- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
Ideas range from joint offensive cyber operations against Russia, and faster and more coordinated attribution of hybrid attacks by quickly pointing the finger at Moscow, to surprise NATO-led military exercises, according to two senior European government officials and three EU diplomats
“The Russians are constantly testing the limits — what is the response, how far can we go?” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže noted in an interview. A more “proactive response is needed,” she told POLITICO. “And it’s not talking that sends a signal — it’s doing.”
Finally.
You must log in or # to comment.
If Ukraine has demonstrated anything, it’s that Russia is not that strong.
Seriously. If all of Western Europe ganged up on Russia, it would fold instantaneously. Bullies isolate their victims. Don’t let them do that and they show their true colors.
It also still has nukes
They’re likely defunct as they require insane amounts of money for maintenance and upkeep and Russians have skimped money on all parts of the military, and where to skimp easier than on weapons that will never be used, unless it is to end the world?
Even so… Wanna risk that?
Does Russia? Even Putin knows that if he presses the big red button, it’s open season on him—not just a potential nuclear response from the outside but a nice, quiet defenestration from within. I think Russia will stick to conventional warfare as long as possible.
If Russia gets attacked, his days are over anyways
Europe should occupy Moscow for at least 50-100 years until it has reformed Russia and excised the mafia state. These things die hard though, so it requires a few generations of occupation.
Historically occupations tend to be troublesome affairs. The west spent 20 years in Afghanistan and got nowhere. I agree that the mafia state must be dealt with, but going by the west’s ability to run an occupation that doesn’t turn the inhabitants against them, is practically nil.
It might go better if the Russians see more bombs falling on their own soil for a few years before the occupation begins. Afterwards, we are looking for something like the way Western Germany was rehabilitated after WWII.
Wars are a tool to thin out the fighting age population among the working class, so they can tighten their oppressive grip on those of us left behind who aren’t strong enough to fight. And those who survive are a danger to society after returning home with nowhere near enough support and having been subject to brainwashing under extreme conditions.
Wars are an enemy of the working class. They are a tool of our oppressors.
Removed by mod
You think having a military offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?
If anything, it makes wars and invasions more appealing - if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.
If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance. There are no major military targets, no leaders to assassinate, no positions of power to leverage. They would need to keep boots on the ground to maintain power. And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces - there would be very little hope for holding such territory, and as soon as the occupying force left, anarchy, and therefore peace and order, could once again be restored.
Such a naive opinion you have. And I say opinion, because I challenge you to find any proof in history where the weak successfully fought off the bullies?
You think having a military offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?
Tell me how many times a nuclear power has been in invaded in the past 80 years and then tell me how many small countries with weak military have been invaded in the past 80 years.
Your argument is not based in reality.
You cannot let bullies be stronger than you.
But if you want proof of the opposite, history is FULL of it.
Maybe start with the Baltics and the two Russian occupations they suffered through in the past 100 years or so. Or maybe WW2, or if you want more recent examples, tell me how well Ukraine is doing? Or how well Palestinians fought off Israel?
Honestly your opinion is ridiculous.
if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.
If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance.
So you are essentially saying countries should have NO military, NO police, NO courts, NO leaders, etc. in order to not be invaded.
Again, ridiculous.
And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces
So still a war, people still fighting and dying 🤦♂️
I’d say deterrence and prevention is much better.
deleted by creator
Level Moscow. It won’t be missed.
Russia needs to be occupied for at least 100 years so that the country and population can be developed and taught how to operate properly and not like a mafia state.
I think that if you look around (just look at things like ChatControl, ICE in the US and the support for the Genocidal White Colonialist state of Israel in most of the West) we in the “developed” West are fast moving backwards and becoming more like Russia - more surveillance, more authoritarianist use of force, more corruption, more racism, more imperialism, a more oligarchic economic system, more concentration of power, more inequality.
Even in a perfect World were common Russians accepted it with open arms, I’m not so sure an occupation of Russia by Western nations would ultimatelly end in them “developing” towards Western Standards rather than in Western nations finishing regressing towards Russian Standards.
My thoughts exactly
US next please.
And China, and possibly India. I’m so tired of the world powers being run by a bunch of dickheads.
How many Russians actually want war with Ukraine? Wouldn’t bombing Moscow punish the wrong people? Bomb the kremlin
Unfortunately, most of them do. Obviously, still no reason to level the city, but you should not fall for that romantic thought of an oppressed populace that is secretely against the war.
But leave the tank museum, a solid chunk of the exhibits aren’t even Russian.
One of the classic blunders: Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Luckily Ukraine and much of Russia is in Europe.
Only 25 % of Russia is in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia
80% of the population of Russia is in Europe.
Europe is just a peninsula of Asia. It’s all one continent
There are anywhere between 4 and 7 continents, depending on what you declare as a continent, including multiple ways to end up with 5 or 6 continents.
The graphic here may help clarify:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
My point is not that you’re wrong, but rather that it’s not really something that everyone agrees on.
But if you follow the logic of people who say Europe is it’s own continent then Peru is a continent, Cascadia is a continent
Yeah and? You say that like we shouldn’t do that for some reason, also isn’t Cascadia on the old Laurenchian plate? I hope I spelt that right.
Finally.
No, that’s not happening.
You are listening to lying propagandists here. The only actual question with Axel Springer SE always is are they lying for some of their own hateful agendas, for their fossil fuel promoting co-owners KKR (unlikely in this special case), getting paid again by the US, or just doing it out of their unwavering “solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America” (one of their core principle directly from their website…) because some of their MAGA supporting friends asked them nicely to create a distraction.
(reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE)
It sounds like you’ve picked an axe to grind rather than talking about the article.
Do you have something relevant to say or just vague nothingness to rant about?
You are actually not wrong. I indeed have an axe to grind with a morally bankrupt shit stain of a media company that not only is a major source of desinformation and right to far-right propaganda for decades but also managed to buy enough formerly reputable publications to pretend that their agenda pushing is actual journalism.
If you think that a media company known to lie and deceive (for a personal agenda, for the agenda of their investor or just directly for money) is not that big of a deal and we still need to take everything they publish at face value in case it is true for once or contains some traces of truth, that is very much your problem.
Maybe you have time for this. The vast majority doesn’t have the time to fact check every single thing they read. And so they should indeed know when a publisher is generally trash, barely does anything without an explicit agenda, and rarely actually reports the truth (and only if it can be framed to fit their agenda).
PS: Calling documented violations of basic journalistic code in a huge amount of different cases(*) "vague nothingness also is a definitive “you”-problem.
(*) For reference: There is a German Press Council reprimanding severe violations in journalistic and ethical standards. Most publications manage to get 1 to a few over many decades of business, the worst examples of yellow press even get low double digits. And then there is just BILD (Axel Springer’s flagship rag in Germany) with ~300 or 30% of all reprimands ever published (more than 30 just in 2024). And their other publication run the exact same narratives, just dressed slightly more professionally looking for other audiences.
This sounds very conspiratorial. What are those agendas you are talking about? You listed just about anyone you can think of to be involved in your conspiracy. Are you a broken clock by any chance, hoping to be right with at least one of those?
How would them lying about this benefit anyone?
Did you even read the article? Real people are quoted there talking about retaliation:
Last week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto slammed the continent’s “inertia” in the face of growing hybrid attacks and unveiled a 125-page plan to retaliate. In it he suggested establishing a European Center for Countering Hybrid Warfare, a 1,500-strong cyber force, as well as military personnel specialized in artificial intelligence.
However much truth might be in your comment. This isn’t the case at all.
You listed just about anyone you can think of to be involved in your conspiracy.
No, I listed a few of those Axel Springer SE is well documented to have already pushed propaganda for. In fact as I live in Germany I can read their lies in big red letters every morning on that rag displayed everywhere. So I sadly know how bad it really is…
PS:
“[…] claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy. This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA”
" As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names “solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America” as one of its core principles on its website. This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers"
“Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes.”
All quotes from the Wiki link you refused to click to imply conspiracy theories on my side instead.
So who exactly is doing it and to what ends, how exactly does it benefit anyone to lie about this? How come there are real politicians quoted in the article talking about retaliation? Are they also part of the conspiracy?
You clearly haven’t even read the article and are biased with your conspiratorial beliefs.
I get it that you hate Politico, but you should really read the article and learn to think critically for yourself.
You insist on “what is wrong in this article” .
One of the things that popaganda does is sprinkling some real stuff to attract new people and then slowly feed them more lies.
It doesn’t matter if you stumble upon a few good articles with real quotes - the whole thing must be avoided to reduce traffic in their direction. The proper response is to find a different source with the same quotes.
This is thinking critically. If you know it’s from a propagandist, don’t give them more food. Your version of “thinking critically” is just “listen to the people who sound more convincing, even you know they are liars and you can’t find if this specific article has lies or not” .
So what exactly is the propaganda here?
The website.
An object or entity by themselves, regardless if they are physical or electronic cannot be propaganda.
Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Overall, Europe and the alliance must ask themselves how long we are willing to tolerate this type of hybrid warfare … [and] whether we should consider becoming more active ourselves in this area,” German State Secretary for Defense Florian Hahn told Welt TV last week.
Hybrid attacks are nothing new. Russia has in recent years sent assassins to murder political enemies in the U.K., been accused of blowing up arms storage facilities in Central Europe, attempted to destabilize the EU by financing far-right political parties, engaged in social media warfare, and tried to upend elections in countries like Romania and Moldova.
“Today’s world offers a much more open — indeed, one might say creative — space for foreign policy,” Russian leader Vladimir Putin said during October’s Valdai conference, adding: “We are closely monitoring the growing militarization of Europe. Is it just rhetoric, or is it time for us to respond?”
