Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia threatens retaliation as Lithuania bans goods transit


Silver
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Russia has provoked concern in Brussels after threatening to retaliate over Lithuania’s ban on the transit of some goods across its territory to Russian Baltic Sea exclave of Kaliningrad.

The move by the government in Vilnius was described as “unprecedented” in Moscow, where the Russian foreign office said they reserved the right to respond to protect their national interest.

The comments set off alarm bells in Brussels, where the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said Lithuania was simply enforcing the bloc’s sanctions regime. He added, however, that he was concerned by the risk of retaliation and that he would check that all the rules were being followed, while accusing the Kremlin of peddling propaganda.

Russia threatens retaliation as Lithuania bans goods transit to Kaliningrad | Russia | The Guardian

Edited by The Silver Shroud
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruzzia threatening someone is like me threatening a UFC fighter, not going to happen!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Ruzzia threatening someone is like me threatening a UFC fighter, not going to happen!

I disagree. Ukraine happened.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Silver Shroud said:

I disagree. Ukraine happened.

Which is true, however Ukraine isn't part of NATO, Lithuania is. If Ruzzia retaliates militarily against Lithuania he could start WW3.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Which is true, however Ukraine isn't part of NATO, Lithuania is. If Ruzzia retaliates militarily against Lithuania he could start WW3.

I think we are on the brink of WW3. Putin is going to be very reluctant to climb down over Lithuania.Why Lithuania is polarised over Russia's war in Ukraine | Euronews

So far his 'special military operation' has been a failure, to have Lithuania openly defy him will make it a rout. I don't think many people expected world war when it happened the last two times- it is so cataclysmic teh felt it could be prevented by a bit of diplomacy and appeasement. Just my view, ofc.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

I think we are on the brink of WW3. Putin is going to be very reluctant to climb down over Lithuania.Why Lithuania is polarised over Russia's war in Ukraine | Euronews

So far his 'special military operation' has been a failure, to have Lithuania openly defy him will make it a rout. I don't think many people expected world war when it happened the last two times- it is so cataclysmic teh felt it could be prevented by a bit of diplomacy and appeasement. Just my view, ofc.

 

I agree I think its unavoidable which is why I believe NATO should make the first move. The UK general piping up about how we should ve ready for a war in Europe got to me. It either means.

1.) Just to boost morale of his troops

2.) Rhetoric to Ruzzia

3.) Intelligence suggest Ruzzia may actually attack NATO. 

 

Obviously I could be talking crap but that's what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see Russia attempting some kind of military attack on Lithuania to test the resolve of NATO's "Article 5", as it is a "less relevant" NATO state.

I could also see them just imposing sanctions on Lithuania.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I could see Russia attempting some kind of military attack on Lithuania to test the resolve of NATO's "Article 5", as it is a "less relevant" NATO state.

I could also see them just imposing sanctions on Lithuania.

Good point, military intervention in the West is often frowned upon by governments and population. The West doesnt seem to have the resolve for it. If Ruzzia were to try something in Lithuania they'd have to do it sooner rather than later cause NATO are gonna be sending more troops to the region.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThereWeAreThen said:

Good point, military intervention in the West is often frowned upon by governments and population. The West doesnt seem to have the resolve for it. If Ruzzia were to try something in Lithuania they'd have to do it sooner rather than later cause NATO are gonna be sending more troops to the region.

If Russia attacks Lithuania thinking that there will not be a response, I think that NATO would, in fact, respond militarily.

The extent of the military response, though, would probably not be significant. I think they would probably just push all of the Russians out of there, using NATO troops.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

If Russia attacks Lithuania thinking that there will not be a response, I think that NATO would, in fact, respond militarily.

The extent of the military response, though, would probably not be significant. I think they would probably just push all of the Russians out of there, using NATO troops.

Wel it could depends on the nature of the attack, Ruzzia could launch missiles via their navy, air force or missile forces or even all 3. NATO may let it slide or respond in kind. If theres an incursion by land like you say then NATO has to push them out or they'll just got for the other Baltic states. Will be worth mentioning if the proverbial hits the fan (which it may do) Belarus and even Serbia will be on Putlers side. With close eyes on Hungary.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThereWeAreThen said:

Wel it could depends on the nature of the attack, Ruzzia could launch missiles via their navy, air force or missile forces or even all 3. NATO may let it slide or respond in kind. If theres an incursion by land like you say then NATO has to push them out or they'll just got for the other Baltic states. Will be worth mentioning if the proverbial hits the fan (which it may do) Belarus and even Serbia will be on Putlers side. With close eyes on Hungary.

Yeah, my post was made with the assumption that they have Russian boots on the ground, in Lithuania. In hindsight, they'd probably not use actual soldiers in Lithuania, as they (sadly) need all the men they can get to secure Ukraine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Yeah, my post was made with the assumption that they have Russian boots on the ground, in Lithuania. In hindsight, they'd probably not use actual soldiers in Lithuania, as they (sadly) need all the men they can get to secure Ukraine.

They need all the men they can get to get the remainder 10-20$ of Seiverendonetsk (spelling) they're appauling. The flatten cities and take ages to capture them. NATO is trained in all types of warfare, especially urban warfare, looking how the orcs have performed we'd wipe the floor with them conventionally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

They need all the men they can get to get the remainder 10-20$ of Seiverendonetsk (spelling) they're appauling. The flatten cities and take ages to capture them. NATO is trained in all types of warfare, especially urban warfare, looking how the orcs have performed we'd wipe the floor with them conventionally.

A buddy of mine who was in the Latvian special forces suspected that with NATO's capabilities, the war would be over in a maximum of two weeks between NATO and Russia, as in all Russian troops completely neutralized.

He also agreed with my point that a couple of days of conventional warfare would not be unreasonable, either, especially with the level of sophistication that the US has in terms of military tech.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

A buddy of mine who was in the Latvian special forces suspected that with NATO's capabilities, the war would be over in a maximum of two weeks between NATO and Russia, as in all Russian troops completely neutralized.

He also agreed with my point that a couple of days of conventional warfare would not be unreasonable, either, especially with the level of sophistication that the US has in terms of military tech.

Not to mention the US spends about $800billion a year on their military and they're obviously not going to show the entire world what other "toys" they have up their sleeves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Not to mention the US spends about $800billion a year on their military and they're obviously not going to show the entire world what other "toys" they have up their sleeves.

I'm willing to bet they have access to high-tech equipment so advanced that it's just unfathomable.

That being said, I wonder how much of Russian tech is being concealed. Is all of their "advanced" stuff sitting in reserve? 

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I'm willing to bet they have access to high-tech equipment so advanced that it's just unfathomable.

That being said, I wonder how much of Russian tech is being concealed. Is all of their "advanced" stuff sitting in reserve? 

I'm just frustrated at the UK military. The MOD just p*** money up against the wall. Spent over £3billion on new tanks and only 26 were produced but they have noise problems. Our budget is massive yet wasting the money and theres talks Bozo wants to cut the army by 10k despite whats going on, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think NATO would be able to protect the Baltic sea states of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. The problem is that the Baltic states do not have any significant capabilities to host allied forces in large scale numbers, particularly as access to the area in a conflict scenario would be limited due to Russian air superiority and anti-access, area-denial capabilities. They are very vulnerable.

Lithuania is also very troublesome for NATO. Somehow to have managed to turn BOTH China and Russia against them in a short period of time.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

I don't think NATO would be able to protect the Baltic sea states of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. The problem is that the Baltic states do not have any significant capabilities to host allied forces in large scale numbers, particularly as access to the area in a conflict scenario would be limited due to Russian air superiority and anti-access, area-denial capabilities. They are very vulnerable.

Lithuania is also very troublesome for NATO. Somehow to have managed to turn BOTH China and Russia against them in a short period of time.

Question for you, is ruskia only able to show their superiority by attacking small, countries with limited access to largscale weaponary? Seem like that is the case. Superirority my ass.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, odas said:

Question for you, is ruskia only able to show their superiority by attacking small, countries with limited access to largscale weaponary? Seem like that is the case. Superirority my ass.

Lithuania needs to realize that the 'protection' confered to them by NATO is only a token gesture.

Provoking world powers such as China and Russia and thinking that the Alliance will defend them at all cost is probably not the greatest idea.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Lithuania needs to realize that the 'protection' confered to them by NATO is only a token gesture.

No, the protection confered to them is the result of them being members of NATO - not some "token gesture". I don't think you understand what that word means.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

No, the protection confered to them is the result of them being members of NATO - not some "token gesture". I don't think you understand what that word means.

Lithuania is called 'NATO's weakest point' for a reason. The Baltic states reside in a challenging neighbourhood. It's territorial defense by NATO cannot be guaranteed.  From a conventional military perspective, the Baltic states comprise an isolated “peninsula” within the wider NATO alliance system. It leaves the Baltic states highly vulnerable to the possibility of an attack by Russia, an event that would essentially seal the region off from the rest of Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Occult1 said:

Lithuania is called 'NATO's weakest point' for a reason. The Baltic states reside in a challenging neighbourhood. It's territorial defense by NATO cannot be guaranteed.  From a conventional military perspective, the Baltic states comprise an isolated “peninsula” within the wider NATO alliance system. It leaves the Baltic states highly vulnerable to the possibility of an attack by Russia, an event that would essentially seal the region off from the rest of Europe.

Okay, but Article 5 of NATO says nothing about any of that.

Do you know what Article 5 of NATO says?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Lithuania is called 'NATO's weakest point' for a reason. The Baltic states reside in a challenging neighbourhood. It's territorial defense by NATO cannot be guaranteed.  From a conventional military perspective, the Baltic states comprise an isolated “peninsula” within the wider NATO alliance system. It leaves the Baltic states highly vulnerable to the possibility of an attack by Russia, an event that would essentially seal the region off from the rest of Europe.

They are undefendable.

And we still have the scenarios where Russia demonstrates its willingness to use nukes. The USA, UK, and France, are not suicidal. If Russia starts nuking we aren`t sacrificing ourselves. Russia could if it wanted use 500 tactical nukes and drive up to the French border. Nothing would be done in nuclear retaliation, although they would be hated forever.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Okay, but Article 5 of NATO says nothing about any of that.

Do you know what Article 5 of NATO says?

Some people are trapped into the delusion that USA, France, and UK, are going to take a 95% loss of their populations in a nuclear conflict to stop Russia. Like hell we are. Look to your own defences!

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Some people are trapped into the delusion that USA, France, and UK, are going to take a 95% loss of their populations in a nuclear conflict to stop Russia. Like hell we are.

Do you know what Article 5 says?

Quote

Look to your own defences!

Then that would defeat the entire purpose of NATO if you're only meant to rely on your own country for protection. Not everybody is as much of a coward as you are.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.