[TrumpCard]

Interesting post from Goose. The factual premises seem correct. The West’s militaries don’t have sufficient readiness and Europe is far too reliant on Russian energy. I’m no expert in the field, but I’m not so pessimistic on the conclusions to draw from those premises. 

Building the necessary military strength may not be so unpopular as you think. Right wing nationalists who support a strong defense are ascendant in Europe. Recall that strong militaries were very popular during the Cold War. I’m not convinced either way here, but I could imagine the West mustering the necessary resolve. 

It’s certainly plausible to frame the calculus of defending the Baltics the way you did. But there are other ways to see it. If the West were to allow Russia to overrun the Baltics, what’s to stop Russia from taking Poland or the country after that?  And why should we consider the Baltics indefensible?  If we were to permanently station 20,000 heavily armored troops there along with Patriot batteries, isn’t that a really strong deterrent?  Why would Kaliningrad be any more defensible for Russia than the Baltics are for the West?  It would be pretty embarrassing for Putin to have territory taken from Russia in a defensive response to an attack on the Baltics. 

I’m not saying that any of these possible outcomes is likely, but I see Russia taking these possible outcomes into account. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, maybe it would be sufficiently confident to dismiss these possible outcomes, but given what we’ve seen in this war so far, what makes us think that Russia could realistically take and hold anything more than the Donbas and the East bank of the Dneiper River in the South?

[TrumpCard]

Interesting post from Goose. The factual premises seem correct. The West’s militaries don’t have sufficient readiness and Europe is far too reliant on Russian energy. I’m no expert in the field, but I’m not so pessimistic on the conclusions to draw from those premises. 

Building the necessary military strength may not be so unpopular as you think. Right wing nationalists who support a strong defense are ascendant in Europe. Recall that strong militaries were very popular during the Cold War. I’m not convinced either way here, but I could imagine the West mustering the necessary resolve. 

It’s certainly plausible to frame the calculus of defending the Baltics the way you did. But there are other ways to see it. If the West were to allow Russia to overrun the Baltics, what’s to stop Russia from taking Poland or the country after that?  And why should we consider the Baltics indefensible?  If we were to permanently station 20,000 heavily armored troops there along with Patriot batteries, isn’t that a really strong deterrent?  Why would Kaliningrad be any more defensible for Russia than the Baltics are for the West?  It would be pretty embarrassing for Putin to have territory taken from Russia in a defensive response to an attack on the Baltics. 

I’m not saying that any of these possible outcomes is likely, but I see Russia taking these possible outcomes into account. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, maybe it would be sufficiently confident to dismiss these possible outcomes, but given what we’ve seen in this war so far, what makes us think that Russia could realistically take and hold anything more than the Donbas and the East bank of the Dneiper River in the South?