Posted on 06/28/2026 2:27:18 AM PDT by NorseViking
As Western leaders departed the G7 summit in Évian talking of a “strategic awakening in support of Ukraine,” the night sky over Moscow was illuminated by the fires of a burning oil refinery just nine miles from the Kremlin. This unprecedented Ukrainian drone strike on Russian territory was met in Western capitals with quiet endorsement rather than anxiety.
During the tensest moments of the Cold War, Western statecraft was anchored by a healthy fear of the unknown. Today, that prudence has been replaced by confidence that conflict can be precisely managed. When Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he was addressing panic during an economic collapse. In contemporary Europe, however, this maxim has been carelessly transposed onto the realm of nuclear redlines.
The prevailing consensus in Europe treats deep strikes into the Russian heartland as a low-cost method of pressuring Moscow into a ceasefire. Assuming Russia is under unsustainable strain, experts continue to argue that Europe can safely coordinate the war, so long as taxpayers accept the costs. Such a view ignores the risks inherent to a broader unravelling of the global security architecture. Unlike during the Cold War, in which superpowers respected defined chains of command and established redlines, today’s historical guardrails have eroded.
(Excerpt) Read more at responsiblestatecraft.org ...
He doesn't have the means to strike Europe to block supplies: conventional attacks will just cause NATO to invoke Article 5 without actually doing much and any nuke attack raises the very real possibility that Russia gets nuked in return.
The only countries that can strike Russia with nukes are the US and France. Would they risk their existence over Poland and Germany? As for Article 5, what can NATO put on the table conventionally that isn’t there?
Conventionally, Europe has working air forces, Russia does not, along with sufficient littoral navies so that Russia would lose almost all of its warships in European waters immediately. And the Kaliningrad Oblast would face direct military pressure from Poland.
The primary threat is political: would conventional strikes that cause almost no significant damage cause panic in Europe? Unlikely, especially in light of the fact that he hasn't been able to successfully intimidate the Europeans yet. Putin would be taking an enormous gamble with a lot of risk and no clear immediate payoff.
Russia invaded the country next door to it to absorb it and that country turned out to be tougher than anticipated, when invading a nation that you share a border with there is of course going to be fighting on both sides of that border.
Poland is a midget militarily. European air forces ran out of ammo and hit a maintenance wall after a couple weeks of operations in Libya fifteen years ago, where they faced no opposition. They have deteriorated since then and are useless for real war. Meanwhile, Russian air power has proved superior to that of the US in Syria and vastly improved based on Ukrainian experience. What your evaluation of naval situation has to do with reality is also unclear, see Russian missile advantage. Another point is why do you think that the Russian heavy strikes will have no effect while simultaneously believing that the current European pinpricks have serious effect on Russia?
Ukraine provides nothing but battlefield and cannon fodder, it is supported by the whole of NATO to a tune unseen in history and still losing, and the US is happy that Iran is not next door.
That is your weird fantasy as a retired Russian officer, Ukraine has emerged as a major European military power, Trump just sent over American military people to be taught by them and is bringing Ukraine know-how and weapon factories to America, as Ukraine is being brought in by other countries to help them with military issues and weapons.
Russia has sunk to great depths at all military levels, Army, Navy, Air Force, the Officer Corps, Special Operations, Putin himself, international prestige and influence, from where the world thought they were in January of 2022, while Ukraine is emerging as a nation to be taken seriously and that will fit into future plans in Europe, and in many ways, are seen as experts in some important areas.
The Russian navy outside the Baltic would operate without aircover in a sub, air, and missile-rich environment. It wouldn't last very long. And even in the Baltic, every shore apart from the Russian has ample anti-ship missile capability.
Putin has stripped most ground forces from Kaliningrad and even in western Belarus Russian and Belarussian forces would likely be overmatched by the Polish Army unless Russia disengages from Ukraine.
Could you explain to me how it is that a major European army, with strategic rear areas in the US and supported to the tune of hundreds of billions, has to rely on press gangs to fill ranks, is in full retreat, and has had all its military facilities bombed back to the Stone Age?
The fact that the US is taking lessons from them follows an infamous tradition dating back to WWII, when the advice of the defeated was used to establish doctrines. It sounds like your putdown of the US military rather than the Russian one.
How large is European NATO compared to Russia? I mentioned Libya for a reason. What B-17s or missile payloads have to do with the issue is not entirely clear, nor is the basis for your evaluation of the effects of Russian missiles.
As for the rest, your own sources recognize that Russia outproduces the whole of NATO in terms of missile production and that these missiles are generations ahead. Furthermore, unlike NATO, Russia also has air defenses.
LOL, you have quite a way to describe the situation in year five of that failed quick invasion of so many years ago and the massive losses in men and materials, as Putin’s operation resulted in one of Russia’s biggest wars and 100s of thousands of dead, with no end in sight.
Everyone else is so much stronger and better since February of 2022, while Russia is neck deep in a terrible quagmire with their North Korean army help.
Post 12 was meant as a response to your post 10.
How much stronger is ‘everyone else’ after squandering all of their weapons and ammunition on fruitless efforts, and taking advice from losers who fabricate imaginary victories while in full retreat?
As for the ‘failed invasion,’ are you projecting Trump’s Iran fiasco? Every reputable expert will tell you that the Russian military has improved since 2022. It fields more men and equipment and knows how to fight modern warfare—an expertise ‘everyone else’ lacks.
You sound like a child, none of that was serious, it was silly whining about made up kid stuff, you are living in an imaginary world and frankly, you sound quite bitter.
You don’t even try to make sense.
Read your silly childishness in post 14, that was kid stuff without reality or substance, and the years of the horrible quagmire and the results you have seen your old military get sent into by Putin, has made you understandably bitter, but as a retired field grade officer from that military, you should try to be more honest and realistic.
In brief, a lot of bark and not much bite.
And in response the Russian navy and Kaliningrad would be subject to direct attack and NATO forces would be immediately active in Ukraine as well.
A huge downside for Putin and very little upside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.