Zkuq said:
Exactly. It's different when you actually have to consider the consequences right now, as opposed to deferring them until later. It's easy to say "yeah, I know the consequences" without really realizing the gravity of the situation and the consequences - and it's not limited just to this war, it applies to other decisions and assessments as well, but I digress. I know we have a strong military here in Finland and the risk of Russia actually attempting anything stupid is fairly low, but it turns out that it doesn't necessarily take a lot to go through different scenarios anyway when the situation changes for the worse. Would I have to take up arms? Maybe, we have conscription here (quite popular, mind you, probably because it's been the only reliable way to deter a Russian attack). Would we get help/how much? Could I get bombed? Could I have to leave my home? Could I have to leave my country? Could I have to live under Russian occupation? What about my close ones? Who whould be next? You know, all the usual stuff... Except that no one should have to ever think about that, anywhere. I don't have trouble coping with the situation myself at the moment, but I'm sure some people have it worse even here. Must be much more uncomfortable in the Baltic countries, and I'm sure the Poles don't like the prospects of living next to the main part of Russia itself either. I guess that explains could explain why Germany has taken the situation as seriously as it has - not too many buffer countries between it and Russia, compared to some countries farther away from Russia. But of course it's not just about me, or other people living close to Russia. If Russia feels confident with the result of the war, the next step they take could be to challenge NATO. It's not unfathomable to think that NATO could be divided in its response to certain kinds of aggressions, which in turn could lower trust in NATO's commitment to defending its members, and that could be a really slippery slope. We can't just trust that Russia will be content after swallowing up Ukraine, we have to be prepared for the worst as well (within reason of course, but the scenario I presented certainly seems to align with Russia's interests). As long as we're neighboured by trustworthy countries, we don't necessarily have to assume the worst, but Russia clearly is not at all trustworthy, so we can't leave any weaknesses for Russia to exploit. You don't just not use a seat belt just because it's going to be OK 99.9 % of the time without it, because the risk is still real, and preparing for it could save you. In this case, preparing also deters the worst from happening, so in a way, it's actually more powerful than a seat belt. And of course the further Russia is allowed to go, the costlier (probably in many ways) the involvement required from everyone will be. But I guess everyone should just bend over if Russia comes with demands. I mean, it saves lives, right? Never mind the lowered quality of life, probably in a lot of areas, as long as no one (well, not too many people at least) has to die. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for that to save lives, who could possibly oppose that idea? |
Yeah, at this moment I think the odds of Russia starting shit with NATO are miniscule but I think it's too dangerous to discount the possibility entirely, I didn't think Russia would actually do a full scale invasion of Ukraine and yet here we are, I do however believe, if Russia is successful, that Moldova and Georgia will be next but Imo Georgia I think is at risk even if Russia loses.
All Russia needs to believe is that NATO wouldn't be united, that NATO would be scared, if they believe that NATO wouldn't come down on Russia with their full might then the odds of Russia trying shit in other eastern European countries increases. Like I've said, it's very dangerous to give a psychotic fascist like Putin even more confidence than he already has, overconfident in his own abilities and underestimating the Wests.
If Russia thinks that NATO wouldn't send boots on the ground in lets say, Latvia because they'd be too afraid to go to war with Russia, they'd be too afraid of nuclear war, then Russia may very well just do that, or they'd do the same shit they've done with Ukraine/Georgia/Moldova and send their little green men in, stir up trouble and then say they're "protecting" Russians.
And how much does Russia genuinely think it's actually fighting the full force of NATO right now in Ukraine? If they win in Ukraine, there's going to be a whole lot of Russians thinking that Russia already "beat" NATO. People like Putin, nothing is ever enough, they always want more, they're never satisfied. The only way to deter them is by totally putting them down on the battlefield.
It's not ensuring that Russia doesn't want to do something anymore, it's ensuring that it physically can't.
