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.
On April 16 2024 01:34 zeo wrote: 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.
Are you applying the words non-state actor to Ukraine because of its lack of thespian credentials? Did you misread it as a non-stage actor? I don’t get it.
On April 16 2024 01:34 zeo wrote: 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.
Are you applying the words non-state actor to Ukraine because of its lack of thespian credentials? Did you misread it as a non-stage actor? I don’t get it.
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.
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.
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.
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 20:37 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...
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...
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:
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.
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?
Honest question zeo. Do you think Europe would not fight back against targets inside Russia when the missiles hit Berlin?
The Black sea fleet is getting bodied by a nation with no navy and Russian oil refineries are getting hit by repurposed light aircraft drones.
What do you honestly think would happen in a war against EU?
Sure maybe EU are ill suited to attrional warfare right now but I have a hard time seeing Russian oil infrastructure not going up in flames in the first week. Forget trading by sea too when anything leaving a Russian port potentially gets sunk immediately.
European militaries may be weak but Ukraine is not an advanced army and is fighting with one arm tied behind their back. It's not even remotely comparable and even with limited stocks of weapons the initial damage potential against economic targets inside Russia is immense.
On April 15 2024 20:17 Simberto wrote: Show nested quote +
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.
Category error, I would say. Just because large powers provide defences to a country of shared sympathies does not ergo make it a proxy war.
Or, in calling Russo-Ukranian war a proxy war, could we, by the same standard, say that the beginning of WWII was not a war between Britain and her allies vs Germany, but rather a proxy war of America vs Germany? Or was Israel's war for independence in fact a Czech proxy war in Palestine?
The category of proxy war cannot subsume other categories of military alliances for one or sympathetic military suppliers of military-industrial nations for another.
On April 16 2024 05:14 JimmiC wrote: More for entertainment purposes than anything but these guys do a bunch of what if scenarios and 11 months ago they did a what if NATO and Russia went to conventional war.
Truth be told, if NATO and Russia engaged in conventional war I think that US alone could take Moscow within a week or so.
Russian air force hasn't really put on a great showing in Ukraine and they're letting makeshift drones strike 1k km within their borders. US having 2 largest air forces in the world (and the most advanced drones) would probably just walk all over them no sweat.
On April 16 2024 05:14 JimmiC wrote: More for entertainment purposes than anything but these guys do a bunch of what if scenarios and 11 months ago they did a what if NATO and Russia went to conventional war.
So expectations are that Russia plans for big summer offensive? Then it doesn't quite make sense that there's no mobilization going right now. To prepare people so they are good enough to at least defend the perimeter - let alone participate in offensive operations - will take months. Summer will end by that time.
Probably you're correct but I thought that concentration of "good" forces in one or several "fists' to create breakthroughs would require a lot of "so-so" soldiers to replaces those better and more experienced forces in the trenches, as a defensive perimeter. This is what moblized semi-trained people with very simple equipment can be used for.
I see no reason Russia should go/ need to go for a summer offensive. They are slowly crawling towards victory and if things don't really change for either side, they'll be in Kyjiw in 2 years
In 2 years this war will have lasted longer than the Great Patriotic War - USSR vs Germany part of WW2 - or Russia's participation in WW1. In some ways it's crazy to think about, but 2 years ago I'd never think it will last 2 more years, so...
EPT
