User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/27/2021 8:27:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: The_Beer_Slayer]
This is now the active "shit News links, thanks to BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By BerettaGuy: LINKS TO UKRAINIAN NEWS SOURCES IN ENGLISH Kyiv Post Ukrainian News UKRInform EUROMAIDEN PRESS New Voice of Ukraine Kyiv Independent Ukraine World InterFax Ukraine UATV Ukrainian Journal Official Website of the President of Ukraine Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Save these links. I can't post all the headlines like I've done in the past - too much news and too often. Please @ me with additional stuff to be added here. I don't currently have time to properly curate this thread otherwise. New news link c/o berettaguy: Ukrainian Pravda https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/ Stop fake, anti - disinformation site: https://www.stopfake.org/en/main/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:05:10 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:06:28 AM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:11:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Hopefully the Russian stooges have the right guys. Although I doubt it matters much to them. NYT had an article in todays paper matching the clothes of the captured perp's to those of the shooters. They have the right guy's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:12:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Well that’s more detail than I expected  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:14:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Well that’s more detail than I expected Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Well that’s more detail than I expected lol, I am having trouble keeping track of all the ammo types and where they are manufactured, then shipped to other countries for filling, etc. Then back to Ukraine for firing at Russians.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:16:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Over the course of a week, Russian bombers dropped at least eight high-explosive bombs on the Belgorod region.
According to ASTRA, on March 25, FAB-50 was found near the village of Smorodino, Yakovlevsky city district. Residents were not evacuated when the bomb was destroyed. On the same day, FAB-250 was found near the village of Zybino, Borisov district. It must be destroyed today. On March 22, one FAB-250 was found near the village of Shalaevo, and the second was found five kilometers from the village of Kazinka, Valuysky district. In both cases, residents were not evacuated during the seizure. On March 21, FAB-500 was found near the village of Antonovka, Grayvoronsky district. On the same day, another FAB-500 was found in the area of the village of Kryukovo, Borisov district. In both cases, people were not evacuated when the bombs were removed. On March 20, the FAB was discovered near the village of Vvedenskaya Gotnya, Rakityansky district. Another FAB bomber dropped on the village of Zamostye, Grayvoronsky district. https://t.me/belpepel/5054 |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:17:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: It is frustrating because everyone has to form a committee to discuss something, then make a decision to do something and all agree to the action to be taken. Then the action happens. In the meantime, people die and stuff gets destroyed. I would rather make much quicker decisions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu:  Considering?  This is what I mean when I say that western 'leadership' is completely absent and they are being completely reactive, instead of laying out possible actions, counteractions, consequences. The time for 'considering' their response to air incursions was two years ago. They should have already considered this, established a policy, coordinated with partners as necessary, and communicated that policy so that all understand the rules. IMO, the policy should be that any missile approaching NATO air space gets shot down. If that means stuff falls on Ukraine, well too bad. Ukraine already has stuff falling so they're probably going to be okay with it. Again, that should have been coordinated already. This entire article reveals the lack of proactive and decisive leadership in NATO and the West. It is frustrating because everyone has to form a committee to discuss something, then make a decision to do something and all agree to the action to be taken. Then the action happens. In the meantime, people die and stuff gets destroyed. I would rather make much quicker decisions. This is also why I'm convinced that Putin absolutely could take the Baltics. NATO has to have their committees & consensus building, and press announcements. Give Russia 36 hours, and facts on the ground can be established that NATO would find extremely difficult to overturn. Putin now knows for certain that NATO's ground forces are very thin, with very limited equipment stocks. "I just took the Baltics, what are you going to do about it? BTW, I promise not to do anything else against any other NATO nation, ever. Let's make a peace deal." That has the potential to throw a wrench into NATOs political considerations, and possibly end NATO as a going concern. People keep making statements of faith in NATO, and I just no longer have that level of confidence. Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't assume any particular action or outcome for NATO anymore. "Of course we would go to war for Estonia." Really? |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:39:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJi6GlBWkAAwUoq?format=png&name=900x900 Gonna need a bunch more gun tubes to go with that, thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:44:11 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: lol, I am having trouble keeping track of all the ammo types and where they are manufactured, then shipped to other countries for filling, etc. Then back to Ukraine for
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:47:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bikedamon: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bikedamon: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: lol, I am having trouble keeping track of all the ammo types and where they are manufactured, then shipped to other countries for filling, etc. Then back to Ukraine for lol, well played sir, well played.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:50:35 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:50:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
She went to school in the U.S. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:00:42 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m:
This is very interesting. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJkEyCNbIAA7TbW?format=jpg&name=4096x4096  if true.Whoa. They continue to scrape together whatever armored vehicles they can, apparently. "designed for evacuation of Soviet government from Kremlin to airport under nuclear/chemical/biological attack. Ladoga uses tracks from the T-80U as well as suspension system and gas-turbine powerplant. The crew is 2 soldiers. It also has a four-seat cab equipped with a crew life-support facilities to protect the passengers against the radiological, chemical and bacteriological contamination of the environment." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:13:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Off topic, but big news nonetheless. Video in tweet. 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJllkiCXgAA1D7C?format=png&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJl-3ppWQAA7C-a?format=jpg&name=large
Can they drop anchor without electricity? The Captain should have tried once he lost control. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:19:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
I'm thinking thermite grenades. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:39:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: I disagree there and it shows how shortsighted people like that are. Killing civilians always outrages rather than terrorizes. You want to terrorize people. make it impossible to fill their gas tank and quadruple their grocery bill. Yeah, going to disagree on that one. I just look at the facebook posts of people losing their shit over price increases in the US, I don't see terror, I see anger and resolve. I do agree, making it harder or risker to get gas, groceries, go to school, etc however is the route to building fear in the weak of a population. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 12:21:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kpacman: NYT had an article in todays paper matching the clothes of the captured perp's to those of the shooters. They have the right guy's. I read that also. Still, it would suck to be a hitch-hiker picked up by those assholes just before the chase and crash... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 12:23:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: lol, I am having trouble keeping track of all the ammo types and where they are manufactured, then shipped to other countries for filling, etc. Then back to Ukraine for firing at Russians. Yeah it's all kinda crazy. I was going to suggest they move the "filling" to Ukraine but the factory in the picture looks very austere. Maybe better to outsource the HE part. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 12:27:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: This is also why I'm convinced that Putin absolutely could take the Baltics. NATO has to have their committees & consensus building, and press announcements. Give Russia 36 hours, and facts on the ground can be established that NATO would find extremely difficult to overturn. Putin now knows for certain that NATO's ground forces are very thin, with very limited equipment stocks. "I just took the Baltics, what are you going to do about it? BTW, I promise not to do anything else against any other NATO nation, ever. Let's make a peace deal." That has the potential to throw a wrench into NATOs political considerations, and possibly end NATO as a going concern. People keep making statements of faith in NATO, and I just no longer have that level of confidence. Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't assume any particular action or outcome for NATO anymore. "Of course we would go to war for Estonia." Really? I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 12:35:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I've had the same thoughts. Wouldn't the terrorist alter there plan after the warning from the US? Maybe they noticed that nothing changed as far as security around the concert venue. Maybe security was even relaxed supporting the "modified" false flag theory meaning that the attackers were real islamist idiots but Russia wanted/allowed them to succeed. The actual killers are probably too stupid to hear about the warnings or even understand the significance but their handlers should have been shocked and nervous. I would have been. Maybe signals intel was intercepted rather than an actual mole/agent inside. The Russian response, especially Putin's idiotic dismissal of the warnings is a little surprising. Talk about looking like an idiot. But the Russian public are spoon fed info even worse than here in the USA so I'm sure the swallowed it all without choking. Pre 9-11 the CIA had data that a new group was planning something big. However this new group was in some place called Afghanistan and the president and his people were conviced that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were the only ones we really needed to worry about. The team tracking this new group 'Al Queada' was down to just one person prior to 9-11. Goverments don't even want to listen to their own folks, much less to some other goverment. Russia annouced it was blackmail, basically telling the terroroists that they didn't belive it. So the terrororists were left with a choice, go forward with a plan that might be comprimised, or backoff, and plan for a new attack. Not suprisingly they went forward. None of this is unexpected, or new. Was this a false flag? Perhaps, but I personally don't think so. Could Russia have known and just let it go on anyway? Perhaps, however I think they would have responded quicker, brought some Uks they just captured and shot to be the perps and made a much better show of it. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 12:45:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Easterner: Well as our mission winds down, it's time to take inventory of ammunition, equipment, and get ready for the next mission. We have been spending the last few days counting rounds, rockets, and weapons. Vehicles are also a priority as they keep us mobile and in the fight. I promised some videos and they will come once the remaining soldiers are out of the operation areas. As a logistics unit, we spend a lot of time making sure everyone has what they need. From vehicles, equipment, ammunition, food, water, and kit. We don't have the luxury of being true "Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers". We deliver everything, which means we are a part of the operation. We are up there in the hot zone where the fight is. Our biggest threats are artillery, FPVs, and surveillance drones finding our Forward Logistics Base. Trust me, we had a lot of close calls on this past OP. There is no air superiority on our side. I had the pleasure of an FPV detonating close to me on one run to the FLB. To make matters worse, I was driving under shitty NODs on a really wrecked road. Some of the other guys had FPVs and grenade droppers seemingly playing battleship trying to find the FLB. Add in quite a few Shaheds and glide bombs and it wasn't a pleasant time. Gladly, all of our team was successful and the exfil went flawlessly. We do some sneaky shit. During the OP, glide bomb strike on a safe house storage: Lost two quads https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/Screenshot_20240313-160338_2_png-3167865.JPG During the OP, collision while fleeing from drones: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/signal-2024-03-24-10-51-18-959-1_jpg-3167868.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/signal-2024-03-24-10-51-18-959_jpg-3167869.JPG You can see by our patch, we are proud to be the battlefield lizards. REMF Life.  Once the OP is over 100%, we can share the videos of the quads and other vehicles working. I have to say we did some really hairy shit, and came out looking like superstars. Command is extremely happy with our work. We have acquired some new vehicles that are pretty sweet for what we do. We even had a Baba Yaga drone recovery we did that took place in the early hours in a not so far off land. We are the guys they call when it has to get done. Happy to help one of the UA teams taking out an average 10+ vehicles + personnel DAILY. Stay tuned for the videos. They are currently awaiting permission for public release. Love you guys. Thanks for the support. You are clearly making a difference out there. I'm glad you also have some amazing stories to share but the bottom line is that you're making a difference, and I am proud of you as I'm sure the rest of us are too. Looking forward to your next update, and God be with you on each mission. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:00:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Easterner: We will discuss it tonight. These may be available soon. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/IMG_20240324_202427_2_jpg-3168120.JPG We will definitely do one for our lizard helpers.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Easterner: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By doc540: Originally Posted By Easterner: Well as our mission winds down, it's time to take inventory of ammunition, equipment, and get ready for the next mission. We have been spending the last few days counting rounds, rockets, and weapons. Vehicles are also a priority as they keep us mobile and in the fight. I promised some videos and they will come once the remaining soldiers are out of the operation areas. As a logistics unit, we spend a lot of time making sure everyone has what they need. From vehicles, equipment, ammunition, food, water, and kit. We don't have the luxury of being true "Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers". We deliver everything, which means we are a part of the operation. We are up there in the hot zone where the fight is. Our biggest threats are artillery, FPVs, and surveillance drones finding our Forward Logistics Base. Trust me, we had a lot of close calls on this past OP. There is no air superiority on our side. I had the pleasure of an FPV detonating close to me on one run to the FLB. To make matters worse, I was driving under shitty NODs on a really wrecked road. Some of the other guys had FPVs and grenade droppers seemingly playing battleship trying to find the FLB. Add in quite a few Shaheds and glide bombs and it wasn't a pleasant time. Gladly, all of our team was successful and the exfil went flawlessly. We do some sneaky shit. During the OP, glide bomb strike on a safe house storage: Lost two quads https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/Screenshot_20240313-160338_2_png-3167865.JPG During the OP, collision while fleeing from drones: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/signal-2024-03-24-10-51-18-959-1_jpg-3167868.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/signal-2024-03-24-10-51-18-959_jpg-3167869.JPG You can see by our patch, we are proud to be the battlefield lizards. REMF Life. Once the OP is over 100%, we can share the videos of the quads and other vehicles working. I have to say we did some really hairy shit, and came out looking like superstars. Command is extremely happy with our work. We have acquired some new vehicles that are pretty sweet for what we do. We even had a Baba Yaga drone recovery we did that took place in the early hours in a not so far off land. We are the guys they call when it has to get done. Happy to help one of the UA teams taking out an average 10+ vehicles + personnel DAILY. Stay tuned for the videos. They are currently awaiting permission for public release. Love you guys. Thanks for the support. What's the going price for a LIZARD patch?  lol, this, do want! We will discuss it tonight. These may be available soon. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/526834/IMG_20240324_202427_2_jpg-3168120.JPG We will definitely do one for our lizard helpers. Hah, am I translating the bottom properly: "REMF LIFE" is your motto? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:07:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: This is also why I'm convinced that Putin absolutely could take the Baltics. NATO has to have their committees & consensus building, and press announcements. Give Russia 36 hours, and facts on the ground can be established that NATO would find extremely difficult to overturn. Putin now knows for certain that NATO's ground forces are very thin, with very limited equipment stocks. "I just took the Baltics, what are you going to do about it? BTW, I promise not to do anything else against any other NATO nation, ever. Let's make a peace deal." That has the potential to throw a wrench into NATOs political considerations, and possibly end NATO as a going concern. People keep making statements of faith in NATO, and I just no longer have that level of confidence. Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't assume any particular action or outcome for NATO anymore. "Of course we would go to war for Estonia." Really? I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. Putin understands that a direct non-nuclear war with NATO would mean the destructions of his military (even given the current shortcomings of many European militaries). Once his military power is gone, his tenure as a strong-man dictator may not last long. As a result, I think he REALLY wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. All of his empty posturing and threats (especially nuclear one) are a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength and confidence. Those are the behaviors of a bully who is ultimately a coward and doesn't want to fight. Putin also understands that a nuclear confrontation with NATO would result in the destruction of his country, his powerbase, and any chance of remaining in power. Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:11:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. Putin understands that a direct non-nuclear war with NATO would mean the destructions of his military (even given the current shortcomings of many European militaries). Once his military power is gone, his tenure as a strong-man dictator may not last long. As a result, I think he REALLY wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. All of his empty posturing and threats (especially nuclear one) are a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength and confidence. Those are the behaviors of a bully who is ultimately a coward and doesn't want to fight. Putin also understands that a nuclear confrontation with NATO would result in the destruction of his country, his powerbase, and any chance of remaining in power. Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: This is also why I'm convinced that Putin absolutely could take the Baltics. NATO has to have their committees & consensus building, and press announcements. Give Russia 36 hours, and facts on the ground can be established that NATO would find extremely difficult to overturn. Putin now knows for certain that NATO's ground forces are very thin, with very limited equipment stocks. "I just took the Baltics, what are you going to do about it? BTW, I promise not to do anything else against any other NATO nation, ever. Let's make a peace deal." That has the potential to throw a wrench into NATOs political considerations, and possibly end NATO as a going concern. People keep making statements of faith in NATO, and I just no longer have that level of confidence. Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't assume any particular action or outcome for NATO anymore. "Of course we would go to war for Estonia." Really? I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. Putin understands that a direct non-nuclear war with NATO would mean the destructions of his military (even given the current shortcomings of many European militaries). Once his military power is gone, his tenure as a strong-man dictator may not last long. As a result, I think he REALLY wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. All of his empty posturing and threats (especially nuclear one) are a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength and confidence. Those are the behaviors of a bully who is ultimately a coward and doesn't want to fight. Putin also understands that a nuclear confrontation with NATO would result in the destruction of his country, his powerbase, and any chance of remaining in power. Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. Well said, this is how I see the situation as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:12:12 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:12:59 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:25:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. I don't agree. It's patently obvious that Russia has completely failed in every objective so far, against an opponent they should be able to defeat quickly. They're not going to take the Baltics or anywhere else because they can't do it. They're unable to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:26:41 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:31:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. Putin understands that a direct non-nuclear war with NATO would mean the destructions of his military (even given the current shortcomings of many European militaries). Once his military power is gone, his tenure as a strong-man dictator may not last long. As a result, I think he REALLY wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. All of his empty posturing and threats (especially nuclear one) are a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength and confidence. Those are the behaviors of a bully who is ultimately a coward and doesn't want to fight. Putin also understands that a nuclear confrontation with NATO would result in the destruction of his country, his powerbase, and any chance of remaining in power. Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. Are NATO forces in the Baltics there on a permanent basis - troops rotating out are replaced with new rotating in? How many? A couple hundred from the US are in Estonia, which is not substantial and certainly not enough to turn aside a large-scale invasion. Estonia maintains practically no standing force (<10K) but has 200K on rapid reserve. How rapidly can they get to defensive positions and start shooting? I don't know enough to refute any of this, but the things I've seen and learned in the last couple years have really eroded my confidence. I'm also less confident that Putin places retaining power above empire. In his sunset years, he seems more focused on restoring the empire than anything else. Look what's sacrificing to take Ukraine. And his perceptions about NATO will be the factor. I don't disagree that he's a bully, but that's the behavior of a bully; where they perceive weakness and lack of will and ability to resist, there the bully strikes. NATO has ability, provided they can muster in a timely fashion. That is more of an open question that maybe it was before. But does NATO have the will? Stoltenberg is a strong leader, but his term is due to expire. What if an Olaf Scholz type gets the Secretary General's chair? I've just seen so much reactionary and insubstantial decisions/leadership, I have more questions than faith. I want to believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:36:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#30]
This is for 155mm production from the West, he is creating a complete list soon. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:53:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. ...... Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. agree with all that plus -- Russia is currently in a degraded state. they are being fought to a stand-still by Ukraine -- a nation without a Navy or real Air Force. taking on NATO in 2024 would be a disaster for Russia |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:59:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MFP_4073]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Are NATO forces in the Baltics there on a permanent basis - troops rotating out are replaced with new rotating in? How many? A couple hundred from the US are in Estonia, which is not substantial and certainly not enough to turn aside a large-scale invasion. Estonia maintains practically no standing force (<10K) but has 200K on rapid reserve. How rapidly can they get to defensive positions and start shooting? I don't know enough to refute any of this, but the things I've seen and learned in the last couple years have really eroded my confidence. I'm also less confident that Putin places retaining power above empire. In his sunset years, he seems more focused on restoring the empire than anything else. Look what's sacrificing to take Ukraine. And his perceptions about NATO will be the factor. I don't disagree that he's a bully, but that's the behavior of a bully; where they perceive weakness and lack of will and ability to resist, there the bully strikes. NATO has ability, provided they can muster in a timely fashion. That is more of an open question that maybe it was before. But does NATO have the will? Stoltenberg is a strong leader, but his term is due to expire. What if an Olaf Scholz type gets the Secretary General's chair? I've just seen so much reactionary and insubstantial decisions/leadership, I have more questions than faith. I want to believe. permanent. and getting larger. from last year. ----------------------------------- Canada pledges to double its troops for Latvia in NATO reinforcement https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-latvia-sign-agreement-increase-troops-baltics-2023-07-10/ By Andrius Sytas July 10, 20232:05 PM EDTUpdated VILNIUS, July 10 (Reuters) - Canada on Monday pledged to double its NATO-mandated deployment in Latvia with up to 1,200 more troops to try to secure the vulnerable Baltic region against any Russian aggression. NATO has set up multinational battlegroups of about 1,000 troops in each of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The battlegroups are configured to act as a tripwire for larger forces in case of a conflict. Since Russia's full-scale 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the battlegroups have been reinforced. The Baltics - all of which have borders with Russia - have been calling for them to be beefed up further into battle-ready brigades of about 3,000-5,000 troops. Germany announced in June it would keep 4,000 troops in Lithuania permanently. Estonian officials said their defence needs had been met by a British fighting force based outside Estonia but which can be deployed there within days in a crisis. "We are going to more than double our presence ... to serve and defend democracy and the rule of law," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a joint press conference with his Latvian counterpart Krisjanis Karins at the Adazi military base in Latvia after an agreement was signed. Canada commands the NATO battlegroup in Latvia, currently 1,700 strong, a number including troops from nine other NATO members. It is the largest overseas military engagement for Canada. Trudeau said the added Canadian personnel "will reinforce and enhance our land, maritime and air capabilities and support special operations in central and eastern Europe" and the other nations will increase their presence in the battlegroup too. The three Baltic republics have sharply increased military spending since 2014 but their economies and militaries are small. Canada pledged C$2.6 billion ($2 billion) to renew and expand the Latvian mission for three years starting in 2023-24. The investment includes critical weapons systems and support for intelligence and cyber activities, Trudeau said before heading to neighbouring Lithuania for a NATO summit. There Canada is expected to come under pressure from allies to increase its defense spending further to a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product per year. At 1.29% of GDP in 2022, Canada's defense spending as a percentage of GDP is about the same as it was in the late 1990s. Canada has been lobbying to include in the calculation its expenditure space, cyber and artificial intelligence (AI) research, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp reported on Monday, citing sources. -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 1:59:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Are NATO forces in the Baltics there on a permanent basis - troops rotating out are replaced with new rotating in? How many? A couple hundred from the US are in Estonia, which is not substantial and certainly not enough to turn aside a large-scale invasion. Estonia maintains practically no standing force (<10K) but has 200K on rapid reserve. How rapidly can they get to defensive positions and start shooting? I don't know enough to refute any of this, but the things I've seen and learned in the last couple years have really eroded my confidence. I'm also less confident that Putin places retaining power above empire. In his sunset years, he seems more focused on restoring the empire than anything else. Look what's sacrificing to take Ukraine. And his perceptions about NATO will be the factor. I don't disagree that he's a bully, but that's the behavior of a bully; where they perceive weakness and lack of will and ability to resist, there the bully strikes. NATO has ability, provided they can muster in a timely fashion. That is more of an open question that maybe it was before. But does NATO have the will? Stoltenberg is a strong leader, but his term is due to expire. What if an Olaf Scholz type gets the Secretary General's chair? I've just seen so much reactionary and insubstantial decisions/leadership, I have more questions than faith. I want to believe. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I disagree, for two reasons. 1. A variety of NATO forces have troops in the Baltic states, and so a Russian invasion/attack would involve DIRECT combat with more "traditional" NATO forces. Once that happens, then it's no longer a question of how committed we are to Article 5 or "mutual defense" - then it is a matter of actually already being in a hot shooting war with Russia. 2. NATO (primarily the US) air power would absolutely annihilate any Russian assets in the air, which would give NATO complete dominance of the skies over the Baltics - which means that killing Russian forces on the ground would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The Ukraine war has shown how sub-part Russian (and old Soviet) airplanes and air defenses are. Also, keep in mind that with modern surveillance (especially US satellites), we would have considerable warning of a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, and would move assets (both ground forces, as well as air defense) into the area before any actual invasion. Remember - Putin PRIMARILY cares about remaining in power. Restoring the glory of the USSR or Russian Empire is a secondary goal, driven by this ego - but his primarily goal will always be to remain in power, and he will do anything necessary to that end. Putin understands that a direct non-nuclear war with NATO would mean the destructions of his military (even given the current shortcomings of many European militaries). Once his military power is gone, his tenure as a strong-man dictator may not last long. As a result, I think he REALLY wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. All of his empty posturing and threats (especially nuclear one) are a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength and confidence. Those are the behaviors of a bully who is ultimately a coward and doesn't want to fight. Putin also understands that a nuclear confrontation with NATO would result in the destruction of his country, his powerbase, and any chance of remaining in power. Based on that, I think the chance of Putin going for a NATO country is pretty close to zero. Are NATO forces in the Baltics there on a permanent basis - troops rotating out are replaced with new rotating in? How many? A couple hundred from the US are in Estonia, which is not substantial and certainly not enough to turn aside a large-scale invasion. Estonia maintains practically no standing force (<10K) but has 200K on rapid reserve. How rapidly can they get to defensive positions and start shooting? I don't know enough to refute any of this, but the things I've seen and learned in the last couple years have really eroded my confidence. I'm also less confident that Putin places retaining power above empire. In his sunset years, he seems more focused on restoring the empire than anything else. Look what's sacrificing to take Ukraine. And his perceptions about NATO will be the factor. I don't disagree that he's a bully, but that's the behavior of a bully; where they perceive weakness and lack of will and ability to resist, there the bully strikes. NATO has ability, provided they can muster in a timely fashion. That is more of an open question that maybe it was before. But does NATO have the will? Stoltenberg is a strong leader, but his term is due to expire. What if an Olaf Scholz type gets the Secretary General's chair? I've just seen so much reactionary and insubstantial decisions/leadership, I have more questions than faith. I want to believe. I'm with Lieh-tzu on this: I think Putin's main goal is restoring the Empire, him being in power is just the means to that end. He probably sees himself as The Emperor from WH40K without whom Russia will be lost. And unfortunately, most Russians see it that way too, it appears. I mean, the political oppression and election manipulation are real but to them it looks like the Holy Inquisition doing the needful to protect the people's minds from evil. As to the NATO leadership, it's not like they appoint secretary-generals by lottery. A "weak" leader is just a personification of the lack of the constituent members' will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 2:17:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Capta]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Esterhase: I don't agree. It's patently obvious that Russia has completely failed in every objective so far, against an opponent they should be able to defeat quickly. They're not going to take the Baltics or anywhere else because they can't do it. They're unable to. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Esterhase: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I think you are correct. The only wild card would be NATO air power. IF Russia could reach their objectives fast, NATO would not have time to respond and would waste time arguing in committees. I don't agree. It's patently obvious that Russia has completely failed in every objective so far, against an opponent they should be able to defeat quickly. They're not going to take the Baltics or anywhere else because they can't do it. They're unable to. I’ll be the devil’s advocate on this as usual. Russia doesn’t need to be able to objectively succeed at conquering the Baltics with conventional forces to try, particularly if nukes are brought into the equation. There were a couple of videos put out by Ukraine the Latest recently where a couple of Russia experts affirmed that Russia had “basically zero chance of succeeding conventionally in the Baltics now, especially with NATO’s increased posture in the Baltics and Russia’s heavy losses.” However, they caveated that with a couple of factors, (paraphrasing) “western leadership does not understand and is having to re-learn that Russia only respects force,” and that “a newer, hungry cadre of Russian Generals is taking over their Army who have no experience with the west and don’t understand it.” They also said that “this mutual misunderstanding, combined with the idea that they believed Russian behavior was becoming increasingly irrational, left the way open for accidents.” If you look at the missile track over Poland (assuming it’s accurate) one missile took a detour over Poland for no other reason than to fly over Poland. Clearly this is a provocation and a test, and I think Russian decision makers can be forgiven for thinking NATO has failed this test, as it has failed the test throughout the war with probably dozens of other similar incidents The Russians are also probably looking at our response to the Houthis, a problem which is entirely possible they instigated to watch our response. Whether NATO actions result from an intent to sucker Russia in further, or are well-intentioned but overly bureaucratic inertia, or are feckless cowardice, they will be taken by Russian decision-makers in the manner that confirms what they want to see. It doesn’t matter if this would actually translate to unwillingness to defend NATO territory or honor article 5, it only matters that the Russians could convince themselves it would. Russia is run by sick, evil, increasingly (IMO) desperate men. They have fairly successfully put on a face of normalcy, which IMO hides a dire situation inside. Russia has always been extraordinarily insular and opaque to the West. We made a better effort to understand and counter them during the Cold War, but that knowledge has perished, and in the last 30 years we’ve returned to the idea that “they’re a European country and they must think just like us.” They are not. Perun’s video on Russian military export sales really identified how bad Russia’s DIB situation was already and was going to be in the future. Their orders have dropped to near zero, their next-gen kit are already failures which they can’t produce, and they have no money or tech exchange for development. At they same time, the west was already qualitatively light-years ahead of them, and Ukraine has (belatedly) spurred remilitarization and procurement in NATO that they can’t possibly match. Yes, they are pumping out refurbed T72s and 152mm ammo, but they are catastrophically fucked when it comes to matching up going forward. The key point that we have to consider is what the Russian leadership perceives about the balance of conventional power in the future. Our Western assumption is that, obviously, they’ll understand the situation and decide that their only choice is to reach an accommodation. This is dead wrong. I also think it’s wrong to assume that the only priority of Russian leadership is retaining their power and perks. They may be totally corrupt by our standards, but this doesn’t exclude ideology as a motivation, as we often assume it does. Putin is near the end of his life. At this point I’m comfortable with saying his motivation is near 100% ideological. The people who would likely replace him, hardcore FSB men, may also be rich as fuck, but they’ve also spent their lives plotting to advance the Russian Empire and destroy the west. It’s a huge mistake to not credit Russian leadership with the ideology they are clearly taking action to implement. Hitler and the Nazi party were corrupt as hell too. Did that stop them or mean they’d act “reasonably” to preserve their power and perks? I’ve repeatedly compared the war by Russia to Japan in WW2. It doesn’t have to be possible to win in order to try. One of Japan’s rationales for war in 1941 was that, given the collapse of naval building treaties and what they knew perfectly well about overwhelming US productive superiority, they had no choice but to act now or never. I believe the Russians will convince themselves the conventional balance of power will only get worse for them, and they can’t wait any longer and will have to go with whatever they can scrape together as soon as they can, probably behind nuke threats or nuke use. It doesn’t have to be sane, it only has to look sane to evil, desperate men. My opinion is and has been that a combination of incompetence, corruption, high-level losses, and most importantly, high stress on their system in multiple ways has probably rendered Russian leadership incapable of making sound strategic decisions. NATO needs to consider anything and everything as possible. With nukes on the table somewhere short of a full exchange, what can Russia do conventionally right now? With nukes on the table, what can Russia do after a short pause/freeze in the conflict in Ukraine to withdraw all the forces they can and reposition them, leaving the Ukrainian front guarded by a skeleton crew of infantry only? |
|
|
|
WY, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:14:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: *Waiting eagerly for Bradley vs Chinese Golf Cart.* Lol, sweet baby Jesus I'd pay good money to watch that 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:20:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Are NATO forces in the Baltics there on a permanent basis - troops rotating out are replaced with new rotating in? How many? A couple hundred from the US are in Estonia, which is not substantial and certainly not enough to turn aside a large-scale invasion. I'm not sure if any are there permanently YET - so in the past they did rotate in and out on a regular basis. Different NATO countries have responsibility for defending different parts of the Baltic states at various times. For example, the Danish Air Force has been responsible for defending Estonia's air space, since I don't believe they even have an air force. I imagine there is talk of permanent US bases in some of the Baltics, but am not sure. I just looked up an example, and it turns out there's a NATO "multinational battalion battle group" in Lithuania, that is staffed by troops from France, Germany, Czech Republic, Norway, Netherlands, etc. .. about 1000 troops. But really it's not about having troops there to turn aside a large-scale invasion. It's much more about the "trip wire" of having US, French, Dutch, Czech, etc. troops in-country - thus FORCING Russia to have to directly attack NATO troops from a number of member states, not just the country they are invading. Like I said, that would put all of those countries in a shooting war with Russia, with Article 5 decisions thus being completely moot. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:21:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: If you look at the missile track over Poland (assuming it’s accurate) I missed this somehow. Do you have a link? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:38:15 PM EDT
[#38]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:51:26 PM EDT
[#39]
17 minutes ago, incoming Ukrainian drones.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 3:55:37 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:05:23 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:10:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJmJw7fWQAAao-Z?format=jpg&name=large
Those are gnarly looking |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:40:28 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:41:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MFP_4073: permanent. and getting larger. from last year. ----------------------------------- Canada pledges to double its troops for Latvia in NATO reinforcement https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-latvia-sign-agreement-increase-troops-baltics-2023-07-10/ By Andrius Sytas July 10, 20232:05 PM EDTUpdated VILNIUS, July 10 (Reuters) - Canada on Monday pledged to double its NATO-mandated deployment in Latvia with up to 1,200 more troops to try to secure the vulnerable Baltic region against any Russian aggression. NATO has set up multinational battlegroups of about 1,000 troops in each of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The battlegroups are configured to act as a tripwire for larger forces in case of a conflict. Since Russia's full-scale 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the battlegroups have been reinforced. The Baltics - all of which have borders with Russia - have been calling for them to be beefed up further into battle-ready brigades of about 3,000-5,000 troops. Germany announced in June it would keep 4,000 troops in Lithuania permanently. Estonian officials said their defence needs had been met by a British fighting force based outside Estonia but which can be deployed there within days in a crisis. "We are going to more than double our presence ... to serve and defend democracy and the rule of law," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a joint press conference with his Latvian counterpart Krisjanis Karins at the Adazi military base in Latvia after an agreement was signed. Canada commands the NATO battlegroup in Latvia, currently 1,700 strong, a number including troops from nine other NATO members. It is the largest overseas military engagement for Canada. Trudeau said the added Canadian personnel "will reinforce and enhance our land, maritime and air capabilities and support special operations in central and eastern Europe" and the other nations will increase their presence in the battlegroup too. The three Baltic republics have sharply increased military spending since 2014 but their economies and militaries are small. Canada pledged C$2.6 billion ($2 billion) to renew and expand the Latvian mission for three years starting in 2023-24. The investment includes critical weapons systems and support for intelligence and cyber activities, Trudeau said before heading to neighbouring Lithuania for a NATO summit. There Canada is expected to come under pressure from allies to increase its defense spending further to a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product per year. At 1.29% of GDP in 2022, Canada's defense spending as a percentage of GDP is about the same as it was in the late 1990s. Canada has been lobbying to include in the calculation its expenditure space, cyber and artificial intelligence (AI) research, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp reported on Monday, citing sources. -------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for more context & info. This makes me feel better about our side of the scales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:47:31 PM EDT
[#45]
There's so much disbelief in Russia about Putin's and FSB's versions about Ukrainians, Tajiks and ISIS that instead a conspiracy theory is spreading about mysterious "guys in blue sweaters." They allegedly organized it all and are from FSB, according to the theory.
They were seen on videos from the concert hall, and then one of them was allegedly seen during the detaining in the forest. There is no confirmation of that as of now except for the blue sweaters, jeans and black watch straps. This is a set worn by every other Russian man. But the experience of life in Russia itself confirms that "guys in blue sweaters" do exist.
   
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:49:09 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:57:10 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 4:58:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: I’ll be the devil’s advocate on this as usual. Russia doesn’t need to be able to objectively succeed at conquering the Baltics with conventional forces to try, particularly if nukes are brought into the equation. There were a couple of videos put out by Ukraine the Latest recently where a couple of Russia experts affirmed that Russia had “basically zero chance of succeeding conventionally in the Baltics now, especially with NATO’s increased posture in the Baltics and Russia’s heavy losses.” However, they caveated that with a couple of factors, (paraphrasing) “western leadership does not understand and is having to re-learn that Russia only respects force,” and that “a newer, hungry cadre of Russian Generals is taking over their Army who have no experience with the west and don’t understand it.” They also said that “this mutual misunderstanding, combined with the idea that they believed Russian behavior was becoming increasingly irrational, left the way open for accidents.” If you look at the missile track over Poland (assuming it’s accurate) one missile took a detour over Poland for no other reason than to fly over Poland. Clearly this is a provocation and a test, and I think Russian decision makers can be forgiven for thinking NATO has failed this test, as it has failed the test throughout the war with probably dozens of other similar incidents The Russians are also probably looking at our response to the Houthis, a problem which is entirely possible they instigated to watch our response. Whether NATO actions result from an intent to sucker Russia in further, or are well-intentioned but overly bureaucratic inertia, or are feckless cowardice, they will be taken by Russian decision-makers in the manner that confirms what they want to see. It doesn’t matter if this would actually translate to unwillingness to defend NATO territory or honor article 5, it only matters that the Russians could convince themselves it would. Russia is run by sick, evil, increasingly (IMO) desperate men. They have fairly successfully put on a face of normalcy, which IMO hides a dire situation inside. Russia is extraordinarily insular and opaque to the West. We made a better effort to understand and counter them during the Cold War, but that knowledge has perished, and in the last 30 years we’ve returned to the idea that “they’re a European country and they must think just like us.” They are not. Perun’s video on Russian military export sales really identified how bad Russia’s DIB situation was already becoming and was going to be in the future. Their orders have dropped to near zero, their next-gen kit are already failures which they can’t produce, and they have no money or tech exchange for development. At they same time, the west was already qualitatively light-years ahead of them, and Ukraine has (belatedly) spurred remilitarization and procurement in NATO that they can’t possibly match. Yes, they are pumping out refurbed T72s and 152mm ammo, but they are catastrophically fucked when it comes to matching up going forward. They key point that we have to consider is what the Russian leadership perceives about the balance of conventional power in the future. Our Western assumption is that, obviously, they’ll understand the situation and decide that their only choice is to reach an accommodation. This is dead wrong. I’ve repeatedly compared the war by Russia to Japan in WW2. It doesn’t have to be possible to win in order to try. One of Japan’s rationales for war in 1941 was that, given the collapse of naval building treaties and what they knew perfectly well about overwhelming US productive superiority, they had no choice but to act now or never. I believe the Russians will convince themselves the conventional balance of power will only get worse for them, and they can’t wait any longer and will have to go with whatever they can scrape together as soon as they can, probably behind nuke threats or nuke use. It doesn’t have to be sane, it only has to look sane to evil, desperate men. My opinion is and has been that a combination of incompetence, corruption, high-level losses, and most importantly, high stress on their system in multiple ways has probably rendered Russian leadership incapable of making sound strategic decisions. NATO needs to consider anything and everything as possible. With nukes on the table somewhere short of a full exchange, what can Russia do right now? With nukes on the table, what can Russia do after a short pause/freeze in the conflict in Ukraine to withdraw all the forces they can and reposition them, leaving the Ukrainian front guarded by a skeleton crew of infantry only? There are parts of this that are quite on-point. The generation of leaders that got us through the Cold War and had detailed knowledge & understanding of Russian industry, Russian doctrine, and more importantly Russian thinking is gone, long gone. I've seen a lot of posts in GD that just fail to understand the internal thought processes, values, and motivations of the Russian side. (Not that GD is where policy is made. ) When two sides buy into their own hype and fail to really comprehend the motivations, objectives, and values of the other sides, the capacity for strategic blundering increases. If they buy into their own hype, that they're fighting with God's favor for truth, life, justice, and freedom; that their equipment isn't that terrible if it's used correctly; that the West is weak morally, intellectually, and lacks the will to fully defend territory that is rightfully Russian, then the rational approaches and policies may go out the window. For ego and empire, two of the classic causes of conflict historically. What we know is rational is not always seen that way by others who come from a different background & mindset. I think Russian military establishment understands at a conceptual level that Western equipment is superior to theirs, across the board. Two problems with this: they've been facing limited quantities of our gear, not always the top shelf, and also that conceptual picture doesn't reflect a true and deep understanding of the full implications of how those imbalances translate to strategy & tactics. As far as the defense industrial base, Russia is ramping up their domestic industry and shifting their entire economy to war footing. Assuming that they can put Ukraine to rest by early 2025 (yes, very questionable assumption), they'll have at that point the largest military outside China, significant domestic production (of Russian equipment, yes), and their other weak neighbors might look like logical next steps. Making the Baltics into porcupines as MFP-4073 & DKProf indicate is the only way to direct their attention to less-difficult targets. And remember, don't buy the hype "our western equipment is SOOO much better, nobody would go against that." I'll say it again, 100 T62s with fuel, ammo, crews, and a full commitment to use them absolutely beats 200 Leopard 2s sitting in storage uncrewed, unfueled, ammo in bunkers somewhere else, and reluctance to shed blood. |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 5:08:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I'm not sure if any are there permanently YET - so in the past they did rotate in and out on a regular basis. Different NATO countries have responsibility for defending different parts of the Baltic states at various times. For example, the Danish Air Force has been responsible for defending Estonia's air space, since I don't believe they even have an air force. I imagine there is talk of permanent US bases in some of the Baltics, but am not sure. I just looked up an example, and it turns out there's a NATO "multinational battalion battle group" in Lithuania, that is staffed by troops from France, Germany, Czech Republic, Norway, Netherlands, etc. .. about 1000 troops. But really it's not about having troops there to turn aside a large-scale invasion. It's much more about the "trip wire" of having US, French, Dutch, Czech, etc. troops in-country - thus FORCING Russia to have to directly attack NATO troops from a number of member states, not just the country they are invading. Like I said, that would put all of those countries in a shooting war with Russia, with Article 5 decisions thus being completely moot. This is a key point I'm in agreement with, and I hope NATO garrisons in the Baltics remain fully staffed permanently. I don't know if a massive Russian attack could cover the 120-ish miles to Tallinn in a day against whatever is on hand there, but the fact of a bunch of US & Canadian troops getting killed right out of the gate really does pull us in. Thank you for making me feel a bit better about our situation there. 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 5:11:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4xGM300m]
[#50]
...
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
