EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 673
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9198 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21693 Posts
On April 14 2024 23:47 Sent. wrote: If your probing to see if NATO holds or falls about at the first sign of a threat then attacking a piece of empty land in Finland makes more sense and make it easier for countries to say no to an article 5 call (and thereby end NATO) then if Finland makes little sense to me. Baltics are way more likely, especially because of their significant Russian minorities. They also can't defend themselves on their own, so Kremlin might count on a chance the rest of NATO won't help them. your attacking cities in Estonia, even if they contain Russian minorities (or even majorities). | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
On April 15 2024 00:12 Gorsameth wrote: If your probing to see if NATO holds or falls about at the first sign of a threat then attacking a piece of empty land in Finland makes more sense and make it easier for countries to say no to an article 5 call (and thereby end NATO) then if your attacking cities in Estonia, even if they contain Russian minorities (or even majorities). But what if some green men take an almost exclusively Russian city in Estonia, right at the border, with no shots fired and to the cheers of half of the population? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21693 Posts
On April 15 2024 00:53 maybenexttime wrote: The little green men everyone knows are Russian? you send in the army and they either run back to Russia or get shot. And you send a message to Russia making it entirely clear that them moving in to "protect" the Russia population is a declaration of war against NATO and will be responded to as such.But what if some green men take an almost exclusively Russian city in Estonia, right at the border, with no shots fired and to the cheers of half of the population? It worked in Crimea because no one was backing up Ukraine at the time. If they had moved in to fight back Russia would have come to "save" the people, which Ukraine would have lost badly because they were not ready at the time. If Russia tries it on a NATO member said member will/should have the entire backing of NATO to prevent that Russian escalation. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8082 Posts
On April 15 2024 00:53 maybenexttime wrote: But what if some green men take an almost exclusively Russian city in Estonia, right at the border, with no shots fired and to the cheers of half of the population? The little green men thing is unlikely to work again, at the very least not remotely as well as it did in Crimea. Their new dynamic way of fighting caught a lot of people by surprise, and it didn't help that Ukraine stood alone without allies at the time, in a much weaker state military-wise than they did in 2022, after 8 years of build-up. We have absolutely seen tendencies of this approach elsewhere, such as Finnmark in Norway, which suddenly started getting a surge of Russian immigrants after 2014. And whilst I certainly can't speak for every other country in the world, there are definitively a lot of plans and processes in place to make sure this same approach can't happen here. I'd be incredibly surprised if Finland didn't have the same plans in place. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
On April 15 2024 01:01 Gorsameth wrote: The little green men everyone knows are Russian? you send in the army and they either run back to Russia or get shot. And you send a message to Russia making it entirely clear that them moving in to "protect" the Russia population is a declaration of war against NATO and will be responded to as such. It worked in Crimea because no one was backing up Ukraine at the time. If they had moved in to fight back Russia would have come to "save" the people, which Ukraine would have lost badly because they were not ready at the time. If Russia tries it on a NATO member said member will/should have the entire backing of NATO to prevent that Russian escalation. I agree, but a delusional fascist dictator with a messianic complex might think different. :-) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21693 Posts
On April 15 2024 02:08 maybenexttime wrote: Which is where the message comes in. You have Biden call Putin with "the moment a Russian solder openly crosses the border we are declaring war, your intelligence will confirm 2 carrier groups just changed course and are speeding towards the Baltic sea".I agree, but a delusional fascist dictator with a messianic complex might think different. :-) Its something we see now with the Russia, Ukraine conflict as well where the US is very open and forward in telling Russia, not just through the media but also direct communication, that certain things are red lines so that they know of them. Ofc an insane person can ignore them and cross them. But that is the find out part of fucking around. And for NATO to exist and keep the entire western world safe that responce when someone fucks around needs to be unequivocal. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2620 Posts
Also why green men won't work again. Your enemy has to be unprepared. Sure send some guys in to take a "Russian" border town. Every spec-ops unit in Europe is going to be there in days with air support and heavy ground support. Meanwhile it takes weeks to form up an army to come "save" the population from oppression, all your guys are dead by then. | ||
|
sertas
Sweden887 Posts
On April 15 2024 00:12 Gorsameth wrote: If your probing to see if NATO holds or falls about at the first sign of a threat then attacking a piece of empty land in Finland makes more sense and make it easier for countries to say no to an article 5 call (and thereby end NATO) then if your attacking cities in Estonia, even if they contain Russian minorities (or even majorities). Sure you can attack an empty land of finland, but finland will defend it, they have prepared for war with russia for 70+ years, their army is very strong and people dont understand this, baltics on the other hand would fall over like bricks, they are not ready for war with russia at all. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6931 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On April 15 2024 18:01 Harris1st wrote: I imagine by now every country with a border to Russia is just waiting with knives between their theeth for the first Russians to cross so they can bomb the shit out of them Slow down Rambo, didn't all those bombs go to Ukraine already? Whats the lead time on more bombs? What about the barrels of the systems that will fire them? Also remember Ukraine? Maybe wait for that to end before measuring who has more chest hair. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On April 15 2024 20:03 zeo wrote: Slow down Rambo, didn't all those bombs go to Ukraine already? Whats the lead time on more bombs? What about the barrels of the systems that will fire them? Also remember Ukraine? Maybe wait for that to end before measuring who has more chest hair. You are still in this fantasy land where Ukraine is basically a war of Russia vs Nato? In reality, Ukraine is a war of Russia vs Ukraine armed with whatever last-gen stuff Nato has a surplus of lying about. I am pretty sure that Nato countries, especially those bordering Russia, didn't empty their storage. | ||
|
sertas
Sweden887 Posts
Of course nowadays people understand how weak russia was compared to what people thought before the war, so nowadays nato strategy wouldn't be to try to retake baltics, they would simply defend them directly before they are taken, given how weak russia is, which no one could've imagined 5 years ago. Finland does have an army with all the stuff that the US won't give ukraine for example atacms and soon F35, they are prepared for conventional war with russia and with a large standing army, totaly different beast, it also has terrible terrain to invade. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4557 Posts
On April 15 2024 20:37 sertas wrote: I mean the baltics did empty a lot of stuff for ukraine, and they never had a real plan to fight russia in conventional war in the first place, People didn't even think ukraine would last more than max 2 months with russia, therefore baltics preparing for that war is nonsensical. Maybe hold out for a bit until nato comes to the rescue would be their plan. Of course nowadays people understand how weak russia was compared to what people thought before the war, so nowadays nato strategy wouldn't be to try to retake baltics, they would simply defend them directly before they are taken, given how weak russia is, which no one could've imagined 5 years ago. Finland does have an army with all the stuff that the US won't give ukraine for example atacms and soon F35, they are prepared for conventional war with russia and with a large standing army, totaly different beast, it also has terrible terrain to invade. The funny thing is that people like Zeo, think that if Russia seems so weak in Ukraine, it must then mean that they are not trying there and that means that they have the real "army" ready somewhere else... | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6931 Posts
On April 15 2024 21:50 JimmiC wrote: More and more of their navy is hidden at the bottom of the Black Sea. Great hiding place indeed. On April 15 2024 20:03 zeo wrote: Slow down Rambo, didn't all those bombs go to Ukraine already? Whats the lead time on more bombs? What about the barrels of the systems that will fire them? Also remember Ukraine? Maybe wait for that to end before measuring who has more chest hair. Poland for example about tripled their defense spending in the last 2 years. And every time a stray missile flies close they are probably like "can we shoot back already?" | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
For example: We gave 300+ tanks and acquired only 47 K2s and 29 M1A1-FEP so far. Sure, new ones are better, but the difference in number is significant. We gave undisclosed numbers of our MiGs 29s and SUs 24s. But still haven't received any F-35. We gave the undisclosed number of our AA systems, still waiting for new ones. Gave a lot of our Krabs still waiting for new ones and only received 66 K9s. Still waiting for a lot of HIMARs and Chunmoos. Not to mention the missiles for them. Not a single AH-64 received yet. Gave some (supposedly 123 and 200) Raks and Rosomaks. Still waiting for a replacement. New ships are only being started in shipyards. The executive contract for Borsuks isn't even signed yet, as far as I know. Not to mention many other systems, infantry equipment and the lack of people willing to join the army permanently. There is also the topic of ammo, drones, loitering munition and missiles... | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On April 15 2024 20:17 Simberto wrote: You are still in this fantasy land where Ukraine is basically a war of Russia vs Nato? In political science, a proxy war is as an armed conflict fought between two belligerents, wherein one belligerent is a non-state actor supported by an external third-party power. In the term proxy war, the non-state actor is the proxy, yet both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third party country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war In reality, Ukraine is a war of Russia vs Ukraine armed with whatever last-gen stuff Nato has a surplus of lying about. I am pretty sure that Nato countries, especially those bordering Russia, didn't empty their storage. Europe will need 10 years before it is fully ready to defend itself, the boss of Germany's biggest defence firm, Rheinmetall, told the BBC. Armin Papperger said that ammunition stocks are currently "empty". He made the comments during a visit by Chancellor Olaf Scholz at a foundation-laying ceremony for a major new arms manufacturing plant in Lower Saxony. Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen were also in attendance. The comments come a day after comments by US presidential hopeful Donald Trump sparked fresh alarm in Europe. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination said he once told a world leader he would not protect Nato members who don't pay their dues and would even "encourage" aggressors to "do whatever the hell they want". The members of Nato - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - agree that if one of them is attacked, all other nations should help it - which could include using armed force. Rheinmetall has said it will invest more than $300m (£274m) in the new facility. It is eventually expected to produce 200,000 rounds of artillery shells annually. Mr Papperger said that a "long time" would be needed to prepare against an "aggressor who wants to fight against Nato". "We are fine in three, four years - but to be really prepared, we need 10 years," he said. "We have to produce 1.5 million rounds [of ammunition] in Europe," Mr Papperger added. He said a vast amount of Europe's ammunition was sent to Ukraine, leaving little for European stocks. "As long as we have war, we have to help Ukraine, but later we [will] need five years at a minimum and 10 years to really fill [ammunition stocks] up," he said. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68273449 There have been a lot, and I mean a lot of articles covering the topic of ammunition starvation within the NATO block. Most of the former Warsaw pact relied quite a bit on their old Soviet stocks and dismantled their production facilities in their switch to NATO standards. On April 15 2024 20:42 0x64 wrote: The funny thing is that people like Zeo, think that if Russia seems so weak in Ukraine, it must then mean that they are not trying there and that means that they have the real "army" ready somewhere else... A poor Strawman even for your low standards. On April 15 2024 22:25 Harris1st wrote: Great hiding place indeed. Poland for example about tripled their defense spending in the last 2 years. And every time a stray missile flies close they are probably like "can we shoot back already?" You know, I’m generally curious about what you think attritional warfare looks like. Silvanel answered your Poland statement quite well, its all nice when 5 billion dollar tank contracts are signed in front of the press during election years but when will those tanks actually arrive? Will Poland be able to maintain them by themselves? Attritional warfare is based on massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical and material depth to absorb losses and the ability of states to overcome the erosion of professionalism. These wars are won by economies. A country needs the potential to massively expand its manpower through mass mobilization and that manpower needs a lot of weapons to equip that army. High end and complex to produce weaponry cannot be pushed out in time so you need a mix of high and low end mass production capabilities. Everything needs to be channeled into replacing losses at a high rate. NATO armies are highly professional, built on years and years of training and peacetime education/experience. They are very skilled and can operate independently but it takes years and years to make one NCO. During attritional warfare and high casualty rates how quickly can these NCO be replaced? Who is going to replace them and how well can their doctrine be followed by less experienced recruits? Can the average civilian with three months training replace a NATO officer with 8 years of experience? The cavalier attitude of ‘a quick and decisive war’ when up against countries that have the resources to put up a fight means that very quickly that professional army you have will be eroded away, after which you need mass mobilization of the civilian population to cover these losses and absorb the experience from the professionals before they all end up dead and you need to start training your army from square one. What kind of mobilization infrastructure is in place in Western Europe where armies can be built and equipt at short notice? What about social cohesion? Are you really sure everyone is going to come together and hold hands once the power and water in Berlin is cut out with hypersonics within the first few days? Once upon a time Germany could build 95.000 aircraft (edit: and 50k tanks) during wartime while sending millions to the front, those days are long gone and not just because planes are more complicated now. If the NATO countries in Europe really believed war with Russia was imminent we would be seeing massive efforts to build the infrastructure and state-systems needed for all-out war against Russia. And its just not happening. How long are 100 tanks due to arrive in 5-10 years going to last at the front line? And then what? | ||
| ||
