Summary

Germany warns that Russia is rearming faster than expected, replacing war losses and stockpiling tanks, missiles, and drones.

Putin has redirected Russia’s economy to fuel its military, aided by supplies from Iran and North Korea.

While there’s no clear evidence of plans to attack NATO, Russia is creating the conditions for it.

On the Ukraine front, Russian forces are advancing in south Donetsk, nearing strategic town Pokrovsk, a key supply hub and coal mining center.

Analysts suggest Putin aims to seize land before potential peace talks.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      It’s mostly about equipment. There are still enough people to be mobilized, and plenty are signing the contract even now.

      Ads for contract military service are everywhere, and the payment is big by Russian standards, so whenever some men find they have nothing to lose or a starving family to support, they know where to go.

  • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Now that Putin’s asset (Donald J Trump) accomplished his mission of taking the presidency and is in progress to dismantle american institutions, it would be a good time for Russia to make a move against the previously-called “american interests”

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It’s all going to depend on if the rest of NATO can hold together. They have to plan for 100% no American Aid. Though I wonder how incredibly damaging having a US general be in charge of the NATO forces will be in that regard. Will he actively sabotage NATO defensive efforts?

  • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    While there’s no clear evidence of plans to attack NATO, Russia is creating the conditions for it.

    Holy clickbait. How is this article allowed

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’re betting on their fascist puppet in the US tearing apart NATO, so they don’t have to worry about such things when they start eyeing the Baltic states.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      And what, lose another 3 years and a third of the country’s young to losing the fight for Estonia? Russia is absolutely incapable of successfully invading anything. They couldn’t even stay in Syria when a bunch of untrained militia said they might show up later. Russia is weak.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        2 days ago

        As long as there is an war going on for the rest of Putin’s life, I don’t think he cares about the any of those problems.

        All he cares about is that if there isn’t a war going on, Russians will start to look at what their own government does.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        Russia is absolutely incapable of successfully invading anything.

        Why is Ukraine constantly begging for help, then?

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Because the most well trained, committed and disciplined soldiers armed with sticks still lose to a 5th grade drop-out conscript with a machine gun.

          Battles are won by soldiers. Wars are won by production and logistics.

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Simultaneously so weak and incompetent that they can’t take a village of 80 year olds but so scary that they’ll go to war with like a fifth of the planet.

    How does the Umberto Eco thing go again?

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      NATO is not a monolithic defense shield. There are weak points that Russia can go after.

      The Baltics are made up of very small nations that Russia even in its current state could roll through in a few days.

      Once they take those countries they can just sit on them and declare that they will use nukes to defend them.

      That leaves NATO in a very bad position militarily of having to retake those countries with the very real threat of nuclear war. It will test the resolve of Alliance members especially those who aren’t immediately adjacent to Russia and are not threatened by them militarily. Will they risk the lives of their people?

      Combine that action with China trying to take Taiwan and a US that is not very reliable under Trump and it’s not nearly as cut and dry as you think it may be.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        The Baltics are made up of very small nations that Russia even in its current state could roll through in a few days.

        They thought that about Ukraine as well… It’s 2025 and the Russian border is probably one of the most observed in the world right now. The chances of a Blitzkrieg style attack is nil.

        That said if there was ever a time for the EU to start building up its war machine, that time is now.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          No one can predict the future but Ukraine has caught Russia unprepared by rushing small but well equipped units to the front to take land during the Kursk offensive and then rush reinforcements in afterwards.

          It’s not out of the realm of possibility for Russia to do the same in the Baltics.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      While there’s no clear evidence of plans to attack NATO, Russia is creating the conditions for it.

      This is also a very telling sentence.

      “There’s not evidence this is even on their minds or that they would ever attempt such a monumentally stupid move, buuut…just use your 🌈 imagination 💫”

      • mount_snowden@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The Telegraph loves this. “<Insert shocking headline> MAY OCCUR!!” = It has not been proven mathematically impossible.

        While there’s no clear evidence of plans to attack NATO, Russia is creating the conditions for it.

        Have they read the news within the last 3 years?

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean Russia is doing quite poorly. Even if the Ukrainian Army poofs out of existence today and gives Russian a leisurely stroll to the capital its still kind of a pyrrhic victory. They have done well to go in a war economy and have learned from their mistakes, but they are still punching under their expected weight.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Simultaneously so weak and incompetent that they can’t take a village of 80 year olds

      If they’re that weak, why hasn’t Ukraine beaten them out yet?

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because they’re given just enough resources to bleed Russia, without giving them enough to beat them.

        Ukraine want them gone for sure, but the US would rather Russia just waste its resources on a futile war.

        I suspect Trump’s “peace plan” is just “everybody keeps the ground they’re currently on and have a ceasefire while they build up resources again”.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m sorry, but even with the U.S. out of NATO, Russia would get their ass kicked. Putin must know that.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      All depends on if NATO as a whole isn’t just a bluff. Are the UK, Germany and France, the three remaining major economies after the US leaves, actually going to go to war with Russia over Lithuania (no offense at all toward Lithuanians), for example? That’s what he’s testing, and that’s why he wants the US out.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        NATO could crumble and Germany and France would still come to Lithuania’s aid, they’re an EU member. With NATO gone UK might technically not be on the hook any more but they’d still get into the fray, despite their faults and their insistence that they’re not they’re still Europeans.

        The actually difficult part would be stopping Poland from bee-lining for Moscow, nukes be damned. They don’t spend 4.7% of GDP because they plan on sitting back.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          That’s a lot of faith to have in treaties. Historically Nations tear up treaties of the drop of a hat. They’re only as valuable as the vested interest of those involved.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Nations, towns, families, your left hand agreeing with the right, all just treaties, got you. Maybe go a bit easier on the reductionism.

          • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            I don’t think it would matter because if Lithuania is invaded, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Finland are joining the fight and that’s already a huge war in Europe. Sweden seems ready to defend and if Sweden goes it’s pretty safe to assume Denmark and Norway are going as well.

            Then, if Denmark is fighting, the Netherlands are probably going to help and if the Netherlands are at war so it’s Belgium, you see the pattern. So while I don’t think Spain would want to defend Lithuania, they would defend France.

          • vga@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            NATO was specifically created to counter a Russian invasion, so it would be kinda weird if it didn’t do the exact thing it was built for.

          • Auli@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            No they won’t. They’ll yell and saber rattle. Won’t do anything till it reflects them as history has shown.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yes.

            I’m not sure if people know the history of trilateral defense agreements.

            Iirc it was the French and English who put their war on hold to fight the Spanish specifically because of a weird defense pact.

            • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              2 days ago

              Do you mind if I borrow your crystal ball? You seem unusually certain of things most leading experts would call “very likely.”

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          This is actually not true.

          Article Five states that an attack on one becomes an attack on all. This wording is very specific, and they wrote it with this wording intentionally, to get people to be willing to agree to join.

          It does not require counterattacks or declarations of war, merely that you consider an attack on a member an attack on you.

          How do people respond to different sorts of attacks? How can they theoretically respond if they so choose? These are the kinds of games being played in Putin’s head.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Article 5

            The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

            Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

            https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

            As far as mutual defence treaties go Article 5 is worded very strongly and any nation failing to provide assistance to a member nation would find itself a pariah.

            The chances that an article 5 event involving Russia doesn’t trigger full scale war are slim to none.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              such action as it deems necessary

              That’s a key phrase.

              Pariah, possibly, but I don’t think a party like the AfD would particularly care about pariah status. I’ll also remind you that Article 5 has been triggered once, by George W Bush after 9/11. He then wanted to invade Iraq, and did not receive the full support of NATO members.

              It’s just not that simple, unfortunately.

              • JohnSwanFromTheLough@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Yes because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You can’t make up an attack on a NATO member and then ask for the article 5 to be invoked.

                Surely you see that?

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Of course. But the principle remains that if your allies do not want to participate in your military action, they are not required to.

                  It’s the people in charge of that country that make the decision of how they want to respond to your Article Five invocation, based on their own values and priorities. That freedom of choice is fundamental to NATO.

    • blakenong@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think the plan is to be ready for WWIII, when China, Russia, Iran, and… haha…. North Korea, team up.

  • HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Russia has faced a tiny fraction of NATO’s combined military strength and has failed to produce any meaningful results. Attacking NATO would be suicidal

    • eronth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeahhhh, but what if someone in charge of the US sides with them instead of against them.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      and has failed to produce any meaningful results.

      The absolute delusion among you people.

        • Venator@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          When Ukraine stops receiving arms from the USA the odds might switch towards Russias favour 😢

          Hopefully other countries can make up the difference.

        • john89@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, war really brings out the stupidity in you people.

          You just can’t understand propaganda for what it is.

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you think other allies would unite as a matter of course, you haven’t been paying attention.

      • HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’ve been at this long enough to know when I see an incredibly pessimistic take.

        People play patheticly when it’s only money involved, see how things change when shit gets real.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You think entering a war is an easy clear cut decision? There’s nothing in article 5 that compels any ally to join a counterattack. If the US supports Russia and doesn’t do anything, it becomes a much harder sell to enter a war.

    • djsp@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      The erosion of international laws and norms –insofar as these were ever a thing and not merely a hopeful illusion– did not begin with Israel’s Gaza campaign; by the time Israel started bombing Gaza, international laws and norms had already been put into question by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, among others. The list is not exhaustive and any bias unintended.

      • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Nothing like what’s happening in Palestine though. The US didn’t kill as many children or destroy as much infrastructure as Israel did. Despite the criminality of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, their intentions weren’t genocidal even if they did show complete disregard for human lives. Somehow Israel has impunity that no one else has, and committed war crimes at a rate and scale that not even Russia did in Ukraine. Israel intentionally created a famine in the Gaza Strip as part of its campaign against the Palestinians as a people.

  • nexguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    It takes Russia weeks/months to take a tiny village at the cost of thousands of soldiers. They can’t attack NATO.

    I mean they can… but it would go as expected.

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    As my GM once said, right before I TPK’d my whole group: “You can certainly try.”

  • endeavor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    lmao, russians can stockpile rocks and have their propaganda call it best weapon ever.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    An armchair analyst take here but I think they are gearing up to finally try to take Pokrovsk in the spring.

    Folks at lemmy.ml were shouting from the rafters most of last year: Invading Kursk was a mistake! Russia will drive them back, and Pokrovsk will fall any day now! But like Avdiivka, I expect it to be a siege and for it to take a while. If they can take it early enough this year, Russia will again be able to conquer massive swaths of farmland because that’s really the only thing the “throw bodies at the problem” strategy is very effective at. If Ukraine holds out until the late fall, Russia will again be stalled for months, so the pace of their entire army will be “1 regional hub per year”, which I’m not sure is sustainable for Russia’s economy and society.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Honestly the pace of Russian advancement has been slowing down which is understandable because their losses are not sustainable. Their only hope for true victory is if Ukrainian losses are even less sustainable.

      This is possible, especially if Germany and the US, the 2 wealthiest partners, cut off or scale back aid. But at the moment Ukraine seems slightly ahead of the attrition game and the US just INCREASED sanctions.

      • SineIraEtStudio@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Perun (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHUQmJCa3aY) just released a video yesterday that went over Ukraine’s war material situation.

        TLDW: Ukrainian military equipment is for the most part qualitatively better than it was at the start of the war but not quantitatively.

        Russia on the other hand is qualitatively worse, is running out of reserve war equipment (Soviet stockpiles), and is expected to deplete some of categories of equipment sometime in 2024 (tank stockpile source: Covert Cabal https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K8CcuVCDEUw).

        Edit: some spelling mistakes.

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s about what I thought. Ukraine has gotten 40 trucks here, 12 tanks there. Better than the old Soviet stuff Russia is using, but not enough to decisively turn the tables.