The Baltics, the Poles, and the Finnish need to lead the way on assisting Moldova. The playbook being used there will be used against them.I thought some country like France or Romania did pledge to defend Moldova but can only find the multiple countries pledging military aid. It would be nice if Moldova could be the red line not to cross that Ukraine was not.
"Moreover, Chişinău is receiving support in the form of equipment from its Western partners, including on a bilateral basis. An example is the deal struck in October 2022 with Germany regarding the transfer of 19 Piranha IIIH armoured personnel carriers (nine units have been delivered so far, the rest are to be delivered to Moldova by the end of this year), drones and other equipment. In June 2023, Poland donated a large amount of equipment and ammunition to the Moldovan police. The United States regularly supplies the Moldovan army with significant amounts of equipment; a $3 million shipment containing personal protective equipment, reconnaissance drones, light infantry weapons and other equipment arrived in Chişinău this August.
The Moldovan government is interested in expanding and enhancing its cooperation with NATO, the EU and individual member states, and is also willing to start discussions on potentially joining the Alliance. Back in January 2023, President Sandu spoke about the possibility of shifting away from neutrality and joining a “larger alliance” in an interview for Politico. In July 2023, in turn, Moldova’s foreign minister Nicu Popescu argued that it was necessary to “intensify and accelerate” cooperation with NATO in order to ensure the country’s security. Nevertheless, a formal renunciation of neutrality seems impossible in the coming years, for both formal reasons (a two-thirds majority of MPs is required to change the constitution) and resistance from the public. The vast majority of Moldovans believe that the country’s neutral status guarantees their security because it does not provoke Russia. Although the number of people supporting Moldova’s accession to NATO has visibly increased since the invasion of Ukraine (in June 2023, it rose to about a third of Moldovans, compared to 20–25% in the years preceding the Russian aggression), more than half of the country’s residents (52–54%) are still opposed to such a move."
They don't really need to send ground troops. Just more boiling the frog.
Send aircraft and manned anti-air weapons. Europe could put 600+ modern warplanes in the skies of Ukraine, and Russian aircraft would disappear from Ukraine and the Black Sea.
Bomb any artillery, mlrs, or offensive actions and anti-air systems.
Then it's just the question of how quickly Russia's refineries, pipelines, port facilities, and tankers can all be hit and knocked out, and there goes 35% of Moscow's GDP, all in a couple months.
And yet, nothing I listed would meet those standards.Yeah, Russians will probably do absolutely nothing if they start getting bombed by NATO.
I mean, what could they do?
FT
Vladimir Putin’s forces have rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict with a major world power, according to leaked Russian military files that include training scenarios for an invasion by China. The classified papers, seen by the Financial Times, describe a threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons that is lower than Russia has ever publicly admitted, according to experts who reviewed and verified the documents.
The cache consists of 29 secret Russian military files drawn up between 2008 and 2014, including scenarios for war-gaming and presentations for naval officers, which discuss operating principles for the use of nuclear weapons. Criteria for a potential nuclear response range from an enemy incursion on Russian territory to more specific triggers, such as the destruction of 20 per cent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines. “This is the first time that we have seen documents like this reported in the public domain,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. “They show that the operational threshold for using nuclear weapons is pretty low if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means.” Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, which can be delivered by land or sea-launched missiles or from aircraft, are designed for limited battlefield use in Europe and Asia, as opposed to the larger “strategic” weapons intended to target the US. Modern tactical warheads can still release significantly more energy than the weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. Although the files date back 10 years and more, experts claim they remain relevant to current Russian military doctrine. The documents were shown to the FT by western sources. The defensive plans expose deeply held suspicions of China among Moscow’s security elite even as Putin began forging an alliance with Beijing, which as early as 2001 included a nuclear no-first-strike agreement. In the years since, Russia and China have deepened their partnership, particularly since Xi Jinping took power in Beijing in 2012. The war in Ukraine has cemented Russia’s status as a junior partner in their relationship, with China throwing Moscow a vital economic lifeline to help stave off western sanctions. Yet even as the countries became closer, the training materials show Russia’s eastern military district was rehearsing multiple scenarios depicting a Chinese invasion. The exercises offer a rare insight into how Russia views its nuclear arsenal as a cornerstone of its defence policy — and how it trains forces to be able to carry out a nuclear first strike in some battlefield conditions.
So you think Russia can beat NATO in a conventional war, because the Russians sure as hell don’t.And yet, nothing I listed would meet those standards.
America's standards are much simpler (as revealed back in '93): If we detect someone is going to use a nuke, we nuke them first.
I think if Russia uses tactical nukes in Europe, their days of being any part of the world's economy are effectively over.So you think Russia can beat NATO in a conventional war, because the Russians sure as hell don’t.
Did you see Putin’s comment the other day, where he acknowledged that the militaries are not comparable, but that Russia has nukes, and article V against Russia means nukes in response?
Do you think it’s safe ignore this warning, the way the neocons ignored the warnings about extending NATO into Ukraine in the first place?
How did that work out?
The longer this war goes, the more I believe Russia has nonfunctional nukes.I think if Russia uses tactical nukes in Europe, their days of being any part of the world's economy are effectively over.
What’s the worst that could happen, amirite?The longer this war goes, the more I believe Russia has nonfunctional nukes.
I still say make Moscow/St. Petersburg 2024's version of Nagasaki/Hiroshima.
LOWUT?Did you think Merkel was wrong when she stated that Russia would view a Ukrainian invitation to NATO as a declaration of war?
That judgement has been borne out as correct.
ukraine and NATO have been "flirting" since ukraine was established as an independent countryLOWUT?
Ukraine was never offered any invitation to NATO.
Finland & Sweden were, though
LOWUT?
Ukraine was never offered any invitation to NATO.
Finland & Sweden were, though
You just posted Russia admitting they would only use nukes if struck strategically (missile subs, central command bunkers, etc.), and now you're crying about more Putin bullshit. Do you think he wants to lose fast or lose slow? I said Russia's air force would be done in days over Ukraine and the Black Sea, as well as any anti air systems shooting at them. Thus so would any chance of further offenses in Ukraine.So you think Russia can beat NATO in a conventional war, because the Russians sure as hell don’t.
Did you see Putin’s comment the other day, where he acknowledged that the militaries are not comparable, but that Russia has nukes, and article V against Russia means nukes in response?
Do you think it’s safe ignore this warning, the way the neocons ignored the warnings about extending NATO into Ukraine in the first place?
How did that work out?
Now do one with Putin holding Trump as a puppet as well.
Your reading comprehension is terrible, which explains much about your views.You just posted Russia admitting they would only use nukes if struck strategically
This again? GTFO with your Ukraine's skirt was too short b*llsh&t.Do you think it’s safe ignore this warning, the way the neocons ignored the warnings about extending NATO into Ukraine in the first place?
EXACTLY.Your reading comprehension is terrible, which explains much about your views.
I quoted it, and even put in bold for your dumb ass, and you still didn’t comprehend it.
What does this mean to you:
Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. “They show that the operational threshold for using nuclear weapons is pretty low if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means.”
Is that what prompted JFK? Castro’s skirt was too short?This again? GTFO with your Ukraine's skirt was too short b*llsh&t.
No, I think they’d start by nuking a city like Lvov. If that didn’t get enough attention cities in Western Europe and the U.S.Do you *really* think Russia wants to start nuking the land that Really Has Been Always Part Of Russia!
Even Putin knows that the US has the most potent military in the world.No, I think they’d start by nuking a city like Lvov. If that didn’t get enough attention cities in Western Europe and the U.S.
How many of those do you want to trade for “land that Really Has Been Always Part Of Russia!”
Interesting choice of spelling for Lviv. Sort of gives away your alliances.No, I think they’d start by nuking a city like Lvov. If that didn’t get enough attention cities in Western Europe and the U.S.
How many of those do you want to trade for “land that Really Has Been Always Part Of Russia!”
LOLInteresting choice of spelling for Lviv. Sort of gives away your alliances.
“Like it always was….” LMAOLOL
You dolt.
Read any books on WW2?
That’s how it’s always spelled.
I guess we could go with Lwow, when the Poles controlled it, or perhaps Lemberg, from when Austria-Hungary controlled it.
But really, I need you to call up the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Musuem and tell them you think their spelling ‘gives away their alliances’.
Tell us what they say to you when you do that.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lvov
![]()
Your obtuseness doesn’t change reality.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP.
What does this mean: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."Not seeing any "invitation" there.
You seem confused.