News   Dec 10, 2025
 114     0 
News   Dec 10, 2025
 264     0 
News   Dec 10, 2025
 350     1 

PM Mark Carney's Canada

Hmmm... Let me try to address some misconceptions here.
1. "Their once mighty army" was a myth. Russia did a lot of posturing and PR to prop up the idea that their modernized and rebuilt army was mighty. The events of 2022 proved that no matter how good your PR team is, if the army is just as corrupt as the government in Kremlin, it is going to be utterly dysfunctional.
2. Russian armed forces are arguably much stronger now than they were in 2022, and not "the pathetic rump that's left of it". Despite the corruption that is still eating away at their capabilities, they have adapted. Their logistics are better, their cohesion is at least existent now, they discarded/wasted all of the equipment that doesn't work, whey are mass-producing weapons that actually work, they have a hell of a lot more combat experience than any NATO country at this point, they have created a system that allows them to send countless waves of men to lay down their lives just to capture the next tree line (willingly or otherwise), they now possess the types of weapons that NATO forces do not currently have an answer for (FPV drones, loitering munitions, glide bombs with 100km+ range, etc.). More on this point below.
3. The amount of territory taken in Ukraine over the past couple of years is not a good measure of their capabilities. The war in Ukraine has devolved into a slog where armored maneuver warfare of the old days does not work anymore. It takes a single $600 FPV drone to blow up a $35M tank, killing the entire crew inside. Didn't stop Russia from sending over 2K+ tanks and 4K+ APCs to their demise that way, but the armor didn't achieve much. And without mobile armor, it's kind of hard to orchestrate large scale breakthroughs and take large swaths of land. Without the breakthrough capability, we're back to the WW1-style slog where taking ground means sending waves of men to die. Except that it's not the machine guns of WW1 that rule the day, it's the suicide drones that do the heavy lifting.
4. As @kEiThZ said, for Russia it won't be about defeating the entire NATO in a straight fight. It will be about shattering the idea of NATO's collective defense commitment. They won't be able to conquer the whole Europe, but that's not what they'll attempt to do. They'll start taking small bites. Estonia is just 200 km by 150 km. The couple of tens of thousands defenders won't be able to put up a fight for too long, not against the ~1000 shahed drones, 100 glide bombs, and dozens of ballistic and cruise missiles Russia can send their way daily. Couple that with hordes of Russian infantry with FPV drone support, and Estonia will be occupied in a couple of weeks. At this point the EU leaders will still be trying to agree on just how sternly worded their tweet at Russia should be phrased: "deeply concerned" or "strongly condemn". Russia can probably then occupy Latvia and Lithuania before the NATO's response strike force is mobilized and staged in Poland.
At that point NATO will have to make a choice: do we try to retake the Baltics? Or do we call it a day and let Russia keep it? So far, Russia has never received an indication that the West has any desire to stand up and fight. We gave them Crimea in 2014 despite our 1994 security guarantees to Ukraine. Now, we're giving them as much Ukraine as they can capture. So will we actually fight them over Baltics? Putin may just think that no, we won't.

And here is my biggest worry. The west is not prepared to engage in the type of warfare that Russia is willing and capable of fighting. The battlefield of today looks nothing like the counter-insurgency warfare our forces have been training for. The perfect example was the recent drone incursion into Poland in September. Russians sent in 23 drones. Poland and neighboring states scrambled F-16 and F35 fighters, plus attack helicopters of 3 varieties. Together they downed a whopping "up to 4" drones plus destroyed some poor farmer's roof with a "whoopsie" accidental weapons release. Not a great result to begin with, and that's before you factor in the fact they wasted a dozen air-to-air missiles at $2M a pop against drones made of styrofoam and duct tape. You don't win a war against your adversaries when your war economics are looking like that.

And then there is the actual willingness to fight and die on the modern battlefield. Here is what Russians are prepared to make their soldiers do. Are we prepared to do the same to our soldiers?
WARNING: this video contains graphic footage of 28 Russians being killed in quick succession by drone strikes trying to capture a single road crossing. Not for the faint of heart.

Cool, but what about when NATO drops the gloves when it comes to cruise missiles and levels the Russian petro economy? US/NATO has been reluctant to do anything that might destabilize Russia out of the misguided belief that Putin is not a direct threat.
 
Cool, but what about when NATO drops the gloves when it comes to cruise missiles and levels the Russian petro economy? US/NATO has been reluctant to do anything that might destabilize Russia out of the misguided belief that Putin is not a direct threat.
Cool. That still leaves Baltics occupied. Cruise missiles don't hold cities, boots on the ground do.
 
Cool, but what about when NATO drops the gloves when it comes to cruise missiles and levels the Russian petro economy? US/NATO has been reluctant to do anything that might destabilize Russia out of the misguided belief that Putin is not a direct threat.

Not when, but if NATO drops the gloves - it is VERY clear the modus operandi of Russia is to break the alliance; both trans-atlantically between US and Europe and intra-Europe (via Moscow friendly regimes, internal political pressure within unfriendly ones). The real goal is to prevent NATO from operationalizing Article 5. They won't be foolish enough to move when they aren't sure they won't get a unified response.

AoD
 
That supposes Russia can Blitzkrieg Latvia etc. I'm not sure that is plausible.
It doesn't matter if you think it is not plausible. It only matters if Putin thinks it is plausible.
And if you don't believe some guy on the internet, such as myself, that Putin has all the reasons to believe he can succeed, then perhaps refer to experts publishing their ideas for think tanks and Bundeswehr professors that say the same thing:

And as a closing thought I would urge to never underestimate Russia's capacity for irrational actions and self-inflicted pain in order to fulfil their geopolitical ambitions.
 
Last edited:
Not when, but if NATO drops the gloves - it is VERY clear the modus operandi of Russia is to break the alliance; both trans-atlantically between US and Europe and intra-Europe (via Moscow friendly regimes, internal political pressure within unfriendly ones). The real goal is to prevent NATO from operationalizing Article 5. They won't be foolish enough to move when they aren't sure they won't get a unified response.

AoD

This. People don't really understand what's going on here. Russia could lose territory or even some assets and still win the war if they break NATO and the EU.
 
This. People don't really understand what's going on here. Russia could lose territory or even some assets and still win the war if they break NATO and the EU.

Which is why any counteraction shouldn't be aimed at territory (who wants it?) or assets - but at individuals. That's the only thing the mattered to the decision-makers - not their own people or their state; but their personal power and well-being.

Does the latter remind you of someone else?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... Let me try to address some misconceptions here.
1. "Their once mighty army" was a myth. Russia did a lot of posturing and PR to prop up the idea that their modernized and rebuilt army was mighty. The events of 2022 proved that no matter how good your PR team is, if the army is just as corrupt as the government in Kremlin, it is going to be utterly dysfunctional.
2. Russian armed forces are arguably much stronger now than they were in 2022, and not "the pathetic rump that's left of it". Despite the corruption that is still eating away at their capabilities, they have adapted. Their logistics are better, their cohesion is at least existent now, they discarded/wasted all of the equipment that doesn't work, whey are mass-producing weapons that actually work, they have a hell of a lot more combat experience than any NATO country at this point, they have created a system that allows them to send countless waves of men to lay down their lives just to capture the next tree line (willingly or otherwise), they now possess the types of weapons that NATO forces do not currently have an answer for (FPV drones, loitering munitions, glide bombs with 100km+ range, etc.). More on this point below.
3. The amount of territory taken in Ukraine over the past couple of years is not a good measure of their capabilities. The war in Ukraine has devolved into a slog where armored maneuver warfare of the old days does not work anymore. It takes a single $600 FPV drone to blow up a $35M tank, killing the entire crew inside. Didn't stop Russia from sending over 2K+ tanks and 4K+ APCs to their demise that way, but the armor didn't achieve much. And without mobile armor, it's kind of hard to orchestrate large scale breakthroughs and take large swaths of land. Without the breakthrough capability, we're back to the WW1-style slog where taking ground means sending waves of men to die. Except that it's not the machine guns of WW1 that rule the day, it's the suicide drones that do the heavy lifting.
4. As @kEiThZ said, for Russia it won't be about defeating the entire NATO in a straight fight. It will be about shattering the idea of NATO's collective defense commitment. They won't be able to conquer the whole Europe, but that's not what they'll attempt to do. They'll start taking small bites. Estonia is just 200 km by 150 km. The couple of tens of thousands defenders won't be able to put up a fight for too long, not against the ~1000 shahed drones, 100 glide bombs, and dozens of ballistic and cruise missiles Russia can send their way daily. Couple that with hordes of Russian infantry with FPV drone support, and Estonia will be occupied in a couple of weeks. At this point the EU leaders will still be trying to agree on just how sternly worded their tweet at Russia should be phrased: "deeply concerned" or "strongly condemn". Russia can probably then occupy Latvia and Lithuania before the NATO's response strike force is mobilized and staged in Poland.
At that point NATO will have to make a choice: do we try to retake the Baltics? Or do we call it a day and let Russia keep it? So far, Russia has never received an indication that the West has any desire to stand up and fight. We gave them Crimea in 2014 despite our 1994 security guarantees to Ukraine. Now, we're giving them as much Ukraine as they can capture. So will we actually fight them over Baltics? Putin may just think that no, we won't.

And here is my biggest worry. The west is not prepared to engage in the type of warfare that Russia is willing and capable of fighting. The battlefield of today looks nothing like the counter-insurgency warfare our forces have been training for. The perfect example was the recent drone incursion into Poland in September. Russians sent in 23 drones. Poland and neighboring states scrambled F-16 and F35 fighters, plus attack helicopters of 3 varieties. Together they downed a whopping "up to 4" drones plus destroyed some poor farmer's roof with a "whoopsie" accidental weapons release. Not a great result to begin with, and that's before you factor in the fact they wasted a dozen air-to-air missiles at $2M a pop against drones made of styrofoam and duct tape. You don't win a war against your adversaries when your war economics are looking like that.

And then there is the actual willingness to fight and die on the modern battlefield. Here is what Russians are prepared to make their soldiers do. Are we prepared to do the same to our soldiers?
WARNING: this video contains graphic footage of 28 Russians being killed in quick succession by drone strikes trying to capture a single road crossing. Not for the faint of heart.

I can see the logic in this, regrettably. If I'm Juan, sipping my sangria in sunny Alicante, I would seriously question why I, or any of my fellow citizens, should put our lives on the line to go defend some tiny nation state in frigid Eastern Europe against a Russian invasion, which would seem a world away. I'm confident that kind of thinking pervades most of Western Europe, because they know the risk of Russia reaching them is virtually nil, and that's where the greatest risk lies - many would likely be more than willing to sacrifice those countries in the east in order to not have to fight. What's in it for them?
 
I can see the logic in this, regrettably. If I'm Juan, sipping my sangria in sunny Alicante, I would seriously question why I, or any of my fellow citizens, should put our lives on the line to go defend some tiny nation state in frigid Eastern Europe against a Russian invasion, which would seem a world away. I'm confident that kind of thinking pervades most of Western Europe, because they know the risk of Russia reaching them is virtually nil, and that's where the greatest risk lies - many would likely be more than willing to sacrifice those countries in the east in order to not have to fight. What's in it for them?

The old adage - those who failed to learn from history...

AoD
 
The old adage - those who failed to learn from history...
"Why die for Danzig?" - the infamous 1939 political slogan adopted by the French pro-appeasement anti-war activists on the eve of the German invasion into Poland. Funny how that worked out for the French.

If I'm Juan, sipping my sangria in sunny Alicante, I would seriously question why I, or any of my fellow citizens, should put our lives on the line to go defend some tiny nation state in frigid Eastern Europe against a Russian invasion, which would seem a world away. I'm confident that kind of thinking pervades most of Western Europe
Wouldn't you know it, the farther west you live in Europe, the less you feel threatened by Russia:

1765298638867.png
 
"Why die for Danzig?" - the infamous 1939 political slogan adopted by the French pro-appeasement anti-war activists on the eve of the German invasion into Poland. Funny how that worked out for the French.


Wouldn't you know it, the farther west you live in Europe, the less you feel threatened by Russia:

View attachment 701691
I'm surprised to see the fear so strong in Denmark.
 
This. People don't really understand what's going on here. Russia could lose territory or even some assets and still win the war if they break NATO and the EU.
But an increasingly aggressive Russia only reinforces NATO, or at least the European contingent.
 
But an increasingly aggressive Russia only reinforces NATO, or at least the European contingent.

We hope. I think the big question is what happens to NATO cohesion when the US waivers. Also, you have Russian plants like Hungary inside. Just look at what happened with Belgium recently with the confiscation of Russian assets.

On topic, I mostly worry about what this means for our foreign policy.
 
We hope. I think the big question is what happens to NATO cohesion when the US waivers. Also, you have Russian plants like Hungary inside. Just look at what happened with Belgium recently with the confiscation of Russian assets.

On topic, I mostly worry about what this means for our foreign policy.
Would Canada's steadfast commitment to NATO remain intact if the US retreats?
 

Back
Top