Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Could the EU save the Baltic nations from Russian military?" video.

  1.  @timothylyons5686  Got any more of those senseless stereotypes for me? I find them amusing. Because you are joking, right?
    72
  2.  @positroll7870  That's right. Either we succesfully protect the Baltics and prove that the EU is a worthwhile project or we lose the Baltics and it is proven that the EU needs deeper cooperation to be able to defend itself more effectively. It's a lose-lose situation for Russia, it makes no geopolitical sense to do this.
    68
  3.  @thomasbessis2809  The EU is also a military alliance with the attack one attack all principle. And there is in fact military cooperation between EU nations and even shared divisions and active EU military operations as we speak. That's deeper cooperation than NATO has, even if NATO does have a longer history of military cooperation that really makes it a bit more steady than EU cooperation at the moment.
    44
  4.  @Betterhose  Well said. I find it sad that most comments fall back on stereotypes ("Germany is a shadow of its former self", "France will surrender") and also seem to be completely unaware that the war economy is a thing. If a switch is turned, EU nations will start pumping out tanks, planes and more at a rate that Russia can only hope to achieve.
    4
  5. The EU is also a defensive alliance. It has training, it has EU military missions, it has "attack on one is an attack on all" article in the treaty. It's not as steady as NATO because the military aspects of the EU are mostly left on the backburner compared to the economic and political aspects of it, but it is a fact that the EU is also a military alliance. A political and economic union and a military alliance.
    4
  6.  kuvikina  Then Russia will lose to a bunch of sissies, which is even worse.
    4
  7.  @gorillaguerillaDK  Article 42 and following of the treaty on EU (TEU or Treaty of Maastricht) regulated the common defence of the EU. Article 42 under 7, it is stated that "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". There is a common defence strategy of the EU, which results in multinational training missions and EU military operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_and_civilian_missions_of_the_European_Union The EU just isn't as active militarily, so this is often overlooked. NATO is still more important.
    3
  8. Only because the USSR was in a sorry military state when the invasion happened. When the USSR war economy was up and running and the organisation was improved, the chances of Germany dwindled. They were outproduced by so much. Funnily enough the tables have turned today; the EU nations mostly invest as little as they can into the military while Russia has maintained a substantial force. But the EU dwarfs Russia so extremely when it comes to the economy, Russia has just about zero chance in any long term war with an active EU war economy. Even less of a chance than Germany had against the allies that outproduced them by a huge factor (the chance being close to zero). Like Germany in WW2, Russia's only decent chance would be a swift blitzkrieg, taking key adversaries down before they get a chance to properly organise and set up their war economy. But the chance of that being succesful is very low. What Germany did in WW2 was extremely impressive, really a one-off type thing because they had very effective and novel military strategies while the enemy was either completely and utterly unprepared (USSR) or stuck in WW1 tactics coupled with low fighting morale (UK, France). Russia can't mirror that succes today. I highly doubt that.
    3
  9.  @mikeb7615  Are you living under a rock? The EU is an economic and political powerhouse
    3
  10. It's more that we spend the money on other things. Especially considering NATO. And the EU's foreign policy is almost exclusively based on its political and economic power rather than hard military power. Maybe some day we'll hit a wall and realise we should have invested more in the military, maybe we'll get away with it. Time will tell
    3
  11. Even if the US is involved, local EU forces will play a bigger role in the war.
    3
  12.  @thelovertunisia  Regarding your first point, yes that is (still) the Achilles heel of western Europe; little natural resources of our own. One of the major reasons the Germans lost WW2 despite controlling a vast portion of the continent; ran out of oil. But that is only a problem while blockaded. Something the UK did to great effect in WW2. Russia is not capable of enacting a blockade of the EU today and it is likely a blockade would happen the other way around actually. EU supply of natural resources is not in danger as long as there is no naval blockade. About your second point; yes, which is why the EU can't invade Russia. Not even with the US if you ask me. It would be an extremely costly war with no winners. Makes no sense to start it. But when strictly speaking of protecting the Baltics, I think that lies well within the capability of the EU, assuming there is a quick enough coordinated response.
    2
  13. Also important to mention the war industry of each nation. If the EU war economy would be activated, it'd absolutely dwarf the production capability of Russia. AND the population pool for the soldiers. Any long term war between the EU and Russia is very much in favour of the EU. But in the short term Russia can get a lot done because they have maintained a great military despite their much smaller economic and population size.
    2
  14.  @tjorvenplontke2806  Yes, exactly. We should rightly fear what Russia can do in a short term war, but in the long term the EU alone can dwarf Russia with its war economy and population pool.
    2
  15. I'd say the US deciding not to aid in war or to only send a token force for assistance is more realistic than the EU not being unified when attacked. So I agree with you there
    2
  16.  @drawingdead9025  No it won't be, that is only the case for asymmetrical warfare. When two larger and more advanced militaries face off, it's incredibly difficult to achieve a swift victory and in many cases extremely toilsome to reach victory to begin with. Any large scale modern warfare would have so many casualties that it'd be a pyrrhic victory by default
    1
  17.  @cs-rj8ru  Ah yes, the time the UN sent underequipped troops to the middle of a warzone to 'protect' the muslim population from a military force far outnumbering and outgunning them. They also refused air support to them. The Serbs simply sat on their hills firing artillery at the Dutch. Nothing they could do but endure. Muslims were killed of course. Pretty shitty move to blame the Dutch troops involved for a mistake so clearly on the side of the UN underequipping them for the mission and adding insult to injury also denying them necessary support when requested. The UN left them to die, sent them on an impossible suicide mission. Bit more respect for those troops would be in order.
    1
  18. I believe the strait of Hormuz video already exists
    1
  19.  kuvikina  Your M60 tanks wouldn't be of much use anyway
    1
  20. Can NATO respond to a military threat? "aS nAtO dOeSN't HaVE aN aRmY, NAvy or aIR fOrCE, tHe AnsWeR iS nO"
    1
  21.  @qwertyuiopzxcvbnm9890  Yeah, UK is still committed to Europe's military cooperation. Them leaving the EU did not change a lot in this regard
    1
  22.  @mikeb7615  You're terribly informed. The EU has certain issues but what you describe here is utter nonsense.
    1
  23.  @mikeb7615  Alright, bootlicker. I'm sure they'll appreciate your loyalty when they pull another Iraq. And I'm also sure they'll ignore you again if you need help for once, like they did during the Falklands war. What an equal relationship, seems very healthy to be in.
    1
  24.  @jadevillaceran5045  And? You tell me how Russia is going to blockade the EU. Truth is the EU will be the one blockading Russia.
    1
  25. EU already spends the same as China, second biggest spenders behind the US. I agree we do need better maintenance of the military, but we shouldn't become a second US when it comes to spending
    1
  26. But then the USSR sattelite states would count as separate from USSR right? Otherwise it's Western Europe vs a few communist nations dispersed over the globe
    1
  27.  @cia4492  The EU literally is a military alliance.
    1
  28. Yes NATO would be called in, but depending on the US policy they could support the war effort by either going in in full force or only sending a token force purely as assistance. When the UK was literally invaded during the Falklands they did nothing at all, simply because they didn't care about British foreign territory. NATO is not that certain and still very dependent on the political will to send aid. Under Biden I think the US would send at least a decent assistance force, if not go all in on the military presence. But under Trump it would be completely realistic to think of a situation in which the US says fight the war out yourselves, maybe we'll help a bit but no more than that. If answering a NATO call for aid is not in the political interest of a nation, whether it will actually send aid (unlikely they won't) and more importantly HOW MUCH aid is sent is still up in the air.
    1