• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Future Potential Russian Invasion of NATO Members

The United States is thinking of stopping participation in planning military exercises in EuropeThe United States has informed its allies that it intends to stop participating in the planning of future military exercises in Europe.This was reported by the Swedish newspaper Expressen.It is alleged that this decision will also affect several exercises directly in Sweden.According to the sources, the freezing of American participation does not apply to the planning of exercises that have already been agreed upon and will be held in 2025.“This concerns the exercises that are currently on the drawing board, which means a little later,” one of the sources said.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898403840610767354
 
The head of the German intelligence service BND, Bruno Kahl, stated that Russia wants to test the unity of the West and check the functioning of NATO’s Article 5, which considers an attack on one ally as an attack on all.According to him, Moscow may accelerate this process depending on the course of the war in Ukraine. If the conflict ends before 2029-2030, Russia could more quickly direct its resources against Europe."We hope this does not happen, but we must be prepared", Kahl emphasized.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898429634615853238
 
alphaecho said:
The head of the German intelligence service BND, Bruno Kahl, stated that Russia wants to test the unity of the West and check the functioning of NATO’s Article 5, which considers an attack on one ally as an attack on all.According to him, Moscow may accelerate this process depending on the course of the war in Ukraine. If the conflict ends before 2029-2030, Russia could more quickly direct its resources against Europe."We hope this does not happen, but we must be prepared", Kahl emphasized.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898429634615853238
Click to expand...
“We very much hope this is not true and that we will not be put in the difficult position of it being tested. However, we must assume that Russia wants to test us, to put the unity of the West to the test”
This is the only full quote I’ve seen in regards to this after searching for about a half hour. Sounds more like they’re operating under the assumption they could not that they have specific intelligence that it’s coming.
 
Snowfall said:
“We very much hope this is not true and that we will not be put in the difficult position of it being tested. However, we must assume that Russia wants to test us, to put the unity of the West to the test”
This is the only full quote I’ve seen in regards to this after searching for about a half hour. Sounds more like they’re operating under the assumption they could not that they have specific intelligence that it’s coming.
Click to expand...
BND is kind of a joke - unless they got their act together over the past three years (and that's a big if).

Nevertheless, I trust this assessment. It's consistent with everything that has been going on over the past year or so, and there are already overt indications that Russia is preparing for war against NATO (or what's left of it). The US withdrawal from Europe is sure to accelerate these plans.

Ukrainian intelligence claims that Russia intends to invade the Baltics next year. While I don't take their announcements at face value, this does sound somewhat plausible.
 
Socom7 said:
BND is kind of a joke - unless they got their act together over the past three years (and that's a big if).

Nevertheless, I trust this assessment. It's consistent with everything that has been going on over the past year or so, and there are already overt indications that Russia is preparing for war against NATO (or what's left of it). The US withdrawal from Europe is sure to accelerate these plans.

Ukrainian intelligence claims that Russia intends to invade the Baltics next year. While I don't take their announcements at face value, this does sound somewhat plausible.
Click to expand...
I do as well, however I as you know place more of the responsibility for the current situation on European capitals. I acknowledge that Trump could have handled it with more finesse.
That said NATO nations actually appear to be moving in the right direction now more vigorously.

I also would like to clarify Trumps position regarding not defending nato. This is more accurately stated as he will defend those states that have met their commitment to nato. Which in practice currently means the entire eastern front of Europe.

Another topic Ukraine proposed a cease fire on aerial attacks by either nation. And as we all know Russia responded with very heavy rocket and drone attacks. Trumps said more sanctions will be imposed on Russia.
I know this will not be enough for many of you. He committed to pressuring Russia if they do not respond to negotiations.
So we will see I am not sure what his eventual response might be. It will something but will it be enough I don’t know.
 
OReid said:
I also would like to clarify Trumps position regarding not defending nato. This is more accurately stated as he will defend those states that have met their commitment to nato. Which in practice currently means the entire eastern front of Europe.
Click to expand...
No he won't. There are no possible circumstances under which Trump would order US forces to fire on Russian troops.

He probably wouldn't even launch a retaliatory strike if he was told Russian nukes were incoming - because, you know, his friend Putin would never do that to him.
 
RiffRaff said:
The primary fear, at least at the beginning, was sparking a nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia. That's why western countries were very calculating with their support for Ukraine. This is pretty much the same old tired policy that dates all the way back to Korea. Do just enough that we can keep our ally from being overrun completely without risking a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
It is a question of differing responses. Calculating and timid in appearance, or forceful and unpredictable.

I continue to maintain if you’re going to commit to war or supporting an ally’s prosecution of a war. You must also be committed to entering that war to win and the cost it entails.
 
Socom7 said:
BND is kind of a joke - unless they got their act together over the past three years (and that's a big if).

Nevertheless, I trust this assessment. It's consistent with everything that has been going on over the past year or so, and there are already overt indications that Russia is preparing for war against NATO (or what's left of it). The US withdrawal from Europe is sure to accelerate these plans.

Ukrainian intelligence claims that Russia intends to invade the Baltics next year. While I don't take their announcements at face value, this does sound somewhat plausible.
Click to expand...
I agree with the assessment that Russia are preparing for war against NATO in the way militaries are always preparing for war. Russias conventional force has been devastated and they are going to have to massively build up just to rebuild what they lost in Ukraine. Saying they could invade the Baltics in the next year is a laughable proposition and I have serious doubts Russia would be capable of that within the next decade.
 
Snowfall said:
Russias conventional force has been devastated and they are going to have to massively build up just to rebuild what they lost in Ukraine. Saying they could invade the Baltics in the next year is a laughable proposition and I have serious doubts Russia would be capable of that within the next decade.
Click to expand...
I would agree with your assessment if the USA had still been part of NATO and committed to Article 5. As things stand, Russia can very well invade the Baltics next year provided there is a ceasefire in Ukraine - and that's one of the top bullet points on Trump's agenda (even moreso than on Putin's agenda).
 
Socom7 said:
No he won't. There are no possible circumstances under which Trump would order US forces to fire on Russian troops.

He probably wouldn't even launch a retaliatory strike if he was told Russian nukes were incoming - because, you know, his friend Putin would never do that to him.
Click to expand...
I would only remind everyone who fired on Russian forces in Syria? So I’ll base my estimates on actions verses rhetoric and talking points from opposition politicians.

maintaining he wouldn’t respond to a nuclear launch isn’t based on any of his previous actions or position statements is a pretty long stretch of possible responses. But I’m sure if he does someone will find a reason to criticize him
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Capitulating to Russia over Ukraine is a pretty strong indicator to Russia that NATO members may not be as safe as they once thought they were.
Click to expand...
It’s still boils down to the fact that Ukraine was never guaranteed the same protections as a NATO state though. The line has always been the NATO border.
 
Socom7 said:
I would agree with your assessment if the USA had still been part of NATO and committed to Article 5. As things stand, Russia can very well invade the Baltics next year provided there is a ceasefire in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Germany, France, and the UK would curb stomp the Russians on their own. Also U.S. troops are still in the Baltics and there’s no sign they’re leaving soon.
 
Snowfall said:
Germany, France, and the UK would curb stomp the Russians on their own. Also U.S. troops are still in the Baltics and there’s no sign they’re leaving soon.
Click to expand...
Literally not a single word of what you just wrote is true.

Okay, I suppose an explanation is due - Germany, France and the UK combined could not "curb stomp" the Russians in the Baltics; that's just ludicrous. Not unless they transition to a wartime economy, and that's not happening as of right now.

There are no US troops in the Baltics. There are between 10k and 20k US troops in Poland, but it's not a permanent deployment (it's a rotational arrangement), and neither Trump nor Hegseth nor Rubio seem to want to commit to their continued presence there, which clearly signals Trump wants to get them out of there ASAP. And in any case, even 20k US troops is a drop in a bucket if Russia decides to go all-in.
 
Socom7 said:
Literally not a single word of what you just wrote is true.
Click to expand...
What parts? Germany France and the UK have better quality fighters, tanks, and IFVs. On top of the fact the Russians would have to fight an embedded enemy because any troop build up would be seen on satellite and NATO would respond with its own and be prepared to respond. All of this is ignoring the French nuclear warning shot. And where has it ever been said that the U.S. is abandoning the Baltics? Not some online opinion a direct source from the United States military.
 
Snowfall said:
What parts? Germany France and the UK have better quality fighters, tanks, and IFVs. On top of the fact the Russians would have to fight an embedded enemy because any troop build up would be seen on satellite and NATO would respond with its own and be prepared to respond. All of this is ignoring the French nuclear warning shot. And where has it ever been said that the U.S. is abandoning the Baltics? Not some online opinion a direct source from the United States military.
Click to expand...
OK, I may have been sarcastic (kind of my thing nowadays), and you seem to be quite patient with me, so I suppose I should reciprocate. I'll keep it short, though - a proper reply to your statements would require me to write a literal book, and I don't feel like doing that right now, so here's a short executive summary:
  • If I understand you correctly, you appear to believe NATO still exists. I disagree. In my opinion Trump will never honor Article 5 if Russia attacks a NATO member state. Your opinion may differ, but in that case we'll have to agree to disagree.
  • Fighters, tanks and IFVs are useful, but - as the old saying goes - quantity has a quality all its own, and Russia currently dwarfs the Western European countries with regard to the amount of armor and airpower it can wield in a Baltic theater of war. Accordingly, Germany, France and the UK would be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to confronting Russia in that specific area. With US involvement Russia could indeed be defeated, but the US isn't coming (see above).
  • Nuclear deterrence - and France's role therein - is a fiendishly complicated subject, and I really don't have time to explain right now, but suffice it to say no one expects France to sacrifice Paris in order to save Narva. Bottom line: French nukes won't stop Russia from invading.
HTH.
 
Last edited:
Socom7 said:
OK, I may have been sarcastic (kind of my thing nowadays), and you seem to be quite patient with me, so I suppose I should reciprocate. I'll keep it short, though - a proper reply to your statements would require me to write a literal book, and I don't feel like doing that right now, so here's a short executive summary:
  • If I understand you correctly, you appear to believe NATO still exists. I disagree. In my opinion Trump will never honor Article 5 if Russia attacks a NATO member state. Your opinion may differ, but in that case we'll have to agree to disagree.
  • Fighters, tanks and IFVs are useful, but - as the old saying goes - quantity has a quality all its own, and Russia currently dwarfs the Western European countries with regard to the amount of armor and airpower it can wield in a Baltic theater of war. Accordingly, Germany, France and the UK would be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to confronting Russia in that specific area. With US involvement Russia could indeed be defeated, but the US isn't coming (see above).
  • Nuclear deterrence - and France's role therein - is a fiendishly complicated subject, and I really don't have time to explain right now, but suffice it to say no one expects France to sacrifice Paris in order to save Narva. Bottom line: French nukes won't stop Russia from invading.
HTH.
Click to expand...
I guess we’re just going to have agree to disagree I fully believe Europe is capable of posing a credible deterrent if they continue their current course. With the United States yes it’s a 99% certainty Russia doesn’t invade NATO even without the United States id say it’s a good 98% chance they don’t invade. If they don’t go through with the defense spending they say they’re going to then that number would change though.
 
Snowfall said:
I guess we’re just going to have agree to disagree I fully believe Europe is capable of posing a credible deterrent if they continue their current course. With the United States yes it’s a 99% certainty Russia doesn’t invade NATO even without the United States id say it’s a good 98% chance they don’t invade. If they don’t go through with the defense spending they say they’re going to then that number would change though.
Click to expand...
Defense spending is just an excuse Trump will use to abandon Europe altogether.
Pay attention to how he justifies pulling US troops out of Poland (he'll have to invent some sort of lie in order to do that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom