Actually, those who remember the 90s and, before that, the Cold War see and understand that Europe is much safer now that it was then. The USSR was much stronger relative to Western Europe then. Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO (it might have been weaker in the early 90s but NATO had also not expanded to its current footprint).

Rememeber also that there was a hot war in the middle of Europe (former Yugoslavia) during the 90s with the US even carrying airstrikes on an European capital (Belgrade).

Obviously this does not mean that European countries should have weak militaries or not show strength. But the threat of Russia is overblown and used to manufacture consent in public opinion for more spending and more EU integration at a time when people already suffer economically and are already squeezed, and growing disatisfied with the EU.

IMHO, the highest risk of violent instability in Western Europe now and in the coming years is not Russia but mass immigration and islamist terrorism at large. And perhaps that's also partly why governments are trying to deflect attention...

> it seems crazy that Russia might start dropping bombs, say, on Copenhagen or London.

Yes, that is totally crazy.

▲

xp84 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO

What NATO? The one that included the US? Have you not been paying attention to Trump directly stating that he might not honor Article 4 if he doesn't feel like it?

And let's be completely honest, I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that European governments would for their part completely decline to send any significant manpower to intervene if the US were attacked by China or North Korea. In spite of Article 4, public opinion would be that the US "deserves it" for its poor diplomacy and for electing Trump.

NATO is no longer relevant, sadly, unless the US makes a huge turnaround in its commitment to it. NATO is in 2 parts: America, and everybody else, and neither side any longer has a firm commitment to actually go to war for the other. So the relevant part of NATO is "all NATO countries except the US":

https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1cud48e/nato_...

▲

scotty79 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Now Russia is probably at its weakest relative to NATO

That's exactly why there's gonna by full scale war with russia. It's simply the best moment for it and russia showed it can't be left alone.

▲

mytailorisrich 3 days ago | parent [-]

Are you suggesting that NATO is going to start a war against Russia, the country with the largest nuke stockpile?

That's bonkers on all levels, and more.

	▲	scotty79 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Largest nuke arsenal that they could find even one in, that they would be sure enough it works to detonate even on their own vast wasteland as the show of force? Ask yourself why despite ample amount of scaremongering russia didn't detonate even one, just for show? If they tried and failed they'd demonstrate weakness. And rockets? All they could demonstrate in 3 years was a single stripped down monkey patched small sort of ICBM and even that after making some very nice crater in russia on previous attempted launch. Might of russia is mostly American PR stuck from the times of cold war.
	▲	ath3nd 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Russia can't deal with small Ukraine for 4 years. Their outdated poor tech and drunkard band of villagers called "soldiers" can't defeat a country with 5 times less population. Even with the help of the equally poor and unqualified North Korea and the jihadists of Khadirov, Russia hasn't achieved anything substantial but lose north of a million poor conscripts. I want to remind you Russia's long distance rockets have largely self destructed on Russian territory even without a liftoff: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/europe/russia-sarmat-miss... A single misstep of the Russian war criminals on EU soil, and they will be obliterated in seconds. It's bonkers to think otherwise.