Not an alarmist, but the notion of a limited attack on NATO as part of Putin’s end-game is more credible than many think.
Biggest mistake you can make in war is assuming your enemy thinks like you and wants the same things you do. Most rational thinkers understand NATO vs. Russia would be short, nasty affair that Russia would lose badly. At least on a military basis.
But if you’re Putin - you already have fallen short of your goals and want to salvage something other than total conquest of Ukraine. Formally annexing Belarus and fragmenting NATO is MAYBE a prize that the average Russian would accept, or at least keep them from calling for Putin’s head.
What does that mean? Poland is too strong, you can’t get to Romania, thus the Baltics are the obvious target. Small, right on your border, has water access, and Trump would no doubt refuse to honor Article 5 based on their limited stature. The military outcome is perhaps irrelevant to the real prize - punching NATO’s fringes in the face, having a muddled response and thus showing Article 5 to just be words on a page. Even if you don’t capture the Baltics, and lose militarily, if NATO doesn’t respond overwhelmingly, then he might consider that a victory in itself.
Hell - invading NATO countries and watching the U.S. thrash and get even further divided over their lack of response is probably at least as valuable as any slice of Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. And they very well could be thinking that an isolationist stance over a ‘far-off’ war in the Baltics is perfect ammo to energize struggling Trump’s base for midterms.
The risk:reward is suprisingly high for Russia, in a world where they’ve painted themselves into a corner surrounded by bad choices. Trump’s likely to be weakened significantly in the midterms. All of their options suck - but the circumstances to get SOMETHING they can point to as a win will probably never be better than it is now. A last, insane move primarily for the sake of damaging NATO & US unity. They could possibly take that back to the Russian nationlist crowd as a minor consolation prize for getting their asses handed to them by inferior little ukraine.
Trump is their last best hope, and he may never be more useful than he is while he still controls the GOP majorities. It’s easy and fun to dunk on Russia’s struggles - but that only increases the chance that they do something even more desperate and crazy, like invade the Baltics. It’s not that unlikely, big picture. Thoughts?
Yeah, well. Putin also considered Ukraine an easy target, too. So, I think we can safely conclude that Putin doesn’t know shit.
It doesn’t matter if by a random chance you have to be the target though.
It’s okay: If putin wants to stretch his forces thinner, the war will end sooner. It’s one of the mistakes hitler made. When you fight multiple nations at once, it becomes impossible to win. Not to mention, every nation adds allies against the attacker. Go ahead, putin. Make my day.
You’re thinking about it in terms of a probable military outcome. I think almost all serious minded people expect that this would result in russia getting their heads kicked in. Quickly.
But what I’m suggesting is a brief, murky invasion into the Baltics where the actual military outcome is irrelevant. Yes, they’ll lose. But they’re losing now. We already know that Russia doesn’t give a shit about their losses. The goal of such an invasion isn’t to win - it’s purely to have Trump play his last part in declining to get invovled, and therefore causing a theoretical crisis within NATO about the sanctity of Article 5, and cause more chaos inside the U.S. itself.
And for the record - I don’t think that would have the impact Russia wants. I think some European states would act unilaterally, especially Finland, Poland and maybe Romania. All those states bordering Russia or it’s proxies have much more skin in the game of keeping russia where they are instead of waiting for them to be cheek-to-cheek with their territory.
Russia hopes this is a NATO-breaking move. But frankly, I think everyone in NATO leadership understands what Trump is, and that he will never honor an Article 5 call. But - that they have plans to act without him, and will look to repair the historic NATO relationship after he croaks. Trying to get Trump to honor any commitment is like shooting rubber bands at the stars.
True - but you’re thinking logically and as though he wants to objectively win militarily. As in, invade and take & hold ground.
I’m suggesting a scenario where the goal isn’t to seize the baltics, but rather to just prove that Trump won’t honor Article 5 and therefore trigger a crisis within NATO & the U.S. and call that a victory. Even though all of Trump’s shittiness is likely to be walked back under future presidencies, the damage that such a move can do to NATO & America in the limited window they have to be assured Trump won’t intervene to help an ally might be a basis for a worthwhile offramp for the war. They could delude themselves into saying “we proved America is a bad ally and eroded NATO unity”. As in, hoping that substitues for the fact that they have achieved nothing in Ukraine and made a permanent, capable enemy on their borders.
The USA aren’t NATO. Everyone in NATO knows you can’t rely on the USA as the strongest member any more. The rest of NATO will figure something out and send troops, etc… It’s okay. Let putin come at us. We’re not in top form yet, but we can pack a punch.
Dangerous to underestimate him, or expect that he will take his SMO lessons and act in a more restrained manner. He has always historically escalated things rather than scaling back. Assessing him as not knowing shit might mean the risk of another stupid invasion is MORE rather than less likely.