[FirmwareBurner]

>Russia had no military strength to take over Kyiv and yet it tried to do that.

If only there were prizes in war for trying instead of succeeding.

>Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO.

It's much easier to force NATO/EU breakdown through soft means like political destabilization. Direct military attacks only cause the blocks to strengthen: see the ascension of Sweden and Finland after the attack.

[NoPie]

Is it? Everybody is an expert online. My trust in those experts is 0.

[FirmwareBurner]

You don't need to be an expert. Just look at what happened in Ukraine. Russia's results, or lack thereof speak for themselves.

[NoPie]

The important conclusion here is that Russia tried to influence the Baltic States by political destabilization (they had plans for Russia as a second official language, reducing importance of NATO) and it failed.

Russia seemed to have more success in Ukraine but ultimately they also failed when Ukraine appeared moving towards the West. That's why Russia ultimately decided to start a military operation, i.e., a war.

Of course, you could think that Russia would never dare to start a war with a NATO countries. Definitely the risk is lower. But we didn't believe it would start a war in Ukraine either. It is possible that any country can experience some kind of political destabilization (even without meddling by Russia) and they Russia could use the opportunity. So, it is important to be ready.

[NoPie]

Ukraine and Baltic countries are not the same. This comparison is false.

No wonder the whole world went mad and demanded vaccine mandates for vaccine that does not even prevent the spread of infection. Too much reliance on “experts” that repeat mindlessly “vaccines good” instead of looking into details of a particular vaccine.