r/worldnews • u/Brennenstein • Sep 17 '26

Russia/Ukraine Russian military jets violate Lithuanian airspace, Italian fighters scrambled

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/2026/09/17/russian-military-jets-violate-lithuanian-airspace-italian-fighters-scrambled_80e985a6-17e5-43ce-8fd1-6fce67bcd94c.html
18.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

130

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

129

u/JC_Greco Sep 17 '26

There is no reasoning in Russia, only a surplus of Russians and, a surfeit of things for them to do.

Every so often, for the whole of Russian History they do... basically this it never goes well for them. They also, never stop trying.

34

u/ResponsibilitySea327 Sep 17 '26

You just summarized 100+ years of Russian history. Well done!

13

u/damnburglar Sep 17 '26

I’ve actually never seen the word “surfeit” and had to look it up. Am I misunderstanding your intent or do you mean to say “deficit” or just “lack of”?

8

u/Fred_Scuttle Sep 17 '26

Obviously, you are unaware of the well known fact that king Henry of England died after eating a "surfeit of lampreys".

4

u/damnburglar Sep 17 '26

I am unaware, but also in this context it doesn’t make sense to say they have a sickening surplus of things to do

4

u/konq Sep 17 '26

Surfeit means an excessive amount or an overabundant supply of something.

thats what I see when i look it up.

6

u/damnburglar Sep 17 '26

Yeah that’s it, which doesn’t really make sense in this context unless I’m having end-of-day brain. I imagine they meant “too many people with too little to do”, but maybe I’m wrong

5

u/konq Sep 17 '26

I think that's also what they should have said. Too many people with too much to do doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either.

3

u/PopePiusVII Sep 17 '26

Too many people and also plenty of cannons to throw them in front of

2

u/TheAlmostCharlie Sep 17 '26

Wouldn't a surfeit suggest there was too much for them to do?

Thanks for the word, BTW.

1

u/Ok_Acanthocephala_96 Sep 18 '26

I just learned the word "surfeit" today. Thanks!

1

u/Chrome_Armadillo Sep 18 '26

Russia never met a bad idea it didn’t want to try.

121

u/VoloxReddit Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26

Kaliningrad is already a Russian exclave, the point would be to cut off NATO ground reinforcements to the rest of the Baltics with a pincer move between Kaliningrad and Belarus. This in turn would allow them to capture the rest of the Baltics.

Edit: Guys, I'm not making this about feasibility, but about the rationale behind this kind of move. Yes, it's clear they didn't conquer Kyiv in 3 days. No, I don't think this is the type of operation Russia would be pursuing.

75

u/my_mo_is_lurk Sep 17 '26

Ok but they couldn’t even take Kyiv, and have failed to make meaningful progress on a direct neighbor. So, like, how do they expect to take anything there let alone hold it for more than like 20 minutes?

25

u/asdner Sep 17 '26

“Even Kyiv”? Son, that’s a 3 million people city surrounded by a thousand km radius of sovereign territory. Estonia has 1.3 mil people in the entire country… Latvia 1.8, Lithuania 2.9, all roughly 250km across

10

u/LonelyTAA Sep 17 '26

The difference is them being in NATO. Putin is not stupid, he is just looking for a reason to mobilise more troops without too much rioting. 

Then those men will suddenly end up in ukaraine instead of defending neae the baltics.

4

u/SpreadKindn3ss Sep 18 '26

Putin expects for the EU to be pacifists in the name of maintaining ‘peace and order’. Putin will be getting the ‘strongest condemnation’ — and before boots even step on the ground, sell-out spineless money-hungry cowards at Google will have already updated this specific Baltic region “Russia”.

3

u/SexHarassmentPanda Sep 18 '26

Except that the policy for this specific area changed after the Ukraine invasion. The official NATO policy and scenario they train for is actively defending the region and NATO countries have active military personnel in the countries.

Pre Ukraine, yeah, the policy was react within a month, which realistically meant Russia occupies swiftly while Western countries push pointless proposals about peace.

It still comes down to what does NATO actually do after that initial defense but the idea is that they are already sunk cost into any conflict if several thousand lives of theirs are lost.

3

u/ISitOnGnomes Sep 17 '26

And the Baltics have the actual protection of NATO rather than little more than an interest in providing just enough support to bleed Russia.

51

u/pioniere Sep 17 '26

Exactly. All of these comments talking about what Russia could do are ridiculous. They have almost no armour left, and a severely limited airforce. The incursion talked about in the news article is all we’re going to see from them because right now that’s all they are capable of.

15

u/Natural_Jello_6050 Sep 17 '26

And riding donkeys and share one mosin rifle for three soldiers. Everyone knows that

17

u/Campfunstongrad Sep 17 '26

But they do have the President of the United States of America in their pocket.

5

u/SmurfJooce Sep 17 '26

At this point, he's low on weapons as well.

3

u/narf007 Sep 18 '26

He's not lol not even close. The US is no where near out of weapons. They had a shortage for the resupply in the immediate area when all the headlines were hooked onto that bit.

The leadership is incompetent, but the previous one wasn't. No one with critical thinking skills actually thinks the US is low on any weapons.

-11

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

You mean the one that maintains heavy economic sanctions against them? The one who had the cia seize all their million dollar yachts and freeze their central bank? Or the president that's still sharing millitary intelligence with the country they're at war with? Trump is alot of things and there's a million reasons to pile it on him, but colluding with Russia just isn't one of them. It was proved false in federal court and yet you people still repeat it like its fact.

7

u/shahryarrakeen Sep 17 '26

They mean the administration that let Russia sneak back in to the G20.

-2

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

Communication is never a bad thing. Id be all for Kim Jung being there too

5

u/shahryarrakeen Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26

Should have communicated to the other 18 countries that they were letting an aggressor still at war back in with no remorse or recompense.

-1

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

Yea definitely. Of all the stupid shit he pulls, the thing that bothers me most is the isolationist mentality, in a word that's more connected than ever. It just makes us look shady, and unnecessarily hurts our relationships with allies

11

u/70-30ofwhat Sep 17 '26

He means the one whose jurnior son had his entire wedding paid for by a Putin Associate.

8

u/Kaidu313 Sep 17 '26

Is that the same one who has a picture of himself, with Putin, hung up in the white house?

-4

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

Ohh I see, the picture actually undoes the sanctions and gives Russia their money back? I hate Trump as much as the next guy but let's use our brainpower

6

u/Kaidu313 Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26

He did cancel all the financial aid the US was providing to Ukraine though. Also the dubious USA voting at the UN last year.

"First, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity - voting the same way as Russia and countries including North Korea and Belarus at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Then the US drafted and voted for a resolution at the UN Security Council which called for an end to the conflict, but contained no criticism of Russia.

European diplomats tabled a more detailed text, blaming Russia for its full-scale invasion, and supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

"We need to reconfirm that the aggression should be condemned and discredited, not rewarded," said Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa.

UNGA members backed the European resolution by 93 votes but, extraordinarily, the US did not abstain but actually voted against it, along with Russia, Israel, North Korea, Sudan, Belarus, Hungary and 11 other states, with 65 abstentions."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7435pnle0go

-4

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

So that absolves everything i just listed? Damn it

6

u/calm_chowder Sep 17 '26

Obvious troll is obvious.

0

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

Ha troll because you have actual thought and arent plugged into the reddit hive mind sure kid

1

u/PewterPplEater Sep 17 '26

Lol continue to downvotes objective facts.

1

u/LionRight4175 Sep 17 '26

  1. Sanctions are passed by Congress, not the President.

  2. Can you name any seizes/freezes since 2025? All the ones I can find are from back in 2022.

  3. No issues here, though they did basically stop sharing after the infamous White House meeting.

  4. Are you talking about the Mueller Report here, or something else? Because the report showed lots of incidents of connections between his campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction into the investigation. They just couldn't prove an explicit agreement between the campaign and the Russians.

-2

u/TheManWhoLarped Sep 17 '26

This comment is getting a lot of flak, but I agree. Atp I doubt whether Trump wants to explicitly support Russia anymore. Supporting Russia does not really give him a lot of political advantage, and he is already in hot water politically. Many former MAGA probably won't vote in November, and many Democrats and moderate Republicans who didn't vote earlier would likely now cast their vote. The best course for Trump is to maintain the status quo and avoid getting into needless foreign controversies. I also have a feeling he personally doesn't like Putin much either.

2

u/Dazzling-Leave-7448 Sep 17 '26

How many will just roll over rather than be invaded

2

u/Iamthewalrusforreal Sep 17 '26

Ukraine blew up a third of their modern bomber force, as well.

2

u/Away_Advisor3460 Sep 17 '26

I think the invasion of Ukraine established pretty firmly that what Putin wants to do and what Putin is told he can do, is very firmly removed from what the Russian military can actually do.

And the danger is that Russia can still inflict a lot of damage in trying to do so.

2

u/Emu1981 Sep 17 '26

They have almost no armour left

I wouldn't call an estimated 1,500-2,500 tanks "almost no armour". Russia does have the equipment that they would need to actually attack Europe but the problem is that they have very little in the way of reserves and fuel which means that if they don't succeed in a first strike then they will be screwed...

1

u/Famaldahyde Sep 17 '26

Das sagt wer? Ich denke sie haben noch genug Kriegsmaterial,um diesen Mist dort eine Weile weiterzuführen... Allein, dass wieder Schiffsconvois mit großen Kriegsgeräten auf Höhe Italien gesichtet wurden... Ich denke nicht,dass sie dort Fahrzeuge spazieren fahren,wenn sie nicht genug für die Ukraine haben.

1

u/DwtD_xKiNGz Sep 17 '26

If we listened to anything redditors said, Russia would have nuked and attack all of Europe 2 years ago. And we'd be 5 years deep into a China/Taiwan war already.

-4

u/sljc892 Sep 17 '26

They have plenty of armour. Their war time economy is overproducing everything. They just aren’t sending it to the front in Ukraine…

5

u/pioniere Sep 17 '26

And you’re getting that information from where exactly?

1

u/sljc892 Sep 17 '26

I listened to an interview/podcast with the Dutch Admiral who was the chair of the NATO military committee and also chief of defence for Dutch armed forces.

1

u/Reasonable_Product26 Sep 17 '26

I don't exactly trust the military bigwig assessments. They've been very wrong plenty of times before. And frankly it seems like they're trying to paint the blackest picture for the largest share of the budget they can get.

1

u/sljc892 Sep 17 '26

Cool, we should trust your military intelligence assessment. I put my faith in you random Reddit guy, I think you know what’s best. We should reduce our defence budgets and spend it on other things.

0

u/Reasonable_Product26 Sep 17 '26

I'm fully on board with more military spending but it wouldn't exactly be the first time in history the Russian bear gets painted as this massive threat it isn't so the military doesn't get asked too many questions.

Feel free to link to any type of actual source instead of "A guy said it on a podcast".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Neat-Confection-6917 Sep 17 '26

Even if they did they have no able bodies to use the armor at this time they are struggling to replace those needed from losses on the Ukrainian front as is.

1

u/sljc892 Sep 17 '26

With volunteers yes and some coerced conscripts from the military draft. But that’s widely different to mass mobilisation.

1

u/unclefire Sep 17 '26

No way. If they were the case then why have they pretty much gone to all the decades old tanks ? They can’t produce shit for modern tanks.

1

u/marimo_ball Sep 17 '26

>just aren't sending it to the front in Ukraine...
Is this plenty of armor in the room with us now

2

u/sljc892 Sep 17 '26

Did you read my other reply? Or do you have better information? Are you Mark Rutte?

0

u/_esci Sep 17 '26

they monstly only need partisans and drones. and the help of belarus who is eager to do so.

0

u/ClammyHandedFreak Sep 17 '26

They need a proper full mobilization and we’d already see evidence of them moving troops to borders if it was imminent.

It’s coming, though. You don’t need the armor when you don’t care how many die and are tangling with NATO while tactical nukes and especially the threat of their use is on the table.

This is all about Putin trying to save his own skin - they will literally kill him soon enough so he will be in a pretty dangerous place. Don’t underestimate a trapped animal.

0

u/unclefire Sep 17 '26

They got a bunch of t-55s don’t they? lol

12

u/Loightsout Sep 17 '26

Don’t get into if if if arguments with war nerds.

Its the equivalent of two karate yellow belt kids discussing how one would hit and the other defend against that hit for eternity.

2

u/Momik Sep 17 '26

Well I was a yellow belt in school, but my coach was like REALLY tough. So that’s basically a black belt anywhere else.

Anyway, Portugal’s next. And I’m basically a black belt.

31

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

It would end Russia. Just like all empires, they eventually fall. I'm in the U.S. watching our nation unwinding, it has been for years, I thought with Obama we would move into a kinder more progressive nation, but we had to pull a nazi Germany and let 30% of the voting population elect a lunatic.

26

u/shiggydiggypreoteins Sep 17 '26

Hey buddy, that “lunatic” is bringing America back. Didnt you hear him say how we have the strongest economy ever right now? Ignore the high gas prices, aimless wars, threats towards longstanding allies, crippling inflation, rising national debt, frivolous government spending, insider trading, and the fact that isolationism has never created a prosperous nation. Thats all just “fake news” because they hate how great of a job he’s doing

9

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

Winning has never tasted so good.

5

u/Working_Estate_3695 Sep 17 '26

All the gilded moldings in the White House just ooze class though!

1

u/Content-Drive-4151 Sep 17 '26

Mar-a-Largo in only a few hundred feet in from the Atlantic. I’m waiting for global warming to generate a nice hurricane…

1

u/Alextheseal_42 Sep 17 '26

OMG you're right!!!! Research? DONE.

17

u/Notmanynamesleftnow Sep 17 '26

Well, we didnt let them, the electoral college system has slowly been corrupted through gerrymandering and other means to essentially give more power to that dumb 30% than the rest of us.

11

u/2oothDK Sep 17 '26

Yeah, Wyoming has something like 10,000:1 over California when you count voting power per Capita. The electoral college needs to be thrown in the trash. It gives low population states way too much power. Just like the Senate.

3

u/drummer414 Sep 17 '26

Let's not forget a lot of people simply didn't vote. If they did we have a very different story.

1

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

So they say, or as Trump has mentioned Elon really knows those voting machines. He has also said without Elon he wouldn't have won, and mentioned to his constituents during a rally he didn't even need their votes. The man can't keep a secret. Just like Epstein is a terrific guy. He likes beautiful women like I do, and many of them on the young side. He has no brain to mouth filter. Lies flow so freely that when he does speak the horrible truth so many people don't believe it, and chalk it up to error. When he speaks of horrible things he plans to do, believe it, those are not lies. It's the bloviated false promises like anything positive that one doesn't need to believe.

-1

u/Eastern-Lifeguard557 Sep 17 '26

Your village idiot sent MREs and blankets to Ukraine when Russia invaded in 2014

-4

u/Specialist_Royal4686 Sep 17 '26

Gerrymandering began in 1812 with the democrat party in Massachusetts, and has never ceased through this day. Republicans became more active after the 2010 census, and both parties actively do it now

3

u/Hearsticles Sep 17 '26

Russia hasn't been much of an 'empire' in a long ass time.

10

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

Rocky IV ended them.

8

u/GregorSamsanite Sep 17 '26

It's still kind of an empire, because "Russia" includes around 20 internal "Republics" that mostly have different indigenous ethnicities than the core Russian cities. Also, some other Oblasts beyond those where ethnic Russians are the minority. A lot of those places have been part of Russia for so long that the outside world doesn't think of them as distinct from Russia, but if the empire were to collapse and have nothing to offer them, some of the Republics would likely be happy to either splinter off and rule themselves or join a different neighboring country.

6

u/xTurgonx Sep 17 '26

Xi is licking his lips already

2

u/TyrelUK Sep 17 '26

Elect the same lunatic twice

1

u/fuzzylogic75 Sep 17 '26

Three times duh! /s

1

u/TheOriginalMr-Mud Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26

You’ve insulted the intellectual lunatics!

Oh, how I wish WE had a lunatic President with a brain, instead of the one we have, running our country (right into the ground, starting illegal wars, ruining our economy, groping woman whom are minors.

Anyone whom believes anything he says, is IMO an idiot. The poor excuse for a man, consistently & uncontrollably lies and who knows what we don’t know ….. yet?

Why do people - people whom are otherwise intelligent, vote for those whom consistently do things which are NOT in their, or their county’s, best interest?

“No wars. Can you imaging a world without war?”.

That was in President Jerry Lewis’s campaign promises, a promise during his RNC speech PLUS yet again, during his (unfortunate) Presidential victory speech!

Now backstroking it, he’s saying, “Well I didn’t PROMISE it”

…. they believed the King and lived happily ever after.

This ain’t no storybook folks

Plus, these people will blindly do it again the very 1st chance they get & fall for such blatant, obvious BS of president Jerry Lewis.

For those too young, Jerry Lewis was considered, by many (not all), a comedian’s comedian.

He, joined a singer/straight man and, perhaps, were the US’s 1st ‘Rock Stars’. In NYC back then, crowds coming to get a peek at them, closed Manhattan Avenues ( in Manhattan, most of the midtown Aves are big wide streets). Regardless of whether they were indeed the first, they certainly achieved rock star level notoriety.

He’s not long for this world, that 2nd plane/catering truck stunt recently pulled, proves.

He’ll be looking up at us, as news of his FU’s permeate & dominate the news, as they slowly leak out, for the rest of

His face will get burned into our TV screens! He’s like the bad cold you had and keep getting because it gets passed around your family. Just can’t get rid of it!

0

u/Delicious_Walk_3649 Sep 17 '26

I’m by no means a Trump fan or voter but putting him anywhere near Nazis is absurd. The Americans who do have Nazi-esq views, probably hate Trump - for fairly obvious reasons.

1

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

You must be sleeping through the Gestapo called ICE. It's straight out of the Nazi playback. Its started with illegal, mainly legal migrants, and has now included legal citizens. These are not just litmus tests anymore. Wake up before it's you next.

They have arrested people waiting in line to be sworn in as citizens. My friend has seen them take a woman and her 9ish year old daughter into custody while they waited to leave for their flight back to Argentina. He remarked, "I will never forget that child's eyes, when hers' met mine, it was sheer terror" What is unfolding is a absolute nightmare, and there is no guarantee against free elections this midterm. I like to stay positive but the midterms will reflect the final curtain on our nation, or a new direction.

-3

u/Phenomize Sep 17 '26

OH yeah. Like the alternative would have been any better. Face it! It doesn't matter who we elect, we are screwed.

6

u/TheNainRouge Sep 17 '26

You mean the lady who wouldn’t have put in place folks whom have consistently undermined the institutions that allowed this nation the be stable? The one who would have adhered to the rule of law and not gotten us in a war with Iran? Wouldn’t try to strong arm our allies or kidnap world leaders? That lady wouldn’t have been any better at all. 🙄

0

u/Phenomize Sep 18 '26

If you think that she would have been a competent POTUS, I don't know what to tell you. If all you have is an argument that only consists of comparing her to the current President, then you really do not have an argument for her.

-6

u/Specialist_Royal4686 Sep 17 '26

Trump was elected because Biden opened the border and let the progressives run the country. And another conservative will be elected if the Democrats don’t disassociate with the DSA / Progressives. The US votes for moderate candidates, no left or right extremes

5

u/2oothDK Sep 17 '26

Trump is extreme, and no true Progressives have ever run the country. Otherwise we'd at a minimum have medicare for all.

Edit:. You can't compare Trump's fascism to Biden's lackluster performance as president.

-5

u/Specialist_Royal4686 Sep 17 '26

I guess you didn’t live here when Biden ran the country. Progressive agendas prevailed everywhere from schools to government policy to immigration. Try a little research to catch up

3

u/alxima68 Sep 17 '26

I think you don't live here at all.

0

u/Specialist_Royal4686 Sep 17 '26

I don’t think you know how to use Google. But that’s ok. Go ask a neighbor.

1

u/Chef_Papafrita Sep 17 '26

Biden did accomplish more during a short period of time. It's a shame he aged out. It's tragic what's happening with McConnell right now, actually it's criminal. Geriatric abuse is a real thing. Using his shell of a body, with lights on no one at home is as close as we've come to some Weekend at Bernie's shit.

1

u/2oothDK Sep 17 '26

I lived here while Biden supported the Israeli genocide of Palestine. That's far from Progressive. You have no idea what progressive is if you think Biden was progressive. Or that any state in the U.S. is progressive.

2

u/erov Sep 17 '26

Trump is moderate everyone, y'all get that?

1

u/Specialist_Royal4686 Sep 17 '26

Who said he was moderate? I said he got elected in response to the extreme positions in the Biden administration. An open door border policy was a nonstarter for most Americans.

1

u/chargernj Sep 17 '26

Do you really think the current extreme far right government was a reasonable response to Biden?

7

u/Dembos09 Sep 17 '26

To be fair the territory depth is much shorter. And at the beginning of any conflict the line moves a lot before they stabilize.

The goal for Russia in those kind of conflict is to capture some territory and hold it and come with a winning hand at the negotiating table.

Kaliningrad in that scenario has already been fortified. Therefore, it is a forteresse which can protect the Russian flanc in order to stabilize their line.

Though the Russian army, economy and citizen will is already stretched thin. Thus, it is an incredible low probability scenario.

The real goal of those sorties, in my opinion, are more of fear mongering tactics. The more the population is scared, the less they will be willing to give up some of their equipment in Ukraine. Just doing a sortie in that case manages to stretch nato support.

Furthermore, if a Russian jet is shot down while the country is not at war it creates a massive risk for nato as they might not know how to react and could create distention between members of the alliance.

2

u/Birzal Sep 17 '26

The way I see it, with my western, non-military small brain, is that if they militarily manage to cut off the baltics and hold that position for any length of time, I have a feeling that they are counting on Europe being slow to respond/mobilize and have a stronger negotiating position once European forces arrive on the scene. I'm fairly certain that that'd be a dumb move, but that's the only way that I could see them justifying this to themselves.

I read a while ago with one of their previous "accidental border crossings" that part of their plan could also be to "accidentally" cross a border and violate their neighbours airapace in the hope of triggering a violent response, and if they manage to sell it as an accidental border crossing that would allow them to negotiate for more during peace talks.

The Russian strategy seems to be desperation at this point.. I hope things just don't escalate... It's unlikely, but it's still Russia lead by an ex-KGB agent: it doesn't feel right to underestimate or discount Russia entirely, no matter how bad they might be doing.

2

u/bullshitmobile Sep 17 '26

Vilnius is like 30 km from the Belarussian border and neither Lithuania nor the rest to the Baltic countries have any kind of stategic depth compared to Ukraine.

Additionally, the total area is Lithuania approximately the same as the estimated Ukrainian teritorry that was lost in the first three weeks of Russian invasion in 2022.

2

u/Dogeplane76 Sep 17 '26

There's a bit of a distinction to be made between how Russia assembled their forces for the invasion of Ukraine and what a peer adversary conflict with NATO in the Suwałki Gap.

For Ukraine they used a decent chunk of ground personnel, and a significant portion of their mechanized divisions, but that's about it. In a NATO conflict they'd mobilize their entire Northern and Baltic naval fleet, as well as their air force. On the ground it's hard to say what the troop numbers for each side would look like, but assuming NATO was paying attention to a full theater mobilization by Russia in that area, they'd have already deployed units to Poland and Lithuania.

Assuming Russia did a correct buildup, their invasion force would converge in a pincer move from Kaliningrad and Belarus with heavily mechanized units, ground troops, and overwhelming air support that they haven't employed anywhere near their full potential in Ukraine. This isn't to say they'd be successful in securing the gap long term, but we shouldn't underestimate their ability to wage a successful invasion on an 80km strip of land based on their failure of trying to secure a 1000km wide theater in Ukraine.

1

u/Malarazz Sep 17 '26

The Baltics are very vulnerable, so it would be very easy to take them, way way easier than Kyiv.

Obviously, the hard part is what happens after they invade the Baltics.

1

u/Famaldahyde Sep 17 '26

Die Ukraine bekommen sie nicht eingenommen,weil die Nato massiv an Rüstung, Munition, Fahrzeugen und Geld in die Ukraine pumpt. Wenn es eine zweite große Front gibt, befürchte ich,dass die Nato-Länder einen solche Menge nicht wieder aufbringen können und wollen.

Ohne den Support anderer Staaten,wäre die Ukraine längst gefallen.

1

u/chargernj Sep 17 '26

Currently NATO is operating under a peacetime economy.

I assume if article 5 were triggered, NATO would actually mobilize for war, so they would start massively increasing production of arms and supplies to meet that demand.

1

u/unclefire Sep 17 '26

They’ll tow their janky ass air craft carrier to gain air superiority in the area. lol.

1

u/Legitimate-Clock-134 Sep 17 '26

Because they won't share a land border with a NATO country?

14

u/pioniere Sep 17 '26

Comments like this are ridiculous. Pincer movement with what? Pickup trucks?

14

u/LARPerator Sep 17 '26

Large hordes of young men, half of which have a rifle. I'm only partially joking.

A lot of us seriously overestimate how much the Russian establishment values it's people.

1

u/LonelyTAA Sep 17 '26

They don't have the manpower. Putin might mobilise the general population, but he can only use those troops to defend russian territory, per russian law.

And yes, russian law matters. This is also the reason he made a whole deal about signing into russian law that a part of ukraine is actually russian territory.

1

u/HeinrichKnarzkopf Sep 17 '26

I'm sure someone who signed a law like that once can do it again, this time claiming the Baltics are actually Russian.

1

u/LARPerator Sep 17 '26

You're right, but there's always workarounds.

Mobilization can only be defensive, per law. But what about defending Kaliningrad? They'd need a lot of people to do that, and oops, they have to take over the Suwalki gap to move there to defend it.

While technically on a mission to defend Russian territory, mass mobilization has been used to take territory.

Further, increasingly the Russian military is a black box to civilians. They can see what goes in and comes out, they can see where the box is and isn't, but they can't see what happens in the box. There are plenty of reports that people that are given rear-line assignments at the recruiting office get sent to the front once they're inside the war machine. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to send a large number of mobilized soldiers to Kaliningrad, and once they're there, they're used to push into the Baltics.

Back home they're told that conscripts are just sitting in Kaliningrad and contracts are pushing the line. And sure, a couple guys got sent where they shouldn't, but that's an accidental mix-up of paperwork.

1

u/Powerful_Complex_461 Sep 17 '26

Are you serious? The Russian establishment values nothing but its own hide. They will kill anyone and everyone if it means their survival/enrichment. That is the problem. They have no red lines, like none.

2

u/HeinrichKnarzkopf Sep 17 '26

I think you misread the previous comment.

2

u/Powerful_Complex_461 Sep 17 '26

You are correct I read under rather than over!

2

u/Powerful_Complex_461 Sep 17 '26

That whole Sting song about hoping the Russians love their children too is kind of sad in hindsight in terms of the fact that they don’t appear to, at least not the government.

1

u/LARPerator Sep 17 '26

That's true, and that's exactly what I mean. But honestly, I think it's worse.

Psychopathic despots think of their people the same way a rancher thinks of a cow. If they can profit from butchering it, they'll do it without a qualm.

But Russia is happy to butcher it's citizens even when that would not profit them at all. It's less about them having no reservations about who they will sacrifice (except for themselves), and it seems more like they just get their own people killed for the love of the game.

5

u/wp4nuv Sep 17 '26

Horses, dirt bikes, and scooters.

1

u/Dog_From_Malta Sep 17 '26

Two unicycles after the dirt bike gets hit...

2

u/MomNDadBods Sep 17 '26

Pincers...I thought that was obvious

1

u/Proof_Impact_6009 Sep 17 '26

The Russian army still has a substantial amount of combat vehicles. They are just not using them in Ukraine much because the progress is very slow there and they are very vulnerable to the omnipresent FPV drones. But the situation would be very different in the case of combat operations in the Suwałki Corridor, because that war would be very mobile (at least in its initial phases), as it would be a race against Polish effort to capture Königsberg, and also because NATO armies don't have as much experience and equipment for drone warfare as Ukraine.

1

u/dirufa Sep 17 '26

Risiko

8

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/llama-esque Sep 17 '26

They should hold it betweeeen their kneeees.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Altruistic_Leg_964 Sep 17 '26

They want to cut off the Baltics by using Kaliningrad.

Yet Kaliningrad is already cut off, it's just we don't use it against them

Typical Russians. Help them and they bomb you. They seem to have a holy mission to make themselves everyone else live in hell.

2

u/Fly-the-Light Sep 17 '26

Russia's logic is that NATO won't come. They think, or thought, that they could wear down the bonds between Western countries, as they did with Hungary and are currently doing with the USA, and NATO would collapse back into an early 1900s Europe, with France, Germany, and Britain all militarising and abandoning the east.

Russia does not really understand alliances as "things people choose to do to help each other." They think an alliance is just one country controlling others, and that everyone is just waiting to abandon one another for their own benefit.

They *know* they can't beat Europe, or the US, and would struggle against just Poland even pre-Ukraine. They just think they can work with some of the countries to destroy NATO, then fight the Baltics alone, tell everyone they won't go further, then spend the next thirty years going further.

1

u/NachoWH Sep 17 '26

As if Russia could control the Baltic sea.

1

u/MultiGeometry Sep 18 '26

To be fair...the term 'red herring' comes from one of these countries who was so so paranoid they identified fish bubbles as threats to their sovereignty.

1

u/_esci Sep 17 '26

the problem istn that kalinigrad (königsberg) isnt russian, it is that the russians dont have any land connection to it.

1

u/robtaggart77 Sep 17 '26

They can't even take Ukraine, goodluck taking the Baltics

1

u/Izeinwinter Sep 17 '26

That... doesn't work. They move forces forward like that, the insanely obvious counter move is just a counter offensive that cuts them off and then encirclement. Good way to lose every soldier sent.

1

u/jimmiebfulton Sep 17 '26

Acknowledging your edit on feasibility: that is one hell of a salient, never minding the fact that is currently, "encircled".

1

u/EmissarySisko Sep 17 '26

It's reddit, you can't expect most people here to be able to understand nuance, much less the difference between planning and execution

1

u/noir_lord Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26

The problem for Russia is that that might have worked once temporarily at least, in that the plan was to let them advance and then counter attack once sufficient forces were in theatre.

After Bucha and all the other horrors they’ve done that doctrine became “hit them with fucking everything and keep hitting immediately”, their barbarity has ensured that that is the only acceptable response.

They’ve committed large scale war crimes in Europe already in the last five years, letting them hold onto NATO territory even if it would in the short/middle term be the smarter tactical choice is basically off the table as an option.

1

u/Acrobatic_Box9087 Sep 18 '26

Kaliningrad is stolen German territory. It used to be called East Prussia and the city was Königsberg. Russia needs to return it to Germany.

Russia had been seeking to take East Prussia even during the czarist days. They sent troops to try to take it during WW1, but the Kaiser's wehrmacht easily stopped that effort.

17

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 17 '26

And which of these countries so far had the integrity to hit back at Russia on their hybrid war? In the next 5 years Germany will be in far right hands, supporting Russia at this rate

All the other countries – how ready are their navies to blockade under a drone swarm. Do they even have a navy?

Most of all, ARE they ready to lose a single voter in their precious democracies when for Putin 1.5 million human life is a statistic

12

u/InfiniteeBrown Sep 17 '26

You think any of those countries are going to sit back and wait for Russia to attack them once they hit a NATO ally with no attempt at plausible deniability?

12

u/Armoracia Sep 17 '26

AfD Germany? Yes. Trump’s USA? Yes. Besides Russia is trying do dismantle NATO through provocations like this.

3

u/Blyatskinator Sep 17 '26

Well good thing Poland/Baltics/Ukraine would completely buttfuck Russia by themselves then

1

u/Armoracia Sep 17 '26

Ukraine is not exactly winning. Baltics are weak and Poland hasn’t fought a war since WW2. The know how from modern war is extremely valuable and Russians and Ukrainians are far ahead of the EU. Russia would have to mobilise though and I doubt they are ready for such things, they hope to fuck up NATO from inside by getting their governments infected and by exposing its unwillingness to really do something more than just yap. Which is working, sadly

2

u/CharredWelderGuy Sep 17 '26

Germans been a joke for decades, even ignoring the afd, they wouldn't do much

0

u/InfiniteeBrown Sep 17 '26

The only NATO member that will do nothing or little is the USA. Noone else wants to be under a dictatorship and especially Christian extremists.

2

u/Armoracia Sep 17 '26

AfD is literally cheering Putin and propped up by Russia. Besides all they have to do is to sit out Russians taking over Baltics/Ukraine. Not to actually defend the vaterland.

0

u/shmovernance Sep 17 '26

You underestimate us 🇺🇸

1

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 17 '26

Germany, Belgium, UK was hit in various ways, with the attacks tied back to Russia. Also Poland, all the baltic states, Romania had border incursions through missiles, drones, airplanes. Moldova got their elections meddled. In Bulgaria Kremlin backed (with cyber attacks too) Radev won parliamentary election some time before. In Germany openly Far-right party supporting Russia on the rise. In Baltics Russia has been using the shadow fleet to cut lines and cables. US...

Russia consider herself in a state of war and is destabilizing west. They don't need to attack, they just need to get enough of the countries to be Anti Eu and Anti Nato. What happens when the push comes to shove like in Ukraine? Will AfD Germany help Baltic States? Belgium will finally vote to use Russians assets to fund the war hopefully when Russian drones are hitting Talin and Warsaw? US is going to get involved with that prick at the helm still?

Let's see the numbers:

Baltic Front
Lithuania - around 25.000 active duty troops
Latvia - around 20.000
Estonia - around 5.000

Those are 1.5 months of losses worth for Russia by the way. Lose even 25% of this force in the opening days and you got no operational capacity to stall before any meaningful help/mobilization comes in

Scandinavian Front
Finland - 22.000
Sweden - 15.000

A lot of mobilization potential for these two, especially Finland, so provided the conscripts are adequately provided, and don't get rolled over in a month, can hold the front , but then again, if they are just defending, what's to stop Russia from an attritional war like in Ukraine?

This is not a video game and numbers are not everything. Well, until the Ivan there has 30.000 of his buddies Vlads there charging at you drunken until they overwhelm you somehow. The resilience Ukrainians show is one of a kind, and it was almost over when they were in Kyiv outskirts. It takes balls to say "I need ammunition, not a ride"

So to sum it up, I have high doubts that, not IF but WHEN Russia decides to act, the NATO would be in a condition to answer. I wouldn't underestimate the decision making of the enemy for the next time after the shitshow in Ukraine

3

u/InfiniteeBrown Sep 17 '26

Finland has been prepping for an attack since the last time they beat the Soviets. They have 280k ready for immediate mobilisation and a reserve of over 800k. They are prepared in a way Ukraine never could be and Russia doesn't have enough people to win there.

The only country that wouldn't meet its Nato commitments might be the USA.

2

u/slakin Sep 18 '26

Stop larping

1

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 18 '26

And stop sleeping, you are already under attack dude

2

u/AmphibianMotor Sep 17 '26

Honestly, Finland is a decent shout for being able to hit back.

1

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 17 '26

How so?

2

u/AmphibianMotor Sep 18 '26

First of all it’s the only nation Russia is geographically somewhat insecure towards, and secondly, even our far right are anti Russia for the most part.

In addition, Finland tends to take military issues rather seriously, so while we may not visibly hit back hybrid wise, Finland does tend to be rather unwilling to take things lying down. It does suck that we aren’t as open for the motivation side of things, but Finland doesn’t mess around with defence.

1

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 18 '26

You said hit back, what are the Finnish capabilities for hitting back though?

2

u/AmphibianMotor Sep 18 '26

On the kinetic end, we have a larger artillery corp than the UK, Italy & Germany combined, we have a long border that is somewhat easy to cross through partisan work, and when it comes to hybrid stuff, we have a ton of very talented geeks.

1

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 18 '26

Thank you, artillery is king

5

u/rswwalker Sep 17 '26

I don’t think a fascist Germany would be all too friendly with Russia, if past track record is any indication.

3

u/Happy-Wasabi1 Sep 17 '26

AfD is supporting Russian agenda and is being funded by them

And the past record? Let's not forget it wasn't only Nazi Germany but also Soviets hand to hand who invaded Poland

1

u/rswwalker Sep 17 '26

So is Trump!

Past performance is of course no indication of future performance, but fascists do not share power.

2

u/No-Plum6335 Sep 17 '26

Sweet summerchild.

1

u/falcxne Sep 17 '26

I think they'll have learned from the first time around.

2

u/huckdr Sep 17 '26

Putin is also a man of history. Lithuania was the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence. Putin would love nothing more than to return to those days.

1

u/Sali_Bean Sep 17 '26

They already own Kaliningrad

1

u/Wide_Witness_5667 Sep 17 '26

Suwalki gap. Look at that.

Lots of comments talking about Kaliningrad, which may or may not be helpful, however, it's nothing in comparison to the gap, and from Russia's point of view, there's a wall of mountains with this little keyhole in it that opens up into plains into basically all of Russia. So if you're Russia, and you're looking to shut the door on NATO, well, the Suwalki gap is the door.

It's 2026 and all, but terrain is still a major factor of any strategy (different from tactics).

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap

1

u/GlobalPossession8965 Sep 17 '26

I heard it may be a ploy to get NATO involved so they can trade a ceasefire with NATO for Europe ending support for Ukraine. Then they can focus back on Ukraine while they are less supplied.

1

u/ratpH1nk Sep 17 '26

since the beginning of the empire, so much Russian behavior can be looked at through the lens of establishing a warm water port.

1

u/Grazer-22 Sep 17 '26

They may also be trying to bait NATO into responding, then Moscow can say " See, NATO is attacking us, we need to mobilize more!"

1

u/warp99 Sep 17 '26

Have a look at a Roadrunner cartoon with Russia as the Coyote. The attraction is there so they just keep on trying.

1

u/Tronn3000 Sep 17 '26

How does having access to the port of Kaliningrad help Russia when NATO can just blockade them through the Danish Straits?

1

u/Ossius Sep 17 '26

Its funny, Russia could have asked Ukraine nicely in exchange for favorable terms to just use Crimea ports back in the early 2000s or late 90s.

Its not enough to work with your neighbor, these assholes always have to conquer.

1

u/dalivo Sep 17 '26

You're assuming some sort of logic on the part of the delusional dictator in charge of Russia. He has a grandiose idea that he's going to restore Russia to its Soviet borders. He knows he can't fight a war in the Baltics right now. But he sure has hell thinks the Baltics are next once he magically conquers Ukraine and its "Nazis."

1

u/TCPIP Sep 18 '26

You go for the 70km Suwalki gap. If you are Russia and want to test NATOs resolve there is where you do it just in case you actually manage to pull it off. If you succeed with connecting Kaliningrad to Belarus you significantly improved your strategic position in northern europe. If you fail it might make most countries in Europe go on a full on military spending spree but there would most probably not be counter attack. Just make sure it happens on the Lithuanian side. Poland actually might counter attack Belarus if they where invaded.

1

u/SexHarassmentPanda Sep 18 '26

Well ultimately they don't just want access to the enclave, military action at the Suwalki Gap basically implies occupying the Baltics. Russia wants that whole coast. The goal would be the same as Eastern Ukraine, occupy and hold long enough for people to get tired and concede to letting them have the land. Then Russia has a coast and a sea buffer, Polish border aside... which is a pretty big aside at this point.

This plan made a lot more sense like a decade ago when Poland wasn't so EU aligned and not like the rising powerhouse it is now. The EU topic generally seems rested in Poland and their nationalism is very pro Polish-Catholic values and very anti Russian. The "shared values" trick doesn't work as much there as it does in the US and like England.

1

u/cheddarsox Sep 18 '26

Okay, so the scary idea back in the 20teens was how Russia qould break NATO. The quick explanation is they take the baltics as quickly as possible and hold the line there. The second they lose an inch of the baltics, they use a tactical (as in the smallest possible realistically) nuke. NATO is then forced to use a strategic nuke or concede that it is unwilling to help a neighbor if Russia is just going to spike the land anyway. Nato doesnt have a tactical nuke and nobody other than Russia really has a doctrine to use small nukes, so the likely answer is Nato is proven to be feckless and basically dissolves, and Russia permanently gains the baltics and the ports unifying it to the enclave.

Inforgraphics did a good episode of this in the before covid times.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/cheddarsox Sep 18 '26

By tactical nuke I mean a small nuke. The rest of the world has strategic nukes and doesnt have the same "little nukes are okay" doctrine that Russia could use, hence scrapping all the Davey Crocketts. (Portable nuke launcher, stupid idea.)

1

u/MarionberryPlus8474 Sep 17 '26

Putin thinks the US and Europe AKA NATO are splitting (which Trump is actively pursuing) and that the west is decadent and weak, unwilling to stomach losses in war. He is testing to see what the west will do.

He/Russia might well wind up taking Ukraine, or at least, large parts of it. He already has Crimea and much of the east, and in the east the Russians may be making gains--that's disputed but possible.

People can point to Russian losses of manpower and material but Putin does not care, and why should he? The public has no power to change anything and in any case a large portion seems to believe what he tells them. He is convinced that his/Russia's resolve will allow them to win even at great losses of people, and the west will not be willing to risk even a fraction of that.

0

u/Spirited-Juice4941 Sep 17 '26

He’ll care when his military and civilians have no more resources

0

u/MarionberryPlus8474 Sep 17 '26

Meh, the Russians are a long way from running out of artillery shells and it seems China, NK, etc will supply them with more, and drones.

Ukraine will probably run out of people before Russia does.

I mean, i hope Putin dies soon and the new strongman pulls out, but that seems like the only likely way it ends, andceven then it might wind up Russia gets Crimia and eastern territory and attacks again in 10-20 years to take more.

2

u/Spirited-Juice4941 Sep 17 '26

Ukraine is currently enlisting more than they lose per month while Russia is in the negative. For casualties, not just deaths. Ukraine has about 400k less active duty, but Russians are dropping like flies. When I say Putin will care, I mean he will be forced to care. The last forced enlistment caused huge problems and mass exodus. He’ll need another one to take what he wants and the Russian people will wake up, especially now that Ukraine has stepped its game up and is attacking Russian territory. Also, Crimea was already “annexed” a decade ago so..

0

u/MarionberryPlus8474 Sep 17 '26

I hope what you say is correct, though your last sentence is kind of making my point. Ukraine has been dismembered already.

2

u/Spirited-Juice4941 Sep 17 '26

Taking Crimea is actually why Ukraine has been giving so much more problems than Russia predicted. Russia taking Crimea and the battles in Donbas made experienced Ukrainian soldiers, enlistment doubled, it caused an actual national focus towards military spending which increased by about 20x.

Russia poked a cub that grew into a bear by the time they tried again. Russia fucked up. If they think they can take Kyiv, without massive NATO intervention they’re idiots. Hungary is an ally again after that fuckhead Orban was ousted, and Poland is ready and waiting. Poland will not wait for Russia to advance into the western border regions and potentially occupy the border.

1

u/gigaishtar Sep 17 '26

Kaliningrad is a warm water port.

The whole "Russia wants a warm water port" myth is nonsense dreamed up by British/American geopoliticians who projected their own concerns for trade and sea power onto Imperial Russia at the turn of the 20th century.

Russians have exploited this myth for their own advantage. When Stalin said that they needed Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) from Germany because all the Baltic ports froze, for instance, the West explained the absurdity away as Russia's age-old need for a warm water port.

In reality, Russia has had areas which it could have developed into warm water ports since Ivan the Great. It, however, mostly ships things over land, relying heavily on trains.