Europe thinks the unthinkable: Retaliating against Russia
www.politico.eu
Countries are looking at joint offensive cyber operations and surprise military drills as Moscow steps up its campaign to destabilize NATO allies.

Ideas range from joint offensive cyber operations against Russia, and faster and more coordinated attribution of hybrid attacks by quickly pointing the finger at Moscow, to surprise NATO-led military exercises, according to two senior European government officials and three EU diplomats

“The Russians are constantly testing the limits — what is the response, how far can we go?” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže noted in an interview. A more “proactive response is needed,” she told POLITICO. “And it’s not talking that sends a signal — it’s doing.”

Finally.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.socialEnglish
      214·
      2 days ago

      You think having a military offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?

      If anything, it makes wars and invasions more appealing - if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.

      If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance. There are no major military targets, no leaders to assassinate, no positions of power to leverage. They would need to keep boots on the ground to maintain power. And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces - there would be very little hope for holding such territory, and as soon as the occupying force left, anarchy, and therefore peace and order, could once again be restored.

      • falseWhite@lemmy.worldOP
        11·
        2 days ago

        Such a naive opinion you have. And I say opinion, because I challenge you to find any proof in history where the weak successfully fought off the bullies?

        You think having a military offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?

        Tell me how many times a nuclear power has been in invaded in the past 80 years and then tell me how many small countries with weak military have been invaded in the past 80 years.

        Your argument is not based in reality.

        You cannot let bullies be stronger than you.

        But if you want proof of the opposite, history is FULL of it.

        Maybe start with the Baltics and the two Russian occupations they suffered through in the past 100 years or so. Or maybe WW2, or if you want more recent examples, tell me how well Ukraine is doing? Or how well Palestinians fought off Israel?

        Honestly your opinion is ridiculous.

        if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.

        If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance.

        So you are essentially saying countries should have NO military, NO police, NO courts, NO leaders, etc. in order to not be invaded.

        Again, ridiculous.

        And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces

        So still a war, people still fighting and dying 🤦‍♂️

        I’d say deterrence and prevention is much better.