|
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 November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:
A lot...
Sure, I don't mind war gaming a bit. I'm going to try to share why this would be difficult for Norway's case at least (I don't know about the other finno-scandinavian countries), but unfortunately having to be a bit vague as I'm sitting on information I'm not allowed to release, and I'm not about to turn TL.net into the next War Thunder forum.
The gist of it is: Norway have zero interest in facing any modern army head on. We do have a smattering of forces on the Russian border. But their main purpose is recon and stopping smaller elements, not an invasion. So what exactly is our plan? Surely we aren't just going to roll over a die? The idea is to be annoying af and delay; delay until allies can come and help- Which they will, not just because they are allies and they should (We've seen how well that works in Ukraine), but also because it's a huge personal loss for NATO and the US if Russia got to control the entry to the Barents sea with long range missiles. The last number I've seen indicates we need to hold on alone for two weeks, that's it. Two weeks with only one axis of attack.
This means Norway's focus is on low intensity encounters, ambushes, blowing bridges, roads, long range missiles and air power, and good old fashion asymmetric warfare. This is why our military are low on numbers, with higher focus on training. This is why our biggest, most important and well equipped forces aren't at the border, they are way down south, where they won't be immediately squashed by a huge missile barrage. Our home defence (National Guard, which I am part of) doesn't practice large scale encounters at all. 90% of us won't be used up north. Our main purpose is to hold the fort down south, protecting important objects and axis, giving freedom for other forces to move up north. The few of us who are stationed up north will immediately be put under the command of the Army, and be the first to start the delaying tactics mentioned above.
Tl;dr: This is all a long winded way to say that Norway won't ever move more forces up north, because it completely goes against our entire strategic core. We don't focus on manpower, and thus we don't have people to move around willy nilly, and the people we do have have extremely important jobs that requires them not to be flattened within the first 2 minutes of the invasion.
|
On November 17 2024 03:57 Excludos wrote:Sure, I don't mind war gaming a bit. I'm going to try to share why this would be difficult for Norway's case at least (I don't know about the other finno-scandinavian countries), but unfortunately having to be a bit vague as I'm sitting on information I'm not allowed to release, and I'm not about to turn TL.net into the next War Thunder forum. The gist of it is: Norway have zero interest in facing any modern army head on. We do have a smattering of forces on the Russian border. But their main purpose is recon and stopping smaller elements, not an invasion. So what exactly is our plan? Surely we aren't just going to roll over a die? The idea is to be annoying af and delay; delay until allies can come and help- Which they will, not just because they are allies and they should (We've seen how well that works in Ukraine), but also because it's a huge personal loss for NATO and the US if Russia got to control the entry to the Barents sea with long range missiles. The last number I've seen indicates we need to hold on alone for two weeks, that's it. Two weeks with only one axis of attack. This means Norway's focus is on low intensity encounters, ambushes, blowing bridges, roads, long range missiles and air power, and good old fashion asymmetric warfare. This is why our military are low on numbers, with higher focus on training. This is why our biggest, most important and well equipped forces aren't at the border, they are way down south, where they won't be immediately squashed by a huge missile barrage. Our home defence (National Guard, which I am part of) doesn't practice large scale encounters at all. 90% of us won't be used up north. Our main purpose is to hold the fort down south, protecting important objects and axis, giving freedom for other forces to move up north. The few of us who are stationed up north will immediately be put under the command of the Army, and be the first to start the delaying tactics mentioned above. Tl;dr: This is all a long winded way to say that Norway won't ever move more forces up north, because it completely goes against our entire strategic core. We don't focus on manpower, and thus we don't have people to move around willy nilly, and the people we do have have extremely important jobs that requires them not to be flattened within the first 2 minutes of the invasion.
Also, invading Russia from Norway sounds like a really, really stupid idea when looking at a map. If Russian winter was bad for Napoleon and Hitler coming from europe, imagine trying that up North. The same problems Russia would have invading Norway are problems that Norway would have invading Russia in the North. Lots and lots of bad terrain in the harshest of colds before you reach anything even remotely interesting.
|
United States42368 Posts
Those nations have zero credibility in madman theory. No one is buying that they’d actually do anything.
|
On November 17 2024 03:36 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Your proposing invading a nuclear power who's leaders know they will not survive the fight, no matter which way it goes.
Your telling Putin you don't believe in MAD while pointing a gun at his face.
Nuclear threats tend to be overrated and brought up to much but this is the literal situation nukes exist to stop, Russia would have no choice but to launch because there is no further line behind them to move to. A nuclear arsenal as the ultimate deterrent stops working when you don't use them against an existential threat that is invading your heartland with the goal of ending your regime. No I'm totally not, re read it. ok, which part did I get wrong?
EU postures, Russia ignores them because who believes the EU would actually invade?
If Russia ignores the posturing they should invade.
Just posturing does nothing because Russia does not fear an EU invasion. not only does everyone know that the EU has absolutely zero interest in a direct war with Russia, Russia itself is basically immune to invasion. That's the entire premise behind a nuclear deterrent. The EU cannot invade Russia because to do so would force Russia to launch.
If Russia does not launch when it is invaded the entire concept behind the nuclear deterrent is gone and their only remaining use is a very heavy and unhealthy paper weight.
There is no reason for Russia to ever respond to EU posturing along its border.
|
P.S. What historic land could Poland possibly take from Russia? I can get Finland with their og Grand Duchy borders, Karela people in Russia, etc, but Poland? Konigsberg and surroundings were never Polish, or do you propose invading Belarus? Though most Polish historic lands are in, well, Ukraine actually.
Russian propagandists keep insisting Russia's non-authoritarian western neighbours are just American pawns who aren't really independent so by that logic Poland could totally decide to liberate most of Belarus from Russian hands. Belarus is not a real country, is it?
You can also argue Polish claim to Królewiec is way stronger than Russia's due to being a Polish fief for over 150 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but Smolensk spent more time within Polish-Lithuanian borders than Kaliningrad in Soviet/Russian borders.
Of course none of that is serious and it always makes me roll my eyes whenever someone brings up historical claims in a discussion about modern politics. Those historical topics are interesting but it's baffling to me that Polish claims to Ukrainian Lviv and Belarusian Grodno are repeatedly brought up in anti-western propaganda. Populists usually exploit real fears and I can't understand why those fears still exist in (some of) Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian heads.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On November 17 2024 03:53 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 03:00 Ardias wrote:On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:
Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.) a) Any kind of claim about "returning historic lands", nevermind actually doing something even as a supposed preparation to do so, will completely undermine any diplomatic and moral leverage West currently has, because it's their main point of blame towards Putin, that in modern era borders do not change based on historical claims. If Western countries would declare that they are ready to do so, nobody in the world would care about them enforcing international rules-based order, or whatever. Western countries had already undermined their position in that regard with all Serbia/Iraq/Lybia/Afghanistan stuff, but at least they had a justification point of "changing oppresive government/liberating opressed group of people" etc. Good old war for territory coming from them will bury UN in the dust, and that's not what West wants. Even threats of those will still do a lot of damage. b) About "moving to forward positions" - check out the time needed to deploy against Iraq both times. It would take months to move force capable to invade Russia by land, forward elements coming would need to be quartered somewhere along with their equipment, nevermind that it would cost a ton. Western militaries are expensive. Germany takes years to put a single brigade in Lithuania, and that's a European economic powerhouse, 3rd economy of the world in nominal values. There is already quite a bunch of complaining in Western countries about increased expenses due to Ukraine support, imagine what the cost of moving troops large enough to pose a serious threat of land invasion to Russia would do. AfD and similar parties would get a huge popularity boost due to that. c) It would be the best way to support Kremlin propaganda and actually rally people around Putin, not visa versa. There are many people in Russia who think that offensive war in Ukraine is unjust, who grow tired of news about war, incoming coffins, economic problems, increased crackdown on Internet, etc. But if directly threatened to be invaded - people will forget about that, and no justification will help with that. d) People in the West are not overly eager to risk actually dying for Ukraine, even if such risk is propositional. Some eager to donate, many don't mind paying some from their taxes or losing from potential income, but risking to die will be whole other story. Who wanted to do so, have already enlisted in Ukrainian foreign legion. e) What uprising? If separatist, then you greatly exaggerate the amount of national tentions within Russia. The only such region is Chechnya, and currently it's firmly under Kadyrov's clan. Sure, it will be problem for Russia some day, but not while Putin is in charge. If you are talking about civil protest, then it could only happen from within the military, and it's currently lacking any kind of Bonaparts. Prigozhin tried to be one, and ended up playing with grenades in airplane. If we are talking about hearts and minds in general, then I believe western agencies and media are trying their best for a while now, but we still have what we have. Also see point c) about that. f) What "massive conscription" in Ukraine? They busify people off the streets for more than a year now, countryside and small towns are basically empty of abled fighting men, Ukrainian parlamentaries are already proposing actually sending employees of military comissariats to the front. And all this points are about threat of an invasion, we didn't even talk about trying to actually do so. Excluding nuke scenarios for the sake of it. even Iraqi Freedom was a great strain on US and British military resources, basically taking all of their logisitcs capabilites to deploy a force deemed enough to crush the Iraqis. You can shit on Russian military a lot, and in many ways justified in doing so, but they still much better trained, equipped and motivated that Iraq was, especially if you give them Great Patriotic War vibes. Actual invasion will be bloodbath for NATO, even if they win in the end, and the damage to the world's economical, social and political landscape would be far greater than the gains. P.S. What historic land could Poland possibly take from Russia? I can get Finland with their og Grand Duchy borders, Karela people in Russia, etc, but Poland? Konigsberg and surroundings were never Polish, or do you propose invading Belarus? Though most Polish historic lands are in, well, Ukraine actually. P.P.S. The best strategy for the West to stop Russia would have been real, heavy sanctions at immediate start of the war. Like closing all the gas and oil on day 1 completely, no fertilizers, no uranium, no nothing. Completely close the borders, no truck from Russia comes out, no ship docking in Western port. Threat to completely block any financial transaction coming in and out of Russia from any bank of any country, be it Turkey, China or whatever. That would most likely work in terms of causing internal uproar and actually crushing the economy of Russia. However Western countries and people would also take tremendous damage from doing so, some probably to degree of severely reducing the quality of life (like Hungary that is fully dependant on Russian oil). And now even that ship kinda sailed, since Russian economy had time to change the flows of goods and money. P.P.P.S. Your proposition is, in short, "to defeat Putin, be like Putin". While the whole reason to this thread is proof that this is not the best course of action. Thanks for your thought and effort. A) that is part of the point. Moral high ground has done nothing, speak in a language the opponent understands. B) It would be expensive, but so are all military exercises. Russia has shown they are capable and willing to invade countries on their border, practicing what you would need to do has lots of value. It may increase support for them, or it may make the people excited that their politicians are actually doing something. I think the latter, neither is certain. C)That is a risk, will it make them fearful or bring them together. I suspect just fearful. If the west actually invaded maybe the other. But if Russia didn't take the threat serious they would also get over ran super fast. If they take it seriously think how expensive that would be at what you are currently paying. And how would the Russian population feel about that? D) The people doing this would all be soldiers, they would be following orders. It takes no new recruiting anywhere but in the Ukraine. And this would forsure help that effort. E)That was perhaps pie in the sky. My thought is that with all the Muslims and non Slavic Russians dying there is a lot of unrest in those places. I could be completely off base, or maybe if they knew they would be supported and saw Russian as weaker they might try. Might not, not a huge part of the "plan". F)It would be lowering the age and having people who are avoiding it because they don't think they have a chance to win and don't want to die to slow down the losing. I have no idea how many more it would get, but they could mobilize more. This would 100% make Ukrainians feel supported, and increase moral. How much and for how long though, I don't know. P.S. More of a threat than anything. Historic lands are BS to begin with not that hard to make up a story for anyone on why they should. Start with Belgorod, and sure scare Belarus, Lukashenko does seem particularly brave. P.P.S. I agree. Even lots of things to stop Putin from gaining so much power in Russia to being with. P.P.P.S. It is more about bluffing that you are like Putin to force Putin to spread out his depleted forces. And then if Putin does not react to the bluff they would then have to decided if they take the easy undefended trip to Russia or not. With Ukraine using all their long range weapons it would also be a lot harder, let alone having to defend their borders instead of full offence.
A) World is much bigger than Ukraine though. It could maybe work if all of the world was firmly pro-Western, but then even sanctions would work themselves, since there wouldn't be any third parties to deal with. And utterly destabilizing international order over some potential upper hand in Ukraine war isn't worth it even close.
B) Even the largest NATO military exersizes of late included less than a hundred aircraft, and a bit more than a thousand land vehicles. And that's over the span of 4 months and all over Europe.
To pose an actual threat of invasion you would need an order of magnitude more. Again, taking Iraq-2003 as an example - here is US-UK order of battle. There are 4 land (Mechanized/Marine/Armored) divisions + 2 Ariborne/Air Assault divisions + separate Marine brigade + tons of support forces. In raw numbers 1 regular division (lets say, 3rd Infantry) is roughly 700-800 only combat vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, SPGs etc.) plus few times more others, like supply, engineering, recon, liason, HQ etc. etc. Now imagine dropping even one full division somewhere in the Baltics, and conducting some offensive maneuvers there. There is simply no training grounds, you need giant logistical capacity to move stuff around (cause you can't just drive on M1 through Riga or on any kind of public road for that matter). There is a reason why US left so much stuff in Afghanistan - it's cheaper to buy new one, than transport already used one back.
Off-country exercises are generally conducted in form of sending like 1 battalion to them, then recording everything about transportation, cooperation, communication, maneuvering etc. and then distribute results and analysis of such recordings among other units staying at home.
So you would need money, and a lot of it, in economies that in many cases are not exactly flourishing, with military budgets already tight on modernizing stuff and trying to increase pay rate, cause Western militaries see quite a lot of problems with recruitment, being mostly volunteer-only force.
C) Again, Russian main propaganda take is that expansion of NATO is a threat to Russia, because NATO can attack Russia. A lot of people do not believe that, saying that it is all lie, NATO is purely defensive, yadayada. Now NATO is directly threatening to attack Russia. And those Russians realize that propaganda didn't lie all along. Reason for the threats wouldn't matter here, just the fact itself.
Also, what do you mean "rolled over super fast"? First of all, Russian borders are not defenseless, even with majority of soldiers in Ukraine. There are conscripts, there are those who are going through rehabilitation after wounds, there are command elements, there are Air Force and Air Defence forces, there are Rosgvardia and border guard units etc. etc.
Second, US and UK deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Iraq. Whole Iraq is smaller than region that I live in, and that's a European one. Russia is VERY big, even on European part. And as I said before, direct NATO invasion would destabilize the world so much, that it would not be worth it in the long run at all. Even if US would be able to roll inside Moscow in a day (which they wouldn't).
D) There are also families of said soldiers as well as every other citizens of said countries. Western governments are much more suceptible to public opinion (they are democracies, after all) and at this point of time such move wouldn't work. People care less and less about the Ukraine war, and prospect of their own soldiers being sent to die in it wouldn't resonate well for them. And if it wouldn't, then governments won't take that move.
E) All that ethnic stuff was again, greatly exaggerated in media, partially trying to sow dissent within Russia, partially to dehumanize Russians as hiding their rich Moscow white ethnic-Russian kids behind the backs of brown Dagestani and yellow Buryat scrubs. Also it probably resonates well for American reader, and maybe all this stuff in American MSM is geniune as in US it is all about minorities nowadays, be it racial, gender, religious or any other.
In fact, vast bulk of Russian troops is ethnic Russian (or Russian-Ukrainian/Belarus, because all the difference is basically in a place of birth and self-identification, it's impossible to visually determine who is who). Some ethnic regions, mainly North Caucasus, Tuva and Buryatia in particular, have larger than normal ratio of soldiers to population, but it's not because of the ethnicity, it's because these regions are poor. And there are plenty of similiar regions with Russian ethnic majority, which also supply a lot of people in the army.
Here is the paper on the matter. Author was unable to pick up any major ethnical discrepancies in losses besides Buryatians and Tuvans. And beside the fact that there is indeed large number of volunteers from there (Tuva is one of the poorest regions in Russia), they also often are sent into local combat units (because there is no point transfering Tuvan to serve in Murmansk, for example). So if a brigade from Buryatia sees an active combat action and suffer big losses, then there would be a spike. Which is actually confirmed on page 10 of the paper itself, with steady Slavic increase of casualities, and spikes from both Tuva and Buryatia.
So there are no racist Russians hiding behind ethnic minorities.
F) There is basically nothing to lower. Here is demographic pyramid in Ukraine.. Ukrainians are drafting anyone from 25 to 50 (if not higher). Compare those numbers with 18-25 gap. If Ukraine can't win with 25-50 age, adding 18-25 to the mix will do nothing, the addition would be miniscule.
G) Also reading Excludos post gave me another point against such action - NATO militaries (except US and maybe UK and France) were never actively training for a full scale invasions of other countries. Most of NATO exercise of a defensive nature of Cold War REFORGER style, where attacked minor nation should hold off X days before US Navy arrives in it's glory, with angry Marines on board. So there would be a ton of prep work to do before you could actually invade.
About no limits for Ukraine on long range weapons - this war is about limits and non-spoken arrangements from the get-go. Both sides have larger potential to do damage both to each other and on the global scale, but resttrain themselves. There could be ton of conspiracies why, but there we have it. Maybe if US allowed for long range strikes, Russia would actually supply Houthies with large quantities of modern anti-ship missiles. Or maybe Russia would finally cut off all three UA nuclear plants from power grid, their transformer substations are well known. Or like both sides refrain from attacks on the commercial shipping in the Black sea to each side respective ports, both mostly attacking only port infrastructure. Or Ukraine for two and half years deniying any participation in incursions on Russian territory, claiming that Russian Volunteer Corps is acting on it's own.
This war is all about limits. Another way for the West to actually try and win the war for Ukraine would be actual large supply of equipment, stripping down their own armed forces, training large quantities of Ukrainian crews, both ground and air, from a get-go, actually giving Ukraine modern combat vehicles from active stock, etc. etc. But again, someone would need to pay for that, and seem that Western governments didn't intend to, so we saw first Western jet in Ukraine in like 2,5 years from the start of the war. Imagive if US was delaying the supply of fighter aircrafts to UK for 2,5 years from the start of the lend-lease during WW2.
|
On November 17 2024 03:57 Excludos wrote:Sure, I don't mind war gaming a bit. I'm going to try to share why this would be difficult for Norway's case at least (I don't know about the other finno-scandinavian countries), but unfortunately having to be a bit vague as I'm sitting on information I'm not allowed to release, and I'm not about to turn TL.net into the next War Thunder forum. The gist of it is: Norway have zero interest in facing any modern army head on. We do have a smattering of forces on the Russian border. But their main purpose is recon and stopping smaller elements, not an invasion. So what exactly is our plan? Surely we aren't just going to roll over a die? The idea is to be annoying af and delay; delay until allies can come and help- Which they will, not just because they are allies and they should (We've seen how well that works in Ukraine), but also because it's a huge personal loss for NATO and the US if Russia got to control the entry to the Barents sea with long range missiles. The last number I've seen indicates we need to hold on alone for two weeks, that's it. Two weeks with only one axis of attack. This means Norway's focus is on low intensity encounters, ambushes, blowing bridges, roads, long range missiles and air power, and good old fashion asymmetric warfare. This is why our military are low on numbers, with higher focus on training. This is why our biggest, most important and well equipped forces aren't at the border, they are way down south, where they won't be immediately squashed by a huge missile barrage. Our home defence (National Guard, which I am part of) doesn't practice large scale encounters at all. 90% of us won't be used up north. Our main purpose is to hold the fort down south, protecting important objects and axis, giving freedom for other forces to move up north. The few of us who are stationed up north will immediately be put under the command of the Army, and be the first to start the delaying tactics mentioned above. Tl;dr: This is all a long winded way to say that Norway won't ever move more forces up north, because it completely goes against our entire strategic core. We don't focus on manpower, and thus we don't have people to move around willy nilly, and the people we do have have extremely important jobs that requires them not to be flattened within the first 2 minutes of the invasion.
Thank you for all the info, always good to talk to people in the know. I actually added Norway late because I assumed they had a small army, but I added them purely because they had a boarder with Russia. That being said I can't imagine the Baltics are a huge threat either. Perhaps this is never discussed because even if it was a "good idea" (not saying it is) there is simply not enough army to cause enough of a threat for Russia to even react? I guess the American's, British or whatever could use their troops but that is even a bigger kettle of worms. And as mentioned Norway is not the ideal launching point at Russia any way.
Without revelaing too much, does Norway have a plan to defend their interests in the Artic?
|
On November 17 2024 03:57 Excludos wrote:Sure, I don't mind war gaming a bit. I'm going to try to share why this would be difficult for Norway's case at least (I don't know about the other finno-scandinavian countries), but unfortunately having to be a bit vague as I'm sitting on information I'm not allowed to release, and I'm not about to turn TL.net into the next War Thunder forum. The gist of it is: Norway have zero interest in facing any modern army head on. We do have a smattering of forces on the Russian border. But their main purpose is recon and stopping smaller elements, not an invasion. So what exactly is our plan? Surely we aren't just going to roll over a die? The idea is to be annoying af and delay; delay until allies can come and help- Which they will, not just because they are allies and they should (We've seen how well that works in Ukraine), but also because it's a huge personal loss for NATO and the US if Russia got to control the entry to the Barents sea with long range missiles. The last number I've seen indicates we need to hold on alone for two weeks, that's it. Two weeks with only one axis of attack. This means Norway's focus is on low intensity encounters, ambushes, blowing bridges, roads, long range missiles and air power, and good old fashion asymmetric warfare. This is why our military are low on numbers, with higher focus on training. This is why our biggest, most important and well equipped forces aren't at the border, they are way down south, where they won't be immediately squashed by a huge missile barrage. Our home defence (National Guard, which I am part of) doesn't practice large scale encounters at all. 90% of us won't be used up north. Our main purpose is to hold the fort down south, protecting important objects and axis, giving freedom for other forces to move up north. The few of us who are stationed up north will immediately be put under the command of the Army, and be the first to start the delaying tactics mentioned above. Tl;dr: This is all a long winded way to say that Norway won't ever move more forces up north, because it completely goes against our entire strategic core. We don't focus on manpower, and thus we don't have people to move around willy nilly, and the people we do have have extremely important jobs that requires them not to be flattened within the first 2 minutes of the invasion.
I really don't see this as accurate with the new NATO strategic reality. You're not talking about just Norway on the norwegian front you're talking about finland and sweden. Its a 200km border and finland has one of the larger militaries in NATO. You can't easily support troops on it with air assets nor has it ever been easy to move armored units well in it. You're right about low intensity warfare but practicing that kind of warfare on the entire front will soak in a lot of military strength in response from russia. MANPAD's and shoulder launched anti tank weapons will be incredibly effective in the finnish theater. Russia will have to dedicate extremely valuable units to defend st petersburg or attack into finland that won't be useable for the main event in poland.
Being a decoy or a distraction is of huge value when the most effective time of the war is the opening hours or days.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On November 17 2024 05:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +P.S. What historic land could Poland possibly take from Russia? I can get Finland with their og Grand Duchy borders, Karela people in Russia, etc, but Poland? Konigsberg and surroundings were never Polish, or do you propose invading Belarus? Though most Polish historic lands are in, well, Ukraine actually. Russian propagandists keep insisting Russia's non-authoritarian western neighbours are just American pawns who aren't really independent so by that logic Poland could totally decide to liberate most of Belarus from Russian hands. Belarus is not a real country, is it? You can also argue Polish claim to Królewiec is way stronger than Russia's due to being a Polish fief for over 150 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but Smolensk spent more time within Polish-Lithuanian borders than Kaliningrad in Soviet/Russian borders. Of course none of that is serious and it always makes me roll my eyes whenever someone brings up historical claims in a discussion about modern politics. Those historical topics are interesting but it's baffling to me that Polish claims to Ukrainian Lviv and Belarusian Grodno are repeatedly brought up in anti-western propaganda. Populists usually exploit real fears and I can't understand why those fears still exist in (some of) Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian heads.
Discussion was about hypothtical scenario brought by Billiboy, in discussion we operate within set terms, hence why I decided to specify the Poland part. In this example, Konisberg would be much more German claim than Polish. Claiming an invasion to not only Russia, but also Belarus, would require even more explaining to the public, since Belarus do not fight in Ukraine. Smolensk is on the other side of the Belarus.
Also Smolensk is not a very good example of a historical claim for Poland, being independent eastern Slavic principality, part of Kievan Rus, then part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which for some reason in western historical articles, rarely presented by it's full name of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Semigallia, which was for 180 years in personal union with Poland, so kinda different country (both Belarus and Lithuania will have higher claim here), even if both under one king in practice, and only after 1569 became Poland (well, Polish Commonwealth) proper, for a less than hundred years, untill 1667. So in this regard, yes, more, but not for much.
|
I'm aware it was a hypothetical discussion. I brought up Smolensk as an example of how silly those historical claims could get if you wanted to bend the facts. Billyboy's scenario makes little sense to me and others already explained why it's not a good idea from the Western perspective. My bit was about how weird to me is that historical claims are taken way more seriously in the post Soviet world than the West.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On November 17 2024 07:23 Sent. wrote:
I'm aware it was a hypothetical discussion. I brought up Smolensk as an example of how silly those historical claims could get if you wanted to bend the facts. Billyboy's scenario makes little sense to me and others already explained why it's not a good idea from the Western perspective. My bit was about how weird to me is that historical claims are taken way more seriously in the post Soviet world than the West.
Countries being multiethnical with large chunk of ethnos living in different state/states, especially if there is any kind of percecution and/or prejudice against it from the title nation of said state/states, even percieved one. It's doubled up if there were also some past grievances. Historical claims for such minority people, as well as for their main ethinc state, reinforce the notion why those people in other states should be given autonomy/independence, or even the right to join their main ethnic state, on/with the territory they live on, and not, let's say, "suitcase - station - Russia" way, because, well, people in general don't like to leave their home in mass and move to other country, they want country they want right where they live presently.
Such issue is always prevalent with the countries having their borders cut without the regard for ethnical and national concerns, be it on former USSR territory, Yugoslavia, Arfrica or Middle East. Countries in the West were either multi-ethnic but having same people within same borders for hundreds of years, like Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, UK, or were (or were divided into) monoethnic (Scandinavia, Central Europe, etc.). Even if some cases (like Poland after WW2) the borders were changed in XX century, former population was removed from such state.
Communist ideas of internationalism within one state in both Yugoslavia and USSR didn't help either, since it just suppressed all the nationalistic issues, not resolved them, and after communism fell, all them blew up simultaneously, causing all the havoc we have today. Same could be said about colonial powers dividing newly independent countries of Africa and Middle East based on their spheres of influence, and not the opinions of people actually living there.
|
On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:War strategy buffs, I have a strategy I'd like to propose and get your opinions on how it would work if they did it. + Show Spoiler +I have no expectation that this is actually going to happen, I just think it would help and I have not read any what ifs on this scenario. What it would do well and what it would do poorly I'm interested in hearing about. Why they would not do it not so much because I think we all know those  I think Poland, the Baltics, Norway and Finland should all prepare for war and move their militaries to an obvious offensive position for "war games". Canada and Sweden prepare for taking the Artic. The rest of the countries that support Ukraine should also move their militaries as if to defend the NATO countries. At the same time they should remove all restrictions on Ukraine from using western made weapons and Ukraine should announce an massive conscription. I believe this would force Russia to slow their offense and defend against a possible attack. If they do not, it makes it painfully clear that their propaganda of fear of a NATO attack is complete horse shit as they are defending against offensive posturing. It would energize the Ukrainian people as they would feel supported and as if they had a real chance to defeat Russia. If Russia keeps going Poland, Finland and others could decide to take back their historic land (or threaten it) unless Russia returns to its pre 2014 boarders. They should also send words of support and promises to support any uprising anywhere in Russia. (and perhaps actually send military supplies). Also, of this would require firing any bullets or risking any troops. It would also be great practice for western militaries. Sure you are risking escalation, but Russia knows they can't fight everyone even with their tight allies of Iran and NK. I doubt their shadow allies helping them economically are going to enter. I don't think it would like instantly win the war or anything like that, but I think it would put immense pressure on Putin and his strategic staff. Waste huge amount of their resources, including time and planning, I don't think Russia would escalate because other than nukes they are maxed out and currently they could still turn back, and the powerbrokers can keep getting rich off their peoples cheap labour and selling resources abroad. The Russian people themselves would be all the sudden scared because Ukraine could and will hit them anywhere and all these other militaries who are fresh are perched right outside their boarders. All the places that hate Russia in Russia might also become emboldened. Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.)
Great strategy. Putin then nukes London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome effectively ending war and putting Europe in middle ages. If you think US will risk actual extinction in the name of revenge, I would suggest rethinking that.
|
|
|
Let's hope Ukraine is prepared and can respond in kind.
|
On November 17 2024 13:01 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:War strategy buffs, I have a strategy I'd like to propose and get your opinions on how it would work if they did it. + Show Spoiler +I have no expectation that this is actually going to happen, I just think it would help and I have not read any what ifs on this scenario. What it would do well and what it would do poorly I'm interested in hearing about. Why they would not do it not so much because I think we all know those I think Poland, the Baltics, Norway and Finland should all prepare for war and move their militaries to an obvious offensive position for "war games". Canada and Sweden prepare for taking the Artic. The rest of the countries that support Ukraine should also move their militaries as if to defend the NATO countries. At the same time they should remove all restrictions on Ukraine from using western made weapons and Ukraine should announce an massive conscription. I believe this would force Russia to slow their offense and defend against a possible attack. If they do not, it makes it painfully clear that their propaganda of fear of a NATO attack is complete horse shit as they are defending against offensive posturing. It would energize the Ukrainian people as they would feel supported and as if they had a real chance to defeat Russia. If Russia keeps going Poland, Finland and others could decide to take back their historic land (or threaten it) unless Russia returns to its pre 2014 boarders. They should also send words of support and promises to support any uprising anywhere in Russia. (and perhaps actually send military supplies). Also, of this would require firing any bullets or risking any troops. It would also be great practice for western militaries. Sure you are risking escalation, but Russia knows they can't fight everyone even with their tight allies of Iran and NK. I doubt their shadow allies helping them economically are going to enter. I don't think it would like instantly win the war or anything like that, but I think it would put immense pressure on Putin and his strategic staff. Waste huge amount of their resources, including time and planning, I don't think Russia would escalate because other than nukes they are maxed out and currently they could still turn back, and the powerbrokers can keep getting rich off their peoples cheap labour and selling resources abroad. The Russian people themselves would be all the sudden scared because Ukraine could and will hit them anywhere and all these other militaries who are fresh are perched right outside their boarders. All the places that hate Russia in Russia might also become emboldened. Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.) Great strategy. Putin then nukes London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome effectively ending war and putting Europe in middle ages. If you think US will risk actual extinction in the name of revenge, I would suggest rethinking that.
Well, the French and the British have their own nuclear weapons, and probably would retaliate. But yeah, risking MAD is not the best strategy.
|
On November 17 2024 13:01 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:War strategy buffs, I have a strategy I'd like to propose and get your opinions on how it would work if they did it. + Show Spoiler +I have no expectation that this is actually going to happen, I just think it would help and I have not read any what ifs on this scenario. What it would do well and what it would do poorly I'm interested in hearing about. Why they would not do it not so much because I think we all know those I think Poland, the Baltics, Norway and Finland should all prepare for war and move their militaries to an obvious offensive position for "war games". Canada and Sweden prepare for taking the Artic. The rest of the countries that support Ukraine should also move their militaries as if to defend the NATO countries. At the same time they should remove all restrictions on Ukraine from using western made weapons and Ukraine should announce an massive conscription. I believe this would force Russia to slow their offense and defend against a possible attack. If they do not, it makes it painfully clear that their propaganda of fear of a NATO attack is complete horse shit as they are defending against offensive posturing. It would energize the Ukrainian people as they would feel supported and as if they had a real chance to defeat Russia. If Russia keeps going Poland, Finland and others could decide to take back their historic land (or threaten it) unless Russia returns to its pre 2014 boarders. They should also send words of support and promises to support any uprising anywhere in Russia. (and perhaps actually send military supplies). Also, of this would require firing any bullets or risking any troops. It would also be great practice for western militaries. Sure you are risking escalation, but Russia knows they can't fight everyone even with their tight allies of Iran and NK. I doubt their shadow allies helping them economically are going to enter. I don't think it would like instantly win the war or anything like that, but I think it would put immense pressure on Putin and his strategic staff. Waste huge amount of their resources, including time and planning, I don't think Russia would escalate because other than nukes they are maxed out and currently they could still turn back, and the powerbrokers can keep getting rich off their peoples cheap labour and selling resources abroad. The Russian people themselves would be all the sudden scared because Ukraine could and will hit them anywhere and all these other militaries who are fresh are perched right outside their boarders. All the places that hate Russia in Russia might also become emboldened. Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.) Great strategy. Putin then nukes London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome effectively ending war and putting Europe in middle ages. If you think US will risk actual extinction in the name of revenge, I would suggest rethinking that.
I guess the war effectively ends when British and French second strike capabilities wipe out all major Russian cities.
Fair chance the US gets fucked by Russian second strike in the following confusion.
No, in that scenario Russia would nuke some midsize border cities from the direction NATO advances, like in Finland and Poland. And probably also Ukraine. Then the war ends because no one else wants to die.
|
On November 17 2024 06:28 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 03:57 Excludos wrote:On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:
A lot... Sure, I don't mind war gaming a bit. I'm going to try to share why this would be difficult for Norway's case at least (I don't know about the other finno-scandinavian countries), but unfortunately having to be a bit vague as I'm sitting on information I'm not allowed to release, and I'm not about to turn TL.net into the next War Thunder forum. The gist of it is: Norway have zero interest in facing any modern army head on. We do have a smattering of forces on the Russian border. But their main purpose is recon and stopping smaller elements, not an invasion. So what exactly is our plan? Surely we aren't just going to roll over a die? The idea is to be annoying af and delay; delay until allies can come and help- Which they will, not just because they are allies and they should (We've seen how well that works in Ukraine), but also because it's a huge personal loss for NATO and the US if Russia got to control the entry to the Barents sea with long range missiles. The last number I've seen indicates we need to hold on alone for two weeks, that's it. Two weeks with only one axis of attack. This means Norway's focus is on low intensity encounters, ambushes, blowing bridges, roads, long range missiles and air power, and good old fashion asymmetric warfare. This is why our military are low on numbers, with higher focus on training. This is why our biggest, most important and well equipped forces aren't at the border, they are way down south, where they won't be immediately squashed by a huge missile barrage. Our home defence (National Guard, which I am part of) doesn't practice large scale encounters at all. 90% of us won't be used up north. Our main purpose is to hold the fort down south, protecting important objects and axis, giving freedom for other forces to move up north. The few of us who are stationed up north will immediately be put under the command of the Army, and be the first to start the delaying tactics mentioned above. Tl;dr: This is all a long winded way to say that Norway won't ever move more forces up north, because it completely goes against our entire strategic core. We don't focus on manpower, and thus we don't have people to move around willy nilly, and the people we do have have extremely important jobs that requires them not to be flattened within the first 2 minutes of the invasion. Thank you for all the info, always good to talk to people in the know. I actually added Norway late because I assumed they had a small army, but I added them purely because they had a boarder with Russia. That being said I can't imagine the Baltics are a huge threat either. Perhaps this is never discussed because even if it was a "good idea" (not saying it is) there is simply not enough army to cause enough of a threat for Russia to even react? I guess the American's, British or whatever could use their troops but that is even a bigger kettle of worms. And as mentioned Norway is not the ideal launching point at Russia any way. Without revelaing too much, does Norway have a plan to defend their interests in the Artic?
You mean Svalbard? Mostly I don't know. I certainly am not a part of it. The sea guys tend to do their own thing. But I would be surprised if we spent such a vast amount of money on a Navy we weren't going to use.
|
"Fremdschämen"
Result of chancellor Scholz having a talk with Putin (to increase his chances in upcomming election.. with undecided tankies in the socialdemocrat spectrum)
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/iit2tgqfxf1e1.jpeg)
|
On November 17 2024 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
No, in that scenario Russia would nuke some midsize border cities from the direction NATO advances, like in Finland and Poland. And probably also Ukraine. Then the war ends because no one else wants to die.
What chance do you take to "wait" as a nation and calculate where the missiles are flying off to before you do or do not respond? Isn't that the entire idea behind MAD? How much time are you willing to spend before you can assume it's not targeted at you, but your "ally".
|
On November 17 2024 21:48 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
No, in that scenario Russia would nuke some midsize border cities from the direction NATO advances, like in Finland and Poland. And probably also Ukraine. Then the war ends because no one else wants to die.
What chance do you take to "wait" as a nation and calculate where the missiles are flying off to before you do or do not respond? Isn't that the entire idea behind MAD? How much time are you willing to spend before you can assume it's not targeted at you, but your "ally".
In this hypothetical scenario with Europe invading Russia I would expect hypothetical Putin to make a phone call to US/France/UK and telling them what's going to happen in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
