Ukraine Today

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Germany got rich in the postwar period from US funded reconstruction, as did Japan, Italy and a number of other countries the US occupied and wanted to prevent from re-collapsing. They "lost" but were propped up by the victors.

America's involvement in WW2 is very commonly understood to have played a decisive role in its economic and political power in the postwar. All the other allied countries had to create giant assembly lines during the war, but at the cost of having half their cities destroyed by air raids, and eventually losing the colonies they relied on for resources and markets. America never saw any attacks on its mainland at all, so it became the predominant world economy and moneylender alongside the USSR, with virtually every country on earth relying on assistance from either empire for the next 30 or so years.

 

[eddiemccandless]

As a tax payer i wanna know why did this happen,

You know, you should send Putin a strongly worded letter to demand an explanation for why that happened. That's what I would do here if I was similarly outraged by something my government did, and given that all "regimes" (interesting choice of words by the way) are the same, surely you can do that too.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Redeeming itself for what?
Let me put it this way. Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany and liberated a lot of countries along the way. But, It the US who won the WW2 and this allowed them to be a super power we know it to be today. If Soviet Union made a different choices back in the day, perhaps it is SU would dictate its will across the globe, not the US. And in that case SU would behave just like US does today.

If Soviet Union made a ****ton of different choices then maybe.

But the US didn't become a super power just because they "won" WW2.
As a matter of fact, they didn't "win" WW2. They profited immensely for the majority of the war and only at the back end decided to weigh in with troops on the ground. And even that happened under loud protest from the American people.

Out of the Western Allied forces the British, Canadians, Australians AND Americans helped liberate Europe.
The Soviet Union supported Hitler and would have kept supporting Hitler if Hitler hadn't attacked them.
Only then, out of fear, did the Soviet Union fight Nazi Germany. Out of love for Europe? No, ofcourse not. For gain! Huge territorial gain. Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt carved Europe up like a birthday cake.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The British, Canadians, Australians AND Americans helped liberate Europe.
The Soviet Union supported Hitler and would have kept supporting Hitler if Hitler hadn't attacked them.

Both the Allies and the USSR dragged their feet and avoided directly confronting Hitler until 1941. Even after this, the British Empire hardly did anything in the grand scheme of the war, it could barely even protect its own colonies. The main belligerents were undoubtedly the USA and USSR, with the war in the west only progressing beyond small ground engagements after the US arrived. I don't know why you're highlighting tiny non-countries like Canada and Australia just to spite Russia when literally 90% of the Wehrmacht was killed by the Red Army. Anzacs and Canadians in contrast barely even entered Europe.

I get that you hate Russia, but deliberately trying to write them out of history like this is silly.

 

[Sarin]

Both the Allies and the USSR dragged their feet and avoided directly confronting Hitler until 1941. Even after this, the British Empire hardly did anything in the grand scheme of the war, it could barely even protect its own colonies. The main belligerents were undoubtedly the USA and USSR, with the war in the west only progressing beyond small ground engagements after the US arrived. I don't know why you're highlighting tiny non-countries like Canada and Australia just to spite Russia when literally 90% of the Wehrmacht was killed by the Red Army. Anzacs and Canadians in contrast barely even entered Europe.

I get that you hate Russia, but deliberately trying to write them out of history like this is silly.

Just like your exaggerations are silly. You totally forgot the whole Africa-ME theatre, for example, or SW Pacific. The former paved way to Sicily and Italy landings which knocked Italy out of the war, and SW Pacific was a significant drain on Japanese strength and production of strategic resources, mostly oil and rubber.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Both the Allies and the USSR dragged their feet and avoided directly confronting Hitler until 1941. Even after this, the British Empire hardly did anything in the grand scheme of the war, it could barely even protect its own colonies. The main belligerents were undoubtedly the USA and USSR, with the war in the west only progressing beyond small ground engagements after the US arrived. I don't know why you're highlighting tiny non-countries like Canada and Australia just to spite Russia when literally 90% of the Wehrmacht was killed by the Red Army. Anzacs and Canadians in contrast barely even entered Europe.

I get that you hate Russia, but deliberately trying to write them out of history like this is silly.

You're right and I apologize for my phrasing there.
I didn't mean to highlight that the Red Army didn't contribute. Ask any Fin. I was merely focusing on the Western Allied forces. But I, ofcourse, also should have included the Red Army. I have edited my post to better reflect that.

I was annoyed by the insinuation that the Western Allied forces consisted primarily or rather exclusively out of American troops. Ironically I was calling out the same thing you're calling me out for.

The Red Army consisted of many baltic countries, like Ukraine, who contributed 4.5 million soldiers to the Red Army in the WW2. For context, the Red Army consisted of about 11 million troops before its demobilization. While I have no love for Russia's leader I do think it's a beautiful country with a very interesting and rich history.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I don't know why you're highlighting tiny non-countries like Canada and Australia

Okay, cool your counterjerk there.
Both of those contributed a hell of a lot of vital resources and materiel to the Allied shared pool, with Canada alone outproducing Soviet domestic truck production by a factor of 4. It's an industrial war, these numbers carry weight. A lot of it.

 

[Adorno]

This thread is turning into some bad history lessons, that have less and less to do with the current situation.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

This thread is turning into some bad history lessons, that have less and less to do with the current situation.

We're debating the current war on the forum of a videogame about historic wars.
The venn-diagram of interest in current conflicts and interest in historic conflicts is almost an overlapping circle.

Ofcourse this thread is going to dabble in one period of time or the other. But most if not all leads back to the current war.

 

[Bluehawk]

Returning to the 21st century, Ukraine has been amassing a force in the south intended to be a million strong, has warned civilians to evacuate the provinces of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya and has now initiated a counter-offensive with the objective of driving the Russians out of the central Black Sea coastal areas. So far the front around Kherson hasn't shifted, but concentrated artillery strikes have successfully destroyed Russian ammo depots. The Russians were planning on holding (or rigging) a referendum in August for Kherson's annexation into the Russian Federation, and with autumn approaching and food exports still stalled in Ukrainian ports (or stolen by the occupiers), and Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant still in Russian hands, this offensive may have been rushed to preempt catastrophic economic outcomes, and it remains to be seen how successful it will be. With Russian advances in the Donbas slowed to a halt, this looks like it could be a major turning point.

Ukraine aims to amass 'million-strong army' to fight Russia, says defence minister

The defence minister's remarks are a rallying cry - rather than a concrete plan - as Russia pounds cities.

www.bbc.com

Ukraine urges people of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to evacuate

Warning of ‘huge battle’ as Ukrainian armed forces plan counteroffensive in the Russian-occupied territories

www.theguardian.com

Several Eastern Ukrainian Towns Shelled As Russia Pushes For Full Control Of Donbas

As battles raged in the east and south of Ukraine, the war-torn country’s foreign minister ruled out ceding any territory to Russia should peace talks ever resume and he made clear that no such negotiations were taking place.

www.rferl.org

 

[Weaver]

Returning to the 21st century, Ukraine has been amassing a force in the south intended to be a million strong, has warned civilians to evacuate the provinces of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya and has now initiated a counter-offensive with the objective of driving the Russians out of the central Black Sea coastal areas. So far the front around Kherson hasn't shifted, but concentrated artillery strikes have successfully destroyed Russian ammo depots. The Russians were planning on holding (or rigging) a referendum in August for Kherson's annexation into the Russian Federation, and with autumn approaching and food exports still stalled in Ukrainian ports (or stolen by the occupiers), and Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant still in Russian hands, this offensive may have been rushed to preempt catastrophic economic outcomes, and it remains to be seen how successful it will be. With Russian advances in the Donbas slowed to a halt, this looks like it could be a major turning point.

Not exactly. Ukrainian entire fighting force, across all fronts, is expected to be around 1 million and that's including paramilitary organizations, like the police, SBU, territorial defense forces, etc. I don't expect the numbers in the south to exceed several hundred thousand.

HIMARS proved to be a fantastic weapon. With just a handful of those we managed to blow up dozens of Russian ammo warehouses and the shelling has seriously subsided. That makes our defensive positions very strong but it's not good enough for a successful offensive.
I think there will be no meaningful territorial gains for Ukraine until we start receiving heavy armour. Which means possibly never.

No offensive can preempt the catastrophic economic outcomes. Because they're already happening and can not be reversed via military advances. We are already at the mercy of our western allies economically.
The resolve is strong but resistance is only sustainable while the west supports lasts. So that's where the turning point happens. If they start talking about tanks in Rammstein then we can hope to get the south back. Maybe the war has changed and tanks are no longer so huge, but I can't know that.

In other news, another massive rocket strike just happened in Vinnitsa and we have a lot of civilian deaths.

 

[Mad Vader]

So we were bashing with some NPC the ambition of the current UK FM to be a valid human being and the new British PM after Boris. But remember that she was known for very hawkish statements against Russia, sometimes out of line with her own government. (She probably thinks this makes her a good hard Brexiter and shows "patriotism".)
One of the ideas she controversially supported, is officially supporting British volunteers to go fight for Ukraine. This may sound like a good idea, right?

At the same time, Guardian readers were recently exposed to some pretty serious war-mongering opinions from one of the Guardian vice editors, who wants some kind of direct NATO involvement (a special operation, lol), which is very surprising for a paper who should have moderate views. I still can't figure out what's his angle (or who told him to do this), but it looks like pure propaganda, not something us moderates want with their breakfast.
In his column about bombing Russia out of Ukraine he quotes a far less hawkish article from Foreign Affairs (here's an unrelated website) that proposes that NATO should go to a maximum proxy (but not real) war by sending volunteers from their armies and supporting them fully, the same call as Liz had.

What do you think about the idea of sending army volunteers? Inevitably some will return in coffins, but is that a price we would want to pay, since that's the maximum we could do in Ukraine without going to war?

 

[๖Kern]

So we were bashing with some NPC the ambition of the current UK FM to be a valid human being and the new British PM after Boris. But remember that she was known for very hawkish statements against Russia, sometimes out of line with her own government. (She probably thinks this makes her a good hard Brexiter and shows "patriotism".)
One of the ideas she controversially supported, is officially supporting British volunteers to go fight for Ukraine. This may sound like a good idea, right?

At the same time, Guardian readers were recently exposed to some pretty serious war-mongering opinions from one of the Guardian vice editors, who wants some kind of direct NATO involvement (a special operation, lol), which is very surprising for a paper who should have moderate views. I still can't figure out what's his angle (or who told him to do this), but it looks like pure propaganda, not something us moderates want with their breakfast.
In his column about bombing Russia out of Ukraine he quotes a far less hawkish article from Foreign Affairs (here's an unrelated website) that proposes that NATO should go to a maximum proxy (but not real) war by sending volunteers from their armies and supporting them fully, the same call as Liz had.

What do you think about the idea of sending army volunteers? Inevitably some will return in coffins, but is that a price we would want to pay, since that's the maximum we could do in Ukraine without going to war?

Well, once governments officially support volunteers from their armies to join the war in Ukraine, it is just one step away from getting involved directly. The closer you are to the border between proxy war and direct war, the easier it gets to slip into a full-on war. While I doubt that Russia has the conventional capabilities to even get past Ukraine if NATO intervened, there are very legitimate fears of unconventional threats like nukes and chem weapons. I have zero doubts that Russia would be willing to go that route if felt threatened, especially since Russians are very patriotic. Also, what is the endgame if a WW comes out of it? Does NATO stop at the doorstep of Russia, just liberating Ukraine? Or do we try to move further to disable the aggressor and prevent future conflicts?

 

[BenKenobi]

A somewhat controversial opinion: Ukraine is stupid for trying to accede to the EU.

Basically, it is not going to happen. Accession to the EU is governed by EU's external relations but is also dependent on fulfilling both political and economic criteria. Ukraine fulfills pretty much none of those. While the EU can sort of handwave the political ones, albeit this being incredibly problematic due to Ukraine's poor human rights records, corruption and the EU's own experience with democratic backsliding as well as this being discriminatory towards other states looking to accede, the economic criteria are an even larger obstacle. Ukraine is poorer than all the present Member States but at the same time would be one of the largest. Ukraine is not Lichtenstein or Montenegro where you can ignore most of the issues potentially since they will never produce consequences affecting the internal market in any significant way. Yes, Ukraine will work on fulfilling the criteria with the help of EU's institutions but this will take extremely long time. In a best case scenario.

Secondly, there may be political will to push into the EU and there may be EU Member States' friendly stance towards Ukraine at the moment because of the war at the moment, but this may not last, especially when it comes to dealing with specific issues that Ukraine's accession would bring. It is one thing to support Ukraine verbally when it fights an foreign invader but wholly another when it is 2 years after the war, the country is poor and not really functioning and you want to solve the issue of integrating Ukraine into EU's Common Agricultural Policy or allow Ukraine nationals to benefit from the free movement of persons to the (perceived) detriment of your own nationals. As a result, the accession talks will take very very long, with very unclear prospect of ever being concluded (hello, Turkey!). What this inevitably does is creating a sense of unfulfillment, resentment towards the EU (and potentially also Ukraine's government) and maybe even a feeling of betrayal due to the talks going nowhere in the population's opinion. EU heads talking about Ukrainian courage is well and good, but this produces only very little progress for Ukraine itself, made even worse by the public eye being set on proper full membership. Instead, it will be all talk for a very long time. Can Ukrainee itself withstand years and years in a waiting room with very little to show for?

And thirdly, the accession agreement is a matter of EU primary law which means that all the 27 Member States have to agree. There would be dissenting states now and there definitely will be dissenting states later. If Ukraine cannot persuade every single one of the Member States, it gets nothing (meaningful). At the time when EU spirals into a crisis and with the decision being made in a time when all the moral capital Ukraine has at the moment will be spent, this is brave at best.

What I mean by all this is that the accession stands on very shaky legs and is an unclear proposition at best. And that over time it has a potential of creating resentment both in EU towards Ukraine and in Ukraine towards the EU.

What I think instead should have been done is applying for a membership in EFTA. EFTA is an international organisation closely associated with EU that is at the moment composed of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein. This means that only these four countries have to agree with the accession. Ukraine has a lot of political capital at the moment. I don't say it would be easy to get the EFTA states to agree with Ukraine joining in, but it will be infinitely easier than getting the 27. At the same time, this accession is much faster to do so it can be done while Ukraine still steals spotlights on everyone's TV. Secondly, this is not politically heated because EFTA membership actually means very little. Yes, it gives you comprehensive network of free trade agreements with a multitude of countries that are more favourable than trading under WTO rules, but apart from that, it does not do much - EU wise.

What it does, however, is opening a way to accede to the EEA treaty. Basically, EEA is an economic area that includes all 27 EU states and EFTA states (bar Switzerland) and allows the non-EU states to participate on the EU's internal market to a degree that is basically comparable with EU Member States. It is an international treaty which, yes, means that all the EFTA and EU Member States have to agree but there is much fewer political incentives not to agree than with full EU membership. In the EEA, Ukraine would not get participation rights, yes, but its human rights record or quality of public administration would be sidelined as Copenhagen criteria don't apply to the EEA treaty. Both the EU and Ukraine would retain more control over their relations. It would place Ukraine under the authority of EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court. What this means is being slowly integrated into structures that very much resemble the EU ones.

Also, EFTA has long been perceived as an EU's waiting room. Yet, all the Member States remain in the EFTA not because they cannot accede to the EU but because they don't want to. Iceland and Norway don't want to share their fish, Lichtenstein doesn't matter at all and the Swiss want to be neutral. For the EU, however, it would be much harder politically to throw obstacles into an EFTA state accession to the EU than into an accession of a third state. Not to mention that being in the EEA would mean that Ukraine's market would go on an even more converging path with EU's internal market (it should also be said that Ukraine is adopting a lot of EU legislation already).

But wait Ben, internal market is a technical thing noone cares about, it is about the values, you may say. Yes, but much of these things can be also dealt with by bilateral treaties. Switzerland is not part of the EU, not even of the EEA, but it is in the Schengen, it shares the asylum system and actually does quite a lot of EU things. Does Switzerland benefit from the EU? Very much so. Do people think Switzerland is a Member State? No. Would that actually make Ukraine's bargaining power stronger? Yes, in that there would be little need to really solve the question of a poor, destroyed and corrupt Eastern European state being a Member State. It could de facto integrate more and more and bypass half the issues related to full EU accession. Would having all this stuff implemented hep its accession to the EU in the future? Absolutely.

Underneath all this technical mumbo jumbo, however, remains the fact that all of this would enable Ukraine to produce concrete results and capitalise on its current political influence it has due to the Russian invasion. It is simply much better to get a leg in the door now that waiting for a chair in the living room.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

 

[Weaver]

What do you think about the idea of sending army volunteers? Inevitably some will return in coffins, but is that a price we would want to pay, since that's the maximum we could do in Ukraine without going to war?

Are you a UK citizen now? Good on you.
I'm a bit baffled by the wording. What does "supporting volunteers" mean? Why do they need to support them and how?
They feel they have it in them, they come here and fight. What else is there?

The closer you are to the border between proxy war and direct war, the easier it gets to slip into a full-on war.

That's a misleading narrative.
Russia makes no difference between proxy war and direct war. Or economic war. It's war. And they'll use every strategy, every mode of war as required. You can't really control what Russia does by playing nice or by not playing nice. That's a fantasy you should wake up from by now. Russia needs a win and avoiding direct confrontation with NATO is not a win. You'll have to cede a lot of ground for Russia to feel like it's a win.
In war, you can fight back or you can give up. If you opt to fight back you don't get to avoid confrontation. If you opt to give up you don't get to avoid confrontation either.

While I doubt that Russia has the conventional capabilities to even get past Ukraine if NATO intervened, there are very legitimate fears of unconventional threats like nukes and chem weapons. I have zero doubts that Russia would be willing to go that route if felt threatened, especially since Russians are very patriotic. Also, what is the endgame if a WW comes out of it? Does NATO stop at the doorstep of Russia, just liberating Ukraine? Or do we try to move further to disable the aggressor and prevent future conflicts?

Well, they can maintain the nuke threat indefinitely and just keep pushing. So there's no reason to even draw the red lines. Just agree to every demand and go all the way back to Yalta peace, I guess.

A somewhat controversial opinion: Ukraine is stupid for trying to accede to the EU.

I actually agree but for completely different reasons.

What Ukraine actually needs are strong military alliances. If it can't be NATO, it can be bilateral binding agreements with the few European countries that actually have armies. Britain, France. Poland, of course. Maybe even Italy or Turkey.

Everything else is detrimental. If Europe pledges to help us rebuild, they can do so even without fully integrating us into the EU framework.
We don't need a bloated bureaucracy to tell us what to do. Ideally, I'd love EU to form anti-corruption and advisory committees overseeing the distribution of western aid and the implementation of necessary economical reforms. That's it.

 

[Mad Vader]

Well, once governments officially support volunteers from their armies to join the war in Ukraine, it is just one step away from getting involved directly. The closer you are to the border between proxy war and direct war, the easier it gets to slip into a full-on war.

I'm sure the people on both sides are grown ups who don't want an all-out war and some lines won't be crossed.

While I doubt that Russia has the conventional capabilities to even get past Ukraine if NATO intervened, there are very legitimate fears of unconventional threats like nukes and chem weapons. I have zero doubts that Russia would be willing to go that route if felt threatened, especially since Russians are very patriotic. Also, what is the endgame if a WW comes out of it? Does NATO stop at the doorstep of Russia, just liberating Ukraine? Or do we try to move further to disable the aggressor and prevent future conflicts?

Russia would never use nukes if it's not threatened directly and it's an existential threat. A war limited to Ukraine, even if NATO goes there, isn't an existential threat.

Are you a UK citizen now? Good on you.

You are confused. There are volunteers from many countries and this is about each NATO country, not just the UK.

I'm a bit baffled by the wording. What does "supporting volunteers" mean? Why do they need to support them and how?
They feel they have it in them, they come here and fight. What else is there?

This is because you don't read articles. Supporting volunteers means making it easy for them to resign from the army and get back into it when their volunteering is finished. It means payouts for their families if they are killed and medical evacuation and care if they get wounded, as well as other benefits.

That's a misleading narrative.
Russia makes no difference between proxy war and direct war. Or economic war. It's war. And they'll use every strategy, every mode of war as required. You can't really control what Russia does by playing nice or by not playing nice. That's a fantasy you should wake up from by now. Russia needs a win and avoiding direct confrontation with NATO is not a win. You'll have to cede a lot of ground for Russia to feel like it's a win.

If you think Putin is stupid enough to risk a war with NATO, you are deluded. This is understandable as you lost perspective by being in a warzone and under influence of home propaganda where Putin is a raving madman and Russians are unthinking animals. They are not.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

It was a good TED talk, pointing out both unpleasant truths and a solution.

 

[Weaver]

This is because you don't read articles. Supporting volunteers means making it easy for them to resign from the army and get back into it when their volunteering is finished. It means payouts for their families if they are killed and medical evacuation and care if they get wounded, as well as other benefits.

Is supporting wounded volunteers or their families seen as an escalation? Why?

If you think Putin is stupid enough to risk a war with NATO, you are deluded. This is understandable as you lost perspective by being in a warzone and under influence of home propaganda where Putin is a raving madman and Russians are unthinking animals. They are not.

I don't think Putin is stupid. I think he is quite cunning and he is always pushing the boundaries. So far he met no meaningful resistance from the global community. Sanctions and isolation make Russia poorer but they can't stop or prevent wars. If he thinks he can grab, for example, Baltic states, he'll grab them. How will NATO react? I don't know. No one knows. So it could be worth a try. No one wants a WW after all. And Russia is just taking what is "rightfully theirs". How much will NATO cede? Might actually cede a lot, given how it really wants to avoid an all-out war.
Why would Russia stop in Ukraine? It's only a part of Russian ambition. Ukraine is just a battlefield, the fight is against NATO, as our Russian friend here correctly mentioned.
There are multiple scenarios that I find plausible. If Ukraine collapses tomorrow, Moldova will be annexed immediately. Then in 5 years, Belarus will invade Lithuania with a mysteriously huge army. Or Ukraine will attack Poland. It won't be a direct war, Russia will just send in a few volunteers. A few million maybe. What happens when push comes to shove? How far will the boundary move? Europe is not prepared for this war so might just have to suck it up. Really think it's you who underestimates Putin.

P.S. No need to be so passive-aggressive with me. I'm just a dude on the internet, I'm not your dad.

 

[BenKenobi]

We don't need a bloated bureaucracy to tell us what to do. Ideally, I'd love EU to form anti-corruption and advisory committees overseeing the distribution of western aid and the implementation of necessary economical reforms. That's it.

As long as EU membership is the goal, I would actually say you do. Because it gives the country the chance to show that it can work within these structures. And because it is easier to cook a dinner with someone you have already had a breakfast with. And let's be real, Ukraine does not have any other options than a pro-EU orientation now. Which means it will have EU rules whether it wants them or not and whether it will admit it or not. Be it by the Brussel's effect or by conditionalities in EU-Ukraine treaties.

 

[Mad Vader]

Is supporting wounded volunteers or their families seen as an escalation? Why?

The default attitude towards army men resigning to fight in another country is to discourage it (UK and other countries have this position on the war in Ukraine) and sometimes even prosecute it.
Actively encouraging this and making it easy is a very different attitude that helps produce much more volunteers, as they know they will be supported by their home country and army. Why do I even have to explain this? I provided a link to an article that argued for this and everything is written right there.

... (Putin is Hitler, and NATO are appeasers)...

You are so very wrong about any possibility of Putin attacking a NATO country. I know Ukrainians have a vested interest in trying to make Putin scary for the rest of Europe, but this is ridiculous.
The basic foundation of an defensive alliance is mutual defense. If someone invokes article 5 and NATO doesn't do its job, it may as well disintegrate, as there's no reason for it to exist. This is exactly why NATO will react and everybody knows this except you.
In reality, Russia would do everything short of war to threaten and pressure border NATO states, but nothing that can be construed as an act of war.

P.S. No need to be so passive-aggressive with me. I'm just a dude on the internet, I'm not your dad.

If you don't like fights, don't start fights and then complain about people being unpleasant.

 

[Weaver]

The default attitude towards army men resigning to fight in another country is to discourage it (UK and other countries have this position on the war in Ukraine) and sometimes even prosecute it.
Actively encouraging this and making it easy is a very different attitude that helps produce much more volunteers, as they know they will be supported by their home country and army. Why do I even have to explain this? I provided a link to an article that argued for this and everything is written right there.

I understand this but do not understand why this is considered a big deal.

... (Putin is Hitler, and NATO are appeasers)...

This is a very unfair representation of what I said.

You are so very wrong about any possibility of Putin attacking a NATO country.

I've heard this several times attributed to other Putin's actions that were thought inconceivable just before they happened.
Everything is on the table right now.
Serious European politicians are genuinely concerned about the possibility of nuclear war and armed conflict is just so much more probable.

I know Ukrainians have a vested interest in trying to make Putin scary for the rest of Europe, but this is ridiculous.

This is strange to me. Putin is scary. It's not like I need to commence a character assassination operation here.

If someone invokes article 5 and NATO doesn't do its job, it may as well disintegrate, as there's no reason for it to exist.

Yes, that's right.
Question: what do you think stands behind the prevalent Russian narrative that "Russia wars with NATO and Ukraine is the battlefield?"

This is exactly why NATO will react and everybody knows this except you.

You believe this. Rightfully. But you don't know this.

In reality, Russia would do everything short of war to threaten and pressure border NATO states, but nothing that can be construed as an act of war.

Maybe. That's one scenario. But there's never a single scenario.
Proxy wars with NATO countries can't be ruled out. Especially if they can be construed as civil wars. There are many Russian speakers in Baltic countries, you know. And they're not happy with the nationalistic direction the countries have taken.

If you don't like fights, don't start fights and then complain about people being unpleasant.

I don't start fights. I'm also not complaining, merely asking you to keep the discussion on the adult level.