One of the great rumours in foreign policy circles across the west at the moment is that Russia might attack a NATO country - Lithuania gets mentioned the most for various reasons - to try and test Trump’s true intentions.
Russia has the cat out of the bag now. Putin knows that him and his present regime can never be at peace or work constructively with trust with western countries ever again. Around 30 local cease fires have ended with Russians breaking the peace, proving they are not in the least bit trustworthy. The latest vile trick was to destroy some civilian buildings and infrastructure with missiles, then to wait until fire fighters arrive and to kill many of them again. All to run down morale and emergency services. They are totally sick, the nearest to pure evil in modern times.
The main aim is to take control with standing armies of the 13 gaps through which invading armies can pass to invade Russia, as it is a difficult to defend territory and they have been invaded 50 odd times, including by smaller powers such as Sweden. All of the gaps were held when the Soviet Union was around up to about 1990. This does not mean I see justification in this logic. Putin could have worked with the west and the defensive only NATO and there would have been no invasion forseeable outside of the imaginations of extreme Russian Nationalists.
There is no course that makes any sense other than for Europe to arm itself to the teeth and to counter the Russians on all fronts including in the cyber realm. For Europe to have an effective army post Trump, it needs to be co-ordinated as one, working together. That means in practice, taking the small military organisation within the EU and expanding it to include the UK, EEA & Efta countries as well as the ones not yet quite inside that orbit, mostly in the Balkans. It is needed because integrated armies are thought to be about three times as effective as the same resources would be when split. If split 27 or more times, I would say the gains for combining against the Russians would be far more than 3-1.
All of Putin's Bots and postings, plus diplomacy and propaganda were with the main aim of splitting the UK from the EU and Europe, splitting Europe up generally, opposing the EU and NATO, while trying to split USA from Europe. He has been a lot more effective at this than his corrupt, hollowed out, archaic and unprofessional army and navy. Nonetheless, they will be rebuilding and coming back to try again....and again. The Peace Dividend is over. Tax and spend will need to be pinched accordingly and borrowing increased. The alternative is way worse.
I agree that there is a much greater risk of Putin attacking another European country now than most think, although I still don't think it's very likely in the short term. An invasion similar to his one of Ukraine in 2022 would take some time to prepare and build up the forces necessary and a 'deniable' / 'little green men' scenario would probably be responded to much more seriously now that it's clear what that sort of thing leads to. But it is possible. And while it's possible that today's opportunities might not exist in 6 months, I'd guess that they will do for a bit longer than that.
Trump gives every sign of wanting to give Putin via 'negotiations' what he's been unable to take by force, so it would make sense to see if that works out rather than potentially jeopardise his best chance since 2022 by attacking the Baltics.
Finally, I think it's worth making one other point re: "it was clearly mad for Putin to have invaded Ukraine and he also couldn’t afford to do that in 2022, yet he went ahead and did it anyhow."
I think that's quite a dangerous line of thought. Putin had already got away with so much that it was reasonable to think that the West wouldn't oppose him in 2022. In fact, I'd argue that he was essentially correct about that. The West didn't oppose his invasion and would likely have acquiesced in his occupation of Ukraine. What Putin got wrong was not the West's weakness and cowardice, but Ukraine's strength and bravery. Which has over time stiffened Western backbone and confidence. (Although still not enough to persuade Biden that Ukraine should be supported to victory.) While there are some encouraging signs, Europe hasn't yet actually delivered an appropriate military-industrial response. It's still in the 'talking about it' phase. Putin would be foolish to bet on Europe continuing to convince itself it doesn't need to act, but he might yet be right that European leaders won't do what's necessary.
Let us reflect for a moment on the number of leaders with autocratic or dictatorial tendencies who somehow managed to die peacefully in their beds surrounded by attentive caregivers and having been able to feather the nests of their respective offspring?
Cecescu? Nope!
Saddam Hussein? Nope!
Muammar Ghadaffi? Nope!
The list is, of course much, much, much longer… There were of course some who were sheltered in the former USSR or modern day Russia and others sought refuge in even more unattractive locations. The point is this… The survivors constitute a very small number compared to the total of dictators, war criminals, and war lords who were either gunned down in cold blood, strung up on lamp posts or who were tried before being hanged like a dog!
Do we think it likely that the current President of Belarus Mr Lukasheko will break the mould? He has been in power and he has won any number of elections by popular acclaim. Unlikely I would say because he is universally hated by the entire population who is not on his payroll. And then let’s take a good long look at Mr Putin…? Well as long as he can keep Russia at war he possibly stands a chance of seeking refuge in China… However, if peace breaks out in Ukraine and the mothers of hundreds of thousands dead soldiers start receiving truckloads of their body bags from Ukraine I think that frankly his chances are limited. Offshore bank accounts don’t buy safe bed space. Possession of a palace or two with round the clock hand picked praetorian guards seldom guarantees a good nights sleep. Usually the guards eventually turn on dictators. Putin knows that.
So… Possession of a highly militarized enclave with a sea port sandwiched between the Baltics and Poland and possession of more than a hateful of nukes is a factor when considering whether Russia might invade. Logic and rational thinking might tempt us to say that this is unlikely. The logic of Invading Ukraine turned out to be faulty and the ideas that Ukraine can be expunged from the map seems hardly informed by rational thinking. Putin did both to stay in power. He might do more. If he knows his own military might be coming for him… If he knows he is going down… Then he might just gamble on taking all of us with him.
Can USA stay out of a nuclear war? Not a chance in hell!
Russia has the cat out of the bag now. Putin knows that him and his present regime can never be at peace or work constructively with trust with western countries ever again. Around 30 local cease fires have ended with Russians breaking the peace, proving they are not in the least bit trustworthy. The latest vile trick was to destroy some civilian buildings and infrastructure with missiles, then to wait until fire fighters arrive and to kill many of them again. All to run down morale and emergency services. They are totally sick, the nearest to pure evil in modern times.
The main aim is to take control with standing armies of the 13 gaps through which invading armies can pass to invade Russia, as it is a difficult to defend territory and they have been invaded 50 odd times, including by smaller powers such as Sweden. All of the gaps were held when the Soviet Union was around up to about 1990. This does not mean I see justification in this logic. Putin could have worked with the west and the defensive only NATO and there would have been no invasion forseeable outside of the imaginations of extreme Russian Nationalists.
There is no course that makes any sense other than for Europe to arm itself to the teeth and to counter the Russians on all fronts including in the cyber realm. For Europe to have an effective army post Trump, it needs to be co-ordinated as one, working together. That means in practice, taking the small military organisation within the EU and expanding it to include the UK, EEA & Efta countries as well as the ones not yet quite inside that orbit, mostly in the Balkans. It is needed because integrated armies are thought to be about three times as effective as the same resources would be when split. If split 27 or more times, I would say the gains for combining against the Russians would be far more than 3-1.
All of Putin's Bots and postings, plus diplomacy and propaganda were with the main aim of splitting the UK from the EU and Europe, splitting Europe up generally, opposing the EU and NATO, while trying to split USA from Europe. He has been a lot more effective at this than his corrupt, hollowed out, archaic and unprofessional army and navy. Nonetheless, they will be rebuilding and coming back to try again....and again. The Peace Dividend is over. Tax and spend will need to be pinched accordingly and borrowing increased. The alternative is way worse.
I agree that there is a much greater risk of Putin attacking another European country now than most think, although I still don't think it's very likely in the short term. An invasion similar to his one of Ukraine in 2022 would take some time to prepare and build up the forces necessary and a 'deniable' / 'little green men' scenario would probably be responded to much more seriously now that it's clear what that sort of thing leads to. But it is possible. And while it's possible that today's opportunities might not exist in 6 months, I'd guess that they will do for a bit longer than that.
Trump gives every sign of wanting to give Putin via 'negotiations' what he's been unable to take by force, so it would make sense to see if that works out rather than potentially jeopardise his best chance since 2022 by attacking the Baltics.
Finally, I think it's worth making one other point re: "it was clearly mad for Putin to have invaded Ukraine and he also couldn’t afford to do that in 2022, yet he went ahead and did it anyhow."
I think that's quite a dangerous line of thought. Putin had already got away with so much that it was reasonable to think that the West wouldn't oppose him in 2022. In fact, I'd argue that he was essentially correct about that. The West didn't oppose his invasion and would likely have acquiesced in his occupation of Ukraine. What Putin got wrong was not the West's weakness and cowardice, but Ukraine's strength and bravery. Which has over time stiffened Western backbone and confidence. (Although still not enough to persuade Biden that Ukraine should be supported to victory.) While there are some encouraging signs, Europe hasn't yet actually delivered an appropriate military-industrial response. It's still in the 'talking about it' phase. Putin would be foolish to bet on Europe continuing to convince itself it doesn't need to act, but he might yet be right that European leaders won't do what's necessary.
putin is running a war economy, he has to keep war going, if it stops what will happen to the 500,000 soldiers, they cannot be let loose in russia
Let us reflect for a moment on the number of leaders with autocratic or dictatorial tendencies who somehow managed to die peacefully in their beds surrounded by attentive caregivers and having been able to feather the nests of their respective offspring?
Cecescu? Nope!
Saddam Hussein? Nope!
Muammar Ghadaffi? Nope!
The list is, of course much, much, much longer… There were of course some who were sheltered in the former USSR or modern day Russia and others sought refuge in even more unattractive locations. The point is this… The survivors constitute a very small number compared to the total of dictators, war criminals, and war lords who were either gunned down in cold blood, strung up on lamp posts or who were tried before being hanged like a dog!
Do we think it likely that the current President of Belarus Mr Lukasheko will break the mould? He has been in power and he has won any number of elections by popular acclaim. Unlikely I would say because he is universally hated by the entire population who is not on his payroll. And then let’s take a good long look at Mr Putin…? Well as long as he can keep Russia at war he possibly stands a chance of seeking refuge in China… However, if peace breaks out in Ukraine and the mothers of hundreds of thousands dead soldiers start receiving truckloads of their body bags from Ukraine I think that frankly his chances are limited. Offshore bank accounts don’t buy safe bed space. Possession of a palace or two with round the clock hand picked praetorian guards seldom guarantees a good nights sleep. Usually the guards eventually turn on dictators. Putin knows that.
So… Possession of a highly militarized enclave with a sea port sandwiched between the Baltics and Poland and possession of more than a hateful of nukes is a factor when considering whether Russia might invade. Logic and rational thinking might tempt us to say that this is unlikely. The logic of Invading Ukraine turned out to be faulty and the ideas that Ukraine can be expunged from the map seems hardly informed by rational thinking. Putin did both to stay in power. He might do more. If he knows his own military might be coming for him… If he knows he is going down… Then he might just gamble on taking all of us with him.
Can USA stay out of a nuclear war? Not a chance in hell!
It is absolute nonsensical drivel to suggest that Russia has any intention whatsoever of invading another country, other than in self defence
David you are either wearing extraordinary blinkers or you are Russian
`Which horse are you riding POR?
https://youtu.be/yE1OkBqH4dI?si=oQ3zWr3zHkPb5rYp