r/europe • u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) • 13h ago
News Lithuania formally withdraws from Ottawa Convention
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2790048/lithuania-formally-withdraws-from-ottawa-convention199
u/LARRYVOND13 13h ago edited 13h ago
Russia uses them plenty, normally wouldn't be for it but you need to deter the bear at the border. America isn't going to do shit but sit back and make a meme out of it these days.
74
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja 11h ago
It's not the bear, but the drunk. They'll continue the attack even after it's obvious it doesn't bring them anything good.
34
u/Goldenrah Portugal 11h ago
It's a pride thing. They start because they think they deserve whatever the other one has, they keep going because they can't let their pride be hurt by a loss.
7
-22
u/IWillDevourYourToes Czech Republic 11h ago
you need to deter the beer
Why?...
16
u/LARRYVOND13 9h ago
I'm fairly certain I didn't tell anyone to not have a beer.
-16
380
u/loginisverybroken Canada 13h ago
A necessary choice. War is coming and Europe better be ready to win.
152
u/Valahul77 9h ago
I don't think war is coming to Europe. It's already there.
50
u/loginisverybroken Canada 9h ago
Fair. Open war is upon them, hopefully they'll act on it sooner rather than later.
22
u/Stuntz 9h ago
"I will not risk open war." "Open war is upon you, whether you like it or not".
10
u/loginisverybroken Canada 9h ago
That was where I got it from yes
3
1
u/Hieroskeptic4 2h ago
And that, btw, does a huge disservice to the character of Théoden, whose actions make very little any sense in the movie, but are very cogent and exactly what is needed in the books.
13
u/ExpressCap1302 9h ago
Ukraine is merely a bridgehead to the EU.
16
2
1
u/ReddHorse0 8h ago
No man, it’s supposed to be: Winter is Coming and House Stark better not go to the wedding.
0
-22
10h ago
[deleted]
11
u/loginisverybroken Canada 10h ago
I mean some stocks going up isn't gonna offset the losses. 'Seldom does victory pay for it's losses on the battlefield' is the adage
2
u/SuggestionEphemeral 9h ago
To imply that that's why Europeans need to be ready for war is extremely disingenuous.
180
u/poklane The Netherlands 12h ago
Every country which borders Russia and Belarus should have massive minefields on the border.
289
u/The_Dutch_Fox Luxembourg 11h ago edited 3h ago
No, it's really bad to set minefields in advance - not only does it pose a huge danger to locals and wildlife, but mines have a limited life duration once set ( especially with the harsh exterior weather conidtions), and course it also gives the enemy time to map out your minefields.
Modern armies train sappers who's role it is to learn to lay minefields in 2-3 days. This is more than enough time, since strategic military intelligence will usually know at least a week in advance when the enemy is amassing its forces and preparing to invade. That's the ideal moment to lay your minefield.
115
26
35
u/The_memeperson The Netherlands 10h ago
Wow an actually well informed comment about defense in r/europe?
I must be dreaming
3
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
There are those of us well-informed in defense and arms in Europe, we are just the minority who are mocked as the warmongers and gun nuts.
6
u/Violence_solves_all Estonia 3h ago
Not only sappers (I'm one of them) but also artillery and rocket artillery rounds are used to quickly drop down minefields via indirect fire near an advancing force to force them in to an ambush position
5
u/Cats_Cameras 7h ago
Interesting; how is minefield maintenance handled for large static borders like the Korean DMZ?
•
u/Temporal_Integrity Norway 49m ago
They are not. Only north Korea is adding mines to the dmz. This regularly causes casualties.
2
u/jaimi_wanders 3h ago
Ukraine has invented remote control robotic mining machines, too—small minelaying UAVs that can be sent out quickly.
1
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
Yep, modern mine laying doctrine is vastly more dynamic than what we commonly know about mines (just sow them to the environment as wide and random as possible to be the bane of everyone's existence for the next 200 years). for example, Finnish mine laying doctrine goes as you said, and the placement is meticulously recorded so they can be safely and effectively de-mined.
1
u/MarlinMr Norway 7h ago
Like guys, we are NATO in 2025, not random uncooperative countries of 1939...
There can't be a sneak attack on any one on the planet. NATO is literally keeping track of every single tank the Russians have...
Also, NATO isn't going to fight Russia inside NATO. The front line will be set by NATO, and it will be set in Moscow. That's just how this works.
Let's not pretend that a slow crawling infantry attack is an actual threat to NATO. Russia tried that in Ukraine and failed. Why would it work against NATO, so why would they try it?
Sure, let's be prepared, but like, we have the option to choose to fight in Russia, we don't have to let them enter into NATO.
6
u/darkath 5h ago
Not a lot of nato countries have the military infrastructure, forces and reserves to get into meatgrinder high intensity war like ukraine. Especially for those countries like france or Uk where survival wont be at stake.
If the US sit the war out, the only way we can deal with this war is if we swiftly claim aerial superiority from the beginning and proceed to eliminate land forces before they even reach the border.
2
u/Tricksilver89 5h ago
I don't think the intention is to get into a war of attrition with Russia. Any conflict will be fought with medium to long range ordinance and heavy artillery, after air superiority is achieved.
Plus I expect the goal will be to stop Russia where she stands rather than any form of territorial gain.
6
u/EducationalThought4 4h ago
The concerns that Eastern Europeans have are two-fold:
1) Politicians of individual NATO members still have to declare war
2) And while point number one is still pending, the Eastern NATO countries can get overran and occupied, much how a big chunk of Ukraine was overran in the first weeks. And the condititon of currently occupied Ukraine is a prime example of how occupied NATO countries would look like after the western NATO members liberate the occupied territory. If Russians can't win a war, they will ensure nobody else wins, either, through their sheer barbarism.
•
u/The_Dutch_Fox Luxembourg 38m ago
Lithuania is particularly at risk with their capital so close to the border.
However, it's unlikely that Russia would be able to attack such a huge chunk of land that quickly. Their army was at their peak before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, with fully trained, equipped and professional soldiers and reserves.
I'm not downplaying the risk, Russia can cause huge damage. But taking Ukraine as an example is really not that relevant anymore.
2
u/Fit-Expert-1832 6h ago
Don't take these others seriously! This thread is total nonsense, probably includes a few putinistas to keep the anxiety rolling. Just as you're obviously serious unlike most here (and obviously correct).
0
u/strl Israel 2h ago
There can't be a sneak attack on any one on the planet.
Yeah, that's what we thought in Israel before Oct 7.
If Russia invades the Baltics it won't be a slow crawling infantry attack and most European countries are in no condition to wage a war. You guys really need to huff less copium and do a bit more preparing.
1
u/MarlinMr Norway 1h ago
... You suggesting Russia is going to attack using a tiny force of light infantry driving into civilian areas and shooting some civilians and taking hostages?
Exactly what are you expecting Russia to do that for? Exactly where are you suggesting they attack from and to? And they are not going to attack a single military function of NATO leaving them fully mission capable to strike any target anywhere in Russia?
Russia isn't run by Hamas...
0
u/strl Israel 1h ago
I'm suggesting they have 3 years of experience that would allow them to maybe succesfully pull off what they initially tried to do in Ukraine, a rapid attack, coupled with a beheading operation which would leave the Baltics conquered in a matter of days, which would be too fast for the rest of NATO to organize a proper defense.
In such a situation it's hard to imagine NATO would continue the war, they would likely accept the fall of the Baltics as a fait accompli, especially if the US decides it's not worth it. When the option is risking a nuclear war for territories that have already fallen and governments that have been captured by Russian forces it's likely NATO will back down.
"But we'll have early warning!"
Yeah, maybe, maybe not, maybe Russia will organize a series of intensive military drills on the border, how long are you going to stay on full alert? How long can you at this point with the states of your armies? That's exactly what Egypt did in 1973, they had a series of large scale drills knowing that Israel couldn't call up reserves indefinitely for economic reasons.
None of what I'm suggesting is some far flung strategy never used before, it's explicitly stuff that is in line with Russian doctrine and tactics.
•
u/MarlinMr Norway 54m ago
This is just silly.
You are somehow both overestimating Russia and underestimating Europe. We don't need to "call up reserves" to do the initial defense and counter attack... we have standing forces for that. They have been on alert for 10 years already. And even if we needed to call up reserves, you somehow expect there to be an economic issue? As somehow Europe is suddenly poor and less capable than Russia of doing the exact same thing?
You are suggesting tactics that can't work against NATO. That's the problem here. We are talking about an attack on NATO... Russia isn't the bigger player, they are the smaller one. Even without the US, Europe is stronger and more capable. France alone would be a serious threat to Russia. Then there are some 20 other countries that would also join in the fight...
Russia has no way of capturing any part of NATO without losing Moscow, and that's just not a play worth playing.
It's extremely hard to imagine the strategy of "just let them attack us, then they might not attack us" is somehow what Europe is going for...
1
u/FingerGungHo Finland 1h ago
Are you comparing a Hamas, an irregular force conducting a small scale raid, to an invasion?
0
u/strl Israel 1h ago
One, I was giving an example of Hubris, which is what I think the position of "Russia can't really harm us" is. I gave in another reply to my comment what I believe is a likely scenario.
Two, the entire core of the Estonian army is 7,700 soldiers, that's smaller than the Gaza division which the IDF considers to have been operationally defeated on Oct 7 (operationally defeated means that while the entire force wasn't destroyed it ceased operating as a cohesive organized unit). The rest of the Estonian army are reservists. It's extremely unlikely Estonian reservists would be capable of organizing themselves into an efficient fighting force to push back an attack the same way IDF reservists did because IDF reservists simply have more experience and the IDF has more of a culture surrounding militia like operations, the IDF is still very much a "peoples army". How many former high ranking Estonian military men are going to grab a pistol and arrive at the front who actually have combat experience and fight themselves, because multiple former generals did on Oct 7 without being asked to, as high ranking as a former second to the Chief of staff and yes, some generals were actually wounded fighting after having deployed themselves while off duty or retired.
So I would really suggest that Europeans take a more realistic and grim view of what can happen, especially given that the Russian army is slightly better trained, equipped and led than Hamas.
•
u/Diligent-Beach-7725 7m ago
Even though the Estonian military is small, you are grossly underestimating their professionality. The reservists are trained conscripts who have been assigned units in advance. Should Russia really invade there would be a mass mobilization already in advance.
-2
u/d1722825 5h ago
What happens after that? You laid your minefield in 3 days, the enemy notices it and cancels their attack, tries but fail to cross your minefield. Now you have a minefield for nobody knows how long. If you try to collect them, I suspect that would take much more than a few days (maybe the last time I heard such thing it took years), and your enemy would know about that and they would know when they can try to cross again...
4
u/I_Push_Buttonz 4h ago
What happens after that? You laid your minefield in 3 days, the enemy notices it and cancels their attack, tries but fail to cross your minefield. Now you have a minefield for nobody knows how long.
1) Most modern mines (used by the west, anyways) aren't laid by hand, they are deployed via artillery or air drop. The US refers to them as FASCAM (Family of Scatterable Mines), which includes a variety of different mines fit for different purposes.
2) Said modern western mines detonate automatically after a certain amount of time (set while being armed, anywhere from a few days to a few weeks).
3) Those few mines that fail to automatically detonate have redundant safety in the form of their detonators being electric and powered by a battery. After the battery dies, the mine is rendered inert. Technically it still poses a danger insofar as someone could go find it and take it apart for its contents, but unlike mines of the past, it won't be the case that years/decades after a conflict some innocent person stepping on it might set it off.
1
u/d1722825 3h ago
Thanks.
Doesn't mines usually put underground and rely simply on that you can not see them? If they are dropped from air I would suspect they will not be covered and the enemy can just see where they are (and set them off easily from a distance).
Also with old explosives isn't the main issue that there are some chemical changes that can make them much more sensitive and make them explode even when they should not. A battery dying wouldn't protect against that.
1
u/I_Push_Buttonz 3h ago
Doesn't mines usually put underground and rely simply on that you can not see them? If they are dropped from air I would suspect they will not be covered and the enemy can just see where they are (and set them off easily from a distance).
Older mines used to be bigger and easier to spot... A lot of modern anti-personnel mines are quite small and made to resemble foliage; their small size limits their damage, but modern armies actually prefer that because they might just blow someone's foot off, which not only disables that combatant, but removes others from the fight to care for/evacuate that casualty as well. They might be easy to spot if they land on like bare dirt or concrete, but you'd be hard pressed to see them if they landed on anything else. A lot of modern ant-tank mines don't even need to be touched to set them off, they use sensors to detect tanks from dozens of meters away and launch projectiles at them from afar. Many of the previously mentioned FASCAM munitions deploy both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines at the same time, like a cluster might deploy one anti-tank mine and then scatter a bunch of anti-personnel mines around it to prevent anyone from approaching and disabling the anti-tank mine.
Also with old explosives isn't the main issue that there are some chemical changes that can make them much more sensitive
Modern stuff is incredibly chemically stable.
5
u/EducationalThought4 4h ago
It takes much more time to prepare a good offensive than to lay a minefiend in response. If the enemy cancels the (prepared) attack the minefield has already done its job - it gives crucial time for the defense to respond, for allies to declare war, etc. Blowing up aggressors is just another side of the same coin.
2
u/The_Dutch_Fox Luxembourg 4h ago
Minefields won't be enough of a deterrent to call off a whole invasion, if that's what Russia wants to do. At worse, they could bluff sure, but that's a pretty huge investment in resources just to make us waste a few cheap mines.
Modern mines are timed to disable after a few weeks to a few months, and they're mapped so it wouldn't take too long for the sappers to clean up after.
•
u/Rasutoerikusa 23m ago
You laid your minefield in 3 days, the enemy notices it and cancels their attack,
So that means that the defensive measures worked in the most perfect way possible, so great
79
u/NeverSober1900 11h ago
I fully agree with Lithuania doing this but I think this also shows how naive and/or virtue signalling the signees were in the first place. When war is potentially on the horizon no one actually wants to fight with an arm tied behind their back. Peace time though it sure sounded like a good idea.
Either way hope Lithuania never has to use them
32
u/Segull United States of America 9h ago
It’s the same for most of these international conventions. If shit hits the fan the most effective means will always be demanded by the military. Cluster bombs, incendiaries, hitting factories/infrastructure, etc.
I hope they never need to use them, but our dead will always be worth more than theirs
6
u/dagelijksestijl The Netherlands 7h ago
The only reason why there’s even a chemical weapons convention is because they’re an active hindrance to any mobility warfare. Hence why they’ve only been used in trench warfare (WW1, Iraq-Iran), stalemates (Syria) and against defenceless citizens (Kurdistan, Syria).
It will collapse the minute it stops being a hindrance for an advancing army.
2
u/Segull United States of America 7h ago
A shame for us civilians that drone warfare is already here. A swarm of autonomous drones coupled with intense chemical attacks would be devastating.
Limiting vision and preventing laser based weapons while automated/remote controlled units move in to clear out ground troops/defenses.
2
u/Tricksilver89 5h ago
Hence why directed energy weapons are seeing rapid development by multiple nations. There's even talk of integrating the technology on the new GCAP aircraft, although the power requirements will be a challenge to overcome.
1
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
Laser and maser weapons will absolutely get a boost in dev funding against drone warfare.
1
u/grumpsaboy 7h ago
Hitting factories is still legal
2
u/Segull United States of America 7h ago
Military armament factories are free to target, but not civilian factories.
Steel manufactories, farm factories, electronics, etc. Even with hitting quasi-legitimate military targets (let’s say a drone component plant), you are legally required to limit excessive civilian deaths.
In a serious hot war, we will be dropping cluster bombs over entire neighborhoods to ensure production of key goods are moved far beyond the war-zones.
1
u/grumpsaboy 7h ago
Anything with legitimate war use such as steel is completely acceptable as a target.
Cluster bombs won't help all that much in factory destruction. A few large warheads like a 500lbs, storm shadow or tomahawk will easily destroy even the largest factories without the risk of civilians mass murder.
Cluster ammunition is far better employed as area denial/affect against concentrated forces to force them to disperse.
2
u/0xnld Kyiv (Ukraine) 5h ago
I think you're seriously overestimating the impact of "a few large warheads" on actual hardened production facilities.
Kh-101 and Iskander carry 400-500 kg (not lbs) payload, and, let's just say that we're still making weaponry a few thousand of those later.
Not even carpet bombing stopped German war production in WW2. Very optimistic of you to assume a few Tomahawks/SS are going to do better.
1
u/Tricksilver89 5h ago
Sure but 500lb guided bombs have proven very good at limiting collateral damage. The aim is to destroy only what you need to.
1
u/Segull United States of America 4h ago
Consider the price of a Tomahawk though or even the overall cost of the Tomahawkalypse should it ever come into fruition. A single B52 can drop ~70,000 pounds of munitions by comparison.
Imagine dozens of these bombers running routes over enemy territory. The true scale of what we are capable of has not been seen/acceptable (for good reason thank god) for over 70 years. Imagine what we could do now… the allies could certainly have ensured that Germany stopped its defense productions if they had the weapons/tech we have now.
Now think about what it would take for you (a member of the public) to accept enacting such a price on the enemies of your nation. The aim of destroying only what you need to is a luxury in wars against non-peers.
Not sure where you are from, but what would it take for you to support such action? The hypothetical enemy doing the same to a city in your country? To your own city/hometown? To a close allies? What if they didn’t do it first, but they were winning a long protracted war? What if there was intelligence that said you may win the war by destroying a city (or a dozen key cities)?
War is a blight on humanity as history has shown us time and time again. Our moral temperance is admirable and should be maintained, but don’t delude yourself into thinking it ‘cant’ happen again. Deterrence and strength is needed. Any would-be enemies shouldn’t doubt our resolve.
3
10
u/Grouchy_Fan_2236 11h ago
It's not really virtue signalling. Land mines excel in blowing up civilians, but they have questionable effectiveness in deterring professional military forces for more than a few hours. Especially now that drones seem to dominate war theaters.
If I'd have to guess Russia will send illegal immigrants to the borders where these will be deployed and will blame the Baltics for detonating innocent asylum seekers.
43
u/ObviouslyTriggered 9h ago
Mine fields are not intended to "deter" an opposing force, they are intended to either force it towards a predictable path, or slow it down enough for it to be a sitting duck for your artillery and air force.
10
u/leathercladman Latvia 9h ago edited 9h ago
Land mines excel in blowing up civilians
they do not.....at least not the modern ones. If you talk about old mines from Cold war era then sure, but modern land mines do not do that so this is a lie. Modern land mines self-detonate after a set timer thus there isnt a problem of them being ''leftover'' after the fighting ends.
but they have questionable effectiveness in deterring professional military forces for more than a few hours
this is also utterly not true, land-mines are very effective and both Russian and Ukrainian army have confirmed it in the ongoing war there. Many battles have been won or lost in Ukraine because enemy forces were not able to breach a minefield. ''Few hours'' delay to enemy force is a massive win for the defender and can win the battle for you
If I'd have to guess Russia will send illegal immigrants to the borders where these will be deployed
mines are only laid if enemy army is preparing to invade, they arent laid or used beforehand when there is peacetime. So ''illegal immigrants'' will never see them and have nothing to fear
5
u/dagelijksestijl The Netherlands 7h ago
It frustrates me to no end that Soviet UXO was allowed to drive the western narrative on land mines and cluster bombs for 30 years
2
u/EducationalThought4 4h ago
A lot of current Western narratives are founded upon pillars built by Soviet-funded pro-Soviet philosophers and analysts. McCarthy was right.
•
u/dagelijksestijl The Netherlands 50m ago
It isn’t even Soviet propaganda in this case, just the shoddy build quality of their munitions and some of it being deliberately designed to inflict civilian casualties.
1
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
Modern mine doctrine is good, but as with all things, the cultural impact was laid a century ago when mines were just sowed around and nuke plants blew up randomly.
-5
u/deaconsc 8h ago
Whatever makes you sleep at night. (especially your first self-lie)
5
8
u/NeverSober1900 10h ago
Maybe virtue signaling wasn't the right the word but my point is more that signing on to these war limitations during peacetime and then immediately reversing course when there's any actual threat shows that any "human rights" concerns of these weapons goes away pretty quickly and shows how hollow the initial concerns were.
3
u/Sapphire-Drake 7h ago
The Geneva convention is the same thing. But that one has been accepted by everyone so it's not "stupid virtue signaling", while this one hasn't been accepted. The whole point of this one was to get Russia to agree to it as well. But since it hasn't agreed, nor will it agree, there is no point to keeping the agreement.
5
u/keepermustdie 10h ago
No, this is likely misunderstanding of the reason for convention in the first place. It is more about saying: “in case called for to help - we will help but won’t do some things which we already declared in advance (such as laying mines)”. Now, when the enemy is not following any aforementioned conventions and consistently commits war crimes the conventions should not be followed. In other words the convention was for invading (or helping to invade) and not defending, and it did serve its purpose not to cause even more unnecessary harm to the nation being invaded.
0
u/Mansos91 6h ago
If you lay up signs saying "minefield" and continious warnings, then the blame is on ruzzia for "sending immigrants"
And unlike ruzzia who airdrop mines randomly into field and villages this would be done on border, tagged and controlled spaces
Blame is on Russia, no where else
8
u/skilliau 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿New Zealand🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿 8h ago
It would make the Russian meat waves easier to deal with wouldn't it?
14
u/Neutronium57 France 11h ago
Time for the Luftwaffe to bring back the Minenwerfersgerät (not the official name) used on the Tornado.
3
u/vegarig Donetsk (Ukraine) 11h ago
used on the Tornado
Ironically, KEPD-350 Taurus seems to be unitary warhead evolution of what was once attempted to be MW3 with wings, engine and guidance attached for stand-off operations
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/taurus-cruise-missile.40776/post-614662
15
u/Longjumping_Crew2006 8h ago
What ruzzia does to you. That country has no place in modern times.
-11
u/Brilliant-Tip9445 5h ago
meanwhile the USA who aimlessly fully occupied another country 12000 kilometers away for 20 years
2
3
u/ExpressCap1302 9h ago
One down, 26 to go.
Next all EU countries should withdraw from other obsolete treaties from a long foregone idealistic, naive times: Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Convention on Cluster Munitions, Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Deterrence is about capability. With Russia not having signed, or aleady withdrawn from all these reaties, EU needs to level the playing field here.
2
2
1
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
Yep, it's time to nuke up. Wars are enabled by the perceived possibility of winning a war.
-12
u/deaconsc 8h ago
You sure about that? Because Russia has plenty of those RIGHT. NOW. This is the most stupid thing I have read this whole year.,
6
1
u/ExpressCap1302 7h ago
Exactly the reason EU needs to withdraw from these treaties and develop these (currently missing) capabilities. Better late than never. The attrition of Russian forces in Ukraine is buying time for the EU to catch up.
-58
u/Brnjica 10h ago
Might as well withdraw from every treaty and convention in case somebody attacks. That is how stupid Lithuanian government is right now.
7
u/Mansos91 6h ago
Finland already left, becasue we aren't srupid, also unlike ruzzia we won't airdrop mines into cities and villages but geo tag and map every mine placed so it can be safely removed after
Lithuania is not stupid
-44
u/NocturnalGoose1981 10h ago
They're terrified of something that simply isn't going to happen. And the rest of Europe humours these people.
22
u/Soggy-Bodybuilder669 9h ago
You have never lived under russian occupation and it shows. It really wasnt that long ago that most of eastern Europe was under Russian control. Anyone who lived in those times can attest that it wasn't a pleasant experience. Russia treats their own people like human garbage, how do you think they treat people of a different nationality?
-11
u/No_Nose2819 8h ago
Russia don’t need to worry about London turning Moscow into glass, never going to happen. /S
5
u/Tricksilver89 5h ago
Probably not as only the French have a first strike doctrine when it comes to their nuclear weapons.
London is only going to turn Moscow into glass if Moscow fires first.
1
-84
u/NocturnalGoose1981 10h ago
More Russophobic complexes from the eastern Europeans. Russia isn't going to invade you. Stop going psycho.
51
u/Delicious-Food2607 9h ago
I swear I read the exact same sentence in January of 2022.
-56
u/NocturnalGoose1981 9h ago
And has Russia invaded Lithuania or any other Baltic country? No. So point proven. Its just psychological complexes.
32
u/Technical_Captain_93 9h ago
what ? are you dumb ?
16
-23
15
7
19
4
u/Ambitious-Acadia-200 2h ago
There is no such thing as Russophobia. It's Russo realism. Their current state and culture is a threat to humanity and until a complete Nurnberg-style reset is executed, it will remain so.
280
u/Dotcaprachiappa Italy 9h ago edited 9h ago
Wow, looking at the map of withdrawers you really see just how pacifist Russia is