Snap General Election called

[morepork]

What an unnecessarily patronising tone this thread has taken on.

[Zhivago]

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

The war is not yet over and the outcome is uncertain.

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja

On the contrary. Ukraine was the most industrialised part of the USSR. Gaining it would vastly augment Russian power.

[Stom]

My comments here are going to be a bit jumbled...

But there are two parts to this as far as I can see:

1) Does any green deal NEED buy-in from India/China, or could we create a new tax law that would have a MASSIVE impact without the need to have them on side.

By placing a tax on every single item based upon the amount of miles of transport the items from that product travel, we could eliminate a huge quantity of emissions AND create jobs in Europe. Yes, prices would go up, but it would be a fundamental shift in the right direction, in my opinion.

At the moment, an average car, for example, includes parts made in the UK, China, Chile, Hungary, Taiwan, and potentially elsewhere. But it's not just that. The part from the UK is shipped to China to be bolted onto another part, and then shipped to Hungary to be assembled into one unit, before being shipped back to the UK to be assembled completely. Meanwhile, the parts from Chile go to India, are partially assembled before being shipped to Taiwan, and then to the UK for final assembly. By taxing the journey these parts take, we would make it economically nonviable to continue this way.

Meanwhile, things like Wish.com could be eliminated, which would be a HUMONGOUS net benefit to society.

2) Russia...do we need more funding for the army? Or do we need to actually isolate Russia and their partners completely? We've taken a massive backseat in this conflict, not helped by the actions of the Hungarian government (and one reason I'm so pissed at the UK's handling of Brexit: there was a real chance to create an EU for the people, but it was not taken). If we, and other nations, had actively become involved, we could have ended this thing already. Just go and assassinate the fucker, ffs! Heck, infiltrate NK and get yourself a double whammy. Why the hell not.

Defense spending is so far down the pipeline when we're facing a real and actual threat. The lukewarm war Russia is waging isn't a direct threat, it's an indirect one. What is more funding going to do? Troops will not protect us. More nukes will not protect us. cyber sercurity, sure, but do we need more funding there, or just a realignment of current funding?

We need to concentrate funding on the massive issue at hand: the planet. And the truth is that many societaly problems are simply related to that issue.

[Puja]

What an unnecessarily patronising tone this thread has taken on.

Agreed. Let's leave alone the question of whether Russia will conquer the universe if the British disband all their armies and give all the materiel to Belarus (as I believe the two opposing sides are), and get back to the important things - the death spiral of the Tory party.

The gambling thing is the gift that keeps on giving. On the one hand, it's a story of very little - do we actually particularly care about William Hill getting ripped off for £500 by someone who got the inside nod? However, it's come to symbolise all the graft and corruption of the last 14 years, especially since it's coming out in a drip-drip-drip of revelations. If there'd just been 4 people announced on day one, then it wouldn't have had half the effect of them being strung out like a club announcing contract signings.

Puja

[Zhivago]

My comments here are going to be a bit jumbled...

But there are two parts to this as far as I can see:

1) Does any green deal NEED buy-in from India/China, or could we create a new tax law that would have a MASSIVE impact without the need to have them on side.

By placing a tax on every single item based upon the amount of miles of transport the items from that product travel, we could eliminate a huge quantity of emissions AND create jobs in Europe. Yes, prices would go up, but it would be a fundamental shift in the right direction, in my opinion.

At the moment, an average car, for example, includes parts made in the UK, China, Chile, Hungary, Taiwan, and potentially elsewhere. But it's not just that. The part from the UK is shipped to China to be bolted onto another part, and then shipped to Hungary to be assembled into one unit, before being shipped back to the UK to be assembled completely. Meanwhile, the parts from Chile go to India, are partially assembled before being shipped to Taiwan, and then to the UK for final assembly. By taxing the journey these parts take, we would make it economically nonviable to continue this way.

Meanwhile, things like Wish.com could be eliminated, which would be a HUMONGOUS net benefit to society.

2) Russia...do we need more funding for the army? Or do we need to actually isolate Russia and their partners completely? We've taken a massive backseat in this conflict, not helped by the actions of the Hungarian government (and one reason I'm so pissed at the UK's handling of Brexit: there was a real chance to create an EU for the people, but it was not taken). If we, and other nations, had actively become involved, we could have ended this thing already. Just go and assassinate the fucker, ffs! Heck, infiltrate NK and get yourself a double whammy. Why the hell not.

Defense spending is so far down the pipeline when we're facing a real and actual threat. The lukewarm war Russia is waging isn't a direct threat, it's an indirect one. What is more funding going to do? Troops will not protect us. More nukes will not protect us. cyber sercurity, sure, but do we need more funding there, or just a realignment of current funding?

We need to concentrate funding on the massive issue at hand: the planet. And the truth is that many societaly problems are simply related to that issue.

Price rises will reduce demand which will lead to reduced sales which means less revenue which means businesses performing badly and job losses. That's not a politically acceptable option.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm amazed by the pearl-clutching over this. It's not "violence against politicians" - it's a milkshake. It's a noisy and embarrassing protest, not violence.

Back onto serious politicians, Starmer did a terrible job at the debate. All very well explaining carefully afterwards that the Tories are lying and exaggerating, but most of the audience will not read the careful and well-cited later rebuttal - they just heard Sunak hammer home the point of "Labour will raise taxes by £2,000" over and over and Starmer fail to deal with it.

Puja

He answered like a lawyer. He assumed he would get his turn and the moderator kept saying "we've moved off topic" when he was about to answer. He needs to learn to muscle his way on before the next election.

[Sandydragon]

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

The war is not yet over and the outcome is uncertain.

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja

When would we use nuclear weapons? To defend Poland, the Baltic states, France?

Putin will push boundaries as far as he can. He has already invaded Ukraine, twice, and Georgia. He is trying to recreate the Russian empire and overcome the Cold War.

Encouraging him by reducing defence spending, as it appears you wish to do, it absurd. Even appeasement was designed to buy time to rearm.

[Sandydragon]

My comments here are going to be a bit jumbled...

But there are two parts to this as far as I can see:

1) Does any green deal NEED buy-in from India/China, or could we create a new tax law that would have a MASSIVE impact without the need to have them on side.

By placing a tax on every single item based upon the amount of miles of transport the items from that product travel, we could eliminate a huge quantity of emissions AND create jobs in Europe. Yes, prices would go up, but it would be a fundamental shift in the right direction, in my opinion.

At the moment, an average car, for example, includes parts made in the UK, China, Chile, Hungary, Taiwan, and potentially elsewhere. But it's not just that. The part from the UK is shipped to China to be bolted onto another part, and then shipped to Hungary to be assembled into one unit, before being shipped back to the UK to be assembled completely. Meanwhile, the parts from Chile go to India, are partially assembled before being shipped to Taiwan, and then to the UK for final assembly. By taxing the journey these parts take, we would make it economically nonviable to continue this way.

Meanwhile, things like Wish.com could be eliminated, which would be a HUMONGOUS net benefit to society.

2) Russia...do we need more funding for the army? Or do we need to actually isolate Russia and their partners completely? We've taken a massive backseat in this conflict, not helped by the actions of the Hungarian government (and one reason I'm so pissed at the UK's handling of Brexit: there was a real chance to create an EU for the people, but it was not taken). If we, and other nations, had actively become involved, we could have ended this thing already. Just go and assassinate the fucker, ffs! Heck, infiltrate NK and get yourself a double whammy. Why the hell not.

Defense spending is so far down the pipeline when we're facing a real and actual threat. The lukewarm war Russia is waging isn't a direct threat, it's an indirect one. What is more funding going to do? Troops will not protect us. More nukes will not protect us. cyber sercurity, sure, but do we need more funding there, or just a realignment of current funding?

We need to concentrate funding on the massive issue at hand: the planet. And the truth is that many societaly problems are simply related to that issue.

We’ve tried isolating Russia. It hasn’t worked. Much of the world is trying not to offen Russia and China so will co tone to trade with them.

European defence is a joke on the whole. Take US out of nato and capability is reduced by 3/5s to 3/4. Russia light fancy that at some point.

Noting that a huge chunk of our munitions have been sen to Ukraine and the defence industry isn’t geared up to replace them.

We have a military that is tiny. We couldn’t deploy anything more than a division and then not for long. We simply couldn’t sustain the losses Ukraine has.

Bottom line we need to invest and ensure that we can as a group of European states in nato defend ourselves, especially if Trump is re elected.

Regarding the environmental aspect, would us isolationg ourselves from global markets and supply chains make the slightest difference overall? The rest of Europe and the US, plus China India and others would still buy and ship materials. Without major multinational agreement what the UK alone can achieve is minuscule.

[Sandydragon]

I have the overtly stated ambition of winning the lottery.

Puja

All very well, but there is no wikipedia page about your ambition, and there is a surfeit of material about the Russian ideology.

The Russian ambition is well within the realm of possibilities if we were to reduce military expenditure, as you desire. You don't apprehend quite how close Kyiv was to falling. And how dire a situation we would have been in if that had happened.

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

And what about our stockpiles of munitions having gifted so much to Ukraine? Russia is gearing its economy to fight a major war. We aren’t. If Trump forces Ukraine to compromise next year then Russia can recover.

[Puja]

The war is not yet over and the outcome is uncertain.

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja

When would we use nuclear weapons? To defend Poland, the Baltic states, France?

Putin will push boundaries as far as he can. He has already invaded Ukraine, twice, and Georgia. He is trying to recreate the Russian empire and overcome the Cold War.

Encouraging him by reducing defence spending, as it appears you wish to do, it absurd. Even appeasement was designed to buy time to rearm.

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

[Zhivago]

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja

When would we use nuclear weapons? To defend Poland, the Baltic states, France?

Putin will push boundaries as far as he can. He has already invaded Ukraine, twice, and Georgia. He is trying to recreate the Russian empire and overcome the Cold War.

Encouraging him by reducing defence spending, as it appears you wish to do, it absurd. Even appeasement was designed to buy time to rearm.

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

I doubt we'd use nukes if Putin invaded the Baltics. It'd be NATO conventional forces. The plan was to cede ground and reconquer it. European (i.e. NATO without US) forces are not strong enough to reliably achieve this.

[Zhivago]

The RAND Corporation conducted a series of wargames to explore the shape and likely outcome of a Russian invasion of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The results were unambiguous and suggested that given the Baltic states’ military capabilities and NATO’s posture at the time, Russian forces could overrun the Baltic states within 36 to 60 hours. Such a swift defeat would leave NATO with unpalatable choices including: a bloody counteroffensive; a nuclear response; or the acceptance of Russian rule over the Baltics.

To avoid such a situation, the study recommended that seven allied brigades – including three heavy brigades – with appropriate air support and other enablers should be deployed to permanent bases in the Baltics.

These suggestions have never materialised. Although NATO has deployed a multinational battalion battle group to each Baltic state and Poland as part of its Enhanced Forward Presence, boosted the readiness of the NATO Response Force and the US has unilaterally forward deployed some heavy forces into the region, these efforts are not even close to matching the proposed force package. There are no signs that this situation will change in the future, meaning that the Baltic states are still in the same situation as the RAND study found them four years ago – their conventional militaries destroyed in less than three days and NATO struggling to choose from three unthinkable options.

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/do ... 2024D07122

This is a 2020 paper referencing a 2016 paper by RAND. The situation now is not materially different aside from the fact that Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and of course Sweden and Finland are now in NATO. The Russian military industrial complex is in wartime mode of production, whereas we are not. If we let Russia succeed in Ukraine, the Baltics would be easy pickings.

[Puja]

Here's a nice palate cleanser for you all - Tommy Robinson has just been arrested in Canada for having entered the country illegally.



Puja

[Sandydragon]

Here's a nice palate cleanser for you all - Tommy Robinson has just been arrested in Canada for having entered the country illegally.



Puja

I think we can all agree that’s a good thing.
In other news Farage is picking a fight with the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson. My only concern with that is the potential for the popcorn to run out

[Sandydragon]

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja

When would we use nuclear weapons? To defend Poland, the Baltic states, France?

Putin will push boundaries as far as he can. He has already invaded Ukraine, twice, and Georgia. He is trying to recreate the Russian empire and overcome the Cold War.

Encouraging him by reducing defence spending, as it appears you wish to do, it absurd. Even appeasement was designed to buy time to rearm.

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

We have far fewer warheads than the US, Russia might see a nuclear war as being winnable against just the UK and France. But even so, we re unlikely to unleash a nuclear apocalypse unless it’s the last resort. Which means defending Poland and other allies in Eastern Europe will need conventional forces, which are currently very under sized.

[Son of Mathonwy]

When would we use nuclear weapons? To defend Poland, the Baltic states, France?

Putin will push boundaries as far as he can. He has already invaded Ukraine, twice, and Georgia. He is trying to recreate the Russian empire and overcome the Cold War.

Encouraging him by reducing defence spending, as it appears you wish to do, it absurd. Even appeasement was designed to buy time to rearm.

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

We have far fewer warheads than the US, Russia might see a nuclear war as being winnable against just the UK and France. But even so, we re unlikely to unleash a nuclear apocalypse unless it’s the last resort. Which means defending Poland and other allies in Eastern Europe will need conventional forces, which are currently very under sized.

We have 225 warheads, France a similar number. Only an insane Russian leader would see a war like that as winnable. Yes, there would be more Russian survivors than In the UK or France. The UK and France would cease to exist. But Russia would also cease to exist as we know it - its cities destroyed, any concentrations of military forces similarly. It would be a fleet of nuclear submarines plus a wasteland and a fraction of its former population.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The RAND Corporation conducted a series of wargames to explore the shape and likely outcome of a Russian invasion of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The results were unambiguous and suggested that given the Baltic states’ military capabilities and NATO’s posture at the time, Russian forces could overrun the Baltic states within 36 to 60 hours. Such a swift defeat would leave NATO with unpalatable choices including: a bloody counteroffensive; a nuclear response; or the acceptance of Russian rule over the Baltics.

To avoid such a situation, the study recommended that seven allied brigades – including three heavy brigades – with appropriate air support and other enablers should be deployed to permanent bases in the Baltics.

These suggestions have never materialised. Although NATO has deployed a multinational battalion battle group to each Baltic state and Poland as part of its Enhanced Forward Presence, boosted the readiness of the NATO Response Force and the US has unilaterally forward deployed some heavy forces into the region, these efforts are not even close to matching the proposed force package. There are no signs that this situation will change in the future, meaning that the Baltic states are still in the same situation as the RAND study found them four years ago – their conventional militaries destroyed in less than three days and NATO struggling to choose from three unthinkable options.

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/do ... 2024D07122

This is a 2020 paper referencing a 2016 paper by RAND. The situation now is not materially different aside from the fact that Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and of course Sweden and Finland are now in NATO. The Russian military industrial complex is in wartime mode of production, whereas we are not. If we let Russia succeed in Ukraine, the Baltics would be easy pickings.

Interesting paper. I would say though that things are materially different - the full-scale Ukraine invasion has had a huge impact on Russia's capabilities, positively and negatively. They have lost a huge number of men and weapons. But they have gained experience and have geared up their economy to a war footing. They are under much greater financial strain. NATO and the Baltic states have learned from the Ukraine war too. How all these changes add together to impact the vulnerability of the Baltic states is hard to determine but I wouldn't assume they are easy pickings, any more than Ukraine turned out to be.

[Zhivago]

The RAND Corporation conducted a series of wargames to explore the shape and likely outcome of a Russian invasion of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The results were unambiguous and suggested that given the Baltic states’ military capabilities and NATO’s posture at the time, Russian forces could overrun the Baltic states within 36 to 60 hours. Such a swift defeat would leave NATO with unpalatable choices including: a bloody counteroffensive; a nuclear response; or the acceptance of Russian rule over the Baltics.

To avoid such a situation, the study recommended that seven allied brigades – including three heavy brigades – with appropriate air support and other enablers should be deployed to permanent bases in the Baltics.

These suggestions have never materialised. Although NATO has deployed a multinational battalion battle group to each Baltic state and Poland as part of its Enhanced Forward Presence, boosted the readiness of the NATO Response Force and the US has unilaterally forward deployed some heavy forces into the region, these efforts are not even close to matching the proposed force package. There are no signs that this situation will change in the future, meaning that the Baltic states are still in the same situation as the RAND study found them four years ago – their conventional militaries destroyed in less than three days and NATO struggling to choose from three unthinkable options.

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/do ... 2024D07122

This is a 2020 paper referencing a 2016 paper by RAND. The situation now is not materially different aside from the fact that Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and of course Sweden and Finland are now in NATO. The Russian military industrial complex is in wartime mode of production, whereas we are not. If we let Russia succeed in Ukraine, the Baltics would be easy pickings.

Interesting paper. I would say though that things are materially different - the full-scale Ukraine invasion has had a huge impact on Russia's capabilities, positively and negatively. They have lost a huge number of men and weapons. But they have gained experience and have geared up their economy to a war footing. They are under much greater financial strain. NATO and the Baltic states have learned from the Ukraine war too. How all these changes add together to impact the vulnerability of the Baltic states is hard to determine but I wouldn't assume they are easy pickings, any more than Ukraine turned out to be.

Ukraine is a much larger country. The possibility to conduct defence in depth existed. That is not so in the Baltics. Plus the Russians would immediately cut off the Suwalki gap and attack from three sides. There would be no logistics for NATO to support the Baltics, apart from sea. That would complicate any defence that NATO mounted.

[Zhivago]

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

We have far fewer warheads than the US, Russia might see a nuclear war as being winnable against just the UK and France. But even so, we re unlikely to unleash a nuclear apocalypse unless it’s the last resort. Which means defending Poland and other allies in Eastern Europe will need conventional forces, which are currently very under sized.

We have 225 warheads, France a similar number. Only an insane Russian leader would see a war like that as winnable. Yes, there would be more Russian survivors than In the UK or France. The UK and France would cease to exist. But Russia would also cease to exist as we know it - its cities destroyed, any concentrations of military forces similarly. It would be a fleet of nuclear submarines plus a wasteland and a fraction of its former population.

Depends on his counsel.

https://karaganov.ru/en/nuclear-war-can-be-won/
https://karaganov.ru/en/sergei-karagano ... tern-yoke/

[Which Tyler]

John Oliver on the UK's GE

[Sandydragon]

And are the nuclear weapons more effective if there are individual British and French ones or would they work just as well as an Anglo-French joint effort?

Puja

We have far fewer warheads than the US, Russia might see a nuclear war as being winnable against just the UK and France. But even so, we re unlikely to unleash a nuclear apocalypse unless it’s the last resort. Which means defending Poland and other allies in Eastern Europe will need conventional forces, which are currently very under sized.

We have 225 warheads, France a similar number. Only an insane Russian leader would see a war like that as winnable. Yes, there would be more Russian survivors than In the UK or France. The UK and France would cease to exist. But Russia would also cease to exist as we know it - its cities destroyed, any concentrations of military forces similarly. It would be a fleet of nuclear submarines plus a wasteland and a fraction of its former population.

Assuming they are all deployable at the same time. Due to how the submarines are rotated and serviced that isn’t the case.

And the key point is that a British or French leader may not choose to use nukes to defend Eastern Europe. I suspect the red line for both is much further west.

And the key point raised below is that some politicians and voters want to CUT defence expenditure. That’s at a time where we need a competent military and don’t want to send the wrong message to Putin, the same way we did to the Argentinians
.

[Mikey Brown]

Have Labour/Starmer actually given an explicit stance on defence spending?

I can understand if they haven’t, there are more pressing issues like making sure schools refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people.

[Zhivago]

Have Labour/Starmer actually given an explicit stance on defence spending?

I can understand if they haven’t, there are more pressing issues like making sure schools refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people.

Increase but not urgently

[Son of Mathonwy]

We have far fewer warheads than the US, Russia might see a nuclear war as being winnable against just the UK and France. But even so, we re unlikely to unleash a nuclear apocalypse unless it’s the last resort. Which means defending Poland and other allies in Eastern Europe will need conventional forces, which are currently very under sized.

We have 225 warheads, France a similar number. Only an insane Russian leader would see a war like that as winnable. Yes, there would be more Russian survivors than In the UK or France. The UK and France would cease to exist. But Russia would also cease to exist as we know it - its cities destroyed, any concentrations of military forces similarly. It would be a fleet of nuclear submarines plus a wasteland and a fraction of its former population.

Assuming they are all deployable at the same time. Due to how the submarines are rotated and serviced that isn’t the case.

And the key point is that a British or French leader may not choose to use nukes to defend Eastern Europe. I suspect the red line for both is much further west.

And the key point raised below is that some politicians and voters want to CUT defence expenditure. That’s at a time where we need a competent military and don’t want to send the wrong message to Putin, the same way we did to the Argentinians
.

That's a different point (and a perfectly reáonable one). But that doesn't rely on us having only about 500 warheads between the UK and France, rather on how willing we are to use them.

I agree that reducing the number we have might not be a great idea (less than 100 usable warheads feels too low to me) especially if France's fall into the hands of Le Pen.

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/do ... 2024D07122

This is a 2020 paper referencing a 2016 paper by RAND. The situation now is not materially different aside from the fact that Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and of course Sweden and Finland are now in NATO. The Russian military industrial complex is in wartime mode of production, whereas we are not. If we let Russia succeed in Ukraine, the Baltics would be easy pickings.

Interesting paper. I would say though that things are materially different - the full-scale Ukraine invasion has had a huge impact on Russia's capabilities, positively and negatively. They have lost a huge number of men and weapons. But they have gained experience and have geared up their economy to a war footing. They are under much greater financial strain. NATO and the Baltic states have learned from the Ukraine war too. How all these changes add together to impact the vulnerability of the Baltic states is hard to determine but I wouldn't assume they are easy pickings, any more than Ukraine turned out to be.

Ukraine is a much larger country. The possibility to conduct defence in depth existed. That is not so in the Baltics. Plus the Russians would immediately cut off the Suwalki gap and attack from three sides. There would be no logistics for NATO to support the Baltics, apart from sea. That would complicate any defence that NATO mounted.

Absolutely. The Baltics are not Ukraine. Also I think there was a fair possibility that the defence of Kyiv might have failed if had circumstances been only slightly different - luck was involved.

I just don't think things are quite as desperate for the Baltic states as you suggest. Russia's situation is weaker in a number of ways (if stronger in others) since the Ukraine invasion began.