Currently Online 
Qwark said:
The Netherlands discussed today what they could do. The answer was send 470 troops to guard the potential new border. Poland refused to put any troops in Ukraine (arguably for a good reason since they border Belarus). The US doesn't include Europe for a reason at it's peace talks. We might disagree with it, but we are weak defensively. Most countries in the world still happily trade with Russia. Nowadays Northern Africa, India, Iran and China are happy to do business with Russia or even help them militarily. Japan, Canada and South Korea might not be too happy about Russia, but also keep awfully quiet. Europe is military might is big on paper. However Europe severely lacks stockpiles of ammunition to keep there armies going and more important the will to keep it's army going and Europe in general is not good at making painful choices. |
Yes, Iran the terrorist led country helps Russia, Lol. China I already mentioned, I'm aware of some South American, African and Asian countries trading with Russia, I'm aware of Russia's influence over Africa. Still, the majority of the world disagrees with Russia's actions so I'm not sure where you're getting it from that it's a small portion of Europe only. Some countries trade because Russia is their biggest trade partner, I don't believe it necessarily means they agree with Russia, they're just too cowardly to cut Russia off.
South Korea, Japan and Canada haven't been quiet at all? Japan is Ukraine's 4th largest supporter in terms of pure $ value and Canada is 5th. Japan in particular has talked a lot of shit about Russia because they hate Russia due to the Kuril Islands dispute. South Korea hasn't been quiet vocally but less supportive militarily but they do border with a country which wants to see them destroyed.
I could also say that Russia's army on paper was the 2nd most powerful in the world but look at how that turned out, they couldn't beat a country whose army on paper was in the high 20s. I think it's arguable if Europe has the political will to fight Russia and that's the scary part, but I do believe it is insane to argue that Europe couldn't beat Russia if it came down to it (if we remove nukes). Russia can't even take 20% of Ukraine without resorting to mopeds, donkeys, etc. What makes you think they could take on Poland, Baltics, Nordics, UK, France, Germany, Türkiye, Italy, etc? Lol.
Ukraine has a huge land-army and so does Russia, I think your mistake is thinking that NATO would get involved in an artillery slog battle, if Russia achieved air superiority which they tried to do countless of times then the war would have been lost, but Russia failed to do so, NATO isn't designed anymore to fight WW1-like battles, they will largely fight via the skies and seas before sending in the troops, this is where we have the huge superiority. If Europe had balls, Russia would have been pushed out of Ukraine already.
The Baltic Sea is a NATO Sea now, the Black Sea is controlled by Türkiye, Russia wouldn't be able to reach even Poland before European planes were flying overhead and turning Russians to paste. The argument will however, come back to, if we have the stomach for it, that is where I see the debate, WW3 isn't something anyone wants and even though I do believe Europe would win, it would come at large cost, Russia still has plenty of missiles that could do a lot of damage to us.
But Europe has made the hard choices in the past, more than America, such as WW1 and WW2. America dragged their feet to get involved in WW2 and only did so when they were practically forced into it by Japan, otherwise they likely never would have made the painful choice to get involved. But now Europe has felt peace for so long, I think many European leaders are too used to it and can't imagine it changing. It's a question of political will, not a question of actual capability, and you also ignore the fact that Europe would also enter a war economy mode with a population far greater than Russia and economy far greater than Russia.
Essay Pro