|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
I hate news sites that first demand you accept their cookies and only then inform you that you still need to create an account to read their stuff.
|
On July 04 2026 00:24 KwarK wrote:The big one is to trigger a leadership crisis in NATO. Right now the de facto leader of NATO has declared that eastward NATO expansion is a mistake, that he doesn't think those countries should be in NATO, that he thinks they're part of the Russian sphere, and that he wants to punish NATO for not invading Iran. There's no obvious successor to the American role in NATO. The entire framework could fall apart if Russia declares even a small scale challenge and NATO isn't capable of coordinating an alliance level response. Russia doesn't need to defeat Poland to defeat NATO.
Yeah but that one is really easy to avoid. Just trigger article 4 first and if it doesn't look good don't trigger 5. Actually even if consultations are favourable don't trigger 5.
Trump has already made sure that Europe doesn't need NATO to deal with this.
|
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters.
|
On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters.
The thing is that nobody wants Kaliningrad. You end up with a city with a lots of Russians that you now have to manage. The only way to use it would be to throw out most of the current population and that doesn't look good in a modern media landscape.
Lots of nations would like it if a Nato nation took it over so there would be less electronic warfare in the Baltic sea but it is a major drain to take and manage it.
|
United States44170 Posts
On July 04 2026 01:48 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 00:24 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2026 23:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I can't think of much else. The big one is to trigger a leadership crisis in NATO. Right now the de facto leader of NATO has declared that eastward NATO expansion is a mistake, that he doesn't think those countries should be in NATO, that he thinks they're part of the Russian sphere, and that he wants to punish NATO for not invading Iran. There's no obvious successor to the American role in NATO. The entire framework could fall apart if Russia declares even a small scale challenge and NATO isn't capable of coordinating an alliance level response. Russia doesn't need to defeat Poland to defeat NATO. Yeah but that one is really easy to avoid. Just trigger article 4 first and if it doesn't look good don't trigger 5. Actually even if consultations are favourable don't trigger 5. Trump has already made sure that Europe doesn't need NATO to deal with this.
Merz is polling worse than Hitler was during the fall of Berlin. Macron is somehow worse, he would be the weakest leader in Europe if it wasn't for the empty chair which is currently leading the UK. Though the empty chair is at least more popular than Starmer was.
There is no heir apparent waiting in the wings to fill the American vacuum. As you say they don't have to request that the alliance put together a coherent collective response but I think that actually probably looks worse. NATO is expected to reply to a direct Russian challenge in a single unified voice. The silence is no better than chaos.
|
United States44170 Posts
On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters.
In the current meta Russia can attack through Belarus without Belarus being a party to the war and we're all good with that because the alternative is insisting that Belarus choose a side.
|
On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters.
I don't know how it would count if Poland doesn't trigger a NATO response and then takes Kaliningrad. Is it still a defensive war if they get nuked?
It's hard to know what Russia would really do since people like Medvedev likes to go on (drunken?) rants about nukes.
Other than that. The response would be rather limited.
A better option would probably be to just completely blockade Kaliningrad. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out. The population has a one way ticket out to Russia. 450.000 very angry displaced Russians would be a hard problem to hide for Putin.
|
On July 04 2026 02:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 01:48 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 04 2026 00:24 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2026 23:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I can't think of much else. The big one is to trigger a leadership crisis in NATO. Right now the de facto leader of NATO has declared that eastward NATO expansion is a mistake, that he doesn't think those countries should be in NATO, that he thinks they're part of the Russian sphere, and that he wants to punish NATO for not invading Iran. There's no obvious successor to the American role in NATO. The entire framework could fall apart if Russia declares even a small scale challenge and NATO isn't capable of coordinating an alliance level response. Russia doesn't need to defeat Poland to defeat NATO. Yeah but that one is really easy to avoid. Just trigger article 4 first and if it doesn't look good don't trigger 5. Actually even if consultations are favourable don't trigger 5. Trump has already made sure that Europe doesn't need NATO to deal with this. Merz is polling worse than Hitler was during the fall of Berlin. Macron is somehow worse, he would be the weakest leader in Europe if it wasn't for the empty chair which is currently leading the UK. Though the empty chair is at least more popular than Starmer was. There is no heir apparent waiting in the wings to fill the American vacuum. As you say they don't have to request that the alliance put together a coherent collective response but I think that actually probably looks worse. NATO is expected to reply to a direct Russian challenge in a single unified voice. The silence is no better than chaos.
Poland handling a crisis from Russia on their own without even bothering to call their allies would be anime levels of embarrassing for Putin.
|
On July 04 2026 02:24 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:16 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2026 01:48 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 04 2026 00:24 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2026 23:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I can't think of much else. The big one is to trigger a leadership crisis in NATO. Right now the de facto leader of NATO has declared that eastward NATO expansion is a mistake, that he doesn't think those countries should be in NATO, that he thinks they're part of the Russian sphere, and that he wants to punish NATO for not invading Iran. There's no obvious successor to the American role in NATO. The entire framework could fall apart if Russia declares even a small scale challenge and NATO isn't capable of coordinating an alliance level response. Russia doesn't need to defeat Poland to defeat NATO. Yeah but that one is really easy to avoid. Just trigger article 4 first and if it doesn't look good don't trigger 5. Actually even if consultations are favourable don't trigger 5. Trump has already made sure that Europe doesn't need NATO to deal with this. Merz is polling worse than Hitler was during the fall of Berlin. Macron is somehow worse, he would be the weakest leader in Europe if it wasn't for the empty chair which is currently leading the UK. Though the empty chair is at least more popular than Starmer was. There is no heir apparent waiting in the wings to fill the American vacuum. As you say they don't have to request that the alliance put together a coherent collective response but I think that actually probably looks worse. NATO is expected to reply to a direct Russian challenge in a single unified voice. The silence is no better than chaos. Poland handling a crisis from Russia on their own without even bothering to call their allies would be anime levels of embarrassing for Putin.
But still basically a win for Putin if it undermines NATO. There are only dangerous bets available at the table and Western Europe doesn't have its own "madman" to make Putin and Trump more hesitant to push the limits.
|
On July 04 2026 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters. In the current meta Russia can attack through Belarus without Belarus being a party to the war and we're all good with that because the alternative is insisting that Belarus choose a side.
However, last week Ukraine told Belarus to turn off the repeaters or they would. And Belarus went against Putin and turned them off, for some reason they didn’t believe Russia would protect them from drones. Almost like after Russia protected Syria, Iran and Venezuela so well their reputation suffered.
Maybe people are commentating that Belarus is more in Chinas pocket then Russia. So they just ask daddy Xi to tell big brother Russia to chill out when Russia starts the threats.
|
On July 04 2026 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:24 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 04 2026 02:16 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2026 01:48 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 04 2026 00:24 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2026 23:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I can't think of much else. The big one is to trigger a leadership crisis in NATO. Right now the de facto leader of NATO has declared that eastward NATO expansion is a mistake, that he doesn't think those countries should be in NATO, that he thinks they're part of the Russian sphere, and that he wants to punish NATO for not invading Iran. There's no obvious successor to the American role in NATO. The entire framework could fall apart if Russia declares even a small scale challenge and NATO isn't capable of coordinating an alliance level response. Russia doesn't need to defeat Poland to defeat NATO. Yeah but that one is really easy to avoid. Just trigger article 4 first and if it doesn't look good don't trigger 5. Actually even if consultations are favourable don't trigger 5. Trump has already made sure that Europe doesn't need NATO to deal with this. Merz is polling worse than Hitler was during the fall of Berlin. Macron is somehow worse, he would be the weakest leader in Europe if it wasn't for the empty chair which is currently leading the UK. Though the empty chair is at least more popular than Starmer was. There is no heir apparent waiting in the wings to fill the American vacuum. As you say they don't have to request that the alliance put together a coherent collective response but I think that actually probably looks worse. NATO is expected to reply to a direct Russian challenge in a single unified voice. The silence is no better than chaos. Poland handling a crisis from Russia on their own without even bothering to call their allies would be anime levels of embarrassing for Putin. But still basically a win for Putin if it undermines NATO. There are only dangerous bets available at the table and Western Europe doesn't have its own "madman" to make Putin and Trump more hesitant to push the limits.
NATO exists to deter Russian aggression. It's what they have been doing for the last 4 years (for a nation not in NATO because they want to deter all Russian aggression in Europe). Russia trying to escalate something with Poland is a part of that conflict, not a new one.
I would hesitate to call it a win for Putin under any condition and I think Russian aggression is being dealt with.
|
On July 04 2026 02:08 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters.
The thing is that nobody wants Kaliningrad. You end up with a city with a lots of Russians that you now have to manage. The only way to use it would be to throw out most of the current population and that doesn't look good in a modern media landscape. Lots of nations would like it if a Nato nation took it over so there would be less electronic warfare in the Baltic sea but it is a major drain to take and manage it.
We could give it to Trump as free real estate. xD
Or the Czechs, as per the agreement.
|
On July 04 2026 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters. In the current meta Russia can attack through Belarus without Belarus being a party to the war and we're all good with that because the alternative is insisting that Belarus choose a side.
They allowed that once, but Poland won't be in a situation where it falls back, Russia just doens't have enough troops to attack poland, Belarus would be entered and used as a route to russia.
|
United States44170 Posts
On July 04 2026 09:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2026 02:17 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:
The thing is if Poland doens't trigger either article and "just" takes kaliningrad. Whats the response? Belarus has signaled it doesn't want in the war at all. Russia will either have to do a landing in a nato lake or smash its way through the baltic sisters. In the current meta Russia can attack through Belarus without Belarus being a party to the war and we're all good with that because the alternative is insisting that Belarus choose a side. They allowed that once, but Poland won't be in a situation where it falls back, Russia just doens't have enough troops to attack poland, Belarus would be entered and used as a route to russia.
I think the only conceivable scenario in which any of this happens is hybrid little green men and Russia keeps it as a limited conflict (so no launching air strikes in support of the men from Russia proper) while insisting that any aggression onto Russian soil will be met with a nuclear deterrent. Without clear NATO MAD backing Russia will most likely get their limited war. The fig leaf over direct Russian invasion will be sufficient to allow Russia to maintain that while they’re backing “separatists” they’re not a party to it and so it would be the west escalating it to a direct conflict if it sent uniformed troops into Kalingrad.
The leadership to try it anyway simply doesn’t exist.
|
I think there is no chance of this happening and they are trying to take advantage of the current diplomatic spat by getting people to think, we don’t want to go to war over those assholes who named there unit after people who did absolutely horrible things to our people.
Drive the wedge attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
