https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladim...
It’s not like there was any warning signs…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Bullies exploit weaknesses. Time to grow a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con...
https://energyandcleanair.org/financing-putins-war/
The first step when finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
• Hungary: 416 million euros ($488m)
• Slovakia: 275 million euros ($323m)
• France: 157 million euros ($184m)
• Netherlands: 65 million euros ($76m)
• Belgium: 64 million euros ($75m)
[2] suggests that China and India are the main buyers. I don't how reliable those sources are. There is also the problem of how to classify 'laundered' oil that was bought and resold by, e.g. India.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/how-much-of-europes...
[2] https://energyandcleanair.org/june-2025-monthly-analysis-of-...
Europe is struggling with soaring energy costs and a lack of alternatives. Whether it's red tape or unfortunate geography, Europe cannot afford to turn off the Russian gas tap.
A benevolent US would see this and find ways to bridge the gap for Europe and lower its energy costs, further choking Russia.
A less benevolent US would see this and encourage it to continue, weakening both parties and sowing internal feuds within Europe.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-exports-surge...
They can't sustain, economically speaking, a war against EU/NATO but Putin can definitely play on our fears much harder than we can play on Russians fears.
Well, this won't end well for Russia. Germany is one of the biggest industrial producers in the world.
I oppose the military support to Ukraine. I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. I also disapprove that the military support for Ukraine was decided undemocratically, without any consideration whether this might escalate into a war. And here we are...
The blowback is not discussed. I am from Czechia, and Russians attacked Vrbětice munition factory, because it supplied Ukraine. That's the reason. But in media it's always portrayed without this context.
FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.
Btw., there is quite a bit on the 2014 attack in various places.
Representative democracies are supposed to work this way, a government is elected, and they represent their electorate. If the electorate disagrees with the actions the government took they will be voted out the next election cycle, in between it's in the hands of the elected government to make decisions in these matters.
> FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.
It means Ukraine falling in the hands of Russia, is that a better alternative for the rest of us? Have you considered the Pandora Box this opens up to? Without supporting Ukraine militarily they will be defeated, Russia will get a large border with Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
They talk a big game, but their economy is smaller than Italy's!
Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch.
Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets.
The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.
Contrast this with many "advanced" nations such as UK, EU, Australia etc. that can't even get a rocket into space. There was a period recently where the US was relying on Soyuz rockets to get into space.
Could you please come back to reality?
Every European nation can and has made their own decision on this matter. Spain, Portugal, Italy, some Balkan countries have contributed a lot less. Hungary, who are in NATO, have almost contributed zilch.
Thinking that de-escalating the war as-is giving Russia the strategic victory is a very dangerous thought. This will destabilize the Northern and Eastern parts of Europe, which we definitely can not let happen.
NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.
This sort of rhetorics leads nowhere useful.
Is there some reason European citizens should go to war to satisfy the desires of _political_ scientists - a dubious category at best?
Or to put it another way - why don't the political scientists at these American organizations put on their fighting gear and go fight in Ukraine?
That is the wrong question. The question is:
Is there some reason Europeans should go to war when Russia invades a European country in order to annex it by force?
The answer is yes. The reason is not letting force impose over things like democracy or rights. If Europeans do we(I am European) will become slaves.
It happened multiple times: The Ottoman Empire, Napoleon or Hitler and Stalin.
You don't have to explain that to a Polish person: They lived the occupation of Russia and Germany and all of them have family members that were exterminated by the germans first and then by the communists. Let alone they were subjugated over decades making then a puppet state of Russia making Russia richer and Poland poorer.
If Europeans do not oppose the dictator Putin controlling Russia, next time we will have to fight against Russia, Ukraine(occupied by Russia) and Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and all the new conquests(of the new Russian Empire) in the same way if you do not oppose the ottomans taking Constantinople, you will have to oppose them in Vienna, when they have become much stronger.
For jets argument you must first understand where Kaliningrad is: something akin to Alaska for US — open the map to see what European countries are invariably in between.
Even if they crossed momentarily the air border (though there was no objective visual proof from either side, which is why the story died), supersonic jet is not like crusing at 20 mph: if you sway for several seconds you can easily graze some border. It is unprofessional but not impossible.
As for a few drones: the key word is undentified.
Yet the piece is titled: Europe is under Russian Attack. Meh
> EU leaders meeting in Copenhagen backed plans to strengthen European defenses, including a proposed "drone wall," after recent drone incursions over Denmark raised fears of Russian hybrid attacks. Officials said the initiative would focus on eastern airspace protection and sit alongside projects for eastern flank security, missile defense, and a space-based shield . Leaders also began a first formal debate on using frozen Russian assets in Europe to fund aid for Ukraine.
Ah, those sweet-sweet frozen assets. Also see how this piece implies Russian without any proof.
Also the more you fear monger the EU population, the more you can continue the war: which is money for some elites; redeemeer of economic recession for others, etc.: war is universal resetter for social/economic issues.
The drone sightings is a mix of Russian ops, and copycat actors. The jets that violate airspace, are probably a mix of intentional close flying, under the plausible deniability that navigation jamming in the area causes them to cross into neighboring airspace.
In the case of Russian aggression, it is to create more tension. Why on earth would Russia want to escalate this, you might ask? Well, now that pretty much every country west of their border is a NATO member, a Russian attack on NATO would likely trigger article 5.
If Russia can provoke any NATO countries to attack first by, say, downing some airplane of theirs (fighter jets, recon, strategic bombers, etc.), they can use this as casus belli, and use it as propaganda. One thing Russia learned after 2022 was that any larger scale mobilization is incredibly unpopular. They can't mobilize millions of soldiers without any real cause, and march into the west. If they can sell the idea (with "proof") that NATO is actively attacking Russia, that's another thing.
They're probably also banking on the fact that the heightened situation will scare people in the west, which in turn will make them vote for isolationist parties that don't want to commit. One thing is to talk about war, another thing is to actually see the writings on the wall.
I don't think European NATO members can do much other than to just keep reinforcing and fortifying their borders, build up their armed forces as if Russia will invade tomorrow, and dig in. And keep hammering Russia with sanctions.
The imperialist dreams of Russia is the expand into the ex-Soviet countries. They've tried election meddling, which worked to some degree, but I think they know that to achieve their goals, they need some larger conflict to happen - so that they can annex the desired areas when peace talks come up.
This has already happened, Turkey shot down a Russian jet in 2015, the Russian state very quickly tucked its tail in after that. The VKS can't afford to lose these planes willy-nilly.
> Erdoğan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement, and that a court should find out "the truth".
Russia didn't tuck its tail, they deployed SAMs to their Syrian base, they deployed the late Moskva in the region, and they pressured Erdogan to punish the pilot.
m00dy•1h ago