All this talk of EU and NATO countries needing to spend more on defense to counter the imminent Russian threat is obviously not the real motivation behind increased spending.
If one were to imagine such a world, for the sake of useless navel gazing, what else would need to be true for Russia to not only want to use military force to annex or occupy or even conduct limited air strikes on a NATO member or one of their allies but be confident that it’s military could meaningfully conduct such a massive operation while defnding from the inevitable retaliation from the entire west?
Idk I’m baked at work and can’t really understand why people are so easily sold on this idea that Russia is about to conduct full scale war on Europe
Russia has myriad short-term tactical advantages that could be parlayed into a war-plan:
-No peer experience in Eastern Europe
-Lack of materiel because it was sent to Ukraine and not replaced (an enormous heap of ammo, ‘obsolete’ vehicles, missiles, etc etc. was sent to Ukraine under the premise of “modernization” of NATO forces, but mere grains of replacements from the US, UK, FR and ROK have actually materialized)
-Distance of potent NATO forces (France, US)
And if there’s any doubt and delay in entry of Europe at large–that 2.5 million under arms is just paper. Would Turkey actually move troops from around Syria and Kurdistan if it’s not under attack? Will France abandon its toe-hold in Françafrique? Will/can the US perform the logistical task of moving and supplying those European troops? Sweden and Finland have impressive numbers but how are they getting stuck in? Crossing the Baltic? Invading Karelia?
I know it’s terrifying to admit but there’s a quite plausible case for a(n imagined) brief supporting thrust against NATO to force the collapse and capitulation of Ukraine, if (as I posited in the OP) Ukraine is only holding on due to NATO defending it.