First, let me say that I can totally understand your position and the Polish position in general. Russia is and has been (as Germany has been) an agressive imperialist country (I would wish Germany thanked Poland more for stopping the Russian march on Germany in 1921).
I can also understand your point as a country that had
defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory.
But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV).
"a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped."
NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either.
In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.
Germany allowing Poland to join NATO is a brilliant move on their part.
If NATO ended at the German border, and a conflict with Russia arose, the front of that war would be on German territory. Having a war fought within borders is devastating, and Germany knows that first-hand.
Allowing Poland means that if there is a serious border intrusion, the war will be fought in Poland's territory. Poland is western Europe's buffer against Russian expansion.
The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force.
We've already seen that Russia's expansion into Georgia resulted in nary a blip of a response. Annexation of Ukraine's territory was met with a louder response, but still nothing that would make Russia think twice.
Will an intrusion into one of the Baltic states cause the NATO mutual assurances to kick in? First, I hope we never get to find out. However, if it comes to that, I hope so. Unfortunately, history has shown that I should my hope is likely misplaced. Treaties, like other laws, can be amended, changed, or interpreted in creative ways when it suits the stronger party well.
The Americans are not interested and the rest of NATO can't scrape together anything that could stop the Third Shock Army anymore. The UK can't even put a single armoured division into the field anymore. The NATO air patrol of the Baltic States isn't even a full fighter squadron.
If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
> If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
And solution is obvious: pay Ukraine for 1 thousand of tanks, out of 6 thousands they have in reserves, upgraded to latest tech: infrared optics, smart aim, built-in drone on wire, active defense, digital communication and control, etc. So NATO will have +1 thousand of high-tech tanks cheaply AND Ukraine will have +3 thousands of cheaper and less capable tanks, which is enough for defense (they still able to take out 2-3 Russian tanks when properly used in defense). Win-win for NATO and Ukraine.
In case of emergency, these tanks can be sent by railroad to any post-Warsaw block country at eastern border of NATO - they already have experience with them.
Even if all those things could be retrofitted - and they probably can't be for less time or money than just restarting the CR2 production line - you still need to recruit and train the crews. It takes years to produce a good tanker, and more years to make a good tank commander. And you also need to recruit and train and equip all the supporting arms too - tanks need a lot of logistics, engineers, mechanics, and all the rest. And even then, pure tank units aren't very effective, you need to also build up infantry, artillery to build combined formations... that is why I say even with vast budgets, it will take a long time.
Those things are already retrofitted. Ukraine already refurbishes old tanks and sells them to other countries, e.g. Thailand, under «Oplot» brand to fund line of 8x cheaper «Bulat» tanks for their own army.
Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error.
Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.
The NATO alliance isn't the US. Canada leads the battlegroup in Latvia, with contributions by Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Germany leads the battlegroup in Lithuania, with contributions by Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. The United Kingdom leads the battlegroup in Estonia, with contributions by France. The United States leads the battlegroup in Poland, with contributions by Romania and the UK.
The UK also has a battalion in Estonia - but the Russians can field as many tanks as the UK has individual soldiers there. They will be a "speed bump", nothing more.
Triggering what? It's not like the UK has the capability - every "strategic defence review" is just cut, cut, cut. Challenger2, AS90, cut to the bone. Typhoon is barely capable of air-to-ground and the Tornado fleet is rapidly approaching end of life. The Type 45s fitted "for but not with" their major weapons. Carriers without anything to carry.
NATO cannot defend the Baltic States, and if push comes to shove, it won't even try.
As far as I know the plan against a Russian tank rush now is the same as it was when it was the Fulda Gap[1] they were protecting: tactical nukes.
And I think you underestimate NATO power and overestimate Russian. Russia does have a lot of tanks, but the vast majority of them are T-72s and older[2], which are sitting ducks for modern shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles.
Despite that, they do have a lot of T-90s, which are a good tank. But the disparity isn't as high as a first glance makes it appear, and NATO does have better air forces (the F-16 isn't as obsolete as you seem to think).
Nuclear strike is a topic for itself since I think nobody will use it but:
> Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans.
...is a weird statement. Where do you get this from? Besides the fact that "Germany" would never do anything by themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hesitate to join an European/NATO force to defend those countries. The "shock" here wouldn't be even half as hard as it was before Yugoslavia broke apart and Germany had to send soldiers into war again. Today there is not even a relevant party in the german parliament that could theoretically stop that involvement.
I'm pretty sure some in Russia want to believe that Germany wouldn't join Europe/NATO since Russia is in fact the weak party here but I don't believe Putin is that naive.
As a German reading the German press I think any government except the current conservative one would wiggle out of any NATO operation in the baltic states.
Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2. It's exactly the opposite with Russia. Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
"Russia is in fact the weak party"
With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
I live in Germany too but I still fail to see where you get your assessment from. What are those "other" governments you are talking about? AfD and die Linke coalition? Because they are the only ones who have problems with NATO and love Russia. Both are far away from being even considered seriously in day to day business and their ties to Russia are a topic for itself.
> Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD? And how would that new invasion look like to you? People welcoming the Russian Freedomfighters? Do you thing there would be no dead people there?!
And why should it be seen positively when the invasion in Ukraine has not been seen positively while the sanctions against Russia are seen positively: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/292793/umfrag... even though Germany is among those who are hurt by those sanctions.
> With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
Please don't kid yourself. Most people here don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all.
I really wonder where you come from. AfD, Linke, Querfront?
I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out. Obvously any government with the communists (Linke). Don't think a government with AfD will happen soon or ever.
"Please don't kid yourself. Most people don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all."
After rereading this, I still can't follow your point.
"Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD?"
If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis.
50% of SPD members/voters - more if it's left dominated as it currenty is compared to a Schmidt/Schroeder/Brand rightist dominated SPD - 50% of Green members/voters - less if Realos dominate like Fisher, but the Greens are currently dominated by Fundi positions - 100% of Linke voters of course, no clue about AfD.
Just read [1] for example, 39% of people in Germany think Germany should accept Crimea as part of Russia. In a government without the conservatives that position would have the majority.
Or here [2], majority of people in France (53), Italy (51) and Germany (58) would not defend an eastern NATO country attaked by Russia.
> I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out.
What is this supposed to be based on? SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia and the Greens had some values back then. Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions: https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/presse/audiovideo/statement-...
Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU. Not even mentioning that SPD doesn't even take Linke serious.
> If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
This didn't even work out in the Ukraine. They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength.
> Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis. 50% of SPD members/voters -....
Where do you get this from? Why not provide source for this? Instead you come with a 2014 source on Crimea.
> Die restlichen 91 Prozent kämen zustande, weil keine Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten in Russland mehr für den Import bereitstünden.
@your Ninja Edit [2]:
> Gleichzeitig äußern große Mehrheiten – in der Regel zwei Drittel und mehr – die Erwartung, die Vereinigten Staaten würden militärische Gewalt anwenden, um das bedrängte Land zu verteidigen.
So short of half of the people don't want to go to war but most expect the US to do it for them. You would have to twist this like hell to interpret that those people support Russia in any way. Further down there is a 23% support for Putin in Germany. Which contradicts your assumptions above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. They are by far no majority and this is already the highest number in the EU.
"SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia"
Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.
"Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions"
I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
"They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength."
Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
"Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"They are still losing big money"
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"Greens had some values back then."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "
> Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.
What?! :D
This is by far the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet in this topic. Why are you doing that? To confuse all those non-Germans here? What a nasty strategy.
Both did come to power BECAUSE OF THEIR LEFT ATTITUDE and to remove the right attitude.
> I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
You brought that myth of Germans supporting Russia and looking away when a country is invaded by Russia. Now you want to distance yourself from it?
> The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
I have already quoted and answered that based on your own source which says that they don't want to go themselfes but expect the US to do it for them. This also not in a marginal amount but 2/3rd and more according to your own source.
What are you trying there? Are you being paid for this?
> Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
Nobody even knows where this is. It's far away from Europe. Therefore of course nobody would send soldiers from Germany there. However on the topic here, we are talking about Estonia, Poland etc. People would do care about those if Russia would invade them. And those invasions would not be as cheap as ripping of parts of some backwater countries at the end of the world.
I've written that above twice. You are obviously trying to tire me out here.
> Why are you not providing a source for that?
No you play dump? I thought you are reading "newspapers", did you miss the recent election results or what was going on since then? Let me help your well informed background out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=election+results+germany+2017
Do you now want to pretend that you missed what comulated in the most famous Farbbeutel attack? Is this what is left of your strategy? Ignoring key events in German history, ignoring recent election results, playing dump?
All very well known to even half good informed "newspaper reader". Not to you? How come? Maybe we should get back to you: where are you coming from? What are those newspapers that let you miss all those key events and facts while leading you to this Russia Today standpoint on Russia?
We ban accounts that cross into incivility in arguments like this. If you want to keep posting here, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take both the spirit and the letter of the rules to heart. This is necessary to preserve the container for discussion that we all benefit from.
> Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2.
The breakaway Yugoslav republics Croatia & Slovenia were recognised first by Vatican & then by Germany. At that point, no fighting has started. It could be argued that their recognition ignited the conflict.
A good comparison would be if Vatican & Germany recognised Catalonia and started to arm them.
> It's exactly the opposite with Russia.
Well, NATO bombed Yugoslavia, in 1999. under the made up charges of ethnic cleansing, but it was only after the NATO offensive started, that the people started to migrate, to avoid the conflict.
An interesting fact to consider is that the bunkers built during the Hitler's German occupation of Serbia were staffed by German soldiers, in their first military action after the WW2.
Comparisons with Russia are not applicable in this case.
> But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path
Yeah, we have heard that before. This is always said in such circumstances (if only Poland agreed to exterritorial corridor, Germany would not attack it).
I can also understand your point as a country that had defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory.
But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV).
"a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped."
NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either.
In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.