- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
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.
They should be doing all that for 3 years already. Probably will take them another 5 to agree on anything.
europeans doing what they do best, starting world wars.
Don’t expect any help from the rest of the world this time.
Go suck Putin’s dick since you love him so much.
Eat a bag of dicks
You will be shocked to learn the war started 3 years ago. And it wasn’t Europe that started it.
Do you know what retaliation means?
Last I checked, Russia stated this war.
Do you also blame the Epstein women for being raped?
Russians aren’t really europeans, are they though.
Yeah, actually, the most relevant part of Russia is in Europe.
Russians aren’t really europeans though, are they. They could be, but at the moment they are not.
Every map I’ve ever seen splits Russia in half: the left part is in Europe, and the right part is in Asia.
Guess where everyone actually lives?
That’s right: Europe.
You blame.rapists for being raped as well?
deleted by creator
And it all started in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine to annex Crimea and then both, the USA and the UK decided to allow that despite the assurances made in the Budapest Memorandum.
But guess what, American history books don’t teach real history.
Fun fact: The Munich agreement was an event leading to ww2.
Lesson: Being weak doesn’t avert world war.
…hey, gonna have some “nightblinds”, perhaps send a choccy cart after them…history may rhyme, but second verse, same as the first…
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.
Keep in mind that RU beets all of Europe in military production righflt now.
LOL, Putin’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated quite clearly the value of the Russian military. There’s a reason he’s terrified of NATO. Ukraine has held off Russia’s “superior” might with civilian-grade drones. Any actual military response from NATO would crush Russia like a brick through wet tissue paper.
Russian military doctrine is not based on quality.
The problem for Western Europe now is that they are invested in small expeditionary styled formations and high-cost components. Eastern and Northern Europe (and Nords) are the only nations planning for defensive actions, and the only ones with enough Democratic cohesion to operate.
Russia would engage in hybrid depletionary tactics follwed by grinding efforts of force, like the Ukraine situation. Europe can only win in against this strategy if they are willing to operationally decapitate (Iraq war style), but are politically set up for defensive lines at most. Trying to decapitate Russia will most likelyy lead to WW3, so it is a non-starter.
Ironically, the Balts might actually survive the next decade, due to their strategic value for the Nords and Poland.
If Europe really wanted to participate in their own security, they would he dumping weapons and money into Ukraine.
Russia has already ground through much of their resources in Ukraine and it’s not making meaningful advances. It doesn’t have the resources to attack other nations on top of that.
And European countries could easily cripple the Russian war machine with precision strikes, hit major resource production centers, infrastructure, etc.
But more to the point, once it’s Russia vs. Europe, Russian support for Putin’s war (because it is his war) will evaporate near-instantly, and he will be killed. Europe doesn’t have to decapitate Russia, the Russians will do that.
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.
A weird assumption that an occupation would cut down corruption.
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.
Did y’all not learn anything from the War on Terror? This shit does not work. Western Germany wasn’t “rehabilitated” by the Allied occupation, but by decades of action post-occupation. The Allied occupation was perfectly content to coopt Nazis into its anti-Soviet bloc.
Just like Daddy wanted! 🥰
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.
When Trump finally has his war with someone (probably Venezuela), he will call for a draft, and there will be provisions that allow wealthy people to avoid it, probably by paying a hefty fee.
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.
Worked for West Germany
Because of the USSR playing its role as boogyman.
On top of that the at the time German and current Russia are totally different: its geography, its people, its government, its economical status.
Occupation is generally a bad idea, but occupying RUSSIA… Very, very, very bad idea. You’d just confirm the lies the Kremlin tell its population and unite the country against the EU.
You’d just confirm the lies the Kremlin tell its population and unite the country against the EU.
Well, sure, if you allow them to retain control of their propaganda network, and you obviously aren’t going to do that.
The occupying force will be controlling the messaging, and if they truly are acting in a constructive manner, and truly purging the government of criminal influences and national security threats, and transparently informing the citizens of their progress in taking back the country on behalf of the citizens, then they should have a chance at possibly gaining the trust of the citizens.
The problem is that it never goes like that. Occupiers tend to be assholes.
The world is full of irony. A decade ago, no one would’ve discussed this seriously and no one in the West would’ve thought occupying Russia was desirable or necessary. Russia, however, probably sold this idea to its population in order to justify the Ukraine war and additional aggressions against Europe. In turn, by invading Ukraine, Russia has created a reality where it really is necessary for someone to put them in check. Europe needs to wake up to threats against its own safety and if they don’t, they’ll end up like Ukraine. Retaliating against Russia is necessary and once they do, the fighting won’t stop until Putin is toppled and Russia submits full stop. From there it is a question of what happens to Russia. It’s clear letting things play out post-USSR collapse didn’t work. Russia is a mafia state. The West will have to take an active hand. Hopefully, the US can rid itself of its weak Russian puppet and join Europe in working for their own joint interests.
A decade ago, no one would’ve discussed this seriously
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
If not by war then by other means, the pivot area was meant to be changed.
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)
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.
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.
“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?”
