| > And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago? No. What I believe is that engaging the Ukraine cost them much more than they would gain even by a convincing victory tomorrow, leaving them less of a threat to Europe than 10 years ago. Could they overcome this and become a bigger threat in a decade or so, thanks to Ukrainian ressources? Certainly! But the whole thing could also just crumble on Putins death in that same timeframe, could only guess about outcomes so distant. But even having conquered the Ukraine would not really give them military strength immediately, the opposite, really, because Russia would need to commit military just to keep order there (consider Chechnya for reference: that might have become a net-gain for Russia like 15 years after the first war, and it was like 20 times smaller i.e. easier to "digest"). Furthermore, a lot of "soft power" that Russia had was basically spent on the Ukraine (i.e. price of sanctions, gas-dependence etc.), and is getting less relevant and valuable with ever year. > but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015? This is not what I said. I said Russia is less of a threat, not that Europe should be less worried about it. It has become a bigger and bigger threat since 2000. European concern was basically zero (even after the Crimea affair) and is still arguably too low. European nations were basically treating Russia like an improving, slightly flawed democracy. But it is an imperialistic kleptocracy instead, but that is now obvious which is also unhelpful for Russia. |