Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.

Yes. Everyone in the Soviet Union realised that they wanted Uncle Sam's apple pie, and so they overthrew their rulers to break away and form the democratic capitalistic Russia that they'd always wanted.

Pull the other one.

That's kinda a big dealio there...

That's a lotta money spent.

If Estonia believes NATO will protect it, thats just...funny.

NATO is dead.

Georgia: Nothing done.
Crimea: Nothing done.
Ukraine: Nothing done.

Sure if Russia launched 15 tank divisions to invade all of Western Europe, its WWIII. If Russia does just like Ukraine and begins to nibble? Nah.

If Russia retook every non Warsaw Pact former USSR state, would anyone do anything? Doubtful.

Putin has to keep going, else people will remember that their economy is on par with Ecuador at this point.

 Frazzled wrote:
If Estonia believes NATO will protect it, thats just...funny.

NATO is dead.

Why/how?

 whembly wrote:
That's kinda a big dealio there...

That's a lotta money spent.

If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If Estonia believes NATO will protect it, thats just...funny.

NATO is dead.

Why/how?

Because Western Europe, which is a major part of NATO, is neither prepared nor willing to defend the Baltic States in the event of a Russian invasion. They may condemn it with lots of strong words, but when it comes to the point that they'll actually have to take up arms and give up their lives to protect those areas, they will bail out. Western Europeans don't want to die fighting for a region they actually care little for. Even if it should come to a war, they will have already lost it because of that. Morale is the most important factor in warfare.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If Estonia believes NATO will protect it, thats just...funny.

NATO is dead.

Why/how?

I'm sorry what is NATO going to do again? Western Europe's defense spending is deminimis. They don't even have resupply planes and relied on the US for Libya.

Europe is on a natural gas high on Russian gas. They won't rock the boat.

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.

Yes. Everyone in the Soviet Union realised that they wanted Uncle Sam's apple pie, and so they overthrew their rulers to break away and form the democratic capitalistic Russia that they'd always wanted.

Pull the other one.

You do know that the USSR was more than Russia, right? East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.

Yes. Everyone in the Soviet Union realised that they wanted Uncle Sam's apple pie, and so they overthrew their rulers to break away and form the democratic capitalistic Russia that they'd always wanted.

Pull the other one.

You do know that the USSR was more than Russia, right? East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.

You do know that none of those countries were part of the USSR, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
Basic history. Learn it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's kinda a big dealio there...

That's a lotta money spent.

If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If Estonia believes NATO will protect it, thats just...funny.

NATO is dead.

Why/how?

Because Western Europe, which is a major part of NATO, is neither prepared nor willing to defend the Baltic States in the event of a Russian invasion. They may condemn it with lots of strong words, but when it comes to the point that they'll actually have to take up arms and give up their lives to protect those areas, they will bail out. Western Europeans don't want to die fighting for a region they actually care little for. Even if it should come to a war, they will have already lost it because of that. Morale is the most important factor in warfare.

Or it can just tell Russia to off.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Because Western Europe, which is a major part of NATO, is neither prepared nor willing to defend the Baltic States in the event of a Russian invasion. They may condemn it with lots of strong words, but when it comes to the point that they'll actually have to take up arms and give up their lives to protect those areas, they will bail out. Western Europeans don't want to die fighting for a region they actually care little for. Even if it should come to a war, they will have already lost it because of that. Morale is the most important factor in warfare.

Western Europeans were willing enough to fight at considerable risk to their own lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both wars that were started by another country outside of Europe (the US,) and against countries they had little reason to make war with.

So your ramblings on how “Europeans lacking the will” to risk their life protecting the national sovereignty of allied countries against an aggressive power is downright laughable.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Because Western Europe, which is a major part of NATO, is neither prepared nor willing to defend the Baltic States in the event of a Russian invasion. They may condemn it with lots of strong words, but when it comes to the point that they'll actually have to take up arms and give up their lives to protect those areas, they will bail out. Western Europeans don't want to die fighting for a region they actually care little for. Even if it should come to a war, they will have already lost it because of that. Morale is the most important factor in warfare.

Western Europeans were willing enough to fight at considerable risk to their own lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both wars that were started by another country outside of Europe (the US,) and against countries they had little reason to make war with.

So your ramblings on how “Europeans lacking the will” to risk their life protecting the national sovereignty of allied countries against an aggressive power is downright laughable.

Iraq and Afghanistan were far away, and Europe was already far from enthusiastic about it. It will be different if war means that Western Europe itself will be threatened. The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistant were bands of unorganised farmers with light weaponry. The enemy here is the third largest armed force in the world, with ten thousands of tanks, aircraft and nuclear missiles. Comparing both conflicts is silly. The relatively few soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistant were full-time professionals. The tiny professional militaries of Western Europe won't be enough to defend the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq there were a few hundred European casualties. In a hypothetical war against Russia, regardless of who will win, there will be tens of thousands of European casualties.
Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?


Let us just hope that both sides will keep their heads cool so that after the crisis is over, we can all pretend it never happened and have nice tea. With biscuits. Nice biscuits.
I don't want war. Nobody should want war. Europeans are smart in that regard, smarter than Russians.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't want war. Nobody should want war. Europeans are smart in that regard, smarter than Russians.

Honestly, I think this is the best thing you've said in this whole thread. There's a ton of quotes out there from famous generals about how horrible war is that I could put up here (but I wont).... And I think you're generally correct that Europeans are "smarter" about their desire to not see a war, however, I personally think they've gone a bit wrong.

I say that because, while even the USA doesn't really "want" war (well except for maybe the CEOs of companies like General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. Also known as the Military Industrial Complex who profit off of the DoD buying their gak), however we definitely prepare for it. I understand why many European nations have very small standing militaries, I just wonder if they have some sort of a system in place to rapidly expand that military in a time of need (like a draft or conscription system, as the US does)

Iron_Captain wrote:Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?

Are you Baby Blue? St. Petersberg will look especially nice on the winter's dawn all radioactive like.

An attack on NATO is MADD.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?

Yes. In a nutshell. That's what NATO means. Russia will get away with it in ukraine, and maybe in Belarus or Kazakhstan. But a NATO member? That WOULD spark a full scale war. I think Britain proved that when it jumped in for Belgium and Poland in the past. To quote Lord Palmerston:

Lord Palmerston wrote:
England has no eternal friendships and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.

And having Russia rampaging through Europe again would be heavily in breach of those interests.

Again, Russia engaging in military war with NATO means the likelihood of all out nuclear war is almost inevitable.

In the words of our founder: "So you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky...punk?"*


*Although the God King TBone has had to suffer your many and varied insults and blasphemies, He is not in fact calling anyone a punk. Its a line from a movie, like this sentence, in case anyone is not aware.

You'd think we'd go full-on nukes in this day and age?

Or, full scale war w/o nukes?

 whembly wrote:
You'd think we'd go full-on nukes in this day and age?

Or, full scale war w/o nukes?

Well when I was a wee lad, all the scenarios ended up with the heartwarming images of thousands of missile arcs ala Wargames.

Either we can't stop them and start nuking and it builds or they can't handle our response and same or someone gets smart and just goes all nukey nukey from the get go.

If it was the Chinese I'd just say they hit the Cylon switch, deactivate everything with computer viruses and then bomb us into oblivion....


"The Cylons were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan."

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Because Western Europe, which is a major part of NATO, is neither prepared nor willing to defend the Baltic States in the event of a Russian invasion. They may condemn it with lots of strong words, but when it comes to the point that they'll actually have to take up arms and give up their lives to protect those areas, they will bail out. Western Europeans don't want to die fighting for a region they actually care little for. Even if it should come to a war, they will have already lost it because of that. Morale is the most important factor in warfare.

Western Europeans were willing enough to fight at considerable risk to their own lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both wars that were started by another country outside of Europe (the US,) and against countries they had little reason to make war with.

So your ramblings on how “Europeans lacking the will” to risk their life protecting the national sovereignty of allied countries against an aggressive power is downright laughable.

I beg to differ.

The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressing opposition to the imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place. Social movement researchers have described the 15 February protest as "the largest protest event in human history."

Sources vary in their estimations of the number of participants involved. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.[/b]

Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1½ million people protesting the invasion of Iraq; Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests on that day, but small demonstrations, attended mainly by foreign students, were seen later.

The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.

The protest in Rome involved around three million people

involved around three million people

three million people

One protest. One City. One Day. 3 million people.

And that is naturally only a tiny fraction of the people who opposed the Iraq War.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest


I may have been 12 at the time, and not particularly interested in politics or the War beyond thinking all the soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on the news were cool, but even I was aware at the time that the Iraq war was almost universally reviled.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redcruisair wrote:
Western Europeans were willing enough to fight at considerable risk to their own lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both wars that were started by another country outside of Europe (the US,) and against countries they had little reason to make war with.

So your ramblings on how “Europeans lacking the will” to risk their life protecting the national sovereignty of allied countries against an aggressive power is downright laughable.

Also, as you're clearly referring to the soldiers...Soldiers HAVE NO CHOICE in the matter. They were not so much willing to risk their lives going to War in Iraq, so much as they were willing to risk their life doing their duty. Their Governments told them it was their duty to go to Iraq and that it was in our National Interests. I'm of the opinion that our Governments lied about that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Iraq and Afghanistan were far away, and Europe was already far from enthusiastic about it.

The point being they agreed to help, even if they didn’t have too.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It will be different if war means that Western Europe itself will be threatened.

Correct. It will be a massively different conflict. Such a conflict will be about protecting Western Europe and its eastern allies from a dubious, apolitical and clearly aggressive power.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistant were bands of unorganised farmers with light weaponry.

Unorganized farmers, who broke the back of the Soviet army, when it invaded Afghanistan back in the day. You don’t know a lot about guerilla warfare do you?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The enemy here is the third largest armed force in the world, with ten thousands of tanks, aircraft and nuclear missiles.

Nuclear weaponry is not unique to Russia. France, Britain and the US have nuclear weapons of their own, and Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and turkey are all part of NATO’s nuclear sharing program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Comparing both conflicts is silly. The relatively few soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistant were full-time professionals. The tiny professional militaries of Western Europe won't be enough to defend the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq there were a few hundred European casualties.

Russia has 1,040,000 active military personal. The combined number of all of EU’s active military personal is 1,551,038. That’s 416,238 more than Russia. Add the US to the mix, the US is part of NATO after all, and all of sudden the situation becomes pretty dire for the kremlins.

So no easy steamrolling for Russia to be had here I’m afraid.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In a hypothetical war against Russia, there will be tens of thousands of European casualties.

And I’m to take your word for it?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?

I don’t have any children, so that’s a nonfactor to me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you willing to die for Estonia?

To put it bluntly, yes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't want war. Nobody should want war.

I Agree.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Shadow Captain Edithae, if understand you correctly, you do not think we Europeans won’t support a war to help a fellow NATO country in need?

Is that what you are saying, because that’s what it reads too me?

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?

Yes. In a nutshell. That's what NATO means. Russia will get away with it in ukraine, and maybe in Belarus or Kazakhstan. But a NATO member? That WOULD spark a full scale war. I think Britain proved that when it jumped in for Belgium and Poland in the past.

True. But the world has changed since then, as has the average Briton's opinion of war. And Britain is one of the more hawkish, warlike nations in Europe. I can't really imagine Germany or the Netherlands doing the same.

At the same time militarily how strong is Russia now? Are they even capable of deploying even a full division at this point?

 Redcruisair wrote:
So Shadow Captain Edithae, if understand you correctly, you do not think we Europeans won’t support a war to help a fellow NATO country in need?

Is that what you are saying, because that’s what it reads too me?

Go back and read my comment again.

I said nothing about Ukraine (Edit: or Estonia? whichever you're referring to. Ukraine's not a NATO member)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you willing to die for Estonia?

To put it bluntly, yes.

Are you currently a member of your country's armed forces? Or will you be enlisting?

This strikes me as empty internet boasting under the cover of anonymity.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistant were bands of unorganised farmers with light weaponry.

Unorganized farmers, who broke the back of the Soviet army, when it invaded Afghanistan back in the day. You don’t know a lot about guerilla warfare do you?

Unorganised farmers that somehow magically got all the latest modern weapons.
But anyhow, the Soviets only suffered relatively light casualties. It was not the Afghani guerillas that broke the back of the Soviet Army, it was the Soviet economy. The only credit the Afghanis deserve is that they avoided total destruction and managed to put up resistence long enough for the Soviet economy to collapse because of the costs.
In any case, they were and are not comparable in threat level to a modern, well trained and motivated convential army.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Comparing both conflicts is silly. The relatively few soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistant were full-time professionals. The tiny professional militaries of Western Europe won't be enough to defend the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq there were a few hundred European casualties.

Russia has 1,040,000 active military personal. The combined number of all of EU’s active military personal is 1,551,038. That’s 416,238 more than Russia. Add the US to the mix, the US is part of NATO after all, and all of sudden the situation becomes pretty dire for the kremlins.

So no easy steamrolling for Russia to be had here I’m afraid.

Those 1,551,038 men are divided over many small national armies with only a limited amount of cooperation. And judging from the difficulty the EU has with even setting up small military missions, most of those are far from battle-ready. Meanwhile, Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling. They will have covered a huge amount of territory before Europe will be able to put up an effective resistance.
And American soldiers are not that great of a help when they are an ocean away. It will take a lot of time before they will arrive. And that is if they arrive. Should Russia attack NATO, it is likely China will take its chance as well and invade US allies in the Far East.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In a hypothetical war against Russia, there will be tens of thousands of European casualties.

And I’m to take your word for it?

It is only logical. Look at large-scale convential wars of the past. Weapons have only gotten deadlier since then. It is actually a pretty conservative estimate.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?

I don’t have any children, so that’s a nonfactor to me.

But many others do, and I am sure most of them would put the safety of their children over Estonia.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you willing to die for Estonia?

To put it bluntly, yes.

I think most Europeans disagree with you. At least, almost all Europeans I know, and I know a lot of them.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't want war. Nobody should want war.

I Agree.

Why are you willing to die in a war you don't want?



If I may ask a question to you: Why should Europe support a fellow NATO country? The NATO is an outdated, jingoistic organisation that should have been disbanded when the Cold War, and NATO's purpose with it, ended. NATO has become a threat to world peace now that it is no longer kept in balance by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. In my opinion, the EU member state should leave NATO and integrate their respective armed forces into a single, unified European military instead. That way, Europe won't get drawn into any wars.

 Frazzled wrote:
At the same time militarily how strong is Russia now? Are they even capable of deploying even a full division at this point?

I found this chart:
It seems to be from the beginning of the crisis.

(looks at Soviet er Russian tanks in Ukraine) Cold war's over? Ok, sure.

But agreed I think NATO's dead unless the RUssians invade a NATO country. Then RUssia dies.

 Frazzled wrote:
(looks at Soviet er Russian tanks in Ukraine) Cold war's over?

Unless the West would like to start it again...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
(looks at Soviet er Russian tanks in Ukraine) Cold war's over?

Unless the West would like to start it again...

Putin seems to want to.

Again, I see Russian tanks in Georgia. Russian tanks in Ukraine.

Its already started.

Of course this time the Russian economy is smaller than Brazil's (seriously).

Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling.

I don't think you understand how modern armed forces work. Nothing that size happens that quickly. You better believe the Russian sparkies and grease monkeys are as behind on their maintenance quotas as everyone else in the world, that the queys want everything filled out 20 times before it shifts and inch, and that you just generally can't say 'go' to 100,000 men and get them rolling, simply because you can't keep 100,000 men at the ready condition that long.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, I see Russian tanks in Georgia. Russian tanks in Ukraine.

Its already started.

Of course this time the Russian economy is smaller than Brazil's (seriously).

Both parts of the former Soviet Union. Why is the West suddenly so interested in them, when they weren't before?

 motyak wrote:

Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling.

I don't think you understand how modern armed forces work. Nothing that size happens that quickly. You better believe the Russian sparkies and grease monkeys are as behind on their maintenance quotas as everyone else in the world, that the queys want everything filled out 20 times before it shifts and inch, and that you just generally can't say 'go' to 100,000 men and get them rolling, simply because you can't keep 100,000 men at the ready condition that long.

Russia has so far been quite sucessful in rotating battle-ready divisions along the Ukrainian border.

Why are you?