I moved to Europe (Scotland) about 10 years ago, and prior to that lived most of my life in China and the USA. One thing that struck me is that in both China and the USA, the idea of a war close to home is not a thing. Nobody considers it to be a remote possibility, and it isn't. There is simply no entity who can project enough power to mess with either of those countries for a sustained period of time on their home turf.
It's different in Europe - the UK seems to be the least conscious of the possibility of war but the farther east you go, the more it's on people's minds.
I've been to Poland a few times now, and each visit through chatting with randoms in a bar or pub (and through chatting with a number of Polish friends here in the UK) I had a similar experience: there would be a point where someone would casually remark that they're just spending time concentrating on keeping fit (aerobic and weight lifting) because "the next war is coming."
Poland of course has particularly horrible geographical luck and an extremely war-torn past to reckon with, but I was really struck with this idea that anecdotally many folks seemed to be living under the perception that the next war is coming, and we all need to be prepared. I've had similar but less extreme and consistent conversations with folks in Romania, for example.
I'm not really sure what there is to learn here, apart from the fact that the EU has been a phenomenal success in its real purpose - keeping the peace in Europe. Just look at this list of wars in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
Is the world getting safer? I think so. Is the risk of large scale war like France is planning for decreasing? I hope so. But we are on very new footing in terms of this being the new normal, despite what it might feel like, and this perception certainly differs based on how close to perceived threats you might live.
I live in Lithuania (eastern europe, neighbour to Poland). Can confirm. War on home turf is something that is in the back of my mind. It's also a business risk that we take seriously at the company I work at.
I spent most of the 80's somewhat close to the front of a war (Israel) as a child, but I was in the US for the events of 1989, and one of the things I saw was how in the US, people learned all the wrong lessons from those events.
In Europe and in the US, there was no more denying that communism was a fail. But in the US, people got the idea that they won the Cold War by showcasing a consumer lifestyle, and that therefore it's unpatriotic to sacrifice any convenience or comfort for any national purpose. Which is how we've come to be unable to mobilize against the pandemic.
I've upvoted as I think it's unfair you were greyed out @ -1 or 0. However I slightly disagree that this was the main reason the US did not respond well to the pandemic. Might be a little off-topic to reopen that wound here though :)
Homefront mobilization is pretty much the same for disasters, wars, or a pandemic. If you can't do well with one, you probably can't do well with any other.
I seriously doubt the willingness of upper class suburbanites to put up with gasoline and rubber rationing in the event of a war. Home front mobilization in the US has become anathema.
> Is the world getting safer? I think so. Is the risk of large scale war like France is planning for decreasing? I hope s
This is very much the feeling people had before World War I. The thought was that the web of alliances Bismarck had built would prevent war, similar to your comment about the EU.
It seems that this sort of interdependence acts more like a buffer to prevents small-scale conflicts, but results in large-scale conflict once it does actually come due to a cascading effect of allies being pulled over the brink.
We may not see another real major war in our life-times, if we're lucky, but there's a very real chance our children or grandchildren will see the largest war in history.
If anyone is feeling relaxed about the prospect of war, I recommend reading The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig, which is about exactly this moment. it describes the build-up to WWI in Vienna, where the feeling was very much "nobody is stupid enough to start, or be taken in by the idea of, a large-scale war", which was only true until it wasn't. The most chilling aspect of it for me was the way that people who Zwieg had previously considered calm and sensible became rabidly pro-war in a very short space of time.
I really worried about the US response to a war. Your population never went through it, they don’t know what that really mean.
It’s terrifying honestly.
Americans fixate on our civil war, not on our international wars.
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
~ An American president who was shot by an American citizen on 1865-04-14
The American Civil War was incredibly deadly and leveled massive portions of the US. The stereotypical backwardness of the southern states is a product of the damage done. The war was almost 200 years ago and they are still playing catchup due to the structural damage that was done. If the US populace is naive about the prospect of war, it`s not because of lack of exposure.
Yeah, but most of those with living memory of ww2 are dead now. I'm sure having huge graveyards around everywhere plus unexploded ordnance may keep it in the national psyche, but idk I'm just an American.
We have the largest quantity of immigrants in our country than anywhere else in the world. 50+ million immigrants that all bring their varied experiences and war is a part of many of their stories.
The large scale war of today must include the nuclear scenario, and i do believe that rationally, nobody would want that. Unless there's some aspect for which a nation would sacrifice for - like religious zealotry.
Over the last 200 years, at least, how many major conflicts have started for secular politics vs religious politics. I feel there is a heavy skew towards the former.
I think the point was that secular wars are generally for resources. Nuclear war practically eliminates the possibility of gaining resources, because you're likely to lose more than you gain as your cities get vaporized. So the drive to start one is significantly lessened. Religious wars on the other hand, all bets are off. You're doing it for salvation, so even if the victor ends up poorer for it materially, it's still worthwhile to start.
If globalization has one benefit, it's that it makes any war extremely costly for everyone involved, so with how entangled the world's economies are today, it's much more likely that tensions would be solved by means other than large scale all-out war. Though of course there's always a non-zero chance.
You may want to read up on the state of preparation these countries are going through to reestablish their perceived ancient kingdoms.
It is a constant debate in Military forums about the scale of ambitions these countries possess, but the indisputable fact remains that a) The administrations there have incorporated ideologies of grandeur into their legitimacy and b) Their military postures are targeted toward establishing specific, stated, highly provocative goals of expansionism / wiping out old foes.
Iran is less expansionist, more "Everyone around us hates us and America hates us, so we can only preserve ourselves only by preemptively making them 'friendly'". Even Safavid Persia stopped expanding after its peak, following which the only time it went expansionist was under Nadir Shah. The "us vs the world" mentality grants the theocratic regime legitimacy. The Iran-Iraq war (Saddam's mad campaign in other words) did not help in soothing this mentality either - it still remains in recent memory for many Iranians.
This is a fascinating topic. If you're interested you should read Khor's book on it, "The Breakdown of Nations". Lots of surprises and food-for-thought. The youtube I linked to is a fair introduction.
I guess I threw my above reply out there because I think globalism was meant to extend the power and wealth the elites already have, and that is its one benefit, not preventing wars. A lot of wars have been fought to construct and preserve this global order.
Khor makes a great case that the problems of staying small are less than the problems of bigness. There will still be wars, but small wars are better than big wars. Small countries can still gang up on large threats. He talks a lot how bigness always eventually leads to tyranny and aggression, just look at the history of every large country.
Khor speaks highly of federations, and what works and what doesn't. For example, he says it's great that the U.S. is made up of many states without being dominated by any one state. But I think he would be concerned if he saw a federal government grow so powerful that it can dominate all the states, not to mention the rest of the planet!
I share your scepticism about how to get from here to there. I think Khor does, also.
The biggest reason that I do not fear any kind of significant European war is that European militaries are so incredibly weak and disorganized. There isn't a single non-US NATO power that has as many men under arms as Belgium did in 1914, and unlike 1914, there are no deep pools of reservists that can be called up and mobilized if those small professional militaries expend themselves.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I think "getting safer" or "decreased risk" do not mean "being safe" or "no risk". Black swans do appear and something less probable but with catastrophic implications is totally worth preparing for.
I grew up in Slovenia. There actually was war when I was 5 years old and I have several faint memories of those events. Luckily the war lasted 10 days and was mild.
The Bosnian war next door raged for several years and much of my early childhood was steeped in news reports from the war, the aftermath, etc. As late as 2001, the USA was bombing the hometown of folks I later became friends with.
I always joked that my focus on being in shape is because you never know when a zombie apocalypse might come ... but maybe those faint memories of war got embedded in my subconscious somehow.
Either way, rule 1 of zombieland is cardio. Zombies are scary because theyre the only threat with more stamina than humans.
> One thing that struck me is that in both China and the USA, the idea of a war close to home is not a thing. Nobody considers it to be a remote possibility, and it isn't.
It's a bit surprising that Chinese citizens would have that attitude at the same time as PRC leadership engages in brinksmanship over the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is one of the world's most significant potential "flashpoints", and it factors heavily in the military planning of the US, Japan, and South Korea.
Inland provinces might be very far removed from potential danger, but I wouldn't be so confident if I lived in Fujian or elsewhere on the coast.
I’ll add my own observation as someone in Taiwan. The vast majority of people here also don’t really believe a war with the Mainland will happen any time soon.
Yes, people will casually talk about it, our politicians will occasionally bring it up, and our media will sometimes cover it, but more local events take precedence.
For example, for the past week, the train crash that claimed 49 lives has been the main focus, despite the increase in fighter jets flying near our ADIZ.
If you ask people what their future plans are, the idea of a possible war doesn’t really factor into their planning.
Now there was a time it did. In 1996, before the first democratic election and again in 2000 when former President Chen was elected.
Back then there was a genuine fear and people were preparing for the worst. Maybe everyone is just used to it now.
My Taiwanese friends seem to have the same attitude. I think it's a combination of either naivety or fatalism. The PLAN is clearly making a massive investment in amphibious warfare vessels. The odds of a cross-straight invasion are certainly not 100%, but they are definitely not low enough to discount.
It's people from elswehere actually wishing for Taiwan and China to go to war. They like to fantasize about them going to war until the last Taiwanese and Chinese. Pretty disgusting.
Indeed. And the Japanese invasion that lasted 8 years including WW2 isn’t that long ago. Nor the border skirmishes with the USSR, the war with Vietnam in 1979.
I agree that China has enough force to make any invasion difficult but it’s certainly a risk of being attacked at home.
When I lived in Edinburgh a couple of Polish guys I knew would, whenever they got drunk, corner you and seriously interrogate you on whether you are “ready to fight and die for your country” (my answer was always “no” which really frustrated them). I thought it was just them being peculiar, I never thought it could be more widespread.
I wouldn't say all Poles are keen for-your-country-diers, but there's a sense that it's foolish to count on any system (political etc.) going on indefinitely. Everywhere you go, people were being rounded up and killed during WW2. Property you may have owned, often evaporated. Or, as there's a growing awareness, grabbed by other people. Such things are possible.
Aside from obvious nationalism that plays a role with some folks, I'd say total defiance may be a sound strategy for dealing with sociopathic bad actors (international or otherwise): better than going down a slippery slope to complete submission everywhere. This is the kind of situation that people tend to think of when talking about "dying for the country" in Poland.
It could be. To be honest I think there are many similar demonstrations of the same toxic masculinity in other forms by other Scottish or British guys, so it's maybe just that every country has its own form. Just ours was not so much "I will gladly die for my country"
I don't think I was very clear, this was not two guys level-headedly stating their intentions to defend their countrymen from a very real and imminent threat. It was a couple of guys who had a bit too much to drink who would - out of the blue - repeatedly bring this up to out-bro the guys at the table.
In the case of a conflict we'll all see what where we stand, but I think drunken, grandiose declarations of loyalty made during peacetime should be taken with a pinch of salt. Hopefully we never need to find out how sincere anyone was.
> Polish culture is quite conservative and suffers from a lot of toxic masculinity. I would see this mostly as simply a manifestation of that. It's so weird and sad that "dying for your country" is still viewed as some kind of essential "manliness" by many.
The comfort of being able to sit around and complain about "toxic masculinity" is provided by men and women willing to die to protect it.
I’m French, my family has a lot of military members .
In the 80´s the threat was Russian tanks marching to Paris from East Germany. 12h away.
France is really aware of its place military speaking.
We know we can’t sustain a serious conflict with country armed like Russia for instance.
At the time the official plan was to sustain a Russian offensive for 3 days.
And then either use nuke, or hope for allies /NATO force to be in a position to do something.
( those plan were for « USSR surprise attack » )
Right now, I have no idea .
But you make a good point. People in Europe still remember wars. It’s not a movie thing.
Growing up in Germany in the 80s had a similar effect. Every one was, at least to a degree, aware to be living in the main battle ground of the next big war. Also the reason Germany had such a large peace movement.
The effect of the Cold War extended over much of Europe. I grew up in a small town in the north of Scotland which had an airport that could support Vulcan bombers. There was the widespread feeling we were on the list of places that would get nuked if hostilities broke out with the Soviet Union.
To be fair I go for walks in the park in a Chicago neighborhood that used to house nuclear rocket launch sites. This is near the lake in a really nice park. The Cold War was weird that way. And as someone who was still in school near the tail end of it, I’d say I’m not really worried about a large scale invasion because I always presumed I’d die very early in either a first strike or second strike scenario.
I’d love to know what scenarios the French military think are likely that don’t involve large scale nuclear weapon deployments.
I think nobody will go nuclear over Ukraine or Syria. At least not intentionally. That might be different for NATO members, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan the Himalayas (India, China and Pakistan are nuclear powers). But before that, you have a conventional warfare phase. Being decisive enough could be a scenario in which the other side prefers to fight another day instead of using nukes. At least worth war games and maneuvers. Especially when you want to send a message to the Russians.
Putin seems to be testing the waters with Nato and the west, as is China. Putin got away with a lot lately. He is smart, so I just hope that doesn't overplay his hand. Because this kind of stuff can easily escalate. And today we aren't at our toes anymore the same way we were during the cold war, being aware of the risk goves pause sometimes.
I think you are overestimating Putin's abilities. I'm not sure it was such a smart move with the war in the Ukraine.
Ukraine used to be divided in perception of Russia and it never had strong national identity. Eastern half of country was very pro-Russian. People spoke Russian, watched Russian tv and longed for Soviet times.
Now it is very different, see [0] on how perception has changed and lot more people identify as Ukrainian.
Side effect of the war in the east of Ukraine is that their defense budget more than tripled and its army is much more experienced and bigger than before.
Lost their hearts and made them much better in defending themselves in the process.
I live less than 8 miles from a major oil refinery in the US, and that fact is always in the back of my mind. I would much prefer to live at least 15 miles from anything worth nuking.
(I do not consider the end of the Cold War to have been the end of the risk of nuclear war.)
I grew up next to an US listening post, NSA back then and German BND for a couple of years now. Same thing! That lakes one wonder how many such places exist on the other side of what used to be the iron curtain.
Not the type of "conventional warfare" that's common today, but I thought a lot about total nuclear annihilation as East German teenager in the middle to late 80's. And if war had happened around that time, it probably wouldn't be the cliche of Soviet tanks flooding the Fulda Gap, but instead Germany would have been a nuclear wasteland within half an hour of the start of the war. Movies like "The Day After" (US 1983) and "Briefe eines Toten" (SU 1986, don't know the official Russian or English title) didn't exactly help to settle the overwhelming anxiety ;)
Yes, definitely. My proper awareness of these things doesn't really start before the 1990s, a golden age in terms of European expectations for peace, I guess.
I've noticed the same preparedness for war amongst Europeans and while Mainland Chinese don't think there will be a war on Mainland China, they speak very freely about scenarios where Chine regains its rightful place in the world.
For example, Taiwan, Singapore and the islands around, the Chinese friends i have in the region candidly admit that they see holding a mix of the US Dollar among other assets in their savings mix as a hedge against any conflict in the region because "If there is one, these islands are so small that they would be wiped out almost instantly"
These conversations are usually in the context of saving for their childrens future and they're typically the biggest thing most Chinese families treasure, so their actions to protect and provide for them do speak loudly.
I also moved to Europe after a life in the USA, Australia, and Japan .. and have also noticed that Europeans have a much more keen sense of wars - in general - than the Australians or Americans .. and I attribute it to victor bias, mostly.
Australians have no clue what real war is, but they celebrate it in their most sacred parks. Americans believe they will never be defeated in war, but don't consider conditions on Skid Row to be a sign of defeat.
Its a terrible thing to understand that, in general, people do believe there will be more war and social upheaval on the horizon - but its even worse to realize there are entire continents of people who will suffer mightily, when it happens.
Many Australians became such after migrating from war-torn countries or - like myself - are children of such immigrants (my mother and her grandparents are Estonian, and left Estonia during the Russian invasion of Estonia during WWII). You are correct that Australia hasn't suffered an 'invasion' (putting aside, yes, the invasion of Aboriginal Australia), but I do believe there are many current-day Australians who have a very good idea what a 'real war' can do to you, your loved ones and society in general.
On the other hand, there is definitely a situation in Australia with regard to the perceived infallibility of its Imperial forces.
Australia is participating in the criminal wars of the US with degrees of impunity (i.e. accountability to the citizens of Australia) envied by most of the other participants.
> (putting aside, yes, the invasion of Aboriginal Australia)
This is all-too easily leaned on by Australians as a means of avoiding the uncomfortable truths of Australia's real history with imperial slaughter and social engineering. Current-day Australians are in serious danger of believing their righteous forces can do no wrong "except for all that genocide we've been doing as a nation since the beginning" ..
> someone would casually remark that they're just spending time concentrating on keeping fit (aerobic and weight lifting) because "the next war is coming."
I don't understand this mentality. Are those people young enough that they expect to get drafted, or do they think their CrossFit Bod will help them take down a professional soldier armed to the teeth.
Lol have a little read of Polish history. Statistically, they're expecting to fight a drawn out urban guerilla resistance campaign that eventually devolves into long periods of "camping" in the countryside. You'd wanna be fit for that.
They expect to be recruited to army and good physical training will make them better soldier and increase their chances to survive. If full-scale war will happen, it's likely that every man of appropriate age will be recruited except for very important workers. That's why many countries have mandatory military training for its citizens.
Depends on the country. Some countries have (similar to the US or Germany) just suspended the draft. Undoing this is not tricky at all.
Some countries (like Austria) draft their citizen and reserve the option to mobilize them in case of crisis. In Switzerland, every draftee remains part of the armed forces up to retirement and participates in yearly exercises.
Even if you don't get drafted, you might want to be able to protect your loved ones or simply be able to flee to safer areas. During a war, enemy soldiers are not the only threat. Societal collapse in the face of supply shortages or the frontlines closing in will make many people desperate and willing to take advantage of the situation.
Some countries let their citizens keep weapons. Sure, they won't be able to prevail in open battle against a professional army, but they might be able to wage asymmetric warfare. There is always the option of yielding to the attacker, but there are clear risks to that as well!
> I'm not really sure what there is to learn here, apart from the fact that the EU has been a phenomenal success in its real purpose - keeping the peace in Europe.
Given how ridiculously anti-EU the current Polish government is, it makes one wonder whether they share this view.
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg were invaded in May 1940. Only then did the allies really start to fight back. Polish allies did nothing until France was invaded.
I agree there was not really a great solution after WW2 for Poland, the Iron Curtain was basically inevitable given how shaky the alliance between the USSR and the West was.
France and Britain's response was to promptly declare war on Germany, which is a little more than doing nothing given that just 21 years earlier they had taken most of the casualties in the defeat of Germany in the world's largest war.
> Polish allies did nothing until France was invaded.
On the contrary [0] - "Germany had started low-intensity undeclared war on Czechoslovakia on 17 September 1938. In reaction, the United Kingdom and France on 20 September formally asked Czechoslovakia to cede its territory to Germany, which was followed by Polish territorial demands brought on 21 September and Hungarian on 22 September."
> Polish allies did nothing until France was invaded
You know what, just draw us a battle plan in which the WAllies beat Germany in 1939, that would revolutionize the academic understanding of early WWII.
I don't know what the right action would be, but the action taken -- essentially do nothing -- was clearly the wrong move and led to Germany taking over Western Europe for several years.
> but the action taken -- essentially do nothing -- was clearly the wrong move
What was the right move then? Please detail. Would it be an “attaque à outrance” with an unready French army and an embryonic BEF against fortified German positions, with neatly inferior air forces, not enough siege artillery to break the Siegried line, a flimsy logistic branch, and following a totally hurried plan due to an uncooperative Belgium which screwed up all pre-war planning? And all that within a nation which already suffered humongous and material human losses barely 20 years before and could not really afford the same thing again, neither from a political nor a practical perspective if it was to handle a long war.
No, I argue that even with hindsight, globally, the right call was made: there was absolutely no way to save a Poland which happily sacrificed every opportunity to get military allies less than 1,500km away during the whole interwar period; the only playable hand was to bet on a long, tracted war where the French and the British could economically strangle Germany like they did in 1918 and free Poland afterwards – implicating, on the ground, turtling behind the border defenses long enough for the blockade to do its job. Problem: (i) Belgium royally screwing up the plan, (ii) USSR joining the waltz, (iii) the incredibly lucky strike of the Germans in the Ardennes.
AFAIK, they just didn't want to get dragged into another war by the Germans, and perceived the joint UK/FR/BE war plan as provocative towards Germany, and left it to proclaim their neutrality. Unfortunately for them, proclaiming their neutrality didn't save them in 1914, and it didn't save them in 1939 either.
Now I totally understand why they were not fond of FR/UK deliberately planning to sacrifice half their country to establish strong defensive lines on their rivers, but sometimes you can't have it all and just have to go with the less shitty plan.
I’d imagine that the literal millions of dead under Belgian soil, and the total destruction wrought by WWI made them hesitant to take any sides in potential conflict. You don’t position yourself in the middle a fight between two heavyweight boxers when you are a flyweight.
Perhaps doing nothing was the best move. Perhaps making a move would have resulted in Germany focusing more on the Western front and maintaining good relations with Russia. Very different conflict at that point. Without the losses on the Eastern front, perhaps Germany is able to fend off a French and British offensive, and end up invading both France and Britain.
I think they meant Poland was promised support in case of an attack and ended up getting screwed over by all their supposed allies, who after the war didn't even have the decency of trying to help them regain their independency.
the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. Although there was no large-scale military action by Britain and France, they did begin some economic warfare, especially with the naval blockade, and shut down German surface raiders. They created elaborate plans for numerous large-scale operations designed to cripple the German war effort. These included opening an Anglo-French front in the Balkans, invading Norway to seize control of Germany's main source of iron ore and a strike against the Soviet Union, to cut off its supply of oil to Germany. Only the Norway plan came to fruition, and by April 1940, it was too little, too late.
Patton was a fan of doing exactly that: he was probably right. If the USSR had been aborted early on, look at all the suffering that would have been avoided (Holodrome, etc.)
> Patton was a fan of doing exactly that: he was probably right
Yeah, sure, good luck beating the RKKA in 1945. No A-bombs ready, industry centers are behind the Urals and untouchable by the allied air power; absolutely 0 support from the civilian populations in the West, whereas the Soviet civilian population would be galvanized by the backstabbing; the UK is already at the end of its manpower; the US would be fighting an ocean behind its logistic base; the RKKA is in full swing in Europe and overwhelming the WAllies in the ETO in men and material; best case is the WAllies get thrown to the Atlantic and a white peace is signed, worst case ends in a nuclear apocalypse.
Operation Unthinkable is very fun in wargaming, but it doesn't hold water in practice.
> look at all the suffering that would have been avoided (Holodrome, etc.)
The Holodomor that happened 10 years BEFORE 1945? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
Also 'Holodomor' is somewhat of a political creation. Recent authoritative biography of Stalin by Stephen Kotkin, for example states that the early 1930s famine was a pan-soviet famine, not restricted to Ukraine or any specific ethnic region.
> I'm not really sure what there is to learn here, apart from the fact that the EU has been a phenomenal success in its real purpose - keeping the peace in Europe.
This seems to have very little to do with the EU.
European countries that have experienced peace since 1945 did so because they were militarily occupied by a nuclear-armed hegemon—either the US or Soviet Union—and hence had their borders secured via mutually assured destruction.
France is clearly positioning itself to be the new nuclear-armed hegemon of Western Europe as the US pivots towards either greater isolationism or focus on Asia and the Pacific.
Doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. NATO did a similar thing a few years back on the Russian border. It's basically a mixture of sabre-rattling and getting the cobwebs out of the military in terms of logistics, planning and communication.
"The groups cover everything from munition shortages to the resilience of society, including whether citizens are “ready to accept the level of casualties we have never seen since world war two”, says one participant."
…isn't at all what "NATO did" in any of its training maneuvers.
"Planned for 2023, Exercise Orion is a full-scale divisional exercise that will last several days, based probably out of camps at Suippes, Mailly and Mourmelon. It will involve the full range of French military capacity on a scale not tested for decades."
>"including whether citizens are “ready to accept the level of casualties we have never seen since world war two”"
And if they're not ready then what? Oopsy can't have big war cause not enough votes? I do not like this part at all. It reads like they actually want a war assuming they train the obedient to be willing to die "en masse".
It could in 50-100 years. Brazil is much more capable than Portugal.
But I agree it seems kind of a weird thing to be worried about right now for France. Russia is probably the much bigger threat, but invasion seems pretty unlikely given the distance from Russia and the relatively low population (vs the Soviet Union).
I guess some resurgent Soviet Union (ie Eastern Europe comes under the sway of Moscow, voluntarily or otherwise) could do that, but that seems really unlikely.
I can see Turkey or Russia invading its neighbors (I mean, Russia literally is doing this right now... slowly consolidating their annexation of parts of Ukraine), but not much further. If Turkey and Russia became strong allies (as well as maybe some disgruntled former colonies), I suppose that could pose a legitimate threat.
As an insider, I can tell you that Turkey and Russia can never be strong allies, but it could be a partnership. Turkey and Russia are on opposite sides in Syria, Libya, Armenia, and Ukraine. Being on opposite sides is not today's thing. You can easily trace this way back in history.
My personal opinion is that Turkey is threatening France's interest in Northern Africa. By saying Northern Africa, I would like to point out countries with a Muslim majority society and have a grim past of French colonization. I think the tension in Northern Africa will escalate. Because I don't believe Turkey would give up its position on Libya. Having a sea border with Libya is directly related to Turkey's potential rights on gas resources in East Mediterranean.
Another thing to mention here is Turkey's defense budget on maritime industries. In Turkey's threat modeling, they expect something profound in the Mediterranean soon. We can see this by looking at how much money they invest and how they build ships—the ships equipped with sensitive long-range missiles etc.
Turkey is buying advanced weaponry from Russia. Also Russians are building a Nuclear Reactor in Turkey, all points a reasonable working relationship between Turkey and Russia.
The whole point of globalization and disinterventionism was to avoid hot wars. And, given their potential foes, I’m not sure they want to get into a hot war.
More importantly none of the powers have high reproduction rates so they won’t have a large fresh pop from which to draught troops and the robots aren’t quite ready yet, so I don’t know what gives.
Russia is currently occupying the territory of another European country, or several countries if you count the Caucasus as Europe. What makes you say they pose no threat?
Sevastopol is critical to the Russian navy. It’s like Mexico taking over San Diego. It will not be allowed to happen.
The Crimea was not historically part of Ukraine, though for political and administrative purposes it was assigned to the Ukraine soviet republic. Given its criticality Russia took it back.
Balooney. Crimea was not historically part of Russia!
Second, Russia is not just annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula but also attempting to annex parts of eastern Ukraine and recently moved a bunch of troops potentially to expand their held territory beyond the peninsula and deeper into central Ukraine.
I don’t understand these arguments carrying water for Russia. Yeah, we all know Russia wants to annex parts of Ukraine for what they consider strategic reasons. But we can’t go about justifying wars for annexation in the 21st bloody century! Doesn’t matter if it’s the US, China, or Russia. Annexation is not justifiable.
Also at the end of coldwar, there was a certain promise of not expanding Nato eastwards and letting Russia continue to have a sphere of influence, which the West has not been adhering to.
More importantly, there was also a promise by the West and Russia that if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, Russia and the West would ensure Ukraine’s security (ie from attack and invasion). How’s that going?
It’s insane to me that in a conflict between a smaller and poorer country and a larger imperial country, people keep taking the side of the aggressor who literally invaded and is attempted to annex portions of the smaller. NATO is no justification for this!
That promise was cynical more than anything. In reality, Ukraine had the choice to give up nuclear weapons (which they couldn't deploy) or be invaded, either by Russia or the US. This was a preferable option.
As far as Russia, it's not a question of right or wrong. As part of the dissolution of the USSR, NATO made a tacti assurance TO Russia that they would not push until the border.
The occupation of Ukraine is a response to calls from Ukraine to align with the EU and NATO. Since neither organism allows entry if there is an active territorial dispute, so Russia created one.
From our position, it looks like Ukraine is only trying to defend from Russian imperialism, a much bigger power. From the Russian position, it looks like NATO coordinating a total encirclement of Russia and massing troops directly at its border and cutting off any hope Russia has to be able to assure its trade routes and even territorial security, against an openly interventionist empire.
Ultimately, both perspectives are true. NATO does seek to geopolitically checkmate Russia, which will make life for the average Russian citizen worse and increase the risk of a major war. At the same time Russia is indeed imposing on Ukraine.
Russia could be headed by anyone else under any even remotely functional system of government and it would go to amazing lengths to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, no matter what. It's a simple matter that there is not really any choice available here.
Well, that's the spot Ukraine is in. If there is a chance that they join NATO or the EU, Russia has no choice but to create territorial disputes to prevent it.
Morality matters very little here. Was it moral for the West to intervene after 1991 to loot the post-soviet states leading to the death of 7 million people? No. Was it done anyways? Yes. This is the context in which you operate. If you decide to operate morally when confronted with amoral actors all you will do is cause the suffering of millions of your own citizens.
That’s balooney. Russia absolutely has a choice whether or not to invade and annex Ukraine. The West is not at war with Russia, has no desire to invade Russia, and even offered to admit Russia to NATO.
This is imperialist justification of literally invading and annexing parts of another country that they consider a renegade vassal state. It’s not defensive in the least. Come on, this is super weak justification.
The West never offered to admit Russia into NATO. It was Russia that made the proposition, and there was no pursuit beyond years of stalling.
Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine because they consider it to be a vassal state, Russia only invaded Ukraine after the Euromaidan movement suceeded and pursued integration into the EU and NATO. What you are saying may well be the propaganda Putin and his proto-fascist cabal give, but it is not the actual reason, or they would have acted much before and wouldn't have stopped in the Donbass.
And again, who Ukraine wants to align with is Ukraine's choice. Just like the US has no business demanding Cuba cannot align with the Soviet Union or Venezuela (threatening or especially invading them in response being morally reprehensible), Ukraine must be free and sovereign and in command of its own future.
Of course they haven't stopped. They must maintain a conflict to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the West, and they will only allow for peace if Ukraine stops trying.
Who Ukraine wants to align with is Ukraine's choice as a matter of fact, and as a matter of fact where Russia puts its troops is also it's choice.
You can't compare Ukraine with Cuba or Venezuela. This is as if, after Mexico had joined the Soviet Union, Canada was about to do so as well. It's a core Russian national interest. No matter how Russia is structured, it simply won't ever allow NATO to share a border with it. The West invaded Russia on average every 40 years since the start of the 19th century, and just three decades ago American intervention in Russia led to the death of millions. There is no comparison, from the Russian perspective this is a matter of survival, they perceive that if NATO is able to surround Russia they will use this tactical advantage to ruin the country.
Should Ukraine in theory be able to join NATO? Morally, you may very well feel that way. But in the world of real politics, you cannot always chose the moral action unless you are a Hegemon. Otherwise, millions of people will suffer. It's just how it is. And unlike you were claiming, it has nothing to do with some ideals of national identity or manifest destiny, it's simply a cold geopolitical calculation that concludes that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable and will probably in the long run lead to mass misery.
Such wonderful logic authoritarians use nowadays. The bully has to abuse their victim for “their own survival.” And anytime they yell for help, just punch them harder in the gut. No choice, you see!
This has nothing to do with authoritarianism. These are three incredibly authoritarian geopolitical entities struggling against each other.
And compared to NATO, Russia absolutely is the underdog.
But sure, good on you for missing the point. It's very principled to just ignore reality. It's not like Russia got absolutely fucked and millions of people died when they tried to open up to Western Europe the last time. What matters really is that we can pretend that Russia is the bad guy and we aren't when they occupy a region whose majority want to secede anyways from another authoritarian oligarchy to prevent a military alliance who only ever operated offensively and was involved in the deaths of millions of people to settle on their borders, right after the puppetmasters of that region trafficked the Russian elections to extract hundreds of billions from its economy at the cost of millions of deaths.
But surely what matters here in this incredibly complicated situation is to follow the Moral (tm) course of action even if it drastically increases the risk of war and suffering.
But this region seemed to be majority Russian speaking, ethnically/culturally Russian. So there might be grassroots support in these regions to be a part of Russia.
Russia kept a naval base in Ukraine and many Russian people stationed there live in that area, along with retired military people. But that’s hardly an argument for annexation! Would the US be justified in annexing chunks of Japan or Germany or Cuba or Greenland or whathaveyou for the same reason? Absolutely not.
Crimea was historically a part of Imperial Russia for more than a century.
In my understanding, if Ukraine becomes a NATO country, European Russia becomes indefensible. That means, the Russian govt is ready to escalate the matter all the way to the nukes.
It was made part of Russia by the Russian Empire during expansion a couple of centuries ago. It was its own soviet republic prior to WWII and afterwards made part of Ukraine SSR. Now Russia took it back. Majority speak Russian not Ukrainian since most actual native Crimeans were displaced during Soviet era.
Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire for 3 centuries and a part of the Golden Horde for 2 centuries before that. What's your point? Just because some state controlled the territory in the past doesn't mean it belongs to it in the XXI century. This world came up with the international law and rules for a reason.
The point is that it’s not historically Ukrainian and that given its history Russia has more claim in it than the other claimant. And given its strategic importance, I don’t see them giving up that claim.
It’s akin to China asserting a claim on Guam. We will not let that happen.
On the contrary, both Ukraine and Turkey could make a more legitimate historical claim than Russia, and independence is even stronger. Russia does not have any legitimate claim to Crimea. China and the US are peers in terms of national power. Ukraine is a former vassal state of Russia that is much poorer and weaker, and Russia is also trying to annex the eastern portion.
Where the heck do people get off on justifying imperialist annexation of smaller, weaker countries by an aggressor?
Russian occupation of Ukraine is a bit more complicated. It's in the context of a red line they set out decades ago, which is that NATO wouldn't be able to extend all the way to the Russian border in the south.
Now certainly that's a bit unreasonable as countries should be allowed to associate with whoever they want, but it's not exactly a live wire threatening war left and right, it's a red line they set out a very long time ago, and there's not much reason to think they're interested with much beyond that red line.
Are you counting defence only as actively fighting in response to an attack? Because deterrence is defence is its passive form of which NATO has done plenty
Technically right ; but this is the border between French Guyanna and Brazil.
I doubt the condition of the exercise in the North-East of France are transferable there.
(Although, don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure there are people in the French army with some ideas about how to wage war in a tropical forest.)
That being said, it's still nice to have been alive during a span of ~50 years without any actual full-on people-are-killed-in-your-neighboorhood warfare.
So your hypothesis is: Countries like the Netherlands or Austria are bombing say Iraq so they can reap the profits by staffing their military with refugees? Can it get any weirder?
> No, so their governments can use fear of those refugees to spend more money on police and counter terrorism.
This argument isn't exactly less weird.
So if I get you right, there is a Cabal of elites in say the Netherlands and Austria that is pushing invasions on say Iraq while simoultaniously cutting down on domestic security so they can later, say 15-30 years, rake in the profits by increasing spending on domestic security.
Quite the detour for ruining your country half the way, don't you think?
For a lot of people with a lot of power, finding a way to expand domestic security laws and general state power is not ruining your country, but instead a good way of preventing social change you don't want.
Also, the domestic defence industry is really the best way to transfer money from government coffers directly towards the pockets of an arbitrary person.
Oil is not irrelevant. Energy is a substantial cost in the production of many products (also in getting products to customers). Rising oil prices do matter for normal people. And while we may decarbonize eventually, politicians have to balance that with feeding their populations and providing them an adequate quality of life.
We are still churning out fossil-fueled cars in Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot, Mercedes, BMW factories all across Europe.
These brands are deliberately delaying their rollouts because with so few moving parts, EVs need much less maintenance and thus the aftermarket sales and dealer service profits are lower.
Rejigging those factories and supply chains to make EVs also requires investment and effort.
For the sake of the profits of a few companies we are jeopardizing the security and habitability of the planet.
If all new cars being made in Europe were EVs, oil would absolutely be irrelevant. The Middle East could blow up and we could easily change to alternative suppliers. We are already seeing this to an extent now, where Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabian oil infrastructure elicit little price response.
Oil is used for a lot more than just cars: petrochemicals are a massive industry. Everything plastic is a petroleum product. Fertilizer is a natural gas product. About 1/3 of fossil fuel electricity generation is oil (other 2/3s are coal and natural gas). There is no way to stop producing oil while maintaining living standards in the near to moderate future.
The turbine blades on wind farms are composites made from petroleum products. PV arrays are encapsulated in petroleum products. Tires are made from petroleum products. You can make these from renewable sources but it is much more expensive and the supply chains to do so don't exist yet at scale.
Oil is far from irrelevant. The entire world economy depends on oil being as cheap as it is today -- even $4 gas is an incredible deal for just how much work you can get done with it. If OPEC goes crazy, the whole world can grind to a halt due to ripple effects.
Ah, they didn't really. The Maginot Line held, and they knew they needed to stop the Germans at the Belgian / German border.
That the invasion of France ended the way it did was a surprise to everyone, including the Germans. Mainly you could boil it down to better command and control all the way from strategic to tactical and luck on the German side and the opposite, bad luck, bad cooperation and bad communication on the allied side.
So, basically like in the 1870s? Back then, the French hat better weapons (guns, cannons and gatlings) and technically even a defence strategy, but bad coordination on both strategic and tactic levels lost them the war.
Does the French preparing for war mean anything at all? The French are horrible at preemptive preparation, much less actually fighting. No one has forgotten the second world war.
You should probably not take memes about the French surrendering as gospel truth about their actual capabilities. They are a nuclear armed state, have been involved in Afghanistan and across North Africa for decades and in general are one of the more capable land armies in Europe.
That said any army will always be planning for high intensity war, and also for low intensity war, and also for small scale anti-insurgency ops, and also for protecting national interests abroad, etc etc etc. Preparation for that is a key element of any army.
