- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Gheorghiță Vlad issued a stark warning about the state of the nation’s army, calling for immediate action.
Romania isn’t prepared for a potential war with Russia and it needs to brace, the country’s defense chief said.
Gheorghiță Vlad, chief of defense of Romania, said, “Yes, the population of Romania, like the entire population of the European Union, of Europe, must be concerned,” in an interview with Europa Liberă România published Thursday.
“If he wins in Ukraine, the main target will be the Republic of Moldova. We will witness tensions in the Western Balkans,” the Romanian general added. “I am more than convinced that President Putin’s policy will escalate in the near future.”
I’ve seen a ton of NATO generals say this lately. What signs do we have that this is actually happening? I thought we had nuclear deterrence. Somehow everyone is talking now about a direct confrontation with Russia in Europe. Something makes me feel that this is just fear mongering. I think our leaders are doing a very poor job at showing us proof of such a conflict actually happening in the future.
It might just be various militaries signaling what may come to pass, in the hopes that preparing yourself for war keeps the peace - at least where peace currently lives.
I’m a bit worried about what Putin might do if Kosovo and Serbia start flaring up again. It’s like dancing around landmines. One false step and the whole of Europe might be mobilised. That will suck, big time.
If the orange guy wins, he will likely pull troops from Eastern Europe. At that point we (Europeans) can no longer count on NATO support. The nuclear arsenal of France/UK is not sufficiently large, and most European countries spend too little on conventional weaponry. This is potentially happening in 11 months.
There is no exaggeration in stating that Ukraine is fighting for our freedom.
Trump is not going to win. His name drives turnout, but most of it is against him.
But Europe should be able to defend itself. I read an article about the drone attack on the US base in Jordan recently. It said that when they found out that a few Americans had died, the Iranian militias in the area ran away from their bases.
That’s how afraid they are of a potential American response. Yesterday the Air Force sent two planes from the US to destroy several groups command centers and drone storage areas on the other side of the globe. And they sanctioned some Revolutionary Guard commanders and cyber attacked at the same time.
Imagine an enemy that is so powerful it lets you attack it, like you’re a child, because it would be unfair if it used all its power. That’s what fighting the US is like. Europe has the potential to be like that if it gets organized.
I hope you are right, but I don’t trust the American electorate to vote in their own (or the reat of the world’s) best interests.
Yea we thought Hillary would win, too…
Fully agree that Europe should be able to defend itself. Fact is we’re not, and politicians are unwilling to invest in it (or directly corrupted by Putin), so here we are, defenceless except for the US and (bizarrely) Ukraine. I am very happy that generals are speaking out on this issue.
MAD only works if your enemy thinks that you really will nuke them about it. In this case Russia has to believe that America, the UK, or France will nuke Russia over, say, Poland or Romania. It’s possible that NATO leadership thinks that Russian leadership does not think that the three NATO nuclear powers would follow through.
Western powers started out relatively strong but at this point I could almost see Putin betting on a weak response. I’m hoping some of these warnings get heeded and the US/EU realizes they won’t even have to think about it if they simply provide Ukraine with overwhelming support.
MAD is only a nuclear deterrent. Unless/until someone uses a nuclear weapon, WW3 would be a conventional war, like Ukraine. If Putin were to start invading NATO countries, the response from NATO would be conventional — nobody who isn’t insane and suicidal would choose to launch nukes, unless they genuinely believed that they are being nuked (which makes nuclear terrorism a real existential threat).
What MAD means is nuclear powers are unlikely to be physically invaded, especially in areas of known nuclear weapon installations — a nuclear power believing it is facing imminent defeat, or nuclear attack, is most likely to use them; dictators like Putin are sociopathic enough to take the entire species with them.
Pretty sure NATO a while ago also said they’d respond with conventional means first, which imo is not a great statement to make and kinda wants me to get nuclear weapon development in my own country going again. I personally don’t trust the UK or France or let alone the US to nuke Russia or whoever over a non nuclear European country. Because that would ultimately mean they’d get nuked in response too and I think this will mean they won’t defend us in such a scenario.
No sane person wants to pull that trigger.
I am not a sane, give me the football. I am a responsible and somewhat lucid redneck.
Yeah someone needs to forge some documents about Russian attempting to buy yellowcake! Add some illegitimate legitimacy to this warmongering!
Not everything is Chamberlain in the 1930s or Iraq in 2003. Stop being reductive.
My point is that “proof” oftentimes means nothing. We already have as much proof as we need to know that Russia is an aggressor.