukraine (+ whatever part of NATO Russia invades) rather than attacking them on their own soil.
I also think there would be the danger for Russia that Europen countries see a massive counterattack as their only option. When being forced to make the decission to withdraw help from Ukraine to defend elsewhere, this would be seen as being attacked at multiple places. Then European countries could see counterattacking the Russian army in Ukraine or even counterattacking Russia proper as their best option. At the moment we help Ukraine hoping that we don't need to sent our own troops. But if there would be boots on the ground they could as well be in Ukraine.
That is quite an interesting thought. There is no doubt, that once the fear of escalation no longer exists (since NATO and Russia are already at war), it would be very tempting for NATO to enter Ukraine, with land troops AND planes. This would absolutely destroy the Russian presence there.
@@teebodk3917 The fear of escalation would still persist as nukes exist. But, the deployment of troops to Ukraine would be on the same level or lower of escalation as a direct attack on a NATO member
6 месяцев назад
There is no dilemma at all. The first place NATO would head is Ukraine and completely destroy what is left of Russia's conventional military. I think what you are missing in this discussion is just how powerful Europe is even without US of A. Go do your fact finding and you will learn very quickly that Europe is far and away militarily way ahead of Russia at this point in time. So why is Puck spreading a false narrative?
If you just argue about the date, then apparently they already agree about an upcoming war. I find the massive media attention that is currently available on this subject striking.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093”WE” don’t technically have a war at all, Ukraine has a war, it’s just that NATO has decided they so desperately want to destroy Russia that they’ve decided to use Ukraine as a proxy to do so. The only way this war spreads is if western troops occupy Ukrainian territory and find themselves on the receiving end of Russian missile strikes and somebody decides to declare this an act of war.
This war will not spread. Ask from the Russian Lt. General level up and they will say, but those guys over there have 1000 fifth generation aircraft to our eight. And have nuclear weapons same as we do. Maybe Putin is suicidal. But it is unlikely all his Generals are also suicidal.
Ww3 is just fear porn. Once the Ukraine war ends America will have military bases in Ukraine and it’ll just be South Korea in Eastern Europe. Then the age of drone ai warfare comes and soon we all get herded into smart cities
question about he simultaneous scenario, if RU attacks a NATO country and provokes a war to distract and take resources away from UKR, wouldn't that also risk having NATO and UKR becoming de-facto close allies, even closer than they are now? Unite thing and then give NATO an excuse to send more active support to UKR? The fear that US and NATO had of RU escalation and thus limiting aid to UKR would no longer be relevant? Wouldn't this be a possible unintended consequence of Putin/RU's assumptions similar to what they had when they invaded UKR in the first place? (To prevent UKR from getting too close to the West, they invaded, and thus UKR became much closer to the West)
Russia doesn't have the power to win a war against nato.Of course they can attack a nato country if they want, but i don't think they are so stupid.If china may attack taiwan that's a chance russia will follow attacking a nato country.
@@user-qt7wb4nu1l if russia attacked nato we would go into full war economy europes industrial output after a few months would dwarf russia substantialy
Russia still has lots of nuclear weapons. So they can threaten Europe or even use some tactic nuclear weapons to warn Europeans not to fight in Ukraine and just defend their own borders. Without the US (after Trump winning the election) Europe would not have such a big or effective nuclear deterrence, so Russia can play with their tactic nuclear missiles. I come from Germany and I‘m really afraid.
Maybe they wouldn’t need a massive ground element.There may be some specialised units, sure, but Ukraine could supply the mass while NATO equips it and provides a naval element, air power, more missile defences, etc.
Germany is now taking the lead in encouraging self arming and production of weapons in Europe. And Thank God Great insight and military reflection: the possibility of other scenarios is crucial in “foreseeing” the Future and to be better prepared. Mange tak, Anders🎉
@@gregorymuir1985 Well, I am from Spain. My country has being cutting budgets for military defence down every year in the last 30 decades and we have had a coalition Government with the communist party, whose leader was received by Putin some years ago. 🤦🏼♀️ From my point of view, “thank God Germany is doing something” is a positive comment. The timelines are surely shorter than most of us wish they were.
There are certain things EU can do in order to curb this scenario: place orders with the Turkish, Pakistani, Korean etc. military industrial complexes. Give the foreigners long term contracts - you won't have issues with weapons. I think EU politicians are too occupied with keeping their money within the EU and ordering munitions from the European manufacturers whose production capacities are quite limited.
Russia stuck an influence in Africa which is the key to the European Military Industrial Complex resources. I.e. the raw minerals needed for their weapon technologies.
Alex: great comment! I see it in Europe time after time - military spending is always economic policy, driven by politicians who want to ‚feed‘ local economy - regardless of cost! See France with the rejection to buy 155mm shells abroad, only to bolster local manufacturers who cannot deliver at all! Or Germany with 2 competing tank manufacturers, one of them teaming up with a French one, or Airbus, which is ordered to manufacture the A400 or Tiger Helicopter with no experience at all in the respective area! A400 is turning a success, but Tiger Helicopter is fiasco!
Good take. Helps to game out these sorts of scenarios. Another viable option for Putin could be building up a military presence around the Baltic and Finnish borders (including Kaliningrad), and just force posturing. The very threat of attack could make NATO and Europe reconsider funneling arms to Ukraine.
You are a voice of reason and I am glad you are putting these videos up and maybe more people will realize, the underlying issues in this conflict and what has to be done.
Helpful discusssion but depressing, since it offers a dilemma in which none of the choices are good. Complications always make choices more difficult and unanimity harder to achieve.
Europe has to prioritise defense (as in, actually physically defending its own territory) a lot more than the US because of its geography. The nearest country that might realistically want to attack the US at some point is on the other side of a vast ocean, whereas the EU has a long land border with its nearest realistic enemy (Russia/Belarus). So Europe is never going to be as "strong" as the US in terms of the ability to inflict damage on their enemies unless they spend a lot _more_ than the US.
I actually don't think it will happen. Russia won't try something like this while it is still fighting in Ukraine( and I personally think Russia will likely want to take 5-10 years after the war is over to consolidate her gains and rebuild). And Ukraine is still the prize the Russians want and they will likely not even think about Europe while Ukraine still exists, General Pilsudski famous for the Soviet-Polish War always said something along the lines of "There can be no independent Poland without an independent Ukraine." His reasoning was that if Russia lacked Ukraine she would not be able to subdue Poland, let alone Poland plus NATO, and would instead focus all her efforts on bringing Ukraine back into the fold. What I envision is the war in Ukraine ends one way or another, and the Russians focus on rebuilding and integrating those parts of Ukraine they captured while waiting for the US and China to have a showdown so they can cut a deal with Washington for sanction relief and recognition of de facto borders in exchange for Russian neutrality and maybe even stymieing the flow of petroleum to China which combined with a US Navy blockade would make China's position untenable.
Your statement would be logical, if not for the fatal flaw in the reason they invaded that I believe your statement is built on. ruzzia doesn't need Ukraine as a territory, it didn't need Georgia, and neither did Crimea. There is always one and the same point to all of those invadings. Putin needed to bring his president rating up. And it did worked exactly like this this war as well. That's reasonable that you think of ruzzia as of a real country, which functions logically, and reasonable. But its ruled by Putin's friends, and all the money from the whole ruzzia meets at moskva. So you might as well call 99% of ruzzia its colony, and Moskva, the country itself.
@@michaelthayer5351Actually what he says is a tiny bit exaggerated for the effect but mostly true. The central question is not is it in Russian interest? The central question is does it keep Putin in power?
The only time that article 5 was invoked, was by United States after 9/11, Europe responded to the call and lost many soldiers in Afghanistan. Now US will maybe not help in Europe? WTF how ungratefull can you be as nation?, very disapointing that they dont have the balls to be on a team, when it dont benefit themselves.
Don’t worry buddy, they’ll sell Europe a bunch of top tier arms for a good price.. of course, if only Europe agrees, that the quicker the delivery should be - the more should pay 😜 And do never believe their arms industry makes fcloads of money in Ukraine today. It is not true, even though the congress ppl openly admit to 🤓
Great analysis. One question though for the simultaneous scenario. If Russia attacks a European country, assuming the US is out, wouldn't European Nato countries still band together and declare war? If a Russian attack means all the armed forces of European countries mobilize and join Ukraine on the battlefield, wouldn't that spell disaster for Russia? tx
It would, but Eastern Europe loves Russia and would never go to war with it. Hungary and Turkey are out as well. Greece won't risk it all alone with Romania. Western Europe may decide to go to war, but for what? Defending countries who abuse the union? No way.
The Lisbon treaty of the EU has in fact a mutual support clause. EU countries HAVE to help eachother in case of war, and is even more binding than NATO, because that clause states that ALL available means need to be used to help, something article 5 of NATO doesn't demand.
@@archardor3392 Hungary is a member of NATO and despite our "president" Orban is a friend(agent?) of Putin Hungary is still obliged to help if any other NATO country is attacked.
The difference between 2 and 8 years in terms of the sweep of history and Rissia, isnot a wide range of times. Just an opinion and only mine. It's better if everyone has been investing money and planning all along. Depending on the usa in the background is not stepping up to personal responsibility which is a core cultural value in the USA and is partly why over time this country became the biggest part of NATO. So its good to hear these European conversations happening. It makes NATO stronger.
Personal responsibility a core American value?? Your 'avin' a laugh aren't you? Americans are the first people to scream "I didn't do nuffin wrong, where's my lawyer". Apart from that, your post has valid points, some moreso, some less, but worth a debate.
Personal responsibility used to be a core USA value. It’s on life support now, but may be why so many Americans have such admiration for the Ukrainian people. They remind us of something that is slipping away…
If I was the leader of a Western European Country, I would argue that sending "our" weapons to Ukraine, is a much better strategy than keeping those weapons for the time, when Russia has defeated Ukraine, and now intends to attack our country. This may seem weird logic, but you have to think this through..... We now know, that Ukraine and its people are totally commited to defending their country. If we provide them with weapons, we know they use those weapons will be used efficiently and to the best affect. ie the most damage to Russia. Ukraine by necessity, are prepared to fight to the end. Its embarrasing to say this, but Ukraine's commitment and their preparedness to sacrifice is benefiting all Western European nations. They are on the front line, all other European countries are currently spared Russia's agression, because Ukraine is fighting the battle for us. Based on this logic, I think all Western European nations should be "Willingly" providing 50% or more of their weapons stockpile to Ukraine. Ukraine will then deploy them against Russia, and more than likely will nullify and repel the Russian invasion. No one wants to take over Russia, but it is important to show Russia they must stay withing their own border.
I think that confirms Anders argument. The western position is weak and when you weaken it more you could provoke an attack. And there were foolhardy plans for regime change and dividing Russia into 5. I think the Russians didn't get the memo and are in no mood of giving up Donbass and Crimea.
I think the first step would be to crank up the arms industry (more). Because even if no war between Nato countries and Russia ever occurred, any production overflow could be sent to Ukraine. The close second step would be to start preparing the military personnel and organisation for, like, any action at all. Because as said, it takes time. Maybe a couple of international excercises a year, which could conveniently happen in those very parts of Europe where Russia might otherwise plan to attack.
Thanks Anders. NATO lacks a sense of urgency. Industry could rapidly scale up if citizens were willing to make sacrifices. 3-4% GNP spending should not be a stretch goal when faced with Putin's existential threat. But cheap food & energy beats Ukrainian freedom.
This isn't like WW1 and WW2. Once all out war begins between Major Players like Russia and USA... The need to scale up production is nullified by Nuclear Armageddon
Excuse me but the RF has been conducting acts of aggression against NATO countries for almost 2 decades. See video on "subliminal" warfare. It's not just cyber attacks, propaganda to subvert democracy, flying of Syrians to the Polish border, espionage and corruption of politicians, but includes a chemical warfare attack in Britain, cutting of under sea communications and routing of missiles through air space. Anders has video both on this and the reasons that provocations have been ignored.
Trade embargoes will be the least of your worries if that actually happened. Export % way off too, 40% of seaborne, maybe. Russia continues to sell loads of oil into Europe today, only via India and it costs extra.
russia has massive shady oil fleet, which is used to export oil, also after sanctions applied, a lot of russian import comes through 3rd asian counties. So far sanctions don't seem to work for oil and import. Rockets and drones are still built by western parts and money from global trade
Nato should increase its production of military equipment and ammunition to an unprecedented level, as well as accelerate the development and innovation of new weapons and military techniques.
I still think Puck's scenario is absurd. Russia is struggling with their current war and here Puck is suggesting that aggression against Nato, an infinitely stronger enemy, may be their way out? "Maybe Nato collapses if they do". Yes but what if it doesn't? It would be one if the largest and most absurd gambles in modern political history.
Russia needs an absurd gamble now, due to the situation they've put themselves in. Also we don't know that they're committing all their military resources to Ukraine. They don't need to take on all of NATO, they just need a small enough incursion into, say, Eastern Latvia, that other NATO countries, especially the US, might decide that defending it is not worth the risk of escalation. That would start unraveling the house of cards that Russia thinks NATO is.
He can do grey area stuff you really need to think harder. Think just psyops type things that can test things politically to divide people. Learn about little green men in Crimea and h in a no one had prepared for anything like that so it was all over before anything could be done. It could be weird stuff like balloons like China did or cut some cables or almost anything really.
It is a question of timing. If you were Russia, would you wait till Nato defense industries fully spins up to outproduce you do a ridiculus degree in 5-8 years? Seems attacking sooner IF you want to attack would make more sense. If you consider that this decade may be the last chance you have to even get enough troops to try anything due to population decline.
If Russia is so concerned about their security, the most effective way to warrant this is to become a democracy. As simple as that. There are no wars between democracies, this is why being a democracy is the main requirement to become a NATO member. Putins talks about "geopolitical balance" is a shit talk and a brainwash. Democracies are balanced internally, so there is no need for external enemy. This is always problem of dictators. They must pretend that thanks to them your country still exists. Talking about balance while their own countries are imbalanced themself. Get 2% of votes or more and you will accidentally fall out the window or experience "sudden death syndrome" like navalni, nemtsov etc
Yea that makes sense but Russia also needs to consider that if it starts a conflict with NATO, there won't be a reason anymore to not deploy in Ukraine. People seem to forget that the war is so painfully WWI-like because neither side has overwhelming aviation (well, Ukraine has almost none). That would change in an instant.
Господи, да вы правда думаете что война с НАТО будет вестись танками и самолётами ???😂 Вы правда такие идиоты ? У вас тут просто дурдом какой-то. Сложно поверить, что столько людей коллективно оторвались от реальности.
Any Nuclear weapons released by russia will result in an overwhelming response from NATO and that most horror of a human pootin will die that day. @@annachirkina5671
Russia has not started an unprovoked war in 200 years unlike West. Even war in Ukraine was started by UK/US in 2014. War with NATO will be quick, it will automatically trigger MAD, no need for war on the ground.
It's interesting; I think the war has more to do with Putin keeping his regime than it does with Russia. With this view, it's hard to see an end to the war in Ukraine with him still in power unless Ukraine loses badly. In this case after the war Putin may need another war to distract his population from any sort of uprising. However you're right--if attacking Latvia and Estonia gives him a better chance at winning in Ukraine it could convince him to do it even if he's choosing between bad odds and worse odds.
@@frankrenda2519 If Russia's won, why does Ukraine say they're liquidating 800-1100 Russian soldiers every day? Why did they spend four months trying to get Avdiivka? Why are their oil refineries burning? Ukraine can't move forward either, but this doesn't mean they've lost. However the baltics may not be connected unless it's for the reasons in the video. He could easily attack Georgia to distract his population.
So scenario where NATO (recent history very aggressive alliance) attack Russia first its out of question? So only scenario where Russia attack NATO its possible? From creation of NATO no one ever attack NATO countries, but NATO countries ,bombard,attack and invade so many small countries. And now suddenly Russia will be first to attack NATO to trigger article 5, after suffer 500000 casualty, over 2000 tanks, and who knows how many IFV and artillery loses in Ukraine. Sometime logical thinking in Any western analyst are missing, or everyone in west dream that Russia attack NATO.
I find the lack of support from the American alt right totally bizzare and deeply sad. How did such cowardice and insularity take hold of that community?