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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants.

Alternatively, because most of Eastern Europe is in NATO and thus has a bigger stick than Russia.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants.

Alternatively, because most of Eastern Europe is in NATO and thus has a bigger stick than Russia.

A bigger stick is useless if you can't reach it in time. NATO is more powerful than Russia, but NATO is divided and spread out.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

I seem to recall the last time anyone presumed innocence with Putin he seized Crimea and parts of the Ukraine? And even when I showed you video of Russian tanks rolling over the boarder you insisted that it was not true that Russia was involved because RT said so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before.

And directly into World War 3 as they attack NATO members.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.

'Force' is a relative concept.

For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.

Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.

Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.

The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.

Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.

When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.

All this talk of ‘all power come from force and Russia has lots of force, we are really powerful’ is typical of the bullish, chest beating bravado that comes from their government too. Like when the Russian embassy chose to ‘remind’ us they’re a nuclear power and should be given more respect when ejecting their diplomats. Iron captain boasting that if they want something they’ll drive tanks in and take it. You tried to murder people on British soil with chemical weapons. You can’t win arguments by waving nukes around and stamping your feet.

Seems to me generally Russia and its people have an inferiority complex and think being murderous warmongers will automatically earn the respect they crave rather than create antagonism that carries consequences that make them feel more victimhood.

True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.

Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.

 notprop wrote:
True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.

Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.

Ah, Boris Johnson. I didn't know you posted on Dakka.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spoiler:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.

Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.

You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but
First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?

No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.

Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.

If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.

You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/
The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?

I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.

Honestly not all power is derived from force, you seem to have skipped a lot of history in that case, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed, the British Empire collapsed etc etc. Russia has a lot of power true, but so do countries like China, the UK and France. We might stretch to include China as a semi superpower. But Russia like the UK and France are no longer superpowers. The Russian military isn't what the Warsaw Pact was. Its cornered by two powerful blocs now in the form of NATO and China. The idea that Russia could defeat NATO is laughable, the US alone vastly outspends Russia. Russia's army is only useful in bullying the poorer countries on Russia's southern flank.

This is what I mean by Russian delusions, the idea that they could still rule Eastern Europe by force. The idea that it can somehow stand up to US military power. The only reason it hasn't happened is that unlike most Russians, Putin doesn't suffer from the same delusions about military capabilities. Russia's polar moment has passed. The US is the unipolar power by sheer numbers alone, whether you want to accept it or not. The only shift to a bipolar world will be with China. Russia had its moment in the sun. If Russia wants to blow up the world to cling to delusions then its even more insane than the Kim family.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".

Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation.
The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.

Putin doesn't want more?? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are the definition of wanting more. Putin is nibbling off what territories he can of unfriendly neighbouring states. The West doesn't have to appease Russia. Russia is not some special case that deserves preferential treatment. Yet the West is bending over backwards to restrain themselves in cases such as this and Ukraine, where sanctions were positively mild. The West could just sell arms to Ukraine or end the regime of the tin pot dictator called Assad and there would be nothing Russia could do about it. Its the type of restraint Russia has never shown towards its neighbours.

You think gassing civilians in the UK is a sign of mutual respect? Russia has no respect for the West. You can't have meaningful relations with a country that can't behave internationally. We can have meaningful relations with countries like China because they don't do this gak. The West doesn't desire to dominate Russia, the West desires Russia to respect international boundaries (that Russia has agreed with) and not behave like a 19th century bully. I guess when the West finally decides to spread it for Russia that is a sign of 'mutual respect' to you?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry
Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.

A reset that does not reset anything is not a reset.

I think you're confusing reset with "ignore all the bad gak we do forever now".

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.

They were damaging to relations, yes. But they were reactions to damaging actions by the West, done long after Russia lost its faith in the West. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West, he means what I explained above. A relation between equals. Western politicians meanwhile continue to talk about wanting good relations but keep performing hostile actions. Hollow words, hollow souls. Russia has made real sacrifices to allow for good relations with the West, just a comparison between a map of 1977 and 2017 should show that. Now it is the turn of the West to make sacrifices. But the West does not want to make sacrifices, it wants only to dominate.

What, as pointed out multiple times Skripal already did his time and Ukraine is what thoroughly ruined the reset. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he actually means that the West should let him get away with what he does. It would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly sad. Russia is supporting murderous regimes and illegally annexing territories, its as hostile to the West as you can get when considering the role of Western normative and hegemonic power. Hahaha, so the Soviets collapsing and Russia being weakened was a sacrifice made to the West? Pull the other one. None of that was for the West, it was imperial overstretch and the logical collapse. When you say the West should make sacrifices, all that means in reality is throwing sovereign nations under the Russian bus.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive.

When someone punches you in the face, you punch him back. When someone shows you disrespect, you show him disrespect. When someone treats you kindly, you treat him with kindness in return. This does not mean you do not have agency.

This does mean you have no agency, you're blatently mirroring what the other does. You don't have to punch back, you don't have to show disrespect. Saying all actions Russia takes are only because of Western actions is taking away agency, as it means that Russia isn't able to act independently, only to mirror.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.

Russia has been invaded unexpectedly too often to take risks like that. When there is massive military alliance on your border, and their words and actions are hostile, do you trust them or do you arm yourself? NATO is a tool for Western domination. As long as NATO exists, Russia will always be threatened, and an equal relation will never be possible.

Ah I see, when I bring up fears of Poland or the Baltics being invaded by Russia its 'Russophobia', but when its Russia and NATO its perfectly valid, got it

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice
In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.

That path does exist, it is the path of the Cold War. But it is a delicate path. Confrontation leads to tension, which leads to more confrontation. Too much tension and confrontation leads to war. Eventually someone has to back down and appease, or war is inevitable. The question is, will our leaders back down in time? The Cold War is on again, but I have less trust in the politicians of the present than in those of the past.

And if that path needs to be taken than so be it. The West has nothing of value to lose from returning to the Cold War. If that is the price to pay for making Russia behave like a normal country than so be it. Maybe its time for Russia to back down and not murder civilians in the West again. Maybe Russia should stop creating this tension and it can avoid being isolated. If Russia wants to go to war over economic sanctions it only serves to demonstrate that Russia can only act like a 19th century bully and not behave like a 21st century country.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.

'Force' is a relative concept.

For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.

Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.

Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.

The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.

Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.

When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.

You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.

France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible. They do not have the militarised society or population base needed for that, and if they did, they would not have the economy they have now. The notion that European armies would be able to stand up to Russia is extremely laughable. Aside from Poland, no European country has a military close enough to Russia's borders that is worth mentioning, and most European countries barely have any military at all. They don't even meet the already very low NATO goals and are smaller than even a single Russian division. The UK for example has a military that is way too small to do anything independently, and coordinating an operation with its allies would take far too much time. Meanwhile, as shown in snap exercises Russia can have formations of upwards of 160,000 soldiers including tanks and aircraft ready and deployed at the border within 24 hours. For the record, that is a formation larger than the entire British military.

While the Russian military obviously does not have the capability to invade Britain, it does not need to. It has the capability to invade the Baltics, Poland Ukraine etc, which is what it needs to. The British or any European military does not have the capability to stop such an invasion. They are so outmatched in manpower and especially material it is not even funny. In any conflict with Russia, Europe would lean completely on the US of A.

Don't try to argue that Russia is not militarily capable. That is nonsense. Russia has an incredibly strong, capable military and that is a fact backed up with plenty of hard data. Analyse Russian military exercises or military operations in the recent past (Crimea, Syria) if you do not believe me. The Russian military has fully recovered from the Soviet collapse. Instead of wasting your energy trying to cling to a reality that no longer exist and be all like "We can defeat Russia, Britain stronk!", I would like to invite you to spend it on discussing a way to avoid a military confrontation instead. Because ultimately, who is stronger or who would win a war is completely irrelevant. If it comes to war, both sides already have lost. We must not have war.
So, what do you think can be done (realistically) to avoid the current course of confrontation?

 notprop wrote:
True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.

Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.

And lo, I have found my new, one true love on the Intahweb! (sorry Notprop ... no heart orkmote on Dakka...)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.

'Force' is a relative concept.

For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.

Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.

Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.

The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.

Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.

When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.

You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.

France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible. They do not have the militarised society or population base needed for that, and if they did, they would not have the economy they have now. The notion that European armies would be able to stand up to Russia is extremely laughable. Aside from Poland, no European country has a military close enough to Russia's borders that is worth mentioning, and most European countries barely have any military at all. They don't even meet the already very low NATO goals and are smaller than even a single Russian division. The UK for example has a military that is way too small to do anything independently, and coordinating an operation with its allies would take far too much time. Meanwhile, as shown in snap exercises Russia can have formations of upwards of 160,000 soldiers including tanks and aircraft ready and deployed at the border within 24 hours. For the record, that is a formation larger than the entire British military.

While the Russian military obviously does not have the capability to invade Britain, it does not need to. It has the capability to invade the Baltics, Poland Ukraine etc, which is what it needs to. The British or any European military does not have the capability to stop such an invasion. They are so outmatched in manpower and especially material it is not even funny. In any conflict with Russia, Europe would lean completely on the US of A.

Don't try to argue that Russia is not militarily capable. That is nonsense. Russia has an incredibly strong, capable military and that is a fact backed up with plenty of hard data. Analyse Russian military exercises or military operations in the recent past (Crimea, Syria) if you do not believe me. The Russian military has fully recovered from the Soviet collapse. Instead of wasting your energy trying to cling to a reality that no longer exist and be all like "We can defeat Russia, Britain stronk!", I would like to invite you to spend it on discussing a way to avoid a military confrontation instead. Because ultimately, who is stronger or who would win a war is completely irrelevant. If it comes to war, both sides already have lost. We must not have war.
So, what do you think can be done (realistically) to avoid the current course of confrontation?

Can we have a thread to do a wargame between Russia and Nato, please?
I would geninuely be so excited for that.

I don't get what's up with all this "Russia has nukezzz lol, you can't invade Russia!" Meanwhile France, the UK and the US also have nukes in Europe to guard against a Russian invasion, but somehow those aren't going to be used when were talking about a full scale Russian invasion of Europe? In reality Russia wins the opening moves before being thrown back to its borders and that's that, because France is the safe base of operations in mainland Europe for a counteroffensive.

As for European army size, if the political will was there from a credible Russian threat (it isn't credible) they could easily expand their armies. Lets not forget that during the Cold War most European armies were 2 to 3 times the size of what they are now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost.

I know you can't actually argue that *I* know little of the above things. And, while there's a lot of chest beating around here atm, Russia's biggest issue is still going to be the same issue old issues that have plagued large armies since the beginning: supply. Worse, while Russia's military industries are impressive, they're unlikely to be able to sustain the Russian military in a protracted engagement with Nato in Eastern Europe, due to a likely scorched earth policy as they advance.

Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.

[Sarcasm] You know, Putin thinks assassination by poison is fun - so, let's give him a chance to play!

After all, it's his game, right? He's the one that is setting the rules....[/Sarcasm]

Seriously, ousting Russia's diplomats and pushing through sanctions is playing nice.

Putin has been supplying more than enough provcation for much sterner measures.

If he continues, it is likely that blockades on trade will be the next step - and that is where things start to get rough.

The Auld Grump

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.

This is patently false. All projected force relies on a strong economy to function in any kind of sustained capacity. Economy and production are the basis of any power, and the military is merely an extension of that. You can say all you want about the Russian military not requiring an economy to function, but that is not true in the slightest.

Without even touching on the fact that the vast majority of the Russian military is not actually modernised, Russia has some key strategic military weaknesses that are not based on military power, but economic power.

First of all, the Russian government revenue, and therefore military spending, is highly dependent on oil prices. Therefore, it relies on there being an external market for the oil it produces to fund it's military. The rest of Europe is already in the process of weaning off Russian fuel imports, and this is only going to accelerate following such blatant aggression. The Russian military may be cost-efficient, but it is not free or self-reliant on no government support.(1)

The second major weakness is that Russia imports the vast majority of the electronics used in it's military tech. For example, Russian naval electronics are 100% dependent on foreign imports, and military electronics in other areas vary from 40% to 90% reliance. Typically, the most reliant areas are the most high-tech and crucial in the modern age, such as satellites. Since the increasing sanctions after the Crimean invasion, Russian rearmament has already slowed due to reduced imports of strategic components. If Russia cannot produce it's own high-end electronics domestically, it will quickly run out of it's modernised forces, and be unable to replace them.(2)

The other major weakness is related to the second one- Russia imports 90% of it's required rare-earth metals, along with importing various other strategic resources, including 100% of it's titanium and a large amount of high-end steel alloys (because Russia cannot produce steel alloys of a sufficient quality). This is inspite of Russia having the second-largest known-natural reserves of rare-earth metals. The weakness here is obvious- lose access to Western markets, and lose access to the resources needed to actually build up the Russian military. Why does Russia import rare-earth metals? Chronic underdevelopment of domestic mining industries- in short, a poor economy to support the military. This is a serious shortfall too- increasing production tenfold is no easy task.(2)

What we see here is Russian power being limited by a lack of domestic economic power, and yes, this is directly affecting their military strength. They are likely to shoot themselves in the foot by acting so aggressively so early. Especially as they have only recently regained a capability to project some power abroad again, as seen in the Syria intervention. If Russia wants to regain any kind of similar capability for a large proportion of it's approximately 3 million personnel, it needs to not feth off the people supplying the technology and resources that are actually allowing that to happen. I believe the phrase is not to bite the hand that feeds you?



As an aside, Russia is not a superpower. The USA is the only global superpower currently. Russia is at best a great power, along with other nuclear states who can actually project their nuclear power to anywhere on the globe (UK, France, China), and definitely at least a regional power (taking Eastern Europe is operating as a regional power). China is the only state currently that looks to be able to ascend to superpower capabilities, and that is entirely due to it's strong economic basis. Future possible contenders are India, the EU if it survives and undergoes further integration (it is currently only an economic power) and, yes, Russia, but only if it sorts out it's domestic economy. These three are all far in the future too, not near future like China.

Oh, I think you mentined that Poland has the only European military near Russian borders worth caring about? Finland has a military worth caring about. It is not part of NATO, but is enough of a pain in the arse to invade that Russia isn't actually fething about with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
1: http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military%20Power%20Publications/Russia%20Military%20Power%20Report%202017.pdf
2: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/sutyagin_revised.pdf

Sounds like someone needs a five year plan.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Sounds like someone needs a five year plan.

They essentially have one! How achievable this is I do not know, especially with likely changes to sanctions. It would still leave them heavily reliant on imports too.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
As it has been for you. There has never been any effort made by the US or any other Western country. Only empty talk. The West does not desire normal relations, that is clear from their actions. The West only desires a subservient Russia that kowtows to the US like the rest of world.

No, the West desire a Russia that adheres to international law.

Sure, we want good relations with you, but only if you do exactly what I want you to do.

"what I want you to do" is follow international law.

Yes, Russia sometimes invades other countries. So do Western nations. But of course, only those Western nations are allowed to invade other people.

You've almost got a point there. If you took out the Russia martyrdom silliness you might have actually realized the reality, but you couldn't quite get there. Anyhow, yes, the US can invade Iraq in clear breach of international law and suffer no penalty. Similarly China's actions in the South China Sea are plainly illegal, but the response has been nothing more than ineffectual posturing.

But this is because the US and China are big dogs with enormous economic and military clout. They get away with stuff. Everybody else, and yes I mean everybody else, not just poor widdle Russia, has to live in a world where breaches of international law come with severe punishment. It isn't completely fair, but there's no sensible way to make the US and CHina obey the same rules as the rest of us, and the alternative is to have no rules at all, and that would be a complete disaster.

But even if this wasn't the best possible option, end of the day it is the option we have taken and so it is the world that Russia lives in. So Russia either needs to grow up, realize its real place in the world order and get on with being an ordinary country, or keep trying to pretend its a major player and keep whinging when it all blows up in its face.

So far you're fully behind Russia's imaginary, pretend to be strong decision. Deep down it must be a humiliating experience.

"Ha, little Russia! You are too small so you have to do exactly what Uncle Sam says, or else..."

That's a silly response. Anyhow, yes, Russia has to obey international law or face sanctions. Accept this reality, or continue to piss and moan when Russia's breaches of international law are met with more sanctions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.

This is hopelessly mistaken. The Soviet Union had serious industrial power, and so triumphed in WW2 as it was a war of industrial power. Before then, when Russia had not yet gone through its communist industrialization, its lack of economic power was a direct cause of its poor performance in WW1 & the Crimean War. Before then Russian successes came in a period where manpower and military training were key elements.

France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible.

Right here, in the 21st century, we have someone trying to claim that conscript troops doing their mandatory period of service are what makes for military might. This is a real thing that a person is actually trying to claim.

Nationalism is a hell of a drug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.

It isn't just that. While the Russian air force has some good qualities, the reality is it is a very long way behind the US, never mind the rest of NATO. The US has better quality air superiority fighters and more of them, and that advantage is multiplied by the overwhelming tech edge the US has in air surveillance and electronic warfare.

Recent history has shown that air power doesn't automatically translate to mass destruction on the ground, but that's only true if those forces stop their advance and disperse. The only way they stay in the fight is by becoming useless as offensive assets. At which point who cares if Russia has 160,00 men in armoured columns ready on day one, by day three or four they'll be neutered by the enemy's total air control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
They essentially have one! How achievable this is I do not know, especially with likely changes to sanctions. It would still leave them heavily reliant on imports too.

Holy crap Russia imports 60% of its helicopter engines? I thought helicopters were like the one thing Russia was actually really good at, and they're not even using their own engines.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

We have been through this before and you know it. If you read what you are talking about, rather than just trying to deflect, it specifically states that

n many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial

And

in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.

States are not people. This is not putting someone in prison and this is not a police investigation. Presumption of innocence is not universal or relevant. Stop trying to deflect. No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.

It isn't just that. While the Russian air force has some good qualities, the reality is it is a very long way behind the US, never mind the rest of NATO. The US has better quality air superiority fighters and more of them, and that advantage is multiplied by the overwhelming tech edge the US has in air surveillance and electronic warfare.

Recent history has shown that air power doesn't automatically translate to mass destruction on the ground, but that's only true if those forces stop their advance and disperse. The only way they stay in the fight is by becoming useless as offensive assets. At which point who cares if Russia has 160,00 men in armoured columns ready on day one, by day three or four they'll be neutered by the enemy's total air control.

I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...

Iron_Captain wrote:You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets. 

Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.

But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

We have been through this before and you know it. If you read what you are talking about, rather than just trying to deflect, it specifically states that

n many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial

And

in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.

States are not people. This is not putting someone in prison and this is not a police investigation. Presumption of innocence is not universal or relevant. Stop trying to deflect. No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.

For some reason one side also conveniently keeps ignoring the evidence was sent to the OPCW.

Going for the old ‘quantity has a quality of its own’ approach to war again eh? That’s what makes you powerful, being able to throw away large numbers of people.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Going for the old ‘quantity has a quality of its own’ approach to war again eh? That’s what makes you powerful, being able to throw away large numbers of people.

Its also useful when your industrial capacity is actually bigger, not smaller
And 50 year old equipment really does have a quality of its own on the modern battlefield

 Steve steveson wrote:
States are not people. ...No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.

this is coming really close to 'no evidence is needed at all' and consequences of such approach have proven to be extremely dramatic... here is a telling selection of 2002-2003 rhetorics preceding action on Iraq...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/07/iraqs-weapons-of-mass-destruction-who-said-what-when/
and all these leaders were wrong, the evidence was either fake or non-existent, more than 60,000 non-combatant civilians were killed, on their land, in their homes, being individuals as well as a part of their nation... just think - 60,000... not 2, not 25... a hell of a price for all these 'there is no doubt' and 'know for a fact'...

Iron Captain keeps talking about how numbers are such a powerful factor in war. So the size of Russia's army demands it be seen as a world power. Except North Korea has more active troops. Should we consider North Korea a major world power? And if we go to the old line that Russia has so many reservists to call in... well then North Korea only becomes more powerful because they've got 6 million reservists waiting, and Vietnam then goes ahead of Russia because they've got 5 million of their own reservists. And to my own surprise South Korea actually jumps to the top of the list because they've got 7 million reservists, and therefore have technically the largest pool of troops in the whole world.

So by the Iron Captain grand world theory that Russia should be regarded as a major power because military force is the only consideration and military force is measured purely in quantity... does this mean we should abandon our world order, and accept that South Korea, North Korea and Vietnam are the real powerhouses in the world, and everyone else should just kowtow to them?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...

I remember when Russia got giddy because a Russian built SAM downed a US plane in the Balkans. At the time I wondered who'd be silly enough to believe that a single hit in the course of a 30 month operation showed some kind of effectiveness of AA in response to aircraft.

I waited 20 years and now I get my answer - Iron Captain.

Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.

That's an incredible quote, because it is completely ass backwards. In WW2 airpower was devastating, but still in its infancy and limited in its final impact because low weapons and communication tech placed some pretty hard limits on what planes could do to targets on the ground. These days the level of communications and the presence of guided missiles has changed what planes can do entirely. When NATO decided to engage in Libya and targeted armoured columns on the ground it was terrifying to see what they could do overnight, just lay waste to the whole thing.

But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.

To be fair 160,000 was the number he gave for troops who'd be ready to go on day one. Presumably there'd be probably something north of half a million troops active in the campaign once it really got going, plus a million or so reservists that'd start to filter in and likely undertake the role of occupying captured territory.

The problem though is it could be 5 million men in that first attack, when the Russian airforce is beaten out of the sky, and the US is able to target any mobile, concentrated column of troops and just lay it to waste then basic survival means those Russian troops are going to disperse and stop moving. At which point it doesn't matter how affordable Iron Captain thinks Russia's conscript troops are, they've been entirely negated as offensive units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:
this is coming really close to 'no evidence is needed at all'

Except that Russia has a motive, has prior form in murdering double agents in Britain with exotic tech, and the weapon used in the killing was has only ever been made in Russia.

and consequences of such approach have proven to be extremely dramatic... here is a telling selection of 2002 rhetorics preceding action on Iraq...

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

Well, it sure is a good thing the US doesn't have stealth bombers of any kind. Especially not ones capable of operating at high altitude which are capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons and have an operational range of 6,000 nautical miles on one tank of fuel. Certainly not one that has been used in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, from its home base in the USA.

I think Russia would find that shooting down a B-2 is a lot harder than a passenger airliner.

 sebster wrote:
Iron Captain keeps talking about how numbers are such a powerful factor in war. So the size of Russia's army demands it be seen as a world power. Except North Korea has more active troops. Should we consider North Korea a major world power? And if we go to the old line that Russia has so many reservists to call in... well then North Korea only becomes more powerful because they've got 6 million reservists waiting, and Vietnam then goes ahead of Russia because they've got 5 million of their own reservists. And to my own surprise South Korea actually jumps to the top of the list because they've got 7 million reservists, and therefore have technically the largest pool of troops in the whole world.

So by the Iron Captain grand world theory that Russia should be regarded as a major power because military force is the only consideration and military force is measured purely in quantity... does this mean we should abandon our world order, and accept that South Korea, North Korea and Vietnam are the real powerhouses in the world, and everyone else should just kowtow to them?

Well NK did just develop nukes, and as people so eloquently argued that is all a country needs to be a superpower. I for one welcome our new North Korean overlords

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...

I remember when Russia got giddy because a Russian built SAM downed a US plane in the Balkans. At the time I wondered who'd be silly enough to believe that a single hit in the course of a 30 month operation showed some kind of effectiveness of AA in response to aircraft.

I waited 20 years and now I get my answer - Iron Captain.

It just shows an amazing disconnect, if that was really the case why would Russia invest so much in flying scrap metal?

 sebster wrote:

Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.

That's an incredible quote, because it is completely ass backwards. In WW2 airpower was devastating, but still in its infancy and limited in its final impact because low weapons and communication tech placed some pretty hard limits on what planes could do to targets on the ground. These days the level of communications and the presence of guided missiles has changed what planes can do entirely. When NATO decided to engage in Libya and targeted armoured columns on the ground it was terrifying to see what they could do overnight, just lay waste to the whole thing.

Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?

 sebster wrote:

But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.

To be fair 160,000 was the number he gave for troops who'd be ready to go on day one. Presumably there'd be probably something north of half a million troops active in the campaign once it really got going, plus a million or so reservists that'd start to filter in and likely undertake the role of occupying captured territory.

The problem though is it could be 5 million men in that first attack, when the Russian airforce is beaten out of the sky, and the US is able to target any mobile, concentrated column of troops and just lay it to waste then basic survival means those Russian troops are going to disperse and stop moving. At which point it doesn't matter how affordable Iron Captain thinks Russia's conscript troops are, they've been entirely negated as offensive units.

While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian professionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals?

Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals?

Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.

See, we already won, those are wayyyyy too many Chinese to beat off for Russia alone

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evidence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed on a massive scale...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))