cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996

German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      4 days ago

      Bingo.

      And also depends on which side China is on. Their war production dwarfs even the US, and I find it difficult to believe that it will all be spent fighting the US and Taiwan.

      There is a very real possibility that these three countries gang up together and divide the world among themselves.

      • Hubi@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days ago

        At this point it seems much more likely that the US sides with Russia than China. The EU is their largest trading partner, they’d never risk losing that market.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            The problem is China is right there, and a lot of parts of Russia used to have Chinese names.

            Mostly, Siberia is literally infinite resources, the kind of thing China desperately needs.

          • Hubi@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Russia has alienated China already by being an unstable and unpredictable mess of a country.

      • hairyfeet@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you’re aim is to carve up territory then you don’t give a potential long term adversary access to half a billion people.

        • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Alliances aren’t forever. Hitler and Stalin made an agreement not to fight each other, which worked to the benefit of both for a while, and the Trump admin and Putin are more closely aligned ideologically than those two ever were. Alliances can be made for expedience and short-term gain, even with a potential long-term adversary.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            The only thing worse than having Russia as an enemy is having them as an ally.

            They’re a catastrophe in nation form, the best thing we can do is push them as close to China as possible and watch them shoot themselves in the dick.

            That’s why Trump is such a nightmare, he’s showing them our dicks.

    • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      US has a sizeable advantage in terms of sheer firepower but lacks the collective will to side with Russia in a conflict with NATO. To be clear, the Trump administration might try to side with Russia and the initial consequences of that would be very serious. But, long term, I think that would bring a swift end to the US’ global dominance. Potentially even bringing us to the point of total collapse.

      That’s just one American’s perspective though.