The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.

It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.

French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.

archive

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 month ago

      Such is life currently: hyperbolic questions in ironic comments like " have you proof about Ruzz agression, because the West…" etc.

      Smh, about the contrast between their potential to embrace a grand selfdeception and the arrogant stubbornness to look away from the invasive destruction and killings Shahed drones cause on a daily bases for more than a thousand days.

  • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 month ago

    NATO/EU needs to start moving resources more into place. This will cause putin to have to move troops out of Ukraine to balance.

  • vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Meanwhile USA is fully prepared to comfort Russia.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I had to read the title 3 times, because even for the second read through I read ‘NATO is preparing to comfort Russia’.

  • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thankfully Russia can’t afford to stretch themselves much more. I implore them to try something it shouldn’t take much to fuck them at this point.

  • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    it would really be something else if they fought them off successfully and the united states looked like pussies and assholes

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That’s not really how NATO works, but I can understand the sentiment of imagining the USA refusing to enact the articles upon a member being attacked.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I didn’t think it was the sort of thing that could be refused? Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense? At least in my understanding, being a part of NATO at all legally requires each nation to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack on all of them. It specifically isn’t a “if you feel like it” rule, because that doesn’t have the scary MAD implications of Article 5.

      • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the US fails to honor NATO’s Article 5 then the rest of the world will worry the US won’t honor their defence packs.

        Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea

        Nuclear proliferation will follow

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea

          Are client states under the occupation of the US military. They aren’t worried the US might fall to act. They’re worried the US might act to remove their leaders and replace them with more pliant ones.

          Nuclear proliferation will follow

          Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?

          Why would the US allow them to do so?

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        And how exactly would they force the United States to do anything?

        “Join Us or we’ll start a two front war to make you join us” is hardly a convincing argument.

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Hey if there’s one thing I know, it’s that you can’t force the US to respect a treaty it’s signed, ever. It’s kinda our thing since the very beginning.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The US military is highly distributed throughout the world. Other countries can stop allowing us to have bases on their soil and it will significantly weaken our military posture. They dont need to invade the US to do this.

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Well I know this is getting well away from the point here, but Congress declares war, not the President.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Congress declares war, not the President.

            Congress has already authorized the President to deploy military units at the president’s discretion, per the AUMF which renews biannually under the NDAA

            • khepri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              For sure, what I’m saying is that, if Article 5 gets invoked, Congress at least has the theoretical option to make a declaration of war. They’ve done it 11 times in US history so far, and I’d have to imagine that Article 5 being invoked would be about the strongest possible reason to make it 12.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think I didn’t really articulate it correctly, I am saying I sympathize with the French and other EU Generals for planning like this.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Aren’t things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother’s defense?

        They aren’t self enforcing. Someone at the Pentagon actually has to give the order to mobilize

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          It would be better if the U.S. just waits a minute sees shat happens, and then congress votes to declare war and the executive branch would have to act based upon their vote or would be directly disobeying the legislature again. Congress declares war. Not the executive branch. And in the end we are the only country to enact article 5 in history, when 9/11 happened and NATO countries answered the call even though many probably did not wish too.

          The thing here would be that unless Russis initiates the attack, it wouldn’t trigger article 5 and congress could just ignore it.

          And a lot of people would like to ignore it even with the long term pitfalls, because all they care about is themselves and right this very second

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Congress declares war. Not the executive branch

            Congress authorized enormous discretion to the president under the NDAA and AUMF. There’s no actual need to declare war in the modern era.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Other than the part about it forcing the executive branch to act and holding all of them responsible for not upholding the laws written by the legislature. But congress wouldn’t likely do it.

  • CleoCommunist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why do we fucking still Need to use military confrontation for everything?

    Fr in this modern world with phones, internet and much more, why do we have to confront by sending young people in a year grinder?

    I am ashamed of my species

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well because no amount of “phones internet and much more” is going to stop a foreign invading soldier with a gun from taking your shit and killing you, would be the very short answer.

      • CleoCommunist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Apperently yall havent got this isnt a realistic thing but a call on how war isnt that good you know?

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          ok, well if the point you were trying to make is “war isnt that good you know?” then hard agree from me, but that’s a serious motte-and-baily retreat from your original words wondering why we still sometimes need armed confrontation even in today’s world.

          • CleoCommunist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Aremed confrontation as in military, especially if the people dont want to be there fighting, Isnt good.

            Unfortunately with some governments you cant treat in peace and the people Will Need to arm themselves and do stuff.

            I still Think that in any case there should be the leasts deaths possibile

    • Twongo [she/her]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      UH OH - you did a ‘leftism’ in the warmongering liberal instance. you get sentenced to several downvotes and a brainwashed accusation!

  • jazzkoalapaws@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s kind of funny how the West is getting beat by its own game.

    We only care about the money.

    Edit: Apparently this reality upsets a lot of you.

  • join@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    69
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is there any credible material proof that Russia is preparing for an invasion of Europe???

    They are just barely capable of winning a slow war of attrition against Ukraine, how can you make a credible argument they could achieve any war aims against all of Europe?

    You can’t even argue they can take one country at a time, the entire border is riddled with NATO tripwire troops, guaranteeing the direct involvement of each major European military from the get-go.

    Is this just fearmongering to drum up support for more military Keynesianism?

      • join@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        1 month ago

        They have invaded Ukraine, a country that is not in NATO nor in the EU, this article is talking about a war with all the European member states of NATO. I think my wording was clear.

        And considering rearmament, do you know what the security dilemma is, and what that means for the security of everyone in Europe?

        • massacre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ukraine is still in Europe no matter how you spin it. Russia has also invaded NATO aligned airspace, cut infrastructure lines in the ocean, likely blew up a critical fuel pipeline, continues aggressive cyber warfare, bombed a railway in Poland, and pays for bots and misinformation campaigns and supports right wing fascism in the US and EU. They rattle their nuclear sabre constantly and have also had illegal incursions across borders like Finland… Tell us again how Russia isn’t a nascent threat to all Europeans after invading a sovereign country twice, downing passenger jets and sending proxy ships for covert unconventional warfare? The EU is under attack already and at least Poland is awake to it.

    • Jimbel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 month ago

      Russia is already attacking EU/NATO with their hybrid war. Russia is pushing all these far right movements in europe and usa. They also attacked critical infrastrucure e.g. the internet cables and send their drones into europe. Also Russia send killers into europe to kill certain individuals e.g. in Berlin the “Tiergarten killer”. Russia needs to feel that it can no longer do this without consequence. Europe needs to walk the talk.