NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?

[@James-sh4zf]

I remember in December 2021 and January 2022, the ‘alarmists’ were also claiming that Russia would invade Ukraine…

[@u2beuser714]

Unlike ukraine nato is a collective security organization with nuclear stockpiles as a deterrance ukraine has no such

[@karolean8342]

@@u2beuser714 If Russia nukes Poland, will the US nuke Russia back and thus cause Russia to nuke the US too?

[@gulogulo7636]

@@u2beuser714 Now why would a ruzzia bot say that! That is really alarming!

[@tomjensen618]

We also remember the"realists" claiming that Russia would finish off Ukraine in a month.

[@CM-ey7nq]

Very to the point.

[@uazuazu]

Whilst Ukraine is at war against Russia, they have the justification to attack within Russia and cripple Russian industry and so on. No other country has that justification. So really the best defense for NATO given these threats is to support Ukraine right now.

[@chinapig71]

^^This.

[@theroldan8013]

ukraine alreay lose thats why nazi nato wnats a full war but with european troops only....

[@chinapig71]

@@theroldan8013 shut up. Adults are talking.

[@Fred-ck1gh]

But the Republicans with Trump and Speaker Johnson are anti-NATO, Ukraine and pro Putin! This is what they want! But they will pay a very high price when they have no allies when that day come! Just better to support Ukraine full out to do as much damage to Putins army now before they fill up their stock again!

[@brianconnelly7823]

@@theroldan8013 Ok Komrade botski, now take your copium like a good little Ruski.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

This is why multinational 'trip wire' NATO brigades in border countries are important. Political debate in member countries to intervene can be quickly wrapped when their own soldiers are taking bullets by an aggressor. Finland does not have one yet, but they need one soon. I think the moment US decides to pull out of these trip wire forces, NATO is on a very shaky ground.

[@TomTomicMic]

No, Europe just needs to get real, even in France, if Russia ever gets to them it will be up to us in blighty again, and we are getting a bit fed up of it, we have had to hold their hands and lead them in the Ukraine campaign and all we get from Brussels is are we European, don't ask us stupid questions ask yourselves, support Ukraine and then support the continent of Europe so no army will want to invade our land and that should be under NATO, not the bloody EU which can be sidetracked by a corrupt minor leader in Hungary paid by the Kremlin, they should be booted out of NATO and the EU!?!

[@justskip4595]

It wouldn't surprise us to be left alone or even for bigger countries to make deals about us without including us in those. Got plenty of experiences of that from the 2nd world war too. I personally still expect us to end up fighting Russia alone even though we are now in NATO like we have been expecting to and preparing for way longer than I have been alive. USA is too keen on fighting internally and other european countries do not even dare to speak about the reality. There are big reasons why behind my shower wall is a bomb shelter and that isn't even strange but actually mandated by law to be there.

[@justskip4595]

And to add to that. We will come in help for others. We signed up for that and we know we're going to be the front line no matter what.

[@tomk3732]

Nah, much easier would be to apply EU values equally in say Baltic states, making democracy there would allow local ethnic Russians be treated as humans. It's hard to explain to your own that you need to fight for justice when justice is already there. I.e. EU has to follow its own laws.

[@ArchOfficial]

@@tomk3732 Screw off, bot. Ethnic Russians are treated better anywhere in Europe than they are treated in Russia.

[@wideboy71]

An attack on Finland would NOT be a small, remote test of Article 5. NATO is paying a great deal of attention to it's Northern sector

[@andreasrips]

Baltics will go help instantly. Finns saved Estonia, we owe them a favor.

[@hoteltesla]

Why Putin will attack Finland? All things were settled long time ago. Yes, Winter War showed that USSR can do dirty things. However, even USSR deemed redundant occupying Finland, except a territory close to Leningrad There is no point for Russia to occupy Baltic as they are now turning to Asia. It is much bigger world now

[@WormholeJim]

Not to mention almost everyone in the west paying attention to the Ukraine war. Practically everyone is convinced he'll go for the Baltics after Ukraine, while maybe not with guns blazing right at first. Transnistria first, then probably the baltics, maybe Poland or maybe Finnish Lapland. But the only thing we really know about Putin's approach to geopolitics is that he loves acting surprisingly and he hates acting predictably. So for that reason and that reason alone, I think he might look to grab entire Moldova (not so surprisingly but not entirely predictably either) and then create a frozen conflict with NATO, complete with guardtowers along the border and spies crossing over in the dead of night just like in the previous cold war. His real push, however will be in creating a puppetstate of Serbia. From there we're are going to see the next round of agression. Either as a Moscow-fueled rekindling of the civil war, or as a Belarussian type of kneefall for Putin, defacto annexation, followed by heavily militarizing Serbia with Russian weapons and personel. Or maybe not. To any extend, I think we can use that love/hate relationship Putin has with bluffing to our advantage. It's kind of anti-anti psychologically inclined, but if we can make Putin think he knows what we think he is thinking, then we can start controlling the conditions and circumstances that governs his actions. We can trick him into doing or not doing certain things in other words. Or just lose his temper because we can use this advantage to surprise him as well. He hates that, it means he had become predictable. Angry people make stupid decisions.

[@michaelc.9183]

@@hoteltesla The reason why Russia might do this is explained by Anders in the video: Russia could try to do this to dismantle NATO from the inside. If Russia attacks even a small, unimportant part of a NATO member state and there would be no convincing response to assist Finland by the other member states, NATO would lose its credibility. Other NATO member states would start to doubt the alliance and if it is actually following through with Article 5 and its mission to protect each other. The attack would NOT just happen because Russia wants to oppucy Finland.

[@ppppppppyyyytoppp]

@@michaelc.9183 that's stupid, USA would assist Finland

[@johnjoeflanagan]

We all benefit from Anders contributions. No emotion, no clickbait just informed comment. Thank you.

[@robertatkins9419]

You don't benefit from it, you suffer from it.

[@riskinhos]

utter non sense. care to share how nato will defend against over 5k nuclear bombs?

[@johanorden]

@@riskinhos Thing is the bombs will most likely not be dropped unless russia feels threatened enough and a desperate sucker presses the button

[@showdown66]

This piece is literally clickbait. Idea of war between Russia and NATO is laughable, just tin medal generals trying to get more toys.

[@robertatkins9419]

@@showdown66 Right on, showdown

[@phillip1115]

Russia is pushing and NATO is acting so passively it seems disgusting to me.

[@uninstaller2860]

It might seem like they are passive, but I guarantee you, there is happening a lot behind the scenes. Also, if NATO would be drumming on with aggression, Russia would change their tune and play the victim. NATO is playing it smart. Let Russia taunt and provoke, but we won't be the first one to attack. Now it's crucial we keep our heads cool. Because, we don't actually want a third world war

[@budgiefriend]

Nato is a reactionary force. Never meant to be an agressor.

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

I mean, NATO is a _defensive_ alliance.

[@HyperScorpio8688]

Russia's desperate and seemingly in the death throes of a great power So everything nominal

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

@@unduloid They're supposed to defend NATO members, none of which have been attacked. I'm all in favour of helping Ukraine defeat Russia, but NATO as an organisation is really the wrong address for that.

[@benyomovod6904]

I think Europs best defence is the Russian weakness in supply. But Europe must prepare for a fight without the US. We have the money, but we lack the will

[@daydays12]

Feeble leaders except in Estonia but that's such a small country...

[@heetheet75]

@@daydays12 All the Baltics and Poland have strong anti-Russia leaders.

[@1conkers1]

Nothing to say America wouldn’t support other nato countries with arms if not with soldiers

[@gooldii1]

100%

[@KR72534]

True. Europe may have defend itself and is more than capable of doing so. Trump will stooge of Putin.

[@jhbBouwmeester]

I agree with you on the fact that NATO might not help ( I am a historian of international affairs), so that the USA might fulfil article 5 with supply support (which is possible under article 5 too). But the EU has a far bigger commitment where you must help, so that means only non EU NATO member can not fulfil commitment on an attack on the Baltics. So a dead NATO means still an EU that has a collective defense system.

[@Heardbydeaf]

Also - even now different countries are sending their aid to Ukraine - if all members are not willing. So to say, that when Finland is attacked everybody will wait if US will send it's troops or that it would be all or nothing... sry, that is stupid. That would have been maybe the case before Ukraine war.Neighbouring countries will help Finland no questions asked. Same thing with Baltics...sure Spain maybe in a siesta or US enjoying tRUMP...you really think that Finland and Sweden will just watch how terrorists are doing things right behind their border? We can't forget, that if terrorists will take the next country to attack - that will send shock wave through NATO countries and possibility that they would be next comes much more closer than at the moment.

[@ОлегЛотошинський]

With this explanations it became clear why Sweden army commander said to prepare for possible war!👍

[@albertcorreia2579]

You mean possible death.

[@mhyotyni]

Finnish Lapland is sparsely populated and has only a few military installations, the area is mostly roadless wilderness with bogs, forests and rivers, not forgetting harsh winters, making any invasion hard even with superior numbers. And there are no major prizes, like industry or large mines to take. But even a failed attack to such a empty, unimportant void in NATO (from the city dwellers perspective) would reveal if the article 5 and NATO in general would work, so in that sense Nielsen's argumentation is harshly valid. Attacking NATO-Finland anywhere would be very risky bet for Russia, but Russians have already shown to take insane risks. I have no doubt that Finland would put up a fierce fight against the invaders, with or without NATO help. It would be politically very hard for the fellow NATO members not to provide their partner substantial help, including military equipment and troops, after starting such a conflict. I trust and hope that Sweden would be the best ally in that situation, being in NATO or not at that point. However, I hope that your commander has been wrong this time. 🙏

[@Rius9106]

@@mhyotyni We also have to keep in mind that the finnish defence force is in no way an insignificant one. So if the russians want to try article 5 through Finland, they are going to require quite a large force in order for Finland to need its allies to defend. After all, if the attacking force is too small and Finland can handle it easily on its own, why would Finland need help from anyone? If the force is large, the risk of not being able to de-escalate grows hugely in case it all goes wrong.

[@valerijoukov239]

Russia has a lot of land - what is the point to take bogs in Finland?:))) Let say they decided to get them - to force Finns to pay taxes to Russia? or make a huge concentration camp - with the cheap labor?:))) How many police force will require to control it? There is no any economical points to invade Finland! But Russia has Kaliningrad - and IF idiots in Baltic countries will continue stopping land-air transportation to this enclave - Russia will make a small passage from Belarus - and this is the only one territorial gain she will require.....She does not need unfriendly population. In the term of possible war with the whole NATO - Europe would be dead in two days - the power grid will be destroyed and Norwegian supply of Oil and Gas - no any invasion required.....Ask any westerners - how many days they can survive without electricity?:))) @@mhyotyni

[@virginiosavani]

Swede's have fuking fear of Russian , from Loong time, century's! Psychotic fear,.

[@sergelecluse0001]

This is a very enlightening video with a very pertinent point. It is important to speak about it well before that scenario becomes acute. And that the US has become a doubtful ally is a painful fact. Therefore, the EU must prepare for this type of Russian aggression and have a response planned out. Thank you for bringing this up: as always, a great video. 👍

[@0SamHall]

The video was clear and informative as always. It's crucial that the EU and my country stop being naive, acknowledge the seriousness of this threat, and reduce our dependence on the US for defense, particularly as we witness America's growing inclination towards isolationism. We've begun to increase our ammo production, but it's still not enough. Thankfully, it appears that some political parties in my country are finally starting to grasp this reality.

[@informitas0117]

They are far from naive, they just want someone else to pay.

[@tdn4773]

@@informitas0117 Naive in the sense that small short term savings could result in huge long term costs.

[@martinwinter615]

This video is rubbish. Reason 1. Ukraine still can defend itself against Russia 2. Russia not even have achieved air superiority so If NATO would go full force, in a few days they would have complete air superiority which would end any progress for Russia, not even talking about the chance of logistics. The only chance for Russia would be a nuclear war which would also lead to their destruction. So the idea NATO has a problem is just dumb.

[@MihaiMarinescuJr]

​@@martinwinter615 The question is if NATO will be able to use full force. I have doubts about Hungary and Turkey, just to name two!

[@cck4863]

American's didn't have growing inclination towards isolationism. US just prefer friends in the East like Japan ,South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan even Indonesia and Malaysia ,cause they buy US weapon , LOT OF IT

[@sdfp9963]

There is Swedish battallion of 5000 professional soldiers in northern Sweden that are immediately (under 24 hours, and even that is small amount of soldiers it will trigger war to Sweden first day) transformed to northern Finland if that kind of scenario happens. They are trained especially for that scenario and there is aggreements done for that move. So Sweden is almost immediately part of the war that is happening in northern Finland. I would say that Norway would be almost automatically part of the war that is happening in northern finland as well. Also in Finland we are having more and more american soldiers and we just made one and one DCA aggreement with USA, so USA it is not only defending Finland because of NATO. They have more to lose if they break their DCA deals (=Defence Cooperation Agreement), stopping russia in lappland is their cheap scenario under such aggreements. Edited this because people seems to miss point about that 5000 swedish soldiers. That 5000 men is just swedish quick response that is transfered under 24 hours to Finland for defense and it is enough to take Sweden to war at that same day than Russian attack to Finland. There is no additional decisions needed for transfering that 5000 soldiers. It is decided already and that amount if big enough to trigger war also in Sweden. More soldiers would come after. And by the way finnish are very patriotic also. By surveys most people from our relatively large reserve is ready to defend country. We have something like 870 000 men reserve. So when you think about Russia vs Finland war you should at least count in Finland, Sweden, Norway, UK and USA. Because in probability all of those countries is involved. Probably also baltic countries. ** !! ** Because people STILL leave me stupid comments that 5000 soldiers is nothing and again and again miss my point. Here is another reply to that same message: "Also you seems to miss the point. I told that 5000 soldiers is transferred from Sweden to Finland in first 24 hours without other decision and it is enough to take sweden to war. That is quick act force that will act without any other decisions. Russia attacks to norther Finland -> That 5000 soldiers will move to Finland without any political decisions, it is already decided and locked.. You think of that as kind of PACT. Of course 5000 is nothing. Finland have over 800 000 soldiers reserve." "

[@FlashdogFul28]

I think the UK would be there with you, it gave anti tank weapons the first tanks and long range misslies to Ukraine I can't see it stepping back.

[@Centur10n819]

If trump will get elected, then even DCA isnt a guarantee anymore. I think that is one of the biggest things ruskies are waiting for. Trump being elected.

[@L333gok]

@@FlashdogFul28 Bruh UK is the fascist country of Europe they literally left the EU so they could drown immigrants. The UK would probably join Russia’s side

[@pederslothzuricho7685]

Anders is actually a high ranking officer, so i am sure he knows. That said I Disagree with him. I think Anders fails to Understand taht an Attack on Nato While Russia is at War with Ukraine is a Greenlight for Eastern Nato Allies to Directly get involved in Ukraine. Poland would invade Kaliningrad and annex it and send troops to Ukraine faster than anyone can say WWIII. The territory Russia would fight over is irrellevant as long as there are insentives and capabilities elsewhere to join the fight somewhere else. While I agree that Russia would be tempted, I think the Kremlin is aware that the ONLY reason Ukraine doesn't have Nato Troops as aid is because Nato Isn't interested in being the agressors. But if Article 5 is activated Poland can gain control over Kaliningrad, and take charge as they seceretly wants to lead the eastern european alliances, and Russia would hand them Causus Beli on a Silver Platter with Greivances. 5000 Soldiers are peanuts compared to what is being send to Ukraine and home again in boxes every day. The Issue is that the Nordics on manpower alone is still only a fraction of Russias unmobilized forces, in a battle of attrition the Nordics could kill 10 enemy soldiers for every fallen soldier, and still lose. Russias hessitance is not in the scandinavian unity, but rather the approval of direct aiding of Ukraine.

[@111076tom]

5000? That is what? 2 months worth? Have you even looked at the numbers coming out of ukraine?

[@ricardoospina5970]

That reason is why forward deployed units are needed. If Russia has to fight British, French, or American units in Finland for example, this will make them think twice before invading. Also it would be good cold weather training for those units. The Nato allies are much more likely to invoke article 5 if their troops are already dying.

[@scratchy996]

US will remove all troops from Europe, when Trump wins the election. It will all depend on how battle ready the Western European air forces are. Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey are wild cards, they can invade other European countries at any time, if they have backing from Russia. There are deals Russia made with those countries, just like the UK and France made deals with smaller countries before ww1 and ww2. Serbia will surely invade Kosovo, probably Bulgaria first, to help Russia get a foothold. Austria will block transit through their country. The Balkans will be lost quickly, only then will Russia turn to the Baltics.

[@justmy-profilename]

I fully agree 👍 It's also another good argument for a stronger military integration within the EU. A joint EU military would also make it much less likely that we will ever see a war between member states anymore (which is less likely, but russia tries to stir infighting, with some success so far).

[@aurele2]

Firstly Britain is no longer a first rated military force- according to US military officials and the MOD, although a war between NATO and Russia is counterproductive since Russian and the Western world financially benefit from one another, to an extent this is frankly war mongering, it is similar to “America versus China” going to war since both quite literally economically benefit from each other, this is something I laugh at because everyone seems to forget just how economically intertwined this world is, all the while wanting to think we aren’t, for Putin a war with NATO is suicidal, the entirety of the Russian nation knows this, the only people who as of know constantly brought up war with NATO is surprise surprise NATO members.

[@Naptosis]

@@aurele2 Wow, I wonder why NATO is preparing for war? What a mystery! 🤔

[@jonathanbowen3640]

​@@aurele2 Britain not a first rated force? Then neither is Russia. Well its UK for a start not Britain. Secondly UK has Nuclear weapons, F35s decent navy with two aircraft carriers coming online typhoons, meteors, start streak, NLaws etc. UK alone could fight Russia. Look how Russia struggles against Ukraine. They are really not what you think they are. Also you talk of Russia and western world having some sort of financial relationship. Russia has no finances. Ies not an economy. It doesn't even make the top ten in terms of GDP.. Apart from oil and gas there is nothing there. You are making a fallacy of false equivalence. the West is 90% Russia is at best 10%. There really is no comparison. The west can go to war with Russia and suffer economic consequences so small they wouldn't even be noticeable. Just look how Europe stopped importing Russian gas in months and suffered no problems. A minor temporary uptick in prices. Its not that the West is intertwined with russia. Russia is an insect and the West is an elephant on its skin. Regarding the US and China going to war. If the leader of China wants to invade taiwan which he has says he wants to using foce. he actually tells you this. Actually sanctioned (in strategic war related sectors) would be leveled but its quite conceivable that the conflict would be kept to the S China sea and around it only its not even obvious that the US would automatically stop Chinese shopping via a block ade. The US wouldn't even be attacking the Chinese mainland. And China certainly wouldn't be attacking the Us mainland. The fight would be local to Taiwan. You can fight and trade at the same time. There are several examples of this in history. And even now Russians are free to come and go in Europe and set up businesses etcv.

[@jeanettebrannstrom2320]

Well in Sweden we had a big cyberattack just a couple of days ago, it messed things up pretty bad, in my opinion we are already at war with russia, maybe not with tanks and artillery but in cyberspace and media, this is things that can do enormous damage to a country....

[@AndyWoohoo666]

So true, Sweden have been in a low intensity war with Russia for a very long time with Russian cyber attacks, Russian threats, Russian mock attacks of Sweden with planes etc.

[@p40148]

There are 1000+ russian spies in Sweden, our secret service is a gender-joke, the russkis could bring the grid to standstill in no time.

[@robertatkins9419]

You have no idea who carried out those cyber attacks. But the fact that you blame Russia, and claim to be 'already at war', is precisely the kind of talk that might bring it about.

[@ЕгорПещерский]

You Sweden chaps should've oblige russian fascists with very same medicine. Not a time for white gloves, inn'it?

[@jeanettebrannstrom2320]

@@robertatkins9419 well it not the first time it happens even if its not russia this time it has happened in the past... And yes when another country attack another countrys infrastructure it is a cyber war... But they have been in our sea and air space to where they dont have anything to do... And the same goes for the propaganda, not long time ago i saw a clip from Russia news that said Swedish government take russian children because they was speaking russia...🙄 its not hard to see the pattern, as soon Sweden do something russia dont like they do stupid things like this or in the case with Finland drive refugees with new bicycles to the border.

[@janlindtner305]

The highest art of war is to convince the opponent not to fight. Another super lecture Anders👍👍👍

[@GeigerFarm]

There it is 🙂👍🏻

[@robertatkins9419]

If you possibly bring yourself to give some of your fellow human beings - the ones called 'Russians - a microgram of credit, you'd seen that that's exactly what they are doing.

[@GeigerFarm]

@@robertatkins9419 We are aware 👍🏻. Who did you think we were referring to??? The Chinese 🤔😉

[@robertatkins9419]

@@GeigerFarmWell you weren't exactly clear. As it stood, it could have been interpreted either way. And the fact that ninety nine per cent of the commenters here are on the side of the channel creator, is it that surprising that I thought you too were on that side? And do you really need to be patronising and condescending about it?

[@GeigerFarm]

@@robertatkins9419 I am solidly on his side. You mistake sarcasm for patronage 🙂. I realize that Russians are masters at disinformation and psyops. Know thy opponent 👍🏻.

[@DoglinsShadow]

I sure hope this doesn't escalate more... War is horrifying... You gave me a lot to think about..

[@Purple_flower09]

Western Europe including the UK need to get over their hangups and past arguments and start to plan together for security on the assumption that US wont help anyone but themselves.

[@benahaus]

A bit over the top. Half of us Americans believe that Russia must be stopped, reversed and their transgressions adjudicated.

[@tvhead7074]

@@benahauswe may believe that but what if we get caught up in the Middle East and Pacific and are unable to adequately help Europe?

[@RuneDrageon]

​@@benahaus That is great to hear, but sadly your politicians have a history of not Listening to you sensible voters.

[@bakedbean37]

@@benahaus What percentage of your country want sensible gun controls? That's going well then. Your democracy may not be as democratic as you may believe. It may not be as rational either.

[@benahaus]

@@bakedbean37 yes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms of government).

[@TorKarstensen]

Svalbard, Norwegian territory where ru already have a presence and where the territorial government is somewhat 'unclear' is a likely candidate.

[@tiikkifi]

I was going to mention this.

[@traumvonhaiti]

Yes, Spitzbergen as they call it in the russian propaganda. It's just too far and logistically difficult. But they may do it as a warmup.

[@fireup8140]

Norwegians should prepare. Each individual should get rations, water, medical kits....

[@embreis2257]

@@traumvonhaiti it's a name I have read often in an atlas, all made in western countries. to be fair, I also read _Svalbard_ . we know now it is much older than the Dutch _Spitsbergen_ (from the 16th century) but my point is: using this name it not ruzzian propaganda, it's the old (pre 1925) ignorant name used by Dutch/German and many other non-Norwegian Europeans to name the whole archipelago while today it is restricted to the largest island only

[@ernstwollweberghost2254]

@@traumvonhaiti Spitsbergen is the main island of the Svalbard archipelago.And also the old name for this area.

[@uncverg]

It all started from Chechnay when Russia realized they can kill and occupy territories and without any reciprocation. Then they attacked Georgia and that only confirmed Russian assumptions. Next was Ukraine and still there are people who believe Russia wouldn't dare try NATO.

[@ralfrufus6573]

The only reason Russia got away with its atrocities in Chechnya: The West did not want to help Muslims. The same did the Muslims in Europe experience during the genocide in Srebrenica.

[@smhamza9705]

Bro Putin won't invade NATO in a trillion years. His military has been horribly exposed in Ukraine, what makes you think that he will end up attacking the entire Europe? Lol! His army can't even attack Georgia right now because he is so busy in Ukraine.

[@aurele2]

Because NATO isn’t Georgia, isn’t Ukraine or Chechnya, NATO is a whole different entity, Putin knows war with NATO is suicidal, the Soviets knew war with NATO is suicidal, Russia is economically dependent on the West and the West also economically benefits from Russia as well, so this frankly speaking is war mongering… not even the Russian military will accept a war with NATO, your logic amazes me.

[@theroldan8013]

no nato countries lol are you stupid???

[@elf19-82]

Chechnya is a part of Russia actually and wanted separate at that tame. That war was the same anti separate like Ukraine with Donbass region in 2014…

[@mikkolukas]

I challenge the idea of northern Finland as such a target: If Russia wanted to have the dispute with Finland without NATO being involved they have had decades to do that before Finland joined Nato. Finland is one of the most defence-ready countries in Europe. They have a doctrine called "Total Defence" and are trained in guerilla warfare. If Russia tried then: * Either the nuisance would be small enough that Finland wouldn't need to trigger article 5 because they would throw out the Russians themselves. Sweden would probably show up to help anyway, due to the age-old Sweden-Finland defence pact. * Or the invasion is so large that Finland and Sweden cannot throw the Russians out - and then it will certainly be large enough for the other NATO countries to take it seriously. I otherwise agree with your assessment that Russia will try to challenge the coherence of NATO. I just don't believe it will be against Finland. Russia tasted that in the winter wars and Ukraine is called "Finland 2", as they show the same resilience. Going against Finland would be political suicide.

[@mart_E2004]

Good point but i think the reason why Russia would attack Finland now and not before they became a part of NATO would be to test NATO, their motive doesn't seem to be territory but rather breaking NATO up and since Finland wasn't a part of NATO before, it wouldn't have achieved that goal, now that they are, Russia has a chance to test article 5 since Finland can invoke it.

[@Driftwood-Cove]

This is an extremely important point and I hope people hear this and take it seriously.

[@derkatzenfuerst6077]

I think you're on point. And in addition to what you described, there will be massive disinformation campaigns and maybe a referendum of local populations that could create a strong ambiguity in Europe's public opinion. If people are not even sure about the facts anymore (just as an example: "wasn't this part of [insert country] actually an autonomous region with a mostly russian identity...?"), then it will be even harder for political leaders to mount a strong military response. It's a terrifying scenario because Russia's invasion in Ukraine has already shown the West's priority of avoiding escalation at all costs. But I think this doesn't work with Russia, they might even be encouraged by our attempts to deescalate. In my opinion, only a harsh and painful military intervention could deter Russia, but that of course is also a huge risk. Thanks for the insightful analysis!

[@traumvonhaiti]

Well, what if tomorrow the predominantly ethnic Russian (90%) population of Estonian border town Narva decide to split off from Estonia and join Russia? Imagine your country sends troops to suppress a visually domestic conflict within Estonia. What will that look like? A foreign army comes to suppress the local ethnic Russian population when there's no external aggression? I think Anders is making a very good point. Test the waters and see how NATO members reacts.

[@KingOfShadeEmpire]

Maybe start (bi)annual referendums of any bordering peoples to see if the votes radically change after Russia "liberates" the populace?

[@Ronis88]

​@@KingOfShadeEmpiremany regions were russified by a plan.

[@Aconitum_napellus]

​@@KingOfShadeEmpire It's also very important for any regions with high ethnic Russian populations in Baltic countries to be included and have a stake in Europe and if possible within the specific countries. They need to be Estonians-Russians or better yet just Estonians who speak Russian.

[@bloodgout]

⁠@@traumvonhaitiwhy not expel the ethnic Russians? If they want to be Russian and part of Russia they can move to Russia. They don’t get to unilaterally declare Estonian territory Russian

[@johnbaker1256]

I think any fighting in Lapland would get Sweden and Norway involved fairly quickly.

[@pRahvi0]

And both have quite the formidable air force, so at least they could deny Finnish air space from Russia quite effectively, even without directly declaring war to Russia.

[@thetjt]

@@pRahvi0Finland's air force is pretty good too, especially considering that we'll be getting F-35s starting from 2026. I don't think Russia has answer to its stealth capability.

[@kontraktofficial]

@@thetjt don't forget our artillery!

[@Watskeburt]

Artillery will be tracked down before u even shot mate​@@kontraktofficial

[@michaelnorling5062]

Absolutely! And if NATO doesn't "trigger" article 5, it won't be worth a shit! And so won't all of our lives be either..

[@janipulkkinen1407]

This is very interesting analysis. Last week in Finnish newspaper was an article, how they teach children in Russian schools. Northern part of Finland was part of Russia on their maps.

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

We have taken general peace in Europe for granted and regaled too much about beating Hitler and those Nazis as if as that will save us now and forever!

[@wolfswinkel8906]

Yes, that's why people fail to see the wrong in expanding military alliances in peacetime. That's why people call negotiating with Putin "appeasement". They've forgotten the importance of collective security for EVERYONE, not just a few. They've forgotten what war looks like.

[@bluecanary9417]

@@wolfswinkel8906 Yeah, you’re going to need to develop your arguments beyond just stating your opinions. As it stands, it’s just tissue.

[@oldernu1250]

FSB manipulated media, academics and politicians at will in Europe. Need better benefits to get better military recruits. Wise up.

[@wolfswinkel8906]

@@bluecanary9417 I was agreeing with the OP's comment "We have taken general peace in Europe for granted". You have no idea what either of us were talking about, and that's okay. We all got opinions.

[@PropagandasaurusRex]

Europe has been at war continuously for 2000 years. Almost 80 years of peace is unheard of, so a new war was long overdue.

[@andrewkiyko7413]

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” “If you want peace, prepare for war” Just a couple of quotes that came to my mind. They sound like if older generations knew something that our elites miss to understand.

[@traumvonhaiti]

I think you are not taking risks into account. Imagine there's a major conflict tomorrow. West has everything to lose (its prosperity). Russia has nothing to lose. So which side do you expect to be more decisive?

[@mwtrolle]

@@traumvonhaitirussia have a lot to lose, and showing weakness to people such as Putin and Xi is what is risky! BTW that’s what got us in to this whole mess to begin with!

[@robertatkins9419]

Those quotes were applicable at particular times and contexts. It is totally erroneous to think that they be applied anytime and anywhere.

[@jbone9900]

​@@traumvonhaiti only a fool would cower or talk with the Russians only the strong will survive.

[@Mike-dw6qu]

I bet you don't even realise that you are literally a war monger, with your cliche buzz lines.

[@kgrandchamp]

Brilliant analysis! Thanks Anders for the heads up! Let's hope we have the courage to stand up to our convictions! Without democratic societies the world will be hell! 🌿

[@dixonpinfold2582]

Brilliant is right. Too brilliant, actually. I wish it were less so, so I could disregard it. ☹

[@epasosiaalinenmedia]

So, imagine a scenario where Russia launches an attack on Lapland. There are a few issues to consider here. First, Finland would retaliate by striking Murmansk's railway tracks and harbor, which is the home of the Russian Nordic fleet. This move would effectively cut off the enemy's supply lines. Additionally, Olenya, the nuclear bomber base, is well within striking distance. Secondly, in order to prevent a two-front war, Finland would strategically fill the Gulf of Finland with sea mines, effectively blocking Russia's Baltic fleet and Kaliningrad. This would definitely cause a lot of tension at the Suwałki corridor. As a result, an attack against Finland would escalate rapidly. However, blocking an attack in Lapland itself would be relatively straightforward.

[@guilhermegarcia8750]

You think russians are dumb, huh?

[@alasdairhicks6731]

Russia has no reason to take Lapland. The Baltics, Poland, and Romania on the other hand...

[@venomcarrie3]

​@@alasdairhicks6731they have slim odds against the romanian natural terrain. slimmer even against the poles. the only weak spot are the baltics.

[@venomcarrie3]

​@@alasdairhicks6731they may take transnistria/moldova but it stops there

[@pp00xyzzy]

It would not be very small operation that Finland would be dependent article 5. help to fend it off. And in modern world piling even few brigades so that it is not detected is pretty difficult if no at all possible. Finland would have ample time to mobilize troops. So a small testing operation could not really be that small to really test anything.

[@pRahvi0]

Even if Russia brought a land force capable of occupying some slice of land in Finland, they'd also need to bring a lot of air defence for it against the Finnish air force - and possibly neighbourin countries' air force too since - I believe - it's (politically as well as operationally) much easier to lauch air strikes than to deploy ground forces. Especially since the Swedish air force is in way better shape than their army, I've heard. And the US might still be willing to conduct air strikes against an occupying force even if they were unwilling to declare an outright war.

[@rebornstillborn]

I think the idea is that they punch through and occupy some small parcel of land for "security reasons" - and then turn around and talk about negotiations to "end the conflict". Some will be tempted to sit down and have those talks to avoid war. And this will encourage Putin to take more territory down the line. Inch by inch basically

[@Mike3MW]

Russia is already actively at war against each Nato country individually, trying to destabilize everything. The question is: What can be done to put an end to this/Russia, once and for all (possible topic for another episode)

[@harleyquinn8202]

"What can be done to put an end to this/Russia, once and for all" - Are you sure you want to put an end for all?

[@CorePathway]

Putin’s years are limited. He can’t play the slow game. His ONLY hope is that he can tip the scale of the US elections to Trump in order to sideline the US.

[@Intel-i7-9700k]

We can all die in a nuclear war. How about that? Being geopolitical rivals or even being in a cold war is not a state of war, and definitely not actively engaged in war. Please, it might be worthwhile to learn basic definitions before doing some warmongering.

[@justskip4595]

Biggest mistake in 50 years was not dividing up Russia to 100 different states in the 90's.

[@CorePathway]

Putin’s time is limited. The Oligarchy has taken a serious hit; they will want to go back to business as usual. Putin dies, his successor blames everything on him, Russia pulls back to relieve sanctions, and the oligarchs get rich with the flood of Western cash to rebuild.

[@TheGelatinousSnake]

War is strangely so unlikely that the more you treat it as unlikely… the more likely it becomes

[@roybecker492]

Honestly I'm too dumb and uninformed to know if all of this is true or complete nonsense but its the scariest video I've seen in a while.

[@BorisBromm]

My thoughts exactly! A small border conflict in Suwalki corridor, where Russia tries to "save their citizens in Kaliningrad from the Western blockade" or some other Russia-is-victim excuse. And Russian bots together with western appeasers screaming: Are we ready to fight a nuclear war with Russia for a small strip of land that we can't even find on the map?

[@traumvonhaiti]

Not even that. Donbass style conflicts in Narva, Estonia (90% ethnic Russians) and Daugavpils, Latvia (60% ethnic Russians). Are we ready to fight a nuclear war with Russia when there's no open invasion, but a clear domestic conflicts in these countries?

[@roberttaylor3594]

Can’t find on a map because they are illiterate, maybe. Probably can’t find Poland, either.

[@robertatkins9419]

Spoken like a true Langley bot

[@staspastukov5944]

При чём тут боты , ты бот я бот это на что влияет ? Автор ставит себя на место Путина ну и хорошо. Попытаюсь объяснить кулинарией что такое разная цивилизационная основа. Квашенную капусту ( на английский это слово не переводится ) можно делать в Лондоне и Вашингтоне только это будет кислая капуста. Что бы получилась квашенная капуста нужен холод 20-40 С. Кажется говорим одно и тоже но это в принципе разные продукты.

[@Nauda999]

Only one way to find out of US is ready or not.

[@E3ECO]

First Georgia, then Ukraine, then Ukraine again, then Finland. When are we going to stand up to this man?

[@daydays12]

Indeed. It is shameful the lack of whole hearted support for Ukraine.

[@nanonano2595]

russia isn't taking finland, if they can't even take ukraine after 2 years of heavy attritional warfare, finland, a country fortified for something like 80 years specifically to resist a russian invasion is not going to fall before russia actually runs out of manpower.

[@doomedwit1010]

Well they'll start with the baltics.

[@madcoderz7206]

Well, you guys tried to stand up, but looks like the Russians made you sit down, again.

[@peterv4533]

NATO weaker than we think? Maybe, maybe not but if Poland entered the fray now, they alone would be enough to defeat Russia. To be honest, if the Baltic states and Finand had a pop, likely Russia would crumble against them too

[@justmy-profilename]

6:48 It makes a lot more sense now why russia risk shooting missiles so close to NATO borders (Romania, Poland) that they sometimes "fall" on NATO territory. I thought they would rather fear that article 5 might get invoked, but if countries can't be sure if invoking article 5 could surface cracks in the alliance, then russia can "test the waters" with less risk of a serious blowback. I just don't think that NATO does itself a favor with letting russia slowly shift the redlines of "still acceptable, no serious consequences". Some years ago I couldn't imagine that russia simply gets away with missiles-strikes which "accidentally" hit NATO territory, and now we're not certain if everybody would follow a call to arms if Finland needs to defend its Northern outskirts. It should look surreal, but with a major US presidential candidate who said NATO would be dead and the US would never come to defend Europe, it's really not a fringe idea anymore. Our weakest defense seems to be against the influence of russian information warfare. If Western nations won't significantly ramp up effective countermeasures, then we risk seeing more and more Kremlin-appeasing people in power. With all side effects on further developments (how political discourse changed in the US, and how freedom of press is evolving in Slovakia / has evolved in Hungary). It's a lot harder to reclaim freedom as it is to stop its erosion. Every politician who seeks a shortsighted advantage in siding with the Kremlin needs to face a fierce backlash. No matter how unfavorable opposing candidates may look, ask yourself if you really would prefer the russian version of "freedom". It's not the same if freedom is limited in a reversible way (e.g. limiting sales of something or significantly raising taxes) or if the fundamentals for public discourse are shattered, fair-and-square elections are getting cast as rigged, and an insurrection gets repainted as rightful. These are dangerous ingredients mixed together, at a frightingly short distance to an irreversible loss of freedom.

[@squeakycleannnn]

they risk because they're idiots who can shoot for s*, you're giving too much credit to russian tech and general wisdom

[@georgek1234]

From Ontario, Canada... very well said... I agree 100%... IMO we need to amp down the Russian disinformation and amp up our commitment to NATO... and put pressure on the UN to uphold the rules based order starting with Russia losing its seat on the SC. After everything that's happened since 1992, why do we still believe Russia will change.

[@thomashaug9629]

Very interesting and alarming..

[@Stormbreaker613UA]

As a simple Ukrainian citizen that had hands-on experience of survival in besieged city of Kharkiv, during first weeks of All-out open War with Russia, I want to say that simple quote: "Si vis pacem, para bellum". From my perspective, All EU members should prepare to defend itself without US help entirely. Yes, they have money and equipment, but seems like they "lost their balls" (no offense, I appreciate their help, but it could be done better) and they have will to fight only some dudes which wearing sandals and shooting rusty AKs. Current US and US during Cold War and President Reagan are two completely different things, unfortunately. Also, about postponing and meddling with Ukrainian military and financial support: If Ukraine Falls - I will be probably dead (or become refugee), but YOU ARE NEXT!

[@AndriiMalenko]

100%

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

Just don't get kidnapped by recruiters and conscripted and you should be fine once UA folds in a year or so

[@jackneuman5108]

@@piotrgrzelak2613 Two years and Russia has lost 30% of the lands they captured in first year... Now Ukraine is folding in a year? Hardly realistic scenario.

[@AndriiMalenko]

@@piotrgrzelak2613 it's better to be conscripted to UA army than to be forcefully conscripted to ruzzian nazi war machine steaming forward to grab Poland. If you don't believe me - ask people from occupied Ukrainian territories where ruzzian nazis came to "liberate".

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

@@jackneuman5108 NATO can't make enough ammunition. We're talking between several and several dozen times less that UA can shoot per day compared to RU. This is compounded by next to no deliveries in the other categories of heavy equipment too. Israel is about to invade Lebanon and will receive full material support from USA. There are other flashpoints. Guyana, Korea, Kosovo, Yemen, finally Taiwan. US is having their capabilities stretched to a breaking point currently by a coalition of nations, and have massive recruitment and industrial issues. Later this year a bunch of financial bubbles are scheduled to pop in the west. At this point whatever Ukraine does barely matters. As a result of an overarching strategy they will be cut off from support this year. Not because their handlers don't care, but they won't be able to afford it. Right now 70% of salaries in UA public sector are being paid with loans and aid money. It's not going to continue for much longer, i don't think.

[@q-tuber7034]

Very cogent analysis, as usual. Thank you.

[@davesutherland1864]

I think the weakness in this scenario is that Finland may be the European country most capable of defending against Russia. It would take relatively little additional support from NATO before Russia backs down.

[@michaelcederberg7937]

But if the war in Ukraine has shown anything, then it is that Putin is willing to suffer a low for minimal gains.

[@No1sonuk]

@@michaelcederberg7937 The thing is that Finland can spank Russia in a way Ukraine can't. When Russia first invaded, Ukraine didn't have the advanced air cover Finland has. Also, St Petersburg is within HIMARS range of Finland

[@Fuzzybeanerizer]

I agree. Finland is not going to take any crap from Russia, and NATO is not giving up on Finland, and that is all here is to it. Russia is MUCH more likely to "attack" in some more ambiguous or nebulous way, such as computer hacking, or perhaps misinformation "troll farm" campaigns reshaping the political landscapes of Western nations. In other words, more of the same of what Russia has been doing the last 15 years or so.

[@embreis2257]

the Fins did it before and if the ruzzians learned anything then that you do not mess with the Fins edit: however, the Fins are also a member of the EU. if ruzzia were to stir up trouble in Lapland the Fins would no doubt get much military help not just from Sweden and the Baltics but from Denmark, Germany and many more - plus the Norwegians wouldn't idly stand by for sure. ruzzia would be in for a nasty surprise even without the US (or more precise: Trump) raising a finger.

[@Fuzzybeanerizer]

@@embreis2257 Yes, I think Sweden always has Finland's back, and Norway has really shown themselves to be leaders in supporting even relatively distant Ukraine since Putin's big attack. The Baltics would need to tend to their own defense, but Western Europe is not going to stand idly by and watch the Nordic Countries get wiped out.

[@flyawayhome3]

I would say though - if the USA didn't respond to an attack on NATO, it would put all of the US's alliances in jeopardy across the globe, not just the NATO alliance, so I don't think they could risk not responding. Also - with the difficulties Russia is facing in Ukraine, it is difficult to see how they could hope to win a fight other countries such as Poland or Finland with very large and prepared militaries.

[@HermSezPlayToWin]

Never underestimate the cowardice or gullibility of modern politicians. There are would be Neville Chamberlain's waiting in the wings everywhere.

[@theroldan8013]

this is not a conventional war asshole is a NUCLEAR war where thousands of millions will die first in europe and USA

[@stuartmcnaughton1495]

Neville Chamberlain is somewhat misunderstood. The RAF was undersized and was flying biplanes at the time of the Munich agreement. Chamberlain used the year he gained to grow and re-equip it with Hurricanes and Spitfires. And don't forget that it was Neville Chamberlain who declared war on NAZI Germany.

[@Intel-i7-9700k]

Without the Neville Chamberlain approach, the Cold War would surely have erupted in an active nuclear war. Don't think you can apply Chamberlain blindly to any geopolitical conflict like that.

[@smallpseudonym2844]

@@Intel-i7-9700k Not even close to reality. The Cold War was _precisely_ from the motto of "peace through strength". The USSR knew the consequence of invading Western Germany, so they didn't. This level of policy clarity and willingness to do what you say you'll do are pillars of nuclear policy. Chamberlain et al on the other hand were willing to constantly cede ground. It was precisely that unwillingness to back up their promises (to the Czechs in particular) that led Hitler to think he could invade Poland without consequence as well. As such, being an appeaser was one of the _causes_ of the war. You have it precisely backwards.

[@jabberwockytdi8901]

Chamberlin knew that Britain wasn't ready to fight Germany so he had to play for time, history tends to forget that.

[@tordsteiro9838]

This was clear cut and informative, thank you! Now, what struck me, is that Russia has already started to test the limits of article 5 with hybrid warfare. From cutting undersea communication cables to gas pipelines to cyber attacks to GPS interference to information operations and meddling in elections. A managed escalation from this stage, would probably not jump to Lappland anytime soon, however, rather, involve something less escalatory. Like, say, disrespecting treaties in other areas, and perhaps encroaching on territories where it is easier to create some kind of half-baked dispute. Now, of i keep the idea that it is in their interest to take somewhere remote, which i think was very well argued, the north-east passage and the archipelago of Svalbard looks like a more likely, less escalatory, candidate. The other would be Moldova/Transnistria, however, that requires Russia to capture significantly more territory in Ukraine first, something that does seem to be highly unlikely even if US support is halted permanently.

[@Mukation]

They also flew fighter jets into Turley several times over the years and only stopped doing so when Turkey shot down one of them as it entered their air space. They slammed the hammer and complained internationally, but they _stopped_ sending fighter jets into turkisk airspace. Russia only stopps when it is stopped. Plain and simple. They _WILL_ try to attack Nato countries like the baltics eventually and will only stop if Nato's article 5 is honored. Russia knows Nato won't attack them, pretending that they have "security concerns" are just them lying. They know if they attack Nato and fail, they can fall back and regroup because Nato countries will not attack them back. If they attack let's say Lithuania and lativa in hopes of closing the gap between themselves and kaliningrad, and Nato doesn't respond with military force but only sanctions and threats, then Russia will see it as a win. If they do attack and Nato throws them out, they'll back down and lick their wounds and try again in 20 years. That is how the Russia grew from being just the principality of Muscovy to the largest country on earth over the centuries.

[@lorenzcassidy3960]

I basically agree. I still have doubts about the "Svalbard scenario" only because it would involve the russian navy as the main actor. And we've all seen that the russian navy is nothing to write home about (and that's putting it mildly).

[@upsidewalks]

It doesn't seem to me that Putin thinks about testing the NATO already. My first thought would be that it's done just out of spite for blowing up the Nord Stream. Putin might be mad but blowing up his own mega project is not a thing I'm willing to buy

[@tordsteiro9838]

@lorenzcassidy3960 the Russian navy! That's a good point, I didn't thought about that. Norway just got their new F35s operational. With some nice new missiles, by the way. That would make short work of the entire Russian northern fleet if they ever dared to leave Russian waters. Good point 👍

[@Katoshi_Takagumi]

The cut cables have been explained as not being 'hostile' actions. Not sure what makes them particularly friendly, though...

[@peterdilworth3110]

I completely disagree with your scenario, Finland is such a well-established part of Western Europe, if Putin were to attack it, it would galvanize and rally the West. Especially all of Scandinavia, and they would immediately establish air superiority and trounce the Russians.

[@ldhorricks]

most definitely

[@ProjectExodus]

Agreed, there is no way that Russia could invade Finland without also involving at least Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Not while they're also occupied with a challenging war with Ukraine.

[@gawkthimm6030]

thats my main objection to any talk of NATO vs Russia, our combined airforces would completly out-class Russia's now after 700 days of wars attrition in Ukraine, how many veteran pilots have they lost up until now?

[@BarrySlisk]

@@ProjectExodus Regarding Denmark, we can't really help. Our military has been neglected since the fall of USSR.

[@briansvendsen7575]

I think it was a very deliberate choice to pick Finland to start the conversation about cohesion ...

[@w0ttheh3ll]

Wow, thanks for talking about this.

[@peroman5974]

Thank you sir, for a well thought argument and analysis. In war it isn't the most stuff or money that decides the outcome. It's human WILL or the lack of it.

[@1amelka]

You can have all the will in the world but if you anti got hardware adequate to your enemy's power its all over for you.

[@DarkDodger]

WW2 was mostly won through the most stuff and money. There was plenty of will to go around on all sides.

[@rogerwilco2]

That is why we have the EU and NATO: to prevent the big powers from dominating the small countries. But these organisations have existed for so long that the leaders of many countries do not remember the time without them. We need to commit to invest and defend the strength of these organisations, especially in the smaller countries. Just look at Brexit for how easy it is to lose what has been built over generations.

[@Splarkszter]

What about when nato abuses small countries too? It has happened before, no one in positions of power are the good guys, protect your community instead.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

'leaders of many countries do not remember' I would add 'citizens of many countries do not remember'.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

This is the main problem. It always is when history disapears from living memory.

[@BarrySlisk]

NATO is good, EU is bad. EU decides too much.

[@philiptilden2318]

The EU is dominated by the larger countries, especially Germany. The euro is essentially underwritten by Germany and controlled by German economic thinking.

[@agripparapax3865]

Hallo Anders, when i read some comments, so i think, you have some trolls on your channel!? Best greetings from DE! PS: Always many things to thinking about! Thx!

[@anderspuck]

Thanks. And oh, yes. I am certain there are some trolls here. 😊

[@TheComedyChannel-oo5lk]

That makes a lot of sense unfortunately. It's very scary!

[@mikka686]

It's obviously that without the US backing the whole thing, Turkey would never go into trouble for, say, Greece or Lithuania. Therefore countries will have to form new alliances to ensure their safety, something like Poland plus Baltic states plus Scandinavia. Or maybe at some moment Russia will just suddenly collapse as it did in 1917 and 1991.

[@Simon-ik1kb]

this comment. It so obvious and there are still so many people who do not see it...

[@wolfswinkel8906]

New alliances of Russia-haters. You can count Greece, Turkey, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Moldova out. When the Russians are transferring naval assets from the other fleets, Turkey will not be there to stop them. When the Black sea region boils over, Bulgaria will not be there to assist. If Trump is president of the US, Good luck with your new alliance.

[@tomk3732]

Turkey would invade Greece 😊 More likely that Russia would come to Greek aid than say Poland.

[@13thmistral]

Not sure about Turkey not protecting Lithuania or even Greece to be honest. In the end they even supported Ukraine in some ways. As for hoping for Russia to collapse sounds interesting, but the truth is one can not predict that happening for sure anytime soon and who knows who will replace the current state of the Russian federation in such cases. I really think it is a bad plan if said plan counts on the most optimistic situation to happen.

[@PropagandasaurusRex]

At this point Turkey is NATO member in name only.

[@HevyGee]

As a lifelong student of Geopolitics, this video has imbued me with a sense of dread, deeper than any previous analytics that have been generated by this conflict. Prof. Nielsen has beautifully (painfully) laid bare the Russian's skillset, as well as our potential facade in the West. Wein the USA, nervously await the month of November.

[@geofflepper3207]

It was obvious for years that for whatever reason Trump wants to cause devastating damage to the United States. But now it is becoming more apparent that he wants to cause devastating damage to the entire world.

[@C4rb0neum]

You could also argue that the US at some point will join again. They did in WO I and WO II. Trump could delay the support, but I don’t see why America wouldn’t jump in in the long run. They severely dislike a strong Russia even if it’s not on their continent.

[@danieldkland]

@@C4rb0neum Even with the polarization and populism popping up everywhere, including in the US, I don't think we're at a point where an actual attack on allies on a WW3 scale would be ignored by the US. They can't afford "the west" to be destroyed as a concept, as it would mean the loss of economics, political power and military influence.

[@kamilpotato3764]

@@C4rb0neum NATO is not USA. Even if USA chickens other countries will fulfil their obligations regarding article 5.

[@VictorVæsconcelos]

​​​​​​​​​​​@@kamilpotato3764 Well, just look at the statistics of the militaries of those other countries: active duty, reserve, spending, readiness, R&D, etc. France is maybe the only first-rate military power in Europe. Half of Germany is on Rosneft's payroll. Europe can put up a fight, but can it win a fight against a battle-hardened Russia being supplied by its allies? This could be the Winter War all over again.

[@leod-sigefast]

I do believe we have 'lost our balls' in the West, in a military sense but also in leadership and public patriotism, grit and sacrifice. These past 3 to 4 days in the UK there has been a real shitstorm in the media as the outgoing Army Chief has mentioned that the British military will need to be expanded to deal with the threat of Russia and a 'citizen army' (reserves, basically) expanded. The media in this country has shown a real hysteria with the word CONSCRIPTION!!! written on many headlines. "Brits to be CONSCRIPTED if war with Russia!!!" The push back from the public has been quite strong. Most saying they will never fight for this country and especially not another European country. I do genuinely believe we would really struggle in the UK, western Europe, in getting people to fight in a war. Even a war of national survival, such as a Russian war would be. I suppose 80 years of pacifism and film, literature and education that has, rightfully, shown war to be hell and best avoided. Problem is dictators like Putin don't care about our public pacifism. They only see weakness and take advantage.

[@peterroe2993]

Newspapers aren't a reflection of what the public thinks. Not even a reflection of what the writer thinks, it's just a reflection of what they think people will make people buy a newspaper.

[@EdDale44135]

That sounds like the Newspapers are putting forward pro Russia propaganda.

[@LA-kc7ev]

Same response here in the US. Russia, of course, works in the exact opposite sense, while calculating all along the time it will take for the West to fall apart.

[@marinblaze]

​@@LA-kc7ev Everyday Perun, AP Nielsen and the paid ilk predict fall of Russian Federation. All of you cheer the idea. And yet somehow you accuse the other side for this.

[@markus717]

I've heard British Muslims say they're not British at all so they would be a Fifth Column.

[@Josytt]

Turkey is a great example of a NATO country which is really just in NATO for what they can get out of it, they wouldn’t be supporting many NATO countries in acts of aggression

[@zachscully]

Shouldn't be news to NATO, as Finland clearly understood immediately February 2022. Imperfect as diverse groups are, they must ally to protect against bullies.

[@henrikchristensen7118]

I’d love to see the comparison of Russia vs the European part of NATO - excluding Hungary and Slovakia… And wouldn’t Finland, Sweden answer with force if Finland was invaded?

[@AlexAnteroLammikko]

Finland absolutely would answer with force. Sweden too, even when not in NATO, most likely would. And if they are absolutely. The question is if Finland and Sweden have enough power to resist Russia taking land. Problem with lapland is that is remote, not much of anything there. So its "safe" to invade and hard to defend. And in a full ware defense of lapland would be a low priority. So in this hypothetical scenario of Russia just taking a piece of the northern part of Finland just to say "this is mine now", yeah, it would not. be entirely easy to prevent that.

[@frithjofspeetjens2818]

Most likely, yes; Sweden would help Finland. But Sweden and Finland are just 2 of all NATO countries.

[@mirokerdo5723]

In Slovakia the commander in chief of all armed forces is the president (Zuzana Čaputová) with very pro european and pro Ukrainian / NATO views, if article 5 is to come into power than no matter what PM or his government thinks our forces would go and help.

[@henrikchristensen7118]

@@AlexAnteroLammikko and maybe Norway - I think Russia would find it easier in Georgia or Moldova, but try something, they most certainly will…

[@peterkratoska4524]

Well if they go unto Lappland, shouldnt it be fairly easy isolate part of Russia say Konigsberg?

[@sirseigan]

Sweden, Norway and Finland has seen this potential threat for a very long time. In this very momemt those contries are building "strategic depth" in that area and are reinforcing their military capabilities and increasing their cooperation to new levels. Finland and the finnish people have planned for a second winter war since the last one and have never relaxed - they know their freedom is not free nor cheap. That include a remote part of finnish Lappland. Murmansk and the military bases around it have been a possible flanking threat for a very long time. That is why it were a bombshell news that Russia put 3000 men in a base close to the finnish border. Luckily there is only one very very long road and railroad to that whole area going through a extremly big and remote aea with very few people. Hence it is relativly easy to cut off their vital supplylines. This while finland have a much much tighter supply chain, backed up by very close allies in depth. I think (and hope) Russia knows this.

[@halvard3755]

Norwegian military has been ruined by the politicians over decades. Whatever reinforcements are happening, it´s too little and too late.

[@mikrosixtysix]

Finland is the only one who took the risk of russia serious enough. All easter countries should have mandatory military service like finland does. Also because of feminists i would like to see mandatory service to include all women as well

[@Modi_]

​@@mikrosixtysixi think mandatory service for women is unnecessary. In finland we have a decent amount of female volunteer fighters. If some kind of service was to become mandatory, i'd hope it would be something like 6 months of community service or a 3 month boot camp. Enough to learn the basics. Men are dispensible for a nation, 1 man can have as many kids as he wants to while women have to carry and give birth to them. I know this is a pretty rough way to look at things but i'd rather give my life so my girlfriend wouldn't need to grab a gun in her entire life.

[@ПонтогонПонтогонович]

Россия дала Финляндии возможность создать своё государство, СССР экономически на протяжении всего времени помогал ей. Но финны выбрали агрессию против Россией, видимо захотели лишиться своей государственности, дураков история ничему не учит

[@mikrosixtysix]

@@ПонтогонПонтогонович Финляндия опережает все страны бывшего Советского Союза, в том числе и экономически. зачем нам быть лояльными к России, если мы можем добиться большего без вас?

[@OfficialMeep]

Russia and carefully managing situation does not go together. Russia and care for its soldiers does not go together. Russia and taking Finland does not go together. What I am saying this video is just western views on this situation who try to think logically without a care how Russia acted for hundreds of years and how it acts today, but only eastern Europe countries know better how Russia acts, because we just used to it.

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

A significant thing to consider is what would the actual threshold be for Article 5 to be invoked, and would "All of NATO" actually respond (due to unwillingness or unpreparedness).

[@wolfswinkel8906]

The US spends $169B on interest expenses per year (16% of the total budget). In 4 years the US govt with pay 2x as much on interest payments than the military (CFRB org). Article 5 might not see the light of the day if push comes to shove.

[@Mike-br8zt]

Correct. Many countries would not be willing to respond to an Article 5 request

[@Lost-In-Blank]

Take another look at what Article 5 actual says: Paraphrasing first, actual quote below: Every other NATO country will assist the invaded NATO country by taking such action as that other NATO country individually deems necessary. And that might include the use of armed force. "Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."

[@CorePathway]

We can launch cruise missiles in incremental responses; low-risk.

[@theroldan8013]

no cos nazi ukraine is NOT in NATO simple

[@lorenzcassidy3960]

I always find your videos helpful and informative, Sir. Keep it up!👍👍

[@jm-holm]

While you are probably correct about the nature of a potential conflict, Finland would certainly NOT be the target. As small and remote as Finland is, it's not a country you can just take a bite out of and see what the reaction will be. It's probably the strongest point of NATO's eastern flank, without any NATO allies even being present. You don't punch the hedgehog when there are easier targets.

[@traumvonhaiti]

In reality, the low hanging fruit are Georgia and Kazakhstan. In the Baltics, I believe it's Estonia and Latvia given large ethnic Russian population. Especially in the border areas which are perfect for Donbass style scenarios.

[@jm-holm]

@@TechTusiast I'm not really counting Poland as its only border with Russia is Kaliningrad. You're right Poland is stronger on paper due to a larger population and much more equipment. However their level of preparation is nowhere near the Finnish one, nor does their terrain favor the defender to such an extreme degree as the Finnish ones does. In fact that part of Europe probably has the most favorable terrain for the attacker and logistics. Poland's military budget is surprisingly small, 2 or 3 times the Finnish one, I don't know their latest numbers. They have the same problem as most other European armies, personnel shortages. They have a professional army, which means they have to pay full salaries to them. That is extremely costly and eats up much of the military budget, that is why the Finnish one gets an insane amount for what it spends, the manpower is practically free, and significant in numbers. Ukraine is not in NATO so not part of the discussion, it's also been a corrupt, poor and divided country largely stuck with old Soviet equipment and doctrine. It was not a strong military power, obviously the vast aid and necessity of war is changing that, but Ukraine is no military powerhouse. Finland does not have a shortage of either manpower or equipment in the short term. Sweden and Norway have nothing to offer in manpower compared to what Finland can muster by herself. After weeks or months of high intensity fighting, ammunition and supplies would definitely be needed from friendly nations, but the stockpiles already in place surpass that of most if not all European nations. You have to understand, Finland never downscaled after the cold war. The preparation for conflict has been ongoing for 80 years without interruption. Finland has prepared until this day to fight a war against a single enemy, alone if necessary. NATO wasn't on the table until recently.

[@davesutherland1864]

@@jm-holmI agree entirely with your position. The only point I would add is that Finlands military basically has a single mission - oppose any Russian invasion. Russia would never get a chance to move into Finland with as little initial resistance like they did in Ukraine.

[@robertbraden4454]

NATO cohesion is the target, not concurring Finland. I doubt the Finns would respond by invading Russia.

[@oldverner]

If the goal is to challenge article 5 and not to actually win the conflict - Finland is a good choice. That Finland is strong by it self, is the perfect argument for not getting involved.

[@flcrm733]

Oh man... have you ever been in Finland ? Have you ever asked yourself why Soviet Union was unable to defeat Finland in 1939-1940 and why Finland with Germany was unable to do anything except setting up the blockade around St. Petersburg in WW2 ? The answer is that almost all these lands from Finland till Moscow are woods and swamps with very few roads which are very easy to control, with drones, mine fields and artillery. It's totally impossible and makes no sense to run any combat actions here. And from the other side - there is nothing to fight for here: no oil, no other valuable resources, no russian-oriented population who will support the invasion, just swamps and woods.

[@snezanalugumuerski5329]

Your comment is very realistic. There is realy no point to talk what would be if it would be. And specialy if you'v never left your office or even home office.

[@MJGMJGMJG]

Yes, initially Soviets were not performing well but in the end they were the ones to dictate the terms, getting more than than they initially asked for (demanded before the war).

[@TFx3090]

Fantastic assessment and explanation! This needs to be seen and understood by our dull minded politicians.. also in the US.

[@Mosern1977]

With your theory, then I think Svalbard is actually even more likely area. Its already in a special relationship between Norway and Russia. It is remote, and it doesn't have so much value really.

[@GorduzBackstabber]

agreed

[@carnie2_917]

Russia don't have the logistics nor the airpower to do that.

[@mattjhodgkinson79]

​@@carnie2_917 The Russian Northern Fleet is based just to the south of Svalbard on the Barents Sea coast, and they have dozens of ships and submarines. They're supported by the 45th Air and Air Defense Army, who have bombers, MiG-31s, and other fighters, including an air base on Novaya Zemlya. A surprise attack on Svalbard, with a cover story of protecting Russians in Barentsburg, might overwhelm the demilitarised island - as happened to the Falklands.

[@ATACMSfck-ruzzorc]

Make my day.....

[@greatwhiteflash1645]

Thank you. I wish our politicians were capable of even medium-scale thinking.

[@robertatkins9419]

I wish you were similarly capable

[@silas.viking]

Spot on Sir, absolutely correct analysis.

[@Draxynnic]

One interesting way I could see this scenario backfiring is if a test is made and some countries decide to step out (looking at you, Orban...) while enough DO step up to push Putin back out again (preferably before there's some form of mass casualty event). Could serve as an effective means of identifying who is actually serious about the alliance (even if they might be a bit dovish up to the point where Article 5 is invoked), and provide a justification to suspend or even eject those who sit out. Might end up with a NATO (or successor to NATO under a new treaty) which might be a little smaller, but where the question of whether alliance members will actually stand up to each other has been resolved.

[@herptek]

It is better to wait those lukewarm countries to change their mind, wether by coming to understand their situation or at the latest by a change of rulers, which will happen sooner or later to any country naturally. Ejecting countries from NATO is to give them, along with their population and territory, to Russia for free. You don't want russian aligned countries geographically in the middle of Europe, that will collapse the front from the get go when the war actually starts.

[@scottl9660]

Article 5 is sacrosanct, there should never be a question about it. If the default position is that it’s an unresolved question about it then the other side has already won the first round. I’d like to push back against that narrative and have the default position be that Article 5 is a guarantee written in stone blood and treasure and to test it at your own peril.

[@drewbryk]

Is there any question that Hungary is staying in NATO at this point *exclusively* to sabotage it, perhaps through the exact means you describe above?

[@Jaxck77]

There’s almost no question that NATO will fight together. Orban would lose so much by being out of NATO, since it would almost certainly also result in expulsion from the EU (which has a collective defence treaty). The question would be of the speed & scale of mobilization. A slow, “phony war”-esque scale up by NATO could be catastrophic as it would give Russia time to make gains and do serious damage. A fast, gulf war-esque scale up (fast as in, under six weeks before a million men are marching on Moscow) would doom the concept of Russia.

[@JaroslavBrabec-iz5eb]

Ukraine annexed the Czech region of Carpathien Rus in 1945 and does not want to return it ! It is a country of 13,352 km2 (5,155 sq mi) which is about the same size as Crimea. Historically, this territory never belonged to Ukraine, and was assigned to the Czechs by the american president Woodrow Wilson. But Ukraine has only been growing for the last 300 years, military occupying lands that do not belong to it.

[@FrankShortt]

Think you are spot on, and I’m sure that the aggression against Ukraine is a start of that testing NATO. Ha en god helg Anders, du gir så mye bra info, hilsen fra Norge 🇳🇴

[@iexploiter]

NATO did everything to challenge Russia and it expanded right to Russia’s borders. It would be interesting to see how willing will be French or Americans to come and die somewhere in Baltics or Finland fighting terrible Russia which they were feared since the childhood. US is already stretched, it can’t handle simultaneous wars in Europe and Middle East. What is going to happen when one more war starts in Asia? If EU and NATO won’t negotiate new security agreements in Europe Russia will use force to push NATO out of its borders. Finland used to be a quiet backyard, do they really want to be a frontier of the war between nato and Russia?

[@ulrichleukam1068]

The aggression against Ukraine is NOT the start of that testing NATO. It is the consequence to the WEST instigating a push resulting in the "instoration" of a pro NATO government The main issue i see is: why is the USA deciding what is best for Europe's security? There should be a european defense force which actually cater to europes security unlike NATO which is mostly financed and made up of US millitary and execute US Geopolitics in Europe

[@jhweisen]

Thanks a lot! I am going to share this with my Finnish friends

[@seppohannunen7020]

Joo täällä Suomessa kun varoiteltiin Nato liittymisestä. Pohjolan muuttamisesta sen ja Usan sotilasmahdin tukikohdaksi. Ja puolueettomuuden hylkäämisestä, sillä se on ollut isiemme tunnustama suoja kymmeniä vuosia maamme turvaksi pysyä isojen valtojen riidoista erossa. Saimme vain lokaa niskaamme. Ovat niin Nato uskovaisia että Nato ,muka pelastaa kaikesta ja ehkäisee sodat. Tällaista täällä Suomessa.

[@RafaelSilvaLivroDorri]

Whole video is based on a crazy premise that Russia would like to attack this or that way. And poor European countries. Someone please tell this guy to stop watching James Bond movies

[@maxime5275]

hahaha right!

[@owen-trombone]

Haha imagine Russia attacking another country, that would never happen

[@RafaelSilvaLivroDorri]

@@owen-trombone why should it?

[@owen-trombone]

@@RafaelSilvaLivroDorri it has been happening since 2014 🤡

[@hissatsu4937]

Lithuania's chief military Valdamaras Rupsys, said very recently that a war between Nato and Russia is "very low, extremely low". Rupsys did say however that preparation is a necessary move in case the unlikely would happen.

[@heetheet75]

Preparation is always necessary if your neighbor is russia.

[@anthonywatson7735]

A very reasonable outlook and assumption!

[@AveChristusRex789]

It is important to mention that Rupsys said a war between Nato and Russia is extremely low “this year, next year”. He didn’t talk about the long-term

[@JoseJavierCCP]

Thanks Anders, interesting way to see

[@JeiBeeBee]

Excellent analysis and exposition. 👍 I'm thinking about this probing / gradual escalation by Russia for quite some time now.

[@WJV9]

We tend to forget that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and didn't get any real pushback. Russia assisted Syrian president Assad in 2011 and invaded Crimea in 2014, all without any pushback other than talk of 'economic sanctions' which are mostly ineffective against a 'rogue' regimes like Russia, Iran, N Korea, China, etc. Finally in 2022 when a massive invasion to take all of Ukraine happened we finally began to give the Ukrainians some real weapons to fight with, but we still have limited the range and quantity of weapons such that we have produced a 'stalemate' and not enough to actually 'win' the conflict and push Russian back to their original 1993 borders that they agreed to.

[@JeiBeeBee]

​@@WJV9 I agree with you, and also Anders. Although NATO seems strengthened now (when Orban eventually gets the concessions through; that mini dictator in Turkey already did), once the US pull out (and they WILL pull out, eventually, and not only because of the increasing crisis and need for military presence in the Pacific region / East Asia), NATO's political and military responsibility will be the EU's responsibility, mostly. And we all now what THAT means, at least in political terms.

[@hasardmedia5981]

Spitsbergen could be a more likely scenario as they already have a presence there, and it is more complex due to the treaty of 1920.

[@marviwilson1853]

I think an invasion by Russia in Northern Finland might have caused NATO the dilemma you describe if that was Russia's first aggressive act but not if it is a follow on to the Ukrainian invasion which would be the case now. Remember the West stood idle after Crimea was invaded but then acted after follow on aggression by Russia.

[@dungeonboss8356]

Moreover they stood idle even when russians invaded eastern Ukraine, it took russians shooting down civilian Boeing from Netherlands for the first sanctions to be engaged, the question is whether NATO values a country like Romania which could be attacked from the Black Sea, as much as they value Western Europe members.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

Ruzzia is scared of Finland.

[@tobiasrietveld3819]

Russia isn't going to risk a full-blown war with NATO over some frozen forests almost completely devoid of people and resources besides pines and reindeer. Not even to poke to check for an article 5 response because even without NATO the Fins would make it a very costly offense. And Putin also would be handing NATO a casus belli on a silver platter for retaking the territory that was claimed from the Fins as part of their WO2 peace negotiation.

[@marviwilson1853]

Putin has made a monumental mistake in invading Ukraine. He is in a deep hole now which only seems to be getting deeper as the war progresses. He is no longer in control of the situation. He is looking for a way out and I believe he sees that as the complete control over the Donbass region if he can achieve this. He will go no further because he knows he cannot. @@niktoinikak

[@tobiasrietveld3819]

@@niktoinikak Russia is 100% going to lose this as their economy and social order will collapse well before a defensively-fighting Ukraine runs out of land, men and materiel, even if the US cuts back on support. NATO is well aware of this, so a more cynical view is that a victory achieved through a long grind that marginalizes their historical main enemy for an entire generation would suit NATO's agenda better so they aren't in any hurry to ramp it up and risk getting involved more directly themselves.

[@lenzor100]

This is why the next large Nato exercise is training for this exact situation :) good video!

[@alecsimon3776]

Second time I've watched this Anders, it's very thought provoking. My mind is calmed by the thought that all the main players in NATO are already discussing this line of thinking and already have a positive reaction in mind that does not initially involve immediate military response other than in the area Russia has been naughty. Blocking access to the Baltic Sea, Scandinavian airspace and land access to Konigsberg (oh yes it is) for instance.

[@ppppppppyyyytoppp]

Konigsberg? it's old history

[@VioletGiraffe]

How did the sanctions (half of which are impossible to actually enforce) and asset freeze help against the war in Ukraine? No, you can't fight armed aggression with only non-armed response, that's weakness.

[@nihluxler1890]

I love how you think calling Kaliningrad "Konigsberg" is supposed to be an own now... Like, after which war did the germans lose control over that particular piece of land I wonder...

[@tonyrobinson1623]

@@VioletGiraffe He's not talking about sanctions, but rather a blockade.

[@kimberleyredlich3623]

Germany, at least, is dragging its feet. I don't see that kind of thinking here at all, and that worries me.

[@maciejstepniewski1970]

Well, ok, but even if USA would back out and not commit under Trump or whatever, that doesn't automatically means that Europe would fall apart and Russia would be dealing with all the separate countries, they might just be dealing with united Europe.

[@Inkling777]

Good points! What you're describing is what Hitler did with the British and French in 1938 with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. He demanded territory with populations that were mostly German-speaking. They couldn't see that those demands justified a full-scale war.

[@freen3x3r]

Annexation of Sudetenland ? My great grandparents were germans in sudetenland ( czechoslowkia) and in 1938 they contuinuelly attacked germans there ( czechs) . My great grandparents had to flee because they were threatend by them !

[@Stu49583]

​@@freen3x3r so in your opinion Hitler did well to annex Sudetenland? Or what is that you are suggesting here?

[@freen3x3r]

@@Stu49583 no i said that czechs Attacked germans Living in Sudetenland and got them to flee

[@schemsch_1692]

@@Stu49583Of course he did

[@xisotopex]

@@Stu49583 why wouldnt it have been a good thing?

[@lukekent9386]

A possible solution to this is to form regional subdivisions of NATO with strong commitment to respond in their region first. In the example of Finland, their regional NATO branch would probably include the Baltic and Nordic nations, those who are closest to the affected zone and hence have greater incentive to resist it. At this point, the Russian incursion is either repelled, or Russia is forced to escalate. Forcing Russia to escalate beyond a regional response makes the full commitment of Article 5 more likely, because that situation would see Russia committing a large escalation and invasion against a member nation, removing that shroud of doubt as to whether or not it is merely a small scuffle that can be handled diplomatically.

[@jeanneknight4791]

I saw it in July or August 2021. I saw the chess game and knew enough from an odd of chance read article in Czech media where an Czech ex-general pointed out the chess game Putin was playing combined with what I knew from following Ukraine for then previous 8 years after Crimea. This ex-general didn't think Putin would invade up until the point Russia did, BTW, he just got me thinking and watching with intensity the little games he played everywhere around Poland and Ukraine. The "great Betrayal" could well happen again, to Finland, to Romania. Too many Chamberlains and Deladiers would go for appeasement like they did with the Sudentanland where Hitler played the same games Putin has copied. If Germany or France where attacked say in Northern Scotland even, NATO would act because those are places people have heard of, have some context for in the USA. I write to my US Senators. I can't stand the delays in money and more help to Ukraine.

[@traumvonhaiti]

I think you are taking it too naively. The West has too much to lose in case of a decisive action. Russia does not. Chamberlain and Daladier's primary goals were to preserve the British and the French empires respectively. Both countries came out nearly broke from WW1. They knew they'd come out totally broke from another such enterprise. That's exactly what happened.

[@joestrat2723]

I bet my business partner $50 a week before the invasion that Putin would go in. I won. I've been watching the KGB dwarf since he took the keys to the Kremlin from the drunkard Yeltsin. He's been slowly dragging Russia back to the USSR the whole time.

[@Nick-yz9fd]

From what i've seen of Finnish preparations, they would utterly humiliate Russia. (Again)

[@Calligraphybooster]

Outstanding as always. Thank you Anders.

[@lightweave]

Thanks for explaining this so well. In fact when I read up on Article 5 last year, I already thought that it doesnt provide that "security automatism" that everybody thinks it is. It leaves a lot open for interpretation where one can back dow or just sends 5000 helmets to fulfill its obligation. And do you seriously believe that i.E. Hungeria or Slowakia will rush to your aid? And I think that some small scale provocations already happens with drones or missilies flying int NATO territory, and we can see how the reactions are.

[@traumvonhaiti]

Yeah, that's what Britain & France's reaction to the German invasion of Poland looked like in September 1939. They formally declared war on Germany and even took some minor military action against Germany. And on September 17, the British and the French didn't even declare war on USSR.

The Finland scenario is a bit more complex than that. Finland is part of the EU which also has a mutual protection article much like NATO's article 5. So for that scenario to go the way Russia wants it to, both NATO and the EU would have to collapse. I don't find that very likely to happen, especially with the wake-up call that the invasion of Ukraine was. That being said, I do agree that the EU has been asleep on the wheel and must ramp up its military spending and be willing to fight to protect its borders when Russia inevitably tries to expand again.

[@drgetwrekt869]

in all seriousness, which EU country would have the capability and will to go and help Finland?

[@mikaturunen2354]

And Finland has power to escalate even alone. And Norway and Sweden would partisipate. Take a Look in the map.

[@assadarlingtoni]

​@@drgetwrekt869 probably literally every eastern europe country that has suffered from russia since world war 2

[@alexverdigris9939]

@@drgetwrekt869 Poland at the very least. In recent years I've seen Polish fire fighting force deployed in Greece, France and Sweden to fight forest fires. If they're willing to do that, I'm convinced they'd be even more willing to send armed forces to fight Russian invadors into Finland.

[@drgetwrekt869]

​@@assadarlingtoniindeed Eastern Europe is a different story than western. ye.

[@joesbeard]

Thank you for your insight. I love this channel.

[@FinsburyPhil]

I'm not sure about this scenario Anders. How far north are you thinking? Any pretence of a security threat in the far north of Finland would probably have to be linked to the naval base at Severomorsk - there's not much else. This would be getting close to Norway, so two countries potentially involved. The UK has always maintained a commitment to this area with the Royal Marines regularly training in arctic and mountain warfare and carrying out joint exercises with Norway. So that's three NATO members, and the UK will have more influence than most at getting at least some involvement from the US. I agree that Putin's strategy with be an undermining one, but I wonder whether it will be more likely to be political, using say Hungary and/or the Balkans.

[@TheGraemi]

Besides I don't think that Sweden would just stand by and watch. Otherwise they wouldn't had applied for NATO membership. So there will be at least a 3rd country involved.

[@Nappse]

I totally agree. If Norway, "The battery of Europe" is in active war, all NATO members of Europe should be very eager to join, it is simply in their interest. And, yes I'm 100% Norway would get involved if northern Finland was attacked. Heck I'd even go there myself even if I wasn't mobilized as it directly threatens my country and people. USA would probably come too as soon as someone says the keywords "Norway", "War", "Oil".

[@therighteous802]

Putin attacking Santa Claus? Well sign me up for military duty, I got Rudolph's back.

[@abeeceedee1842]

Sadly the Russians conquered part of Santa's mountain from us. The mountain called Korvatunturi is the home of Santa Claus and in the peace settlement with the Russians we lost the eastern part of it. Any breaches of territorial integrity are unacceptable, but Santa's remaining home is even worse 😂

[@Disinformation_Hoax]

That has been his goal all along, to destroy western Christmas. He hates the west and was behind 9/11 and he also adviced Dzingis Khan with the mongolian invasion. Bad Vlad.

[@Josytt]

Cringe

[@КириллМирченко]

in Russia, Santa Claus (an analogue of Santa Claus) go to visit with a beautiful young girl (snow Maiden), they entertain children and adults, he gives gifts in large boxes and puts them under the Christmas tree, and also in Russia the new year is celebrated twice. Russia does not need your Santa Claus, who gives small gifts in socks

[@phizc]

I think Svalbard could also be a place where they could test Article 5. They already have a presence there and it's very remote.

[@vaughanbean1156]

Brilliant analysis. Thank you Anders. The war is coming and you have told us about it (many times). I wish there were many more people than me hearing your message.

[@thecooletompie]

I think the problem with this theory is that it fails to internalise the cost of failing to honor article 5. NATO wouldn't be joining the hypothetical war in lapland because they care about lapland or even finland. They would be joining the war because failing to do so would mean the end of the alliance. And the only way I see that happening is if Trump wins the election and even then a potential joint European response would also be horrific for Russia. I also feel Finland is a difficult target because even if no allies join Finland has a competent army and is better Equipped than Ukraine was in 2022.

[@SkywalkerPaul]

You can only have a competent army if you fight actual wars. Finnland hasn't..

[@Wienerslinky]

@@SkywalkerPaul normally yeah but not all the time. not to mention that russia HAS fought wars, and is still incompetent so make of that what you will

[@SkywalkerPaul]

@@Wienerslinky in the last 80 years Russia has conducted wars/ military operations 28 times and has won 24 of them. That's a pretty good record.

[@Wienerslinky]

@@SkywalkerPaul yeah and now look at the major ones. Chechnya, lost. Chechnya again, won because of bribery of previous opposition, not a military win. Ukraine 2014, not really a win as there was constant rebellion. Ukraine 2022, well, see for yourself. Georgia, lost

[@SkywalkerPaul]

@@Wienerslinky All those wars had an objective to install a Russia friendly government in the given country. In all cases that succeeded. On the other hand, the Taliban beat the entire US Army and prevented them of reaching their objective to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

[@tonialaranta4159]

Finnish writer Sofi Oksanen did already in 2022 think that kind scenario; frozen conflict in lapland with unmarked "greenmen" taking over remote piece of land.

[@mikaturunen2354]

Now laws in Finland are changed. Even without nowing WHO they are they can be destroyed. I bet the green men would eat the lead and tungsten fast.

[@stephanledford9792]

The problem with the possible "lower risk" scenario mentioned of invading Lapland in Finland is that (1) this would certainly trigger a reaction from the other Nordic countries and closely allied countries like the UK, and strongly anti-Russian nations like Poland and the Baltic nations, and (2) The Nordic countries alone would be more than a handful. The Russians might assume that if Trump is President, he would try to stay out of the matter, but Trump is an "America First" type of person, and if this was framed as a direct challenge to the US's prestige and power, and it would be hard not to view this as such, Trump might actually be more likely than someone like Biden to react forcefully. I don't see a Lapland action as a likely scenario. A more likely scenario would be sending troops to the Russian town in Svalbard, Norway, under the pretext that these Russians were being persecuted and needed protection, and if the occupation was only the part of the islands where the few Russians remaining are living, this might be less likely to trigger Article 5. The problem for NATO is that there are various levels of commitment in the organization. The Nordic countries, Poland and the Baltic countries are all in because they have lived with occupation or the threat from Russia for years, but not all are as committed as these countries. I think the Europeans have recognized the danger of putting all their eggs in the "rely on the US for defense" basket, and that there will be a commitment by many of the European countries towards upgrading their military forces, but this will take time, and the danger is that Russia may do something before this upgrade is completed.

[@nian60]

Engaging Finland automatically brings Sweden into the mix. There is no way Sweden would not step up for Finland. (I'm avoiding certain words so KZbin doesn't delete my comment. But hopefully I can still be understood).

[@yojojozef9918]

I dont think so. The whole discussion is here exactly because Trump doubted NATO and Putin has now hope that US will not interfere if he is in power. Bush jr and Obama were absolutely strict about US commitment to NATO and therefore they would have no option just to send full calvary. Biden also honors NATO and im quite sure he is aware of this situation.

[@aramaer1017]

The UK couldn't even get anyone to fight this war. They're barely able to maintain an army ahhahaah

[@alexverdigris9939]

How did you manage to conclude that between Trump and Biden, it's the more isolationist candidate that's more likely to honor Article 5?

[@stephanledford9792]

@@alexverdigris9939 I didn't and don't think Trump would be more likely to honor our NATO commitments than Biden. I essentially said that if Trump could be convinced that by invading a NATO country, they would be challenging and disrespecting the USA, then he might be quite forceful in responding. I absolutely HATE that these two are likely to be the final candidates in the election and don't plan on voting for either of them.

[@murer-Clau67]

Tak for dit bidrag 🙂

[@chrismeese3666]

We should always be prepared. Amen

[@cogentdynamics]

Anders , you are always insightful and realistic. Thank you. Too bad so many in power are not as smart and keep busy in the pandering of politicians and nearsighted voters.

[@robertatkins9419]

He's neither insightful nor realistic. He is a propagandist - a professional liar.

[@GeigerFarm]

@@robertatkins9419 did that trigger you 😢😉

[@robertatkins9419]

@@GeigerFarm I wouldn't use the word 'trigger', which is another one of those rhetorical diversions - like 'conspiracy theorist', and 'whataboutist' - cooked up by the crooks at Langley. 'Offended' would probably be a better description - offended by Anders Nielsen's offensive, fearmongering, warmongering propaganda.

[@enpakeksi765]

@@robertatkins9419 What are the lies he has propagated in this particular video?

[@robertatkins9419]

@@enpakeksi765 The lie is the one he perpetrates from the very outset - that Europe is in danger of being attacked by Russia. Russia has precisely zero desire to attack Europe. Europe has nothing that Russia wants, including territory. The lie is the entire stinking propaganda narrative that Nielsen and others make money from spreading.

[@MobiusHorizons]

My guess is that if Russia wants to test article 5, but control escalation, they would be most likely to employ thinly veiled proxys like they did in Ukraine in 2014, in Georgia in 2008 and in Moldova in the Transnistria region. I'm not sure exactly how that would be achieved or where, but the tactic has a proven track record of resulting in inaction from the west. Those tactics provide Russia with a just plausible enough deniability that Russia can treat any response to the agression as escalation.

[@Kastrenzo74]

the moment someone starts waving a gun and blathering about russian seperatism in the baltic region, the entire region is going to go on high alert. No one is falling for the little green men / novorossia shit ever again.

[@ausriusdidziokas6771]

That not true, they are not dtratagtes. Russia caused escalation by attack Ukraine

[@ausriusdidziokas6771]

That not true, they are not dtratagtes. Russia caused escalation by attack Ukraine

[@ausriusdidziokas6771]

That not true, they are not dtratagtes. Russia caused escalation by attack Ukraine

[@gregorymuir1985]

That also depends on western leaders looking for excuses to not get involved. If they are spoiling for a fight, this isn't fooling anyone. If they want an excuse to do nothing, there you are. It's also easier to act when the victim is still standing. Crimea was occupied before the legislatures could even schedule an emergency session. There was resolve for the second go around to arm up Ukraine. If you provide sufficient defense, Russia will realize there's no way to make it happen.

[@davidmcnay5382]

The guy spent 11 mins of our lives saying the same thing over and over again!! 🤷‍♂️

[@Mummigoy]

Tak for endnu en informativ video! Det sgu rart med lidt mere dybdegående forståelse som kommer fra en ekspert. Hvis Rusland kører det finske scenarie du nævner, tror du der er reelle muligheder for at nogle Nato-lande vil ignorere artikel 5? Eller er det noget vi 'bare' skal have i mente for nu?

[@lagmonster7789]

Helt enig og et ret relevant spørgsmål. Personligt er jeg ret sikker på at Danmark will være blandt de første(sammen med Norge & Sverige) til at støtte op om Finnerne hvis de skulle blive invaderet uanset om artikel 5 er trådt i kraft eller ej.

[@perchristensen8071]

USA bliver direkte nævnt, som dem der hoppe af. Ok, men hvor meget valg har de europæiske NATO lande ? Inden vi siger nej tak, foreslår jeg man lige ringer til Rønne og spørger hvor mange landgangsfartøjer de kan se.

[@yvonnetomenga5726]

@Anders Puck Nielsen • Very informative video. I've heard opposition to international groups before, but did not realize the purpose was to increase the power of the already powerful nations by moving to bilateral agreements. Russia's target of Lapland is also interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and expertise. 👍

[@lazaraza]

I am surprised you didn't mention anything of the hybrid war which is currently ongoing, and some may argue has been ongoing for 10+ years now. If Russia still has any teeth left after the fight with Ukraine, will surely escalate that front

[@Chesterr379]

Only 10? It started after 1991 when nato decided to bet on nationalism movements on post Soviet Union countries. + Biden back in 1996 said Russia will see national expansion as threat. This didn’t stop since USSR. Destroying USSR was just a first stage. Russia wanted to stop further NATO plans by joining EU and NATO and having veto power over ex USSR territories in joining without any settled conflicts between them. But of course west would never allow Russia to do so. If Russia would be at least member of EU now, there would be no war in Ukraine.

[@lazaraza]

you've no idea what you're blabbing about, don't you now? @@Chesterr379

[@Psyhius]

ever since Putin had taken power, Russia has been at war with the west in all ways bar physical

[@lmcsquaredgreendale3223]

Are you talking about the proxy war in the Middle East because if you are I agree that will heat up after Russia gets its a*s kicked. They will need to save face and so will probably claim they were fighting on two fronts and we had to give up one. Anyone who wants their aid will keep their mouths shut about the humiliating defeat.

[@johnnyrvf]

If Russia has any teeth left? You need to get with the picture. Russia is out producing the USA and the west in arms. It has 1.400 men joining up voluntarily a week. In the west there is a dearth of recruits.

[@darren_mcgarvey]

A thoughtful take, Subscribed.