I'm not sure Afghanistan is directly comparable, although it probably would have been had Russia bern able to seize Kyiv during the initial stages.
Had they done so we'd be seeing grinding low-level guerilla war of the kind both Russia and the West faced in Afghanistan.
As it is what we have is effectively a bloody stalemate in WW1 Western Front terms.
The eventual outcome of that will depend on how much aid and ammo Ukraine receives from its friends in Europe and the US - and how quickly - and how much damage Russia inflicts in the meantime.
The Russians have shown that they rely on long range bombardment - as at Mariupol - and grinding destruction. They aren't good at swift action and manoeuvre.
The Ukrainian forces have shown themselves redoubtable in defence but they are neither strong enough nor well equipped sufficiently to launch a knock-out counter offensive.
This one is going to drag on and on until one side or the other tires first. What worries me is that Putin may attempt something even worse rather than lose face.
But it goes to show how an irregular force can still beat the most powerful militaries in the world.
Happens all the time.
Think back to Vietnam,
What, Russia-supplied N. Vietnam?
As SPK says, most certainly. Are you being ironic ( can't tell) ? But despite providing the weapons, the Russians seem to have had the sense to allow the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to actually conduct the hostilities.
But it goes to show how an irregular force can still beat the most powerful militaries in the world.
Happens all the time.
Think back to Vietnam,
What, Russia-supplied N. Vietnam?
As SPK says, most certainly. Are you being ironic ( can't tell) ? But despite providing the weapons, the Russians seem to have had the sense to allow the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to actually conduct the hostilities.
My Russia question was rhetorical as well, why @Sober Preacher's Kid's ironic question in response I don't know.
The point is providing weapons. $300,000,000 every couple of days is fine.
But it goes to show how an irregular force can still beat the most powerful militaries in the world.
Happens all the time.
Think back to Vietnam,
What, Russia-supplied N. Vietnam?
As SPK says, most certainly. Are you being ironic ( can't tell) ? But despite providing the weapons, the Russians seem to have had the sense to allow the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to actually conduct the hostilities.
There were difference circumstances north and south of the border that resulted in the US, and others including Australia, being drawn into the conflict while a similar approach allowed the Soviets and China to largely keep out of actual combat - circumstances that are sufficiently similar in Ukraine that this experience is part of the thinking behind how the US/NATO supports Ukraine.
The weapons systems supplied to both North and South Vietnam in the 1960s were sophisticated and complex, requiring training to use and skilled maintenance. Both sides received those weapons and a large number of contractors to maintain the kit, and military advisors to train soldiers in their use (which is more than just how to fire the guns etc, but also tactical and strategic training in how to make the best use of the capabilities of these weapons). In the south, these contractors and advisors were embedded within a conflict zone, whereas in the north their Soviet/Chinese counterparts weren't (there were still air attacks, but no South Vietnamese land forces), and so the US (and others) started to bring in more troops to protect them. And, then that job got larger and larger - if you need to protect an airfield where contractors are maintaining helicopters then you need to occupy not just the airfield but the area around it with patrols covering the area to several miles out; to support those troops you need to bring in your own aircraft and artillery which also needs contractors to maintain; so you bring in more people, who now need to be housed and have places to work which also need to be protected; so you bring in more troops to do that ... and before you know it things have spiralled out of control.
The fear is that similar arrangements to provide maintenance and training to Ukraine could create a similar cascading effect with more and more US/NATO troops on the ground to protect them. With the added risk of things getting really out of control in the region if any of those US/NATO troops start getting into fire-fights with Russian troops. This has lead to quite complex arrangements being made for equipment maintenance in Poland, and training happening in various NATO countries. This adds to the cost, and is much less efficient (with equipment removed from front lines for much longer and put at risk being transported across Ukraine).
As someone who was liable for conscription in the 1960's, combined with the possibility that such service would have been in Vietnam, my concern is that a similar position will be reached in the Ukraine but with a much risk of escalation to a much higher level than was a possibility in Vietnam. That risk goes as far as your "really out of control". That was not a concern in the Vietnam War given the political conflicts in the US; such conflicts are much higher now than in the US 50 years ago.
The United States seems to get into the trap of nation building. We did it in Vietnam. We were doing it in Somalia. We did it in Afghanistan. Iraq as well. We just might start doing it again in Haiti.
The United States seems to get into the trap of nation building. We did it in Vietnam. We were doing it in Somalia. We did it in Afghanistan. Iraq as well. We just might start doing it again in Haiti.
Rumours that Russia is using double tap method in Odessa, i.e., first bomb lands, then after an interval a second one hits, to catch the rescuers. Not verified.
The United States seems to get into the trap of nation building. We did it in Vietnam. We were doing it in Somalia. We did it in Afghanistan. Iraq as well. We just might start doing it again in Haiti.
Maybe not in Ukraine. But you never know.
Did well in Germany, Italy and Japan.
Not so sure about Italy. The government keeps collapsing. In the case of Germany and Japan, both nations had deep cultural foundations on which to build, I think.
• “It is clear that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Putin will not stop there… It would doom Europe to decades of war.”
BS.
Here we completely disagree. What do you honestly think Putin will do next, after his victorious visit to Kiev?
AFZ
Take out Moldova. But it won't take decades.
You're the one who keeps telling us that Russia is unstoppable. Now you want us to believe they will just stop.
She's stoppable, no-one is stopping her. And how do you infer that I want you to believe they will just stop? Why would she? There are glimmers of Europe actually nearly thinking about going on a war footing. 300,000 shells by June, whether they're needed or not. Interest on frozen Russian assets is £4bn a year. Less than 10% of what is needed. Ah well, things happen at the margins eh?
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
What the F*** do you mean by this? Be specific. You called BS. You need to explain what you're saying.
Especially when you use a Putin Euphemism.
Russian Aggression against Ukraine began in 2014. It's still ongoing 10 years later. Short of Nuclear exchange, why on earth would Russian aggression on a wider front be quicker?
Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat. Which is completely at odds with everything else you've been saying for two years.
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
What the F*** do you mean by this? Be specific. You called BS. You need to explain what you're saying.
Especially when you use a Putin Euphemism.
Russian Aggression against Ukraine began in 2014. It's still ongoing 10 years later. Short of Nuclear exchange, why on earth would Russian aggression on a wider front be quicker?
Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat. Which is completely at odds with everything else you've been saying for two years.
Sorry mate, I don't know what the problem is.
Any advance by Russia west of Ukraine won't take decades now that they're on a Russophone roll. The only place they can go on land without invading NATO is Moldova. So that's where they'll go. From Transnistria that they already occupy. Unless Bosnia-Herzegovina or Montenegro invite them in by sea and they can then move in to Serbia and Kosovo. NATO will not, can not, stop any of that that once Ukraine has gone. How?
I don't understand how you can ask 'Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat'?
Oh I see @Martin54 you are saying that Russia will roll over its new European targets quickly. Why could you not say so more clearly?
And so when you say that a Trump victory would be better for Ukraine than a Biden victory, you mean that Ukraine's defeat is inevitable, so it would be better for them to be forced to surrender soon?
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
What the F*** do you mean by this? Be specific. You called BS. You need to explain what you're saying.
Especially when you use a Putin Euphemism.
Russian Aggression against Ukraine began in 2014. It's still ongoing 10 years later. Short of Nuclear exchange, why on earth would Russian aggression on a wider front be quicker?
Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat. Which is completely at odds with everything else you've been saying for two years.
Sorry mate, I don't know what the problem is.
Any advance by Russia west of Ukraine won't take decades now that they're on a Russophone roll. The only place they can go on land without invading NATO is Moldova. So that's where they'll go. From Transnistria that they already occupy. Unless Bosnia-Herzegovina or Montenegro invite them in by sea and they can then move in to Serbia and Kosovo. NATO will not, can not, stop any of that that once Ukraine has gone. How?
I don't understand how you can ask 'Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat'?
You are finally clear.
However, you are supposing three things there:
1. Those are the only Russian targets
2. Russian forces will be rapidly successful
3. The West would do nothing
1. We know if not true. Unless you are arguing that Putin will attack everywhere but not NATO.
2. Given their poor performance in Ukraine and massive attrition and that they'd need to maintain an occupation force in Ukraine, this is by no means a certainty. A rapid Russian victory definitely isn't.
3. The West may do nothing or they may react differently to the next adventure.
Besides, they are nowhere close to victory in Ukraine right now. The idea of a rapid Russian victory this year followed by another adventure in the next year or so is quite a reach.
But I suppose if you continually predict an imminent Russian victory, you might be right eventually.
Moreover, a Russian victory in any of these territories does not automatically equate with peace. Long term insurgency is very likely.
Without Russia deploying nukes, one thing that's certain is that there won't be a rapid Russian conquest of the whole of Ukraine. Without Western military aid the Ukrainian army stalled the invasion two years ago. Since then a large proportion of the young male population of Ukraine has been recruited into the army, and a large portion of the manufacturing infrastructure of Ukraine turned over to arms production. Even if the supply of Western equipment dries up entirely Russian forces will only be able to advance slowly and at great cost, and with an antagonistic civilian population behind their lines requiring a significant deployment of troops just to prevent resistance groups from disrupting supply lines or removing practically the entire Ukrainian population.
Without significant Western aid, unless Putin gives up and withdraws troops, then the war will continue for years yet, by which time Russian forces might have occupied the entire Donbas region and possibly a buffer zone beyond that. If Russian aims include capturing Kyiv then they'll need to fight for that for a decade, at least.
With significant Western aid, something in excess of what was supplied last year, then Ukraine might be able to reverse the Russian advances. It would still be a few years to recover lost territory, if that's going to include Crimea then a decade, at least.
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
What the F*** do you mean by this? Be specific. You called BS. You need to explain what you're saying.
Especially when you use a Putin Euphemism.
Russian Aggression against Ukraine began in 2014. It's still ongoing 10 years later. Short of Nuclear exchange, why on earth would Russian aggression on a wider front be quicker?
Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat. Which is completely at odds with everything else you've been saying for two years.
Sorry mate, I don't know what the problem is.
Any advance by Russia west of Ukraine won't take decades now that they're on a Russophone roll. The only place they can go on land without invading NATO is Moldova. So that's where they'll go. From Transnistria that they already occupy. Unless Bosnia-Herzegovina or Montenegro invite them in by sea and they can then move in to Serbia and Kosovo. NATO will not, can not, stop any of that that once Ukraine has gone. How?
I don't understand how you can ask 'Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat'?
You are finally clear.
However, you are supposing three things there:
1. Those are the only Russian targets
2. Russian forces will be rapidly successful
3. The West would do nothing
1. We know if not true. Unless you are arguing that Putin will attack everywhere but not NATO.
2. Given their poor performance in Ukraine and massive attrition and that they'd need to maintain an occupation force in Ukraine, this is by no means a certainty. A rapid Russian victory definitely isn't.
3. The West may do nothing or they may react differently to the next adventure.
Besides, they are nowhere close to victory in Ukraine right now. The idea of a rapid Russian victory this year followed by another adventure in the next year or so is quite a reach.
But I suppose if you continually predict an imminent Russian victory, you might be right eventually.
Moreover, a Russian victory in any of these territories does not automatically equate with peace. Long term insurgency is very likely.
AFZ
Nope. As Alan says, Russian conquest of Ukraine is another decade event. I'm not arguing for a rapid conquest of Ukraine.
The BS was,
• “It is clear that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Putin will not stop there… It would doom Europe to decades of war.”
If Putin gets to the Polish and Moldovan and Romanian and Slovak and Hungarian borders, then hopefully Moldova is in NATO by then. Because being thirteen times smaller than Ukraine in population, even though it might have taken Putin 20 years to get there, it wouldn't take him 2 to take out Moldova. I don't see decades of war in Europe if Ukraine is re-absorbed. How? Where?
Because Putin believes Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (and probably Finland and parts of Poland) are part of Mother Russia. Of course he would invade, if he thought he could.
Trump in his saner moments has undermined Nato. In his less lucid moments, he's even more scary.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
Yeah, after making ourselves dependent on Russian carbon. We couldn't have seen Putin coming could we? Since 2014. At least. Trump is irrelevant. We've been stupid, lazy, complacent. I think we've got nastier shocks to come. France going full on fascist for a start.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
Yeah, after making ourselves dependent on Russian carbon. We couldn't have seen Putin coming could we? Since 2014. At least. Trump is irrelevant. We've been stupid, lazy, complacent. I think we've got nastier shocks to come. France going full on fascist for a start.
Being dependent on Russian gas is indeed a dumb move. Not directly undermining of the Atlantic alliance though.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
Yeah, after making ourselves dependent on Russian carbon. We couldn't have seen Putin coming could we? Since 2014. At least. Trump is irrelevant. We've been stupid, lazy, complacent. I think we've got nastier shocks to come. France going full on fascist for a start.
The European Union has set a goal of being completely independent of Russian gas by 2030. That is only six years away. It is a very high goal.
As far as France going fascist is concerned, I disagree. They are willing to say what needs to be said. If Ukraine falls, who's next? France is not intimidated by Putin's threat of going nuclear.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
Yeah, after making ourselves dependent on Russian carbon. We couldn't have seen Putin coming could we? Since 2014. At least. Trump is irrelevant. We've been stupid, lazy, complacent. I think we've got nastier shocks to come. France going full on fascist for a start.
a) The European Union has set a goal of being completely independent of Russian gas by 2030. That is only six years away. It is a very high goal.
b) As far as France going fascist is concerned, I disagree. c) They are willing to say what needs to be said. d) If Ukraine falls, who's next? e) France is not intimidated by Putin's threat of going nuclear.
a) And in only 6 years, how well will Ukraine be doing without full European backing?
e) Wanna bet? I don't see any French troops in Ukraine. And nobody else will be joining them.
I know this is a slight aside and mostly beside the point but how much do you wanna bet there aren't French troops in Ukraine right now?
I know there are members of the British armed forces there.
AFZ
I know there are AFZ, as I do Brits. But they are not there officially firing directly at Russians and if they get hit by Russians even deliberately, that's not casus belli.
Comments
To tell the truth, we did not do much better.
But it goes to show how an irregular force can still beat the most powerful militaries in the world.
Happens all the time.
Had they done so we'd be seeing grinding low-level guerilla war of the kind both Russia and the West faced in Afghanistan.
As it is what we have is effectively a bloody stalemate in WW1 Western Front terms.
The eventual outcome of that will depend on how much aid and ammo Ukraine receives from its friends in Europe and the US - and how quickly - and how much damage Russia inflicts in the meantime.
The Russians have shown that they rely on long range bombardment - as at Mariupol - and grinding destruction. They aren't good at swift action and manoeuvre.
The Ukrainian forces have shown themselves redoubtable in defence but they are neither strong enough nor well equipped sufficiently to launch a knock-out counter offensive.
This one is going to drag on and on until one side or the other tires first. What worries me is that Putin may attempt something even worse rather than lose face.
America.
Think back to Vietnam,
What, Russia-supplied N. Vietnam?
And the SAMs and the AKs and the grenades and
Apparently they are conducting an independence referendum.
Without the leverage of aid, Washington can't restrain Kyiv. Looks like Putin's Congress Gambit backfired.
How?
As SPK says, most certainly. Are you being ironic ( can't tell) ? But despite providing the weapons, the Russians seem to have had the sense to allow the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to actually conduct the hostilities.
My Russia question was rhetorical as well, why @Sober Preacher's Kid's ironic question in response I don't know.
The point is providing weapons. $300,000,000 every couple of days is fine.
The weapons systems supplied to both North and South Vietnam in the 1960s were sophisticated and complex, requiring training to use and skilled maintenance. Both sides received those weapons and a large number of contractors to maintain the kit, and military advisors to train soldiers in their use (which is more than just how to fire the guns etc, but also tactical and strategic training in how to make the best use of the capabilities of these weapons). In the south, these contractors and advisors were embedded within a conflict zone, whereas in the north their Soviet/Chinese counterparts weren't (there were still air attacks, but no South Vietnamese land forces), and so the US (and others) started to bring in more troops to protect them. And, then that job got larger and larger - if you need to protect an airfield where contractors are maintaining helicopters then you need to occupy not just the airfield but the area around it with patrols covering the area to several miles out; to support those troops you need to bring in your own aircraft and artillery which also needs contractors to maintain; so you bring in more people, who now need to be housed and have places to work which also need to be protected; so you bring in more troops to do that ... and before you know it things have spiralled out of control.
The fear is that similar arrangements to provide maintenance and training to Ukraine could create a similar cascading effect with more and more US/NATO troops on the ground to protect them. With the added risk of things getting really out of control in the region if any of those US/NATO troops start getting into fire-fights with Russian troops. This has lead to quite complex arrangements being made for equipment maintenance in Poland, and training happening in various NATO countries. This adds to the cost, and is much less efficient (with equipment removed from front lines for much longer and put at risk being transported across Ukraine).
As someone who was liable for conscription in the 1960's, combined with the possibility that such service would have been in Vietnam, my concern is that a similar position will be reached in the Ukraine but with a much risk of escalation to a much higher level than was a possibility in Vietnam. That risk goes as far as your "really out of control". That was not a concern in the Vietnam War given the political conflicts in the US; such conflicts are much higher now than in the US 50 years ago.
Maybe not in Ukraine. But you never know.
https://www.everand.com/podcast/711157617/Ukraine-two-years-on-Ukraine-s-years-of-defiance
• “It is clear that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Putin will not stop there… It would doom Europe to decades of war.”
BS.
• “The resolve of Ukrainians has not weakened… But we don’t see the West’s words matched by deeds.”
True.
Did well in Germany, Italy and Japan.
Here we completely disagree. What do you honestly think Putin will do next, after his victorious visit to Kiev?
AFZ
Take out Moldova. But it won't take decades.
Not so sure about Italy. The government keeps collapsing. In the case of Germany and Japan, both nations had deep cultural foundations on which to build, I think.
You're the one who keeps telling us that Russia is unstoppable. Now you want us to believe they will just stop.
She's stoppable, no-one is stopping her. And how do you infer that I want you to believe they will just stop? Why would she? There are glimmers of Europe actually nearly thinking about going on a war footing. 300,000 shells by June, whether they're needed or not. Interest on frozen Russian assets is £4bn a year. Less than 10% of what is needed. Ah well, things happen at the margins eh?
The link I posted was to someone who can claim some expertise who said that a Russian victory would lead to war (or rather a lack of peace) for Europe for a prolonged period.
You called this BS.
Why?
Will Eastern Europe surrender or will Russia just stop?
AFZ
Oh yes. Absolutely.
Special military operations west of Ukraine by Russia won't last decades.
What the F*** do you mean by this? Be specific. You called BS. You need to explain what you're saying.
Especially when you use a Putin Euphemism.
Russian Aggression against Ukraine began in 2014. It's still ongoing 10 years later. Short of Nuclear exchange, why on earth would Russian aggression on a wider front be quicker?
Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat. Which is completely at odds with everything else you've been saying for two years.
Sorry mate, I don't know what the problem is.
Any advance by Russia west of Ukraine won't take decades now that they're on a Russophone roll. The only place they can go on land without invading NATO is Moldova. So that's where they'll go. From Transnistria that they already occupy. Unless Bosnia-Herzegovina or Montenegro invite them in by sea and they can then move in to Serbia and Kosovo. NATO will not, can not, stop any of that that once Ukraine has gone. How?
I don't understand how you can ask 'Unless you're predicting a rapid Russian defeat'?
And so when you say that a Trump victory would be better for Ukraine than a Biden victory, you mean that Ukraine's defeat is inevitable, so it would be better for them to be forced to surrender soon?
You are finally clear.
However, you are supposing three things there:
1. Those are the only Russian targets
2. Russian forces will be rapidly successful
3. The West would do nothing
1. We know if not true. Unless you are arguing that Putin will attack everywhere but not NATO.
2. Given their poor performance in Ukraine and massive attrition and that they'd need to maintain an occupation force in Ukraine, this is by no means a certainty. A rapid Russian victory definitely isn't.
3. The West may do nothing or they may react differently to the next adventure.
Besides, they are nowhere close to victory in Ukraine right now. The idea of a rapid Russian victory this year followed by another adventure in the next year or so is quite a reach.
But I suppose if you continually predict an imminent Russian victory, you might be right eventually.
Moreover, a Russian victory in any of these territories does not automatically equate with peace. Long term insurgency is very likely.
AFZ
Without significant Western aid, unless Putin gives up and withdraws troops, then the war will continue for years yet, by which time Russian forces might have occupied the entire Donbas region and possibly a buffer zone beyond that. If Russian aims include capturing Kyiv then they'll need to fight for that for a decade, at least.
With significant Western aid, something in excess of what was supplied last year, then Ukraine might be able to reverse the Russian advances. It would still be a few years to recover lost territory, if that's going to include Crimea then a decade, at least.
Nope. As Alan says, Russian conquest of Ukraine is another decade event. I'm not arguing for a rapid conquest of Ukraine.
The BS was,
• “It is clear that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, Putin will not stop there… It would doom Europe to decades of war.”
If Putin gets to the Polish and Moldovan and Romanian and Slovak and Hungarian borders, then hopefully Moldova is in NATO by then. Because being thirteen times smaller than Ukraine in population, even though it might have taken Putin 20 years to get there, it wouldn't take him 2 to take out Moldova. I don't see decades of war in Europe if Ukraine is re-absorbed. How? Where?
I don't think Russia will attack a Nato country this year.
But they might if Trump is president.
Why would they?
If he pulled out of NATO, maybe, if he didn't, less maybe.
Indeed. Some of us have said this from the beginning. Some not so much.
Because Putin believes Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (and probably Finland and parts of Poland) are part of Mother Russia. Of course he would invade, if he thought he could.
Trump in his saner moments has undermined Nato. In his less lucid moments, he's even more scary.
AFZ
Terrorists always only ever do what they can, at most, which is very little, even when targeting open society.
Euro-NATO has no trouble undermining itself.
During the Cold War, NATO seemed solid. Now, not so much. I think that's almost entirely down to Trump. It's true that we in Europe could do a lot more towards our own defence. But it is unsurprising that we find it a nasty shock to be required to do so and that it is difficult to make the adjustment.
Yeah, after making ourselves dependent on Russian carbon. We couldn't have seen Putin coming could we? Since 2014. At least. Trump is irrelevant. We've been stupid, lazy, complacent. I think we've got nastier shocks to come. France going full on fascist for a start.
Being dependent on Russian gas is indeed a dumb move. Not directly undermining of the Atlantic alliance though.
The European Union has set a goal of being completely independent of Russian gas by 2030. That is only six years away. It is a very high goal.
As far as France going fascist is concerned, I disagree. They are willing to say what needs to be said. If Ukraine falls, who's next? France is not intimidated by Putin's threat of going nuclear.
a) And in only 6 years, how well will Ukraine be doing without full European backing?
b) And you disagree with this do you?
c) Which is what? To whom? Macron is speaking to the French electorate primarily.
d) Moldova.
e) Wanna bet? I don't see any French troops in Ukraine. And nobody else will be joining them.
I know this is a slight aside and mostly beside the point but how much do you wanna bet there aren't French troops in Ukraine right now?
I know there are members of the British armed forces there.
AFZ
I know there are AFZ, as I do Brits. But they are not there officially firing directly at Russians and if they get hit by Russians even deliberately, that's not casus belli.