You must log in or register to comment.

doc_daneeka t1_iuh3r7h wrote

It's a NATO country, so the risk is awfully low right now. While Putin may very well have thought he had a world class army in January, he knows that's bullshit now, and that if it came to that, NATO would utterly curb stomp the Russian military.

The Baltic States need to be wary, obviously, and there's perhaps great danger in the long term, but Russia is nowhere near capable of invading any of them any time soon.


di11deux t1_iuhtnx2 wrote

Zero chance Russia tries to invade a NATO state. They can't even maintain their front in Ukraine, let alone open a second one. The Russian army will take a decade at least to fully re-arm and re-organize, assuming the war ended tomorrow.


[deleted] t1_iuigvj8 wrote

How are they going to rearm? Russian economy is going to collapse. It will get much worse before it will get any better. It will take 50 them years or longer to recover.


PotentialAsk t1_iuil98i wrote

..And then it got worse


Spyinc t1_iuiub9l wrote

Russian History 101:

"Things were bad, but then it got worse!"


huzernayme t1_iuimrac wrote

They could rearm by forming an axis.


Workister t1_iuiioq3 wrote

>Zero chance Russia tries to invade a NATO state.

I heard this a lot during the Maidan in 2014, with a lot of people denying Russia's invasion while it was actively invading Crimea.

For the last 8 years, the received wisdom was that there was a zero chance Putin would invade Ukraine, because [insert any number of reasons, ranging from Slavic brotherhood and lovd to the suicidal consequences for Putin and Russia].

Of course, the "zero chance" crowd I personally argued with since the beginning of the Maidan were dead wrong.

The "zero chance" scenarios, like the invasion, like the Russian draft, like the targeting of civilians, seem to be proven wrong at again and again.

Something might be low chance, without being zero chance. The difference is that we take low chance threats seriously instead of dismissing them.


thebestnames t1_iuin5ji wrote

A mistake many of us have made is to see Russia as a rational actor and think they will do what they should do. Meanwhile they insist on doing these irrationnal blunders.

So yeah I agree. With them there is no "zero chance" scenario. I wouldn't be too surprised if they baited NATO into a fight just to have a good excuse for losing.


Workister t1_iuit0q7 wrote

>A mistake many of us have made is to see Russia as a rational actor and think they will do what they should do. Meanwhile they insist on doing these irrationnal blunders.

I addressed this in another response, but I'll paraphrase here.

I think it's a mistake to see Putin as irrational. His power is derived from positioning himself as Russia's protector and savior.

The Propaganda:

He saved Russia from the "Chechen terrorists" (which was likely a false flag operation, and which brought him to national attention).

He saved Russia from the chaos and grotesque freedoms of post-Soviet Russia (circa 2004, when he took over media, and restructured voting - during the 1990s, free expression flourished in Russia, and it disturbed many people who felt their reality was already crumbling).

He saved Russia from the oligarchs (he made a public display of going after disloyal oligarchs, and then installed loyalists).

He saved Russia from starvation and capitalists (life in 1990s Russia was the hardest it had been in decades, and for many, especially outside of Moscow, food insecurity was a really problem, caused by global capitalists trying to hobble Russia).

He's currently saving Russia from apostate Russians who have gotten into their heads that Ukraine is an actually identity, while embracing Nazism.

He has been playing on repeat for over 20 years that the Baltic states are ungrateful backstabbers who want to see Russians suffer, and only he can keep them at bay.

Any pain that Russia suffers is because it's enemies are relentless, and the only thing standing between those enemies and utter, complete annihilation is Putin himself. He can't stop all the pain, but he can hold of oblivion.

Because of how he's positioned himself, each pain suffered by Russia is turned into a reminder of the death that awaits each Russian should he lose power.

His power is at its zenith when Russia suffers.

As I said elsewhere, there's a limit to the suffering Russians will take, but we don't know where that limit is, and that's dangerous for us all.


FarawayFairways t1_iuk20l3 wrote

> A mistake many of us have made is to see Russia as a rational actor and think they will do what they should do. Meanwhile they insist on doing these irrational blunders.

In truth, there were plenty of things operating in support of Putin's judgement that you would describe as rational, which people seemed blind to. I'm not sure that the 'mad-man' thing really works to the extent that Reddit says. You didn't need to be privy to 'top secret' information to see how it built up either. You would be perfectly capable of looking at the chronology of events and concluding that the invasion was inevitable and the logical extension of what he'd be doing for a decade

1: Putin was known to have been furious about how NATO corrupted a peace-keeping no-fly zone in Libya and turned it into an offensive action, that picked a side. Never again, was his thinking. I feel this was a really important touchstone moment, the significance of which is often overlooked and gets absolutely zero media comment. Don't forget that Obama was persuaded to join this action at the prompting of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. Vice President Joe Biden was known to have favoured non-intervention. Putin might be looking at Biden's lack of enthusiasm and mistaking good judgement for weakness. It needn't be the thinking of a mad man therefore, but rather someone who thinks he's got a read on Biden, and he's betting that this is Biden's default reaction

2: In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea with no serious consequences

3: America failed to involve themselves in Syria. Again it was Clinton who was more enthusiastic for action against Assad. It was first David Cameron (whose non-participation owed more to parliamentary mismanagement than any intent) and later VP Biden who persuaded Obama (during their famous 'rose garden walk') not to commit to Syria. Only the French formally adopted a proposal to engage, and they were left on their own

4: Russia by contrast did decide to intervene in Syria and enjoyed a modicum of success in doing so, even to the point where they attacked and helped destroy some western proxies (notably the FSA). This has to have served to embolden Putin, encouraging him to conclude he was more effective than he was

5: A new President (Trump) then handed over American bases in Syria to the Russians and allowed them to get on with it. Again, this has to signal to the Russian's that the American's will stand aside in the face of Russian aggression

6: Having co-opted the Kurds into the fight against ISIS, American foreign policy changed again when President Trump abandoned them and allowed the Turks and Syrians a free run on his erstwhile ally. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that when the chips were down, America would abandon another loose ally who is neither part of the NATO alliance nor particularly woven into the fabric of the west

7: Russia poisoned the Skripals and faced little more sanction than a few diplomats being sent back. Indeed, there's a been a whole host suspicious deaths occurring all over Europe and North American with no one making much effort to sanction Russia

8: During all this time of course, Trump is also working to undermine the western alliance, questioning the value of NATO and starting to open up fault lines

9: Throughout this period Russia is launching a series of global disruptions from political interference campaigns, cyber/ ransomware attacks against western infrastructure, cutting internet cables in Norway, or destroying satellites in space. None of this draws any retaliation from the west, indeed, it seems to generate approval in some quarters!

10: Putin then watches the chaos of another American withdrawal (Afghanistan this time). Crucially this is another Biden decision where Joe has signalled a preference to disengage, and having failed to train another army to add to the Syrian opposition and Iraqi's, Russia might be forgiven for thinking there is a structural problem here and America can't train a resistance

11: Although I doubt he ever regarded the EU as military threat to Russia, he has to have been further encouraged by the appetite in western Europe for his gas and oil. Was the EU (an organisation that tends to stay within its borders and has never engaged in any military activity of consequence) likely to face off under the threat of the loss of their gas supply in support of a peripheral state that wasn't even an official candidate member? It was Germany and France after all who led the western resistance against the Iraq war, Italy is of little consequence, and the most belligerent member state in the bloc is no longer a member

12: Finally he meets Xi at the Beijing Olympics to agree their 'no limits' pact

When you take all these incidents together over the 10 year + timeframe, I'm not sure you'd call it mad? There is plenty of evidence there to make you conclude its a calculated gamble, and plenty of fair winds blowing to indicate that Putin would get away with it. You can certainly say it was an error of judgement, but an error you can perhaps begin to understand the path that led him to make it. Making a mistake in judgement however needn't be the same as being mad

Let's be honest, had a handful of American states voted Republican, America's position today would be to denounce Ukraine and support Russia. That's how precarious this was (and still is to a degree).


di11deux t1_iuil50d wrote

I understand what you're saying, but I have to respectfully disagree.

Ukraine 2014 was/is much different than a NATO state. At that time, there was no Western/NATO commitment to their defense, the US was still deeply involved in Afghanistan, and Ukraine's military was incredibly disorganized. Speaking personally, I never thought a full-on invasion in 2014 or 2022 was ever out of the question, as there remained the possibility that Russia could achieve its objectives quickly and (relatively) easily.

Comparing Ukraine 2014 to Lithuania 2022, or any NATO state for that matter. is completely different. We're talking about a Russian military hemorrhaging men and material against a smaller neighbor with a patchwork of NATO equipment. I feel very confident in saying that there's zero chance Russia will invade Lithuania because there's zero chance Russia can even pull together the BTG's necessary to hold a public bathroom in a separate theater, let alone mount an invasion. You're also looking at a fully-integrated NATO military that will without question invite a full NATO response. Russia would need a force of at least 150,000 to seriously threaten any of their neighbors, and they simply don't have that force to spare.

Now, are there caveats that could change this calculus? Sure - if you're talking about a 10 or 20 year time horizon, I can't say there's zero chance anymore. I also would expect Russia to employ non-traditional methods to try and fuck around. But, if we're thinking about the next 2-3 years, I feel very confident in saying the chances of a Russian invasion into a NATO state is zero.


Workister t1_iuiqiku wrote

This article is about Lithuania taking steps to ready it's defensive posture against Russian invasion.

You seem to be implying that this is unnecessary because there is a zero chance of Russia invading Lithuania.

You say the zero chance stems from Russia looking at NATO's response.

This is Lithuania both readying that response, and advertising it.

If Lithuania treated it like a zero chance, it wouldn't be a zero chance.

They are treating it like a likelihood, and therefore, the chance decreases.

As the article correctly points out, Lithuania is Russia's gateway to Kaliningrad. That provides political cover (however vellus) for Russia to try something.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and especially since 2004, Russian media has been running a constant narrative about how two faced the Baltic states are - how Russia saved them from Hitler, rebuilt them after WWII, poured in tons of wealth that could've been used in the Russian Soviet Republic, only to have them say "thank you" by turning their backs on them.

There has been an intensive propaganda campaign,spanning decades, against the Baltic states. Even Russians who might question a "special operation" in Ukraine would "understand" the necessity for escalation in the Baltics.

Also, Putin tends to be stronger when Russia is losing, because he plays off Russian fears of the the outside world to position himself as Russia's savior. Contrary to popular belief, he is a rational actor, and every defeat Russia experiences on the battlefield is a personal victory for his hold on power. Of course there's a limit to that, but no one knows exactly where that limit is, and that makes this whole situation incredibly dangerous, and we need to take all potential threats very seriously.


Visstick t1_iuienvh wrote

To put in a godwin

Didnt the nazis declare war on Russia eventhough already being at war with the allies?


lIIllIIlllIIllIIl t1_iuijp6x wrote

When the Nazis declared war on Russia, the Nazis were by all metrics winning their war against the Allies. Britain was the only major ally left, and the United States hadn't joined the war yet.

Today, it's different. Russia is already doing poorly against Ukraine. Declaring war against NATO would just be suicide.


thebestnames t1_iuikrl0 wrote

It was a wildly different situation. The Allies were not the winning side in June 1941 when the Germans launched the invasion of the USSR. France had fallen and Germany&its allies and puppets had control of the entire European continent. No way Hitler would have opened a second front had France stalled the Nazi invasion with the battle still fiercely taking place.

If we compare WW2 to the current era then its like Poland manhandling Nazi Germany, who has lost all its initial invasion force. With the Allies staying out of the war but cheering and sending weapons. Madness for the Germans to also try their luck on the French&British at that point when even getting to Warsaw is impossible.


dante662 t1_iuiqw5y wrote

A decade assuming their economy was actually growing, and corrupt government officials weren't stealing at every turn.


Their army will never recover under current conditions. Only once putin is gone, russia splits up into constituent republics again, and the war crimes trials start up, and the reparations start up, will any external national (other than Iran and China, it seems) do anything to help them.


WWGFD t1_iuizq7a wrote

They are going to be the New North Korea after this. They will have nothing left and be isolated. They will not be able to rearm. They are stuck with the tech they have and that is it.


Fargeen_Bastich t1_iui3s67 wrote

And any capability they do have is being diminished by the day.


LeChiz32 t1_iui6tli wrote

All valid points y’all. My issue is that Pootin thought he genuinely would take Ukraine in some weeks and actually attacked. I would still say the chance of him attacking a NATO isn’t completely zero on accounts of him possibly being legit genocidal.


Different-Occasion47 t1_iuh3a8q wrote

It's my belief that Lithuania, Finland and Estonia are fuck around and find out countries. I would not mess with them.


PaulRudin t1_iuh7da7 wrote

The most significant thing is that Estonia and Lithuania are members of NATO and Finland (probably) will be soon.


Hazzamo t1_iuhpa57 wrote

Poland should be on that list too.

I mean, the poles are so badass they call being outnumbered 40:1 a “fair fight”


nowander t1_iuhvuyz wrote

When it comes to Russia Poland is less "fuck around and find out" and more "just give me an excuse fucker." At least these days.


Hazzamo t1_iui7luq wrote

Poland is pretty much “Just give me an excuse, Fucker” to anyone these days.

Given who their neighbours are, don’t blame them


jzaczyk t1_iuhy2ej wrote

They got a fucking bear to fight with them in WWII. Everything you need to know.


Working_Welder155 t1_iui8sxp wrote

Honestly the one fuck around and find out state I wouldn't want to cross is Poland. They're itching to fuck up Russia


dkssudggg t1_iui0gum wrote

baltic main (and only) strategy in case russia invades is to hide in the forest and go for guerrilla warfare and pray that they last until NATO reinforcements arrive.


[deleted] t1_iuh3pi9 wrote



ziburin7 t1_iuhfxae wrote

If you don't know anything about our own military you could at least not spread bullshit comments based on one incident from 10 years ago. What extremely outdated equipment do we use? G36 and fn scars from 2017 that all personnel are equipped with? The brand new IFVs equipped with 30mms and antitank missiles and oshkosh JLTVs? The pzh2000? Did our HK GMGs and NASAMS age by 50 years over the last few when we bought them? Maybe multiple anti armour weapons per squad like AT4 and the new M72 LAWs aren't enough? Not to mention the javelins we've been buying each year over the last decade. And the defense budget is planned to go up to 2.5% gdp too. Maybe try going to a military expo for once and read the news of what we are buying to get an idea.


southern_breeze t1_iuhsypy wrote

>the army is extremely out of date

What a dumbass take.

>due to low funding and corruption

Not true. >people were pocketing all the funding up until recently by writing it off as the army buying spoons and forks worth 200€ each.

The company has returned the money and got their spoons back.

Anything else?


unknownuserexe404 t1_iuh13o4 wrote

Now see I’m what people call an idiot… so now in saying that, would it really reach that far?


EightandaHalf-Tails t1_iuh1hz7 wrote

Doubtful. While Putler may go on and on and on about how they're already at war with NATO to try and explain the shitshow that is the Ruzzian army's performance in Ukraine, there's no way he would start an actual war with NATO (or at least there's little to no chance his generals would follow those orders if they were given).


nx569j t1_iuh3vvp wrote

Russian propagandists are already discussing on a regular basis the need to invade Russia's neighboring countries. I don't understand why everyone is doing nothing.


Little-Helper t1_iuh7bxb wrote

Russian propagandists have been discussing invasion of neighboring countries for years. That's why Baltic states are in NATO. Now Finland and Sweden are joining NATO too. What else do you want to happen?


nx569j t1_iuha6aq wrote

As a person living in Russia, I want the NATO countries to conduct a special military operation to destroy the terrorist group that has seized power.


Little-Helper t1_iuhap6a wrote

No. No intervention. That's the red line.


nx569j t1_iuhb77u wrote

I know. But it could lead to the emergence of a second stronger North Korea. Or the likeness of Nazi Germany, which, having accumulated strength, will go to "liberate" its compatriots. Where I work (and this is a nuclear power plant), most people are either neutral or support Putin's policies. And these are all mature people with higher education. Russia is a real threat to the future of at least neighboring countries. Children are brainwashed with propaganda from childhood, and in the future they will grow up and pick up machine guns. Russia is no longer a state, its borders do not exist legally (the last referendum).


nx569j t1_iuhbf1g wrote

And I do not believe that these people will be able to choose not just another gangster from the 90s for the role of president. And if they choose, then all the other people who are in power are still gangsters from the 90s.


linaku t1_iuhmdf6 wrote

Unlikely. That's also the official position of our MoD.

That being said Lithuania is still in a very vulnerable position being sandwiched between Russia and Belarus. There are also some doubts if NATO reinforcements could arrive in time and as we've seen from Bucha, Russians don't need a lot of time to wreak havoc on civilian population and infrastructure. As unlikely as it may be that Lithuania gets invaded, preparing for it to the best of our abilities is absolutely the right thing to do.


autotldr t1_iuh196d wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)

> It is also the shortest land route between Russian ally, Belarus, and Russian territory in Kaliningrad. The concern is if President Vladimir Putin ever decided to escalate the war in Ukraine, Russian troops stationed at both ends of the Suwalki Gap could push in from the east and west simultaneously, potentially isolating Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the rest of NATO. "The Suwalki Gap is a potential vulnerability as Kaliningrad and Belarus - now basically a military extension of Russia - could try to cut the Baltic States off from Poland," underlines Linas Kojala, director of the Eastern Europe Studies Centre.

> The growing number of Russian troops currently stationed over the barbed wire in Belarus could quickly cross the border if Mr Putin ever decided to attack.

> Lithuania insists its military is prepared for potential Russian aggression.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russian^#1 Lithuania^#2 around^#3 border^#4 Ukraine^#5


6offender t1_iuig3fa wrote

Yes, having easily won the war with Ukraine, I'm sure Russia is looking for more countries to invade. Especially the ones that are members of powerful military alliances. /s


superfes t1_iuilwcu wrote

Unironically if Russia decides to open another front, I imagine both conflicts would wipe out whatever resources Russia has left...


amvfrank1 t1_iuiucuo wrote

My take is this...(and please dont take it as propaganda, im just neutral) If russia invades another country. it would be done after the war in ukraine ends. That is going to last years. Nato is sending equipment and ammunition nonstop to ukraine. After years Nato stockpiles wont be the same( as they cant be produced at the same speed they are being sent) Given the energy crisis europe is going russia is loocking for a long prolonged war.

After years of war in ukraine nato is still sending militar aid to ukraine. But at the same time nato needs to keep some to them to protect the motherland. And in that moment i think Nato may stop the aid or reduce it. Russia says they have all the resurces europe dont have (name energy, materials, oil,gas,etc. remember russia is the biggest country in the world)

My take on the future of the war is that it heavily depends on who is more weakened after years of war, russia or nato.

If russia is weaker, then nato and ukraine would be stronger, and can pull out russian forces out of ukraine and even crimea(and therefore stop the invasion and the war with ukraine as an independt nation and maybe part of eu and nato).

For the contrary if Nato is weaker than russia (remember this is after yeards of aid) then ukraine will surrender and russia may gatter the power to invade a neighboring country (ofc they will have had heavy loses both on manpower and equipment. But remember russia is the biggest country in the world and have 140 millions of inhabitants. They can lose thousand if not millions of men and that would not matter when is the woman who breed the children.)

Just my take on both scenarios when Nato or russia is weaker at the end of the war (its more a war of wakening ur enemy more than a war of defeating your enemy)

srry my english is my second tounge and please dont kill me im just neutral (and dont hang me for being neutral petty please)


Sayakai t1_iujdym1 wrote

> My take is this...(and please dont take it as propaganda, im just neutral) If russia invades another country. it would be done after the war in ukraine ends.

If Russia is invading a NATO country then that's done on the spot, with overwhelming force. Rest assured NATO still has more than enough weapons to defeat Russia, especially given that most of the modern weapons haven't even been touched. Just the baltic and polish forces would probably be enough to push back deep into Russia before the US even has time to get their carriers into position.

Seriously, the idea that Russia can fuck around in a direct shooting war with NATO right now and not get obliterated is laughable - and Russia is getting weaker way faster than the west where the expenses barely even show up in the budget.


Infinaris t1_iuiqhpc wrote

Lithuania now in competition for the Article 5 Button, wonder how Poland gonna take it! 🤣


ArcticCelt t1_iuk8y0h wrote

>Russian troops stationed at both ends of the Suwalki Gap

People always talks about the "Suwalki Gap", but that gap only exist in time of peace. Because if Russia decides to invade and block it then the entirety of Kaliningrad becomes fair deal to go over, allied troops will not be restricted to just go only through the tinny gap.


Throwaway2Experiment t1_iuiradn wrote

It’s funny, I still read these headlines and go, “There’s no way Lithuania could hold off alone. Those poor people.”

So engrained have I become the last 35+ years that Russia is a military superpower that I haven’t taught myself to accept the truth: they’re not.

I need to start considering the poor l, brainwashed Russian canon fodder that would be ground up by Lithuanian might and battlefield supremacy.

Edit: structure and clarification


Heavy-Birthday-4972 t1_iujjjve wrote

The Lithuanian military is one of the greatest militaries in You rup. Don’t mess with these guys, you might not lose.


[deleted] t1_iuib8o7 wrote



tyxex1 t1_iuiejqg wrote

Connecticut should have a referendum about having you ass deported to Siberia