Russia currently seems to be a dealer if misinformation high on his own supply. Which is also highlighted by the behavior of Russian troops when they first advanced into Ukrainian territory: They indeed believed to be welcomed as saviors… no sane army would have lined up their formations like that otherwise.
If Russia loses its war of aggression against Ukraine (and it looks that way, given that Ukraine is currently systematically destroying Russia’s oil industry—and thus the lifeblood of that country’s entire economy), speculating about whether Russia would be capable of attacking NATO becomes moot. Putin will then have to worry more about his own position than about Russia’s supposed strength.
But here are a few more lines of reasoning:
Even if Russia were to attack, it would never be militarily capable of sustaining a war against the NATO bloc (even without the U.S.). Russia may consider itself militarily superior… but economically, it is a dwarf by comparison and, following an attack, would never (especially not now) be able to replenish the manpower and supplies needed to wage—let alone win—a war.
Russia is waging hybrid warfare. Conventionally, it appears to be losing right now; unconventionally, it is achieving success in that more and more European democracies are being infiltrated by right-wing populists with Russia’s support. A strong national army in the hands of these people is far more dangerous to our peace than the Kremlin’s dwindling military strength.
Perhaps we can find a compromise:
A European army would stand for the continent’s shared values, and in this regard I would actually consider it sensible for us to defend “our better values” against other parts of the world. At the national level, however, I don’t see why a strong German army (with conscripts) should be necessary, unless, like Putin, one wants to return to 18th-century power politics on the continent. The European nations have spent centuries finding out where that leads, and it is definitely the wrong path for our future.
Russia currently seems to be a dealer if misinformation high on his own supply. Which is also highlighted by the behavior of Russian troops when they first advanced into Ukrainian territory: They indeed believed to be welcomed as saviors… no sane army would have lined up their formations like that otherwise.
If Russia loses its war of aggression against Ukraine (and it looks that way, given that Ukraine is currently systematically destroying Russia’s oil industry—and thus the lifeblood of that country’s entire economy), speculating about whether Russia would be capable of attacking NATO becomes moot. Putin will then have to worry more about his own position than about Russia’s supposed strength.
But here are a few more lines of reasoning:
Even if Russia were to attack, it would never be militarily capable of sustaining a war against the NATO bloc (even without the U.S.). Russia may consider itself militarily superior… but economically, it is a dwarf by comparison and, following an attack, would never (especially not now) be able to replenish the manpower and supplies needed to wage—let alone win—a war.
Russia is waging hybrid warfare. Conventionally, it appears to be losing right now; unconventionally, it is achieving success in that more and more European democracies are being infiltrated by right-wing populists with Russia’s support. A strong national army in the hands of these people is far more dangerous to our peace than the Kremlin’s dwindling military strength.
Perhaps we can find a compromise:
A European army would stand for the continent’s shared values, and in this regard I would actually consider it sensible for us to defend “our better values” against other parts of the world. At the national level, however, I don’t see why a strong German army (with conscripts) should be necessary, unless, like Putin, one wants to return to 18th-century power politics on the continent. The European nations have spent centuries finding out where that leads, and it is definitely the wrong path for our future.