It makes sense that they won't allow their own skin to be ravaged (United States, Britain, Germany, France etc), but why not the Baltics and Poland, at this point?
I'm surprised they haven't done so, after these long months
It makes sense that they won't allow their own skin to be ravaged (United States, Britain, Germany, France etc), but why not the Baltics and Poland, at this point?
I'm surprised they haven't done so, after these long months
I don't understand how people think that Ukraine is "holding" Russian forces anywhere.
How many of their total military personnel do they have deployed along the southern front, protecting their supply lines to Crimea? A tenth of their forces at most?
What is to stop Russia from deciding to take Kiev in the winter with another couple tenths?
NATO deliberately crossed Russia's diplomaticly stated red lines by courting Ukraine, and now they are just milking the war profits until the inevitable outcome of Ukrainian depletion.
Logistics. There's evidence to suggest last year's mobilisation was limited because MOD did the math and figured they couldn't supply a larger number. You can't just grab a bunch of people and tell them to go kill. You need to provide uniforms (multiple sets each, at least for different weather), arms, ammunition, body armour, food.
Possibility that NATO will start shit from another angle. You'll the recent flare up in Karabakh. Last year there was an artillery skirmish between IIRC Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (conveniently at the time of SCO summit). There's a new such skirmish brewing already. Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc. Don't underestimate just how surrounded Russia is by NATO.
That's a good question. Something clearly does. Can't afford to keep some other borders and Syria unattended for one. Also, that's pretty expensive and Russia is by no means unaffected by "sanctions", even if they didn't have the expected effect.