“It is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around,” Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said.

A war between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and NATO would end with Moscow’s “inevitable defeat,” Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said Thursday.

"It is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around,” Sikorski said during a speech to the Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament. “It is worth reminding about this, not to increase the sense of threat in the Russians, because NATO is a defensive pact, but to show that an attack by Russia on any of the members of the Alliance would end in its [Russia’s] inevitable defeat.”

Sikorski, who was laying out Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s vision for the new government’s foreign policy, said Russia’s military and economic potential “pales in comparison to that of the West,” as NATO has three times as many military personnel, three times the aerial resources and four times as many ships as Russia.

Western allies and top military officials have become increasingly worried about a potential spillover of violence from Putin’s ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine — as the Russian leader continues to issue veiled nuclear threats toward the West and stashes atomic weapons in Belarus, which borders NATO members Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

  • @bhmnscmm
    link
    English
    357 months ago

    A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.

    • Flying SquidM
      link
      English
      15
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      There is a great novel written in 1959 called Alas, Babylon by an author named Pat Frank about the survivors of a nuclear war between the US and the USSR in a small Florida town. The novel ends this way:

      “We won it. We really clobbered 'em!” Hart’s eyes lowered and his arms drooped. He said, “Not that it matters.”

      • @Beetschnapps
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That book was wild. Read it in high school as part of a class that also covered the classics of the era; On the Beach, Fail Safe etc. It stuck with me with its description of blindness from the blast and the metaphor for confusion.

        • Flying SquidM
          link
          English
          37 months ago

          That last line has haunted me for decades.

      • @bhmnscmm
        link
        English
        67 months ago

        Great quote! That’s one of my absolute favorite books. I recommend it to people all the time.

        If you liked Alas, Babylon, I’d strongly recommend On The Beach by Nevil Shute.

      • @ours
        link
        English
        47 months ago

        And that’s the whole point of MAD. It doesn’t matter if you can “win”. You’ve just managed to kill a few million more than the other side, everyone loses anyway so there’s no point in starting such a conflict.

        • Flying SquidM
          link
          English
          17 months ago

          Until someone is too crazy or too stupid or both and thinks they can win.

    • @Visstix
      link
      English
      87 months ago

      Yeah exactly. Of course you can “win” but everyone will lose a great deal in the process.

    • @Rapidcreek
      link
      English
      67 months ago

      Which is the reason there won’t be one. Nukes are seen these days as a weapon of last resort and has no tactical use.

      • @bhmnscmm
        link
        English
        117 months ago

        They’re a weapon of last resort because of (warranted) fear of them. Hence, everyone absolutely should be scared of war between NATO and Russia.

        • @Rapidcreek
          link
          English
          27 months ago

          Correct, fear of retribution. War between Russia would be brief without nukes, and you would be counting on NATO pulling back before Russia became desperate for survival.

          • Bipta
            link
            fedilink
            37 months ago

            And NATO wouldn’t be able to impose conditions of surrender, but rather, the loser would impose the conditions. There’s no playbook or precedent for any of it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      MAD goes way beyond Pyrrhic victory, even. Pyrrhus of Epirus won a battle but lost the war as a result… and then recovered in time to wage different, unrelated ones with other people.

    • VaultBoyNewVegas
      link
      English
      -37 months ago

      Exactly. I’ve read the UKs pm recently talking about the need to increase defense spending as the world’s so much likely to be at war. It’s like world leaders want to see WWIII not realizing or giving a shite that by talking it up that only destabilizes things like the economy as people become anxious and worried. And before anyone comes out with Russia invaded Ukraine first or out of nowhere. They didn’t invade in 2022, they invaded in 2014 with Crimea. Russia had been at war with Ukraine since and regardless invading the rest of Ukraine is a world of difference to invading a NATO member which would invite retaliation from 32 members and so would be an act of self sabotage when some of those members have nuclear weapons.