Also - Downvote me all you want you...the US is an awful influence on the world and if you disagree with that, you're part of the problem. I grew up thinking the US was the good guys, what a absolute load of shit that turned out to be.
That reads a little like the zeal of the convert. The US is still a more humane nation than most, though it's not immune to the diseases that come from being a great power.
I don't know about that. Honestly, idea of Americans self-ranking themselves as more humane is the kind of absurdity that lead us to where we are today. How many people making such claims have actually travelled to the nations they villainize?
For a long time I wanted to believe you, and in the past I'd have looked at work camps in China and said "thats bad". Now i look at the US prison industry and go "Is it really that different?". The examples don't end there...
Our congress is taken over, in case you haven’t been paying attention to the complete lack of justice on Epstein. It’s not all that difficult to see who is in charge.
We certainly didn’t help - but I’m wondering if this wasn’t inevitable after the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Totally not a fan of the guy we have driving the bus right now, I didn’t vote for him, and oppose all war. But now that we’re in it, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to be quite a bit more violent and terrible than we have the stomach for?
I mentioned above I work with some Ukrainian refugees. We are not prepared mentally for what is coming.
The US had been preparing the Ukraine for war long, long before the CIA mass murder incident at the Maidan.† The violent protesters were trained in the Baltics, maybe elsewhere too. That was not spontaneous but tightly organized. The US was in full command as became clear from the Nuland/Pyatt phone intercept. “The most blatant coup in history,” as a prominent American observer remarked whose name I can't remember right now.
† See Italian journalist Gianni Micalessin who dug out the Georgian snipers that were hired to shoot at both protesters and the police so as to “get the ball rolling a bit faster.”
This is a BBC article about the UK being at war. Not the USA.
That said, it argues that the various pre-war preparations fail to include "psychological preparedness". I think this is largely true for America as well, since war is something that the USA almost exclusively engages in offensively in distant countries, with only one small exception for one day on 9/11.
I know, I read the article I’m just saying, we Americans have no idea how big of a conflict we’re in right now, and we are not psychologically prepared for what it will mean to be bombed by hypersonic missiles or shaheds or what have you either.
I work with some Ukrainian refugees, we are not prepared.
It's amazing that despite russia constantly attacking European countries, we still allow their propaganda and fifth column russia-adjacent political parties to prosper. It's about time Europe wakes up.
The simple truth many have come to realize is a European leadership that insists mass migration is not a problem and head-in-the-sand denies the critical importance of cultural unity and shared identity for the maintenance of stable and liberal democracies is a much clearer and present danger than Russia.
War a nation can recover from, but from an erosion of cultural unity and shared identity it cannot.
They're not. Rather, the organizers of war – typically rich and powerful people in or close to London or Washington – use their propaganda networks to play these popular cards of culture and identity. Don't confuse the cause and the means.
This idea that you can delegitimize democratic parties by making some handwavy motions backed by little to no evidence claiming they're controlled by Russia needs to die, because they're an actual and definitive threat to our democratic systems. The Nash equilibrium maintained by political parties in certain systems deserves to be disturbed, because the situation in some European countries (I live in Europe) has clearly been on a downward path for the past one to two decades.
It's amazing that we are still blaming one side even though Europe supplies shit loads of weapons, intelligence and shit load of money to Ukraine to continue the war.
So, yes, it's about the time Europe wakes up and stops financing Ukraine gets NATO the fuck back into borders set back in the nineties.
Yes, in this case one side (russia) attacked other (Ukraine), which is just defending itself. It's very clear who is the aggressor here. This entire conflict could be prevented if russia did not attack, that's it.
I'm sure you think this is smart, but the indisputable fact of how this conflict started remains.
Are you suggesting that we don't come to the aid of our friends when they are attacked by our adversaries? That Ukraine does not have the right to support? That it must succeed or fail on its own or it's somehow not sporting?
Good point - we must remember that russia attacked Ukraine already in 2014, Ukraine agreed to their conditions and it still did not prevent russia from wanting more. History repeats itself - appeasement never works.
The EU overthrew the government of Ukraine, with violence, using paid assassins and mercenaries to shoot members of the police and government officials, driving the President of Ukraine to abdicate, and appointing a puppet regime in its place. Then this puppet regime began a series of mass executions and ethnic cleansing campaigns against Ukraine's ethnic Russian population.
That was the second attack. The first attack was the western organized "orange revolution", one of the CIA organized color revolutions, that was also backed by violence, in order to drive out another duly elected official.
In response to the Maidan coup, Russia provided some token military aid to independence groups in the Donbass, that refused to honor the appointment of the Maidan government and demanded the return of the elected leadership. The EU/Maidan regime sent in tanks to shoot the protestors and seize the regions by force, taking approximately half of the territory, and launching a 8 year bombing and terror campaign against the Donbass, leading to over 2,000 civilian deaths a year killed by EU/Ukrainian forces. These attacks included burning Russians alive in the so called "Odessa barbecue" celebrated and put on restaurant menus during 2014, beheading Russian speakers, burying them alive, etc.
In 2014, on the verge of defeat, the EU/Ukraine forces agreed to a peace treaty in which the Donbass militias would pull back and Ukraine would cede sovereignty to them while keeping them officially in the country. On video, all the major European powers that signed these agreements - France, England, Germany, admitted that they had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreement and instead they needed time to rearm the Ukrainian military for a final ethnic cleansing of Donbass. Russia reduced its support for the militias and they withdrew, but Ukraine never honored the agreement, and continued to shell and bomb the civilian areas of the Donbass for the next eight years, dropping petal mines, dropping bombs, and constantly shelling the rebellious cities.
Finally, after eight year of these terror attacks, Russia said "enough" and declared war on the Maidan regime, and together with the Donbass militias, it launched an attack to overthrow the illegitimate government of Ukraine, and bring to trial the western funded forces that were ethnically cleansing the country.
launching a 20 year bombing and terror campaign against the Donbass
Finally, after eight year of these terror attacks
Was it 20 years or 8 years? Those are two very different numbers, and only one has any semblance with reality given that 20 years ago was long before the so-called coup.
Europe and everyone else is entirely justified under international law to provide assistance to Ukraine to defend itself.
Regarding your edit, Russia doesn't have the right to dictate neighbouring countries which alliances they can form. What you're doing here is denying Ukraine its sovereignty, just like Russia does.
I can not believe the europe would risk all its heritage and for what?
Quite contrary - Europe is preserving it's heritage. Remember that russia does not want to stop with Ukraine - for example they want Poland to quit NATO. What right do they have to tell other sovereign country what it can do?
« denying Ukraine its sovereignty, just like Russia does » — Just like the US did in their coup d'état in Feb 2022, ousting the constitutionally elected president via mass murder by hired snipers. The Nuland/Pyatt “fuck the EU” intercept proved the US was in command and control of the operation and was debating who should be interim president (“I think Yats should go in”, Nuland). So much for Ukrainian “sovereignty”, about as much as a toddler.
Are you not essentially saying that Ukraine is partly to blame for the conflict for not wanting to roll over?
We arm and support Ukraine in their war because a tyrannical neighbour led by an autocrat is intent on taking its territory and he will not negotiate on ending it.
It's that fucking simple. Fuck him for starting it; if he won't end it, Ukraine and their allies get to make things difficult.
russia ? lol, they can't even manage Ukraine ( with our aid )
And that's why they want to attack Europe. They hope that it will either cause eu to stop supporting Ukraine or at least that it will give them good negotiation position (e.g. we'll stop attacking baltic countries but Ukraine has to let go of their territory).
if they end up attacking Nato, I think we would just go until boots are in Moscow.
our tech is better and we have more men ( we dont need North Koreans to fight)
Russia has been probing NATO for several years now. NATO is a paper tiger that seems to be content to do nothing. As long as the probing is in the lesser members: the Baltics, Romania.
When (likely not if) Russia decides to attack the Baltics, NATO will just shrug and send a strongly worded memo.
The US lacks the political will for a war with NATO, I'm speaking of the soldiers and citizens. The worst case for NATO is US withdrawal and explicit or tacit support of NATO enemies. Some soldiers would blindly follow orders to march on Europe, but we can't even win a war against Iran right now so I'm not sure how much Europe has to worry about a US invasion. Canada, maybe, but that's probably even more unpopular in the US than invading Europe.
And it'd also be the end, economically, for the US. We'd be hosed, that isn't to say current leadership wouldn't try and end up fucking us all over, but the effect would be another loss for the US.
I'm happy you have that confidence, I think it would only take 1 generation of conditioning to get us to centralized autocratic rule. It won't be trump in power, it'll be Vance or someone else less popular but smarter.
If it were only the Ukraine the war would have long been over. The West block has supplied more than $500 billion in aid to the Ukraine, that's more than twice the US lend/lease to the Soviet Union in 2026 dollars. Plus intelligence information and probably other things I'm forgetting. The more dollars are sent to Kiev, the more blood and lives the Ukrainians are expected to invest. That's the deal.
It is my current view that this BBC article and the recent announcement by national security advisor Powell are conditioning the public mind not for an actual hot war, but for a "tough winter" of eye-watering price rises, possible shortages, and maybe even utility supply problems if we are particularly unlucky. While talk of war increases, a glance at the state of the military suggests to me this is unlikely. What we have is rather limited, and even that is only about 1% deployable within 6 months. Much of Europe the same (Poland being an exception).
That said, I also believe that there is fairly widespread, low intensity, grey-zone action across Europe at the moment. Not every random fire or infrastructure failure is "The Russians", but I'd be surprised if none of them were. Indeed some of them have already been formally attributed.
It is, however, correct to attribute all sabotage and random failures to Russia until proven otherwise. No matter if we like it or not, Russia has decided to be hostile, and is actively committing sabotage.
It would be foolish to still just wring our hands about it. We have to name the enemy, Russia, and both support Ukraine's fight and do our own active hybrid actions on Russian soil. And yes, military buildup is required.
And to be clear, this will not end anytime soon. The war in Ukraine is but one aspect of Russia's imperial ambitions. It's fully possible we will not see friendly relations again in our lifetimes.
Seems off-topic for HN, but let's look at it technologically: if Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated anything, it is that drones are like guerilla warfare squared: even the smallest player can land hits and deny areas to the largest forces.
It might be tending towards impossible to achieve regime change militarily at this point. Maybe we all should just figure out how to get along.
This article shows the biasses of the press. Everything is about public perception, so the problem is that the public don't perceived that there might be a war. This is stupid, public perception can shift very quickly. The actual problem is not maintaining investment and critical industries. The UK was able to shift commercial manufacturing to wartime production for world war II. That doesn't work if you've offshored everything.
We've been in one war or another for most of my adult life.
We are in a perilous position right now in Europe, very close to a major escalation of the Ukraine conflict. This would entail direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
I find it deeply troubling that no mainstream party in most European countries seems to think this is a bad idea.
Right. Mighty Russia that has been fought to a standstill by its much smaller neighbour is going to provoke a military alliance absolutely dwarfing it into outright war. Not even China is going to back that after having a look at who the more valuable trading partner is.
Being ready for war is reasonable, being afraid or worried is a waste of time, and even irrational in this case.
Some people said two days, some said ten days. Russian officials thought they would get a short war, and they were wrong. Wikipedia will point you to a bunch of references.
A Russian war with Europe would not be the short war that the original poster alludes to by invoking statements from a Russian official.
You should really commit more skin to the game since your believes are so strong. Or are you so weak and cowardly that you want innocent Ukranians to go to war for your believes!
A major difference, IMHO, is the abandonment of the rules-based, rights-based, international order. Within it, international war (as opposed to civil war) was nearly impossible - it hardly existed for generations. While you need to prepare for the worst, you need to work for the best, for progress, like so many generations before us in much more difficult circumstances. Preparing for warfare doesn't mean accepting it; we must also work for freedom, including a just peace. It doesn't happen without work.
Again in this era, reactionary and nationalist messaging has dominated and somehow, despite generations of extraordinary success, despite being born into it and seeing its success and superiority, many/most think such an order is infeasible or even undesireable. At the same time, I've seen American leaders in the military industry advocate for becoming accustomed to mass destruction and death.
And shockingly, even the experts and practioners abandoned it and at nearly the height of its success. It's as if a messaging campaign insisted cloud computing was impossible and absurd, and so everyone just stopped using what was obviously working. For the rules- and rights-based order, yes there were outliers and setbacks and threats; that's life. But the entire free, wealthy, industrialized world subscribed, and were untouchably allied, free, safe and prosperous. Now, having abandoned it, all those things have diminished.
What's missing is not acceptance of warfare but ultimate commitment and work for freedom and peace.
Most of you who rah-rah-rah against Russia would not pick up arms and go to war to protect whatever you believe your democratic values are.
First of all you don't even believe in democracy - if you did, your views would not be so one sided and you would really want to understand the conflict.
Secondly, because no real democracy is left anywhere in the world. It's a myth.
This is a British article for Britons. The British press is nuts: everything is taken to extremes: events, statements and political moves. Unfortunately, every day the USA press grows more like the British press, moving leftward and increasingly alarmist. Look at what happened to Drudgereport, It once supported Trump and now it's practically a British tabloid of its own.
Take Rolf Dobelli's advice - don't listen to the news:
War is already here, just at least in America we haven’t realized it yet.
You guys literally started it.
As always, in the last 70 years at least.
Also - Downvote me all you want you...the US is an awful influence on the world and if you disagree with that, you're part of the problem. I grew up thinking the US was the good guys, what a absolute load of shit that turned out to be.
There are no good guys buddy. That’s the problem. Not us, not the Canucks? The Brits nor the Iranians nor the Russians.
People are great, countries are pretty much all evil.
Completely agree.
Up close everyone is great, far away, like from space, everything looks great. It's the middle distances that are problematic.
That reads a little like the zeal of the convert. The US is still a more humane nation than most, though it's not immune to the diseases that come from being a great power.
I don't know about that. Honestly, idea of Americans self-ranking themselves as more humane is the kind of absurdity that lead us to where we are today. How many people making such claims have actually travelled to the nations they villainize?
For a long time I wanted to believe you, and in the past I'd have looked at work camps in China and said "thats bad". Now i look at the US prison industry and go "Is it really that different?". The examples don't end there...
government != population
Our congress is taken over, in case you haven’t been paying attention to the complete lack of justice on Epstein. It’s not all that difficult to see who is in charge.
Russia invaded Ukraine.
You can make the (somewhat weak) case that Russia was provoked, but the first violent strike was made by Russia and Russia alone.
We certainly didn’t help - but I’m wondering if this wasn’t inevitable after the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Totally not a fan of the guy we have driving the bus right now, I didn’t vote for him, and oppose all war. But now that we’re in it, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to be quite a bit more violent and terrible than we have the stomach for?
I mentioned above I work with some Ukrainian refugees. We are not prepared mentally for what is coming.
The US had been preparing the Ukraine for war long, long before the CIA mass murder incident at the Maidan.† The violent protesters were trained in the Baltics, maybe elsewhere too. That was not spontaneous but tightly organized. The US was in full command as became clear from the Nuland/Pyatt phone intercept. “The most blatant coup in history,” as a prominent American observer remarked whose name I can't remember right now.
† See Italian journalist Gianni Micalessin who dug out the Georgian snipers that were hired to shoot at both protesters and the police so as to “get the ball rolling a bit faster.”
This is a BBC article about the UK being at war. Not the USA.
That said, it argues that the various pre-war preparations fail to include "psychological preparedness". I think this is largely true for America as well, since war is something that the USA almost exclusively engages in offensively in distant countries, with only one small exception for one day on 9/11.
I know, I read the article I’m just saying, we Americans have no idea how big of a conflict we’re in right now, and we are not psychologically prepared for what it will mean to be bombed by hypersonic missiles or shaheds or what have you either.
I work with some Ukrainian refugees, we are not prepared.
it's funny to write a headline like this and put it behind a paywall. just objectively kind of funny.
https://archive.ph/YDwhy
Its not behind a paywall if you're in the UK
It's only behind a paywall for US users, for making their country great again a second time.
I'm in the US; opened fine for me. Though I am using uBlock origin.
It's amazing that despite russia constantly attacking European countries, we still allow their propaganda and fifth column russia-adjacent political parties to prosper. It's about time Europe wakes up.
The simple truth many have come to realize is a European leadership that insists mass migration is not a problem and head-in-the-sand denies the critical importance of cultural unity and shared identity for the maintenance of stable and liberal democracies is a much clearer and present danger than Russia.
War a nation can recover from, but from an erosion of cultural unity and shared identity it cannot.
Cultural unity and shared identity is cause of many (many) wars…
They're not. Rather, the organizers of war – typically rich and powerful people in or close to London or Washington – use their propaganda networks to play these popular cards of culture and identity. Don't confuse the cause and the means.
yea, you are right, I recall from my high school education when Hitler came to Washington and then London, fun times
Remind us what happened last time Europeans got too obsessed with cultural unity and shared identity?
After all Canada, Australia and New Zealand are such hot-beds of crime and mayhem; we should avoid following their example as much as possible.
Their experiments in cultural erosion are merely a few decades old, and accelerating only recently.
You're basically pointing at a smoker who started a year ago and concluding because they don't have cancer yet cigarettes don't cause cancer.
This idea that you can delegitimize democratic parties by making some handwavy motions backed by little to no evidence claiming they're controlled by Russia needs to die, because they're an actual and definitive threat to our democratic systems. The Nash equilibrium maintained by political parties in certain systems deserves to be disturbed, because the situation in some European countries (I live in Europe) has clearly been on a downward path for the past one to two decades.
It's amazing that we are still blaming one side even though Europe supplies shit loads of weapons, intelligence and shit load of money to Ukraine to continue the war.
So, yes, it's about the time Europe wakes up and stops financing Ukraine gets NATO the fuck back into borders set back in the nineties.
Well, the USA too.
Didn't russia attack Ukraine?
Any conflict has at least two sides. This one has many!
Yes, in this case one side (russia) attacked other (Ukraine), which is just defending itself. It's very clear who is the aggressor here. This entire conflict could be prevented if russia did not attack, that's it.
I see, you can only count to two.
Ok let's work from the basics. Please answer this question - is russia the aggressor in this war?
How do you say that in Russian?
I'm sure you think this is smart, but the indisputable fact of how this conflict started remains.
Are you suggesting that we don't come to the aid of our friends when they are attacked by our adversaries? That Ukraine does not have the right to support? That it must succeed or fail on its own or it's somehow not sporting?
What were the Minsk agreements for?
Good point - we must remember that russia attacked Ukraine already in 2014, Ukraine agreed to their conditions and it still did not prevent russia from wanting more. History repeats itself - appeasement never works.
The EU overthrew the government of Ukraine, with violence, using paid assassins and mercenaries to shoot members of the police and government officials, driving the President of Ukraine to abdicate, and appointing a puppet regime in its place. Then this puppet regime began a series of mass executions and ethnic cleansing campaigns against Ukraine's ethnic Russian population.
That was the second attack. The first attack was the western organized "orange revolution", one of the CIA organized color revolutions, that was also backed by violence, in order to drive out another duly elected official.
In response to the Maidan coup, Russia provided some token military aid to independence groups in the Donbass, that refused to honor the appointment of the Maidan government and demanded the return of the elected leadership. The EU/Maidan regime sent in tanks to shoot the protestors and seize the regions by force, taking approximately half of the territory, and launching a 8 year bombing and terror campaign against the Donbass, leading to over 2,000 civilian deaths a year killed by EU/Ukrainian forces. These attacks included burning Russians alive in the so called "Odessa barbecue" celebrated and put on restaurant menus during 2014, beheading Russian speakers, burying them alive, etc.
In 2014, on the verge of defeat, the EU/Ukraine forces agreed to a peace treaty in which the Donbass militias would pull back and Ukraine would cede sovereignty to them while keeping them officially in the country. On video, all the major European powers that signed these agreements - France, England, Germany, admitted that they had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreement and instead they needed time to rearm the Ukrainian military for a final ethnic cleansing of Donbass. Russia reduced its support for the militias and they withdrew, but Ukraine never honored the agreement, and continued to shell and bomb the civilian areas of the Donbass for the next eight years, dropping petal mines, dropping bombs, and constantly shelling the rebellious cities.
Finally, after eight year of these terror attacks, Russia said "enough" and declared war on the Maidan regime, and together with the Donbass militias, it launched an attack to overthrow the illegitimate government of Ukraine, and bring to trial the western funded forces that were ethnically cleansing the country.
Is it satire or something that russians actually believe?
Was it 20 years or 8 years? Those are two very different numbers, and only one has any semblance with reality given that 20 years ago was long before the so-called coup.
Wow. All of that, in one go? From out of just one arse?
Russia invaded a sovereign country. Period.
Europe and everyone else is entirely justified under international law to provide assistance to Ukraine to defend itself.
Regarding your edit, Russia doesn't have the right to dictate neighbouring countries which alliances they can form. What you're doing here is denying Ukraine its sovereignty, just like Russia does.
Well then stop complaining and prepare for war as the article suggests.
I can not believe the europe would risk all its heritage and for what?
Quite contrary - Europe is preserving it's heritage. Remember that russia does not want to stop with Ukraine - for example they want Poland to quit NATO. What right do they have to tell other sovereign country what it can do?
???
It's literally explained in the next part of this sentence "for example they want Poland to quit NATO". Can't you read?
« denying Ukraine its sovereignty, just like Russia does » — Just like the US did in their coup d'état in Feb 2022, ousting the constitutionally elected president via mass murder by hired snipers. The Nuland/Pyatt “fuck the EU” intercept proved the US was in command and control of the operation and was debating who should be interim president (“I think Yats should go in”, Nuland). So much for Ukrainian “sovereignty”, about as much as a toddler.
The war they didn't start? Typically when there's a clear aggressor who initiates a conflict to grab land and resources, you blame them.
As we should do, Mr. Chamberlain.
Are you not essentially saying that Ukraine is partly to blame for the conflict for not wanting to roll over?
We arm and support Ukraine in their war because a tyrannical neighbour led by an autocrat is intent on taking its territory and he will not negotiate on ending it.
It's that fucking simple. Fuck him for starting it; if he won't end it, Ukraine and their allies get to make things difficult.
Your interpretation is contemptuous.
who would want to go to war with nato ?
This is just a fearmongering article.
And that's why they want to attack Europe. They hope that it will either cause eu to stop supporting Ukraine or at least that it will give them good negotiation position (e.g. we'll stop attacking baltic countries but Ukraine has to let go of their territory).
if they end up attacking Nato, I think we would just go until boots are in Moscow. our tech is better and we have more men ( we dont need North Koreans to fight)
If our boots get anywhere near Moscow we get nuked.
That's the issue, a belligerent neighbor that permanently sabotages you but which you can't ever get too close to losing.
Russia has been probing NATO for several years now. NATO is a paper tiger that seems to be content to do nothing. As long as the probing is in the lesser members: the Baltics, Romania.
When (likely not if) Russia decides to attack the Baltics, NATO will just shrug and send a strongly worded memo.
Probes are not worth going to war for. Russian boots on Baltic grounds would be.
More like America going to war with NATO at this point
The US lacks the political will for a war with NATO, I'm speaking of the soldiers and citizens. The worst case for NATO is US withdrawal and explicit or tacit support of NATO enemies. Some soldiers would blindly follow orders to march on Europe, but we can't even win a war against Iran right now so I'm not sure how much Europe has to worry about a US invasion. Canada, maybe, but that's probably even more unpopular in the US than invading Europe.
And it'd also be the end, economically, for the US. We'd be hosed, that isn't to say current leadership wouldn't try and end up fucking us all over, but the effect would be another loss for the US.
I'm happy you have that confidence, I think it would only take 1 generation of conditioning to get us to centralized autocratic rule. It won't be trump in power, it'll be Vance or someone else less popular but smarter.
https://archive.ph/YDwhy
Kinda tired of all this warmongering and constant increasing of pressure on civil society.
It does not help that we keep electing extremely selfish strong appearing individuals in winner-takes-all democracies.
“Strong appearing individuals“ just expose what is already there.
That is why Voldemort always comes back in real life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv1f2AwFCI
Russia will never start an open war with the UK or any EU country. They can barely handle Ukraine imagine that plus any other country.
If it were only the Ukraine the war would have long been over. The West block has supplied more than $500 billion in aid to the Ukraine, that's more than twice the US lend/lease to the Soviet Union in 2026 dollars. Plus intelligence information and probably other things I'm forgetting. The more dollars are sent to Kiev, the more blood and lives the Ukrainians are expected to invest. That's the deal.
It is my current view that this BBC article and the recent announcement by national security advisor Powell are conditioning the public mind not for an actual hot war, but for a "tough winter" of eye-watering price rises, possible shortages, and maybe even utility supply problems if we are particularly unlucky. While talk of war increases, a glance at the state of the military suggests to me this is unlikely. What we have is rather limited, and even that is only about 1% deployable within 6 months. Much of Europe the same (Poland being an exception).
That said, I also believe that there is fairly widespread, low intensity, grey-zone action across Europe at the moment. Not every random fire or infrastructure failure is "The Russians", but I'd be surprised if none of them were. Indeed some of them have already been formally attributed.
It is, however, correct to attribute all sabotage and random failures to Russia until proven otherwise. No matter if we like it or not, Russia has decided to be hostile, and is actively committing sabotage.
It would be foolish to still just wring our hands about it. We have to name the enemy, Russia, and both support Ukraine's fight and do our own active hybrid actions on Russian soil. And yes, military buildup is required.
And to be clear, this will not end anytime soon. The war in Ukraine is but one aspect of Russia's imperial ambitions. It's fully possible we will not see friendly relations again in our lifetimes.
Seems off-topic for HN, but let's look at it technologically: if Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated anything, it is that drones are like guerilla warfare squared: even the smallest player can land hits and deny areas to the largest forces.
It might be tending towards impossible to achieve regime change militarily at this point. Maybe we all should just figure out how to get along.
Russia is a nuclear power
This article shows the biasses of the press. Everything is about public perception, so the problem is that the public don't perceived that there might be a war. This is stupid, public perception can shift very quickly. The actual problem is not maintaining investment and critical industries. The UK was able to shift commercial manufacturing to wartime production for world war II. That doesn't work if you've offshored everything.
We've been in one war or another for most of my adult life.
We are in a perilous position right now in Europe, very close to a major escalation of the Ukraine conflict. This would entail direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
I find it deeply troubling that no mainstream party in most European countries seems to think this is a bad idea.
I think all of them do, but the alternative is to let the Russians do what they want and that ends worse for all of us.
Right. Mighty Russia that has been fought to a standstill by its much smaller neighbour is going to provoke a military alliance absolutely dwarfing it into outright war. Not even China is going to back that after having a look at who the more valuable trading partner is.
Being ready for war is reasonable, being afraid or worried is a waste of time, and even irrational in this case.
War is here.
It is clear we are not generally physiologically ready.
Answer: NO
Russian war with Europe would be ‘very short’ – Lavrov
https://www.rt.com/news/645860-lavrov-eu-nato-putin/
As would the special military operation. Three days short, it was promised.
Well, then may be you should volunteer.
That was promised by US General Miley, not by any Russian official or citizen.
So we have in this nugget an example of why you shouldn't trust western media, but not an example of why the west wont fold like a cheap deck.
Some people said two days, some said ten days. Russian officials thought they would get a short war, and they were wrong. Wikipedia will point you to a bunch of references.
A Russian war with Europe would not be the short war that the original poster alludes to by invoking statements from a Russian official.
Indeed, Europe would roll over russia really quickly.
Get a rifle and go to the frontlines then. Get some diapers too!
I'd rather just pay for Ukrainian drones. Maybe you'll even run into one when you get mobilized!
You should really commit more skin to the game since your believes are so strong. Or are you so weak and cowardly that you want innocent Ukranians to go to war for your believes!
So do the oligarchs think the Ukraine is finally losing and their investments falling to Russia? Time to send in the sheople to save their chestnuts?
Yes, there is a war, the same that Warren Buffett famously referred to – a class war.
A major difference, IMHO, is the abandonment of the rules-based, rights-based, international order. Within it, international war (as opposed to civil war) was nearly impossible - it hardly existed for generations. While you need to prepare for the worst, you need to work for the best, for progress, like so many generations before us in much more difficult circumstances. Preparing for warfare doesn't mean accepting it; we must also work for freedom, including a just peace. It doesn't happen without work.
Again in this era, reactionary and nationalist messaging has dominated and somehow, despite generations of extraordinary success, despite being born into it and seeing its success and superiority, many/most think such an order is infeasible or even undesireable. At the same time, I've seen American leaders in the military industry advocate for becoming accustomed to mass destruction and death.
And shockingly, even the experts and practioners abandoned it and at nearly the height of its success. It's as if a messaging campaign insisted cloud computing was impossible and absurd, and so everyone just stopped using what was obviously working. For the rules- and rights-based order, yes there were outliers and setbacks and threats; that's life. But the entire free, wealthy, industrialized world subscribed, and were untouchably allied, free, safe and prosperous. Now, having abandoned it, all those things have diminished.
What's missing is not acceptance of warfare but ultimate commitment and work for freedom and peace.
Most of you who rah-rah-rah against Russia would not pick up arms and go to war to protect whatever you believe your democratic values are.
First of all you don't even believe in democracy - if you did, your views would not be so one sided and you would really want to understand the conflict.
Secondly, because no real democracy is left anywhere in the world. It's a myth.
Russia is the aggressor, is it that weird to consider it necessary and right to defend against the invasion of a sovereign country?
I suggest you get a rifle and go to the frontlines.
Get some diapers too!
May be don't take the rifle. Take more diapers!
Russian teaching others about democracy. You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.
This is a British article for Britons. The British press is nuts: everything is taken to extremes: events, statements and political moves. Unfortunately, every day the USA press grows more like the British press, moving leftward and increasingly alarmist. Look at what happened to Drudgereport, It once supported Trump and now it's practically a British tabloid of its own.
Take Rolf Dobelli's advice - don't listen to the news:
https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/
The British press is not, on aggregate, left-leaning. That's just a weird weird wrong idea.
Here is a strange idea: the sides should negotiate!