An updated threat assessment warns of the consequences of a divided NATO and an absent U.S.

Summary

Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service warns that Russia could launch a large-scale war in Europe within five years if NATO appears weak or divided, especially if the U.S. does not intervene.

The report outlines a timeline where Russia could attack a neighboring country within six months, escalate to a regional Baltic conflict in two years, and potentially engage NATO-wide by 2029.

The assessment comes as Trump pressures NATO members to increase defense spending and has suggested the U.S. might not defend allies who fail to meet financial commitments.

  • Zron@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    17 hours ago

    France and the UK’s nuclear arsenal is minuscule compared to the US stockpile.

    And a lot of the nukes at NATO bases are on loan from the US, so if the US pulls out there will not be nearly as many bombs close to Russia.

    Anyone insane enough to start a nuclear war may decide that absorbing a hundred or so nukes isn’t so bad when they have hundreds of Cold War era bunkers and thousands of their own nukes.

    • kandoh@reddthat.comEnglish
      13·
      16 hours ago

      France and the UK’s nuclear arsenal is minuscule compared to the US stockpile.

      You only need a few.

      And a lot of the nukes at NATO bases are on loan from the US, so if the US pulls out there will not be nearly as many bombs close to Russia.

      Both UK and France have nuclear armed subs, those are all that matter.

      Anyone insane enough to start a nuclear war may decide that absorbing a hundred or so nukes isn’t so bad when they have hundreds of Cold War era bunkers and thousands of their own nukes.

      I’m going to go out on a limb and say even Putin doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in a bunker.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        13 hours ago

        I’m going to go out on a limb and say even Putin doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in a bunker.

        You say that, but that’s literally the plan for all the tech bros and billionaires when climate change finally starts to slap. They have all the money and power to stop it from happening, but they’d rather just live out their last thirty years in a fucking hole.

    • mel@jlai.luEnglish
      1·
      14 hours ago

      The French strategy with nuclear bombs is not to wipe a country out of a map, but wiping out Moscow and Saint Petersburg (or New York and Washington DC for a USan example). The message is that you can kill us, but we will make sure that you are definitely crippled

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      17 hours ago

      Anyone insane enough to start a nuclear war may decide that absorbing a hundred or so nukes isn’t so bad when they have hundreds of Cold War era bunkers and thousands of their own nukes.

      Russian bureaucrats may think that about the rest of the population, but fortunately even they are not dumb enough to believe in having safety in those bunkers (time passes, things rot, materials decay).

      So Russia really using nukes is for a situation where somebody making decisions believes there will be no retaliation.

      Considering that throwing your friends and allies to the wolves has become a really common thing in modern world, just like plainly disregarding any kind of agreements or international laws or moral principles, I think such a situation is possible.

      And with the cucked way France’s foreign policy seems to work recently, and with the too realpolitik-style UK foreign policy, one might imagine a situation where both are not very active.

      Also bureaucrats of various countries are class brothers. A bureaucrat, even a German or a French one, understands Putin and Xi better than somebody democratically elected. And Germany is traditionally (last 30 years I mean) friendly with Russia.

      No conclusion.