Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

  1. #21

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Adar your posts are so beautiful I weep.


    Also I have to apologize that I dont even begin to know what part Sweden would play in this, other than what youve written.

    Ill have to examine your claim that the Baltics would last longer than two days - I can maybe see that being the case but I also see two days or even 36 hours being a reasonable estimate. Btw those are the numbers RAND intelligence corporation gave out which to my knowledge are seen as fairly accurate.
    Last edited by Sire Brenshar; August 13, 2016 at 01:37 AM.
    "Nobody is right, but historians are more right than others"



  2. #22
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Permanent Lockdown
    Posts
    2,339

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    ^ I do not believe that. For the second time people fail to understand what Putinization means. It means copying what works - in this case in a 'loose' democracy, which Poland Turkey Hungary all are and as are pretty much all democracies except for those part of NATO since before 1990 give or take a few, you use the media to stay in power and to turn the executive into the dominate power within the country. Thats all. Putin is literally not even Russia.
    I also fail to understand what these countries have in common with Russia other than perhaps a opposition to liberalism and high regard for traditional values. Poland and Russia are literally arch-enemies, Kaczyński didn't get over the death of his brother near Smolensk and makes war preparations with an ambitious rearment programme. Erdogan in Turkey was a member of the muslim brotherhood which was for decades fighting secular nationalism and westernization in the region (a group which is also seen as terrorists by Russia) and he looks to several examples from Ottomans to Hitler but not Putin, with whom he had a feud until recently. Hungary's government is the only one in the group which has admiration and praise for Putin, but Orbán's illiberal state is more the result of pressure from Jobbik than Russia.

    WOW media and executive power .. do you know how the world works? e.g. Merkel is doing the exact same with public channels on TV and state sponsered ads, she also represents the executive branch of government in a country with limited democratic institutions, in fact the Grundgesetz(base law) is based on distrust of the people after WW2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    Two things need to be established about the Baltic States:
    1. Russia wants them, needs them.
    2. They are running out of time to do this. NATO is gradually building military capability there and at some point it will be too difficult to take by force - currently, it is very weak.
    1. They might have above average GDP in the region but i don't see how that makes them so valuable or strategically important. It would be hard to justify and the local resistance wouldn't make it worth the hassle.
    2. HAHAHAHA It's mother RUSSIA we are talking about, the biggest nation on the planet which also has a sizeable nuclear arsenale. The Baltics are dwarves in comparison to them. If russian leaders really wanted them, nothing on earth could stop them, except if the USA does total commitment or drops H-bombs which they wouldn't do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    NATO forces there have the capability to shoot down small recon drones with two weapons - Anti-Ballistic-Missile missiles like Patriot missiles, or using M4 rifles.
    Drones are overrated, russian intelligence will most likely find a way to retrieve informations without flying toys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    though Brexit is actually responsible for the AfD party in Germany having collapsed - which is tremendous news!
    You haven't been following the polls, the AfD will get around 20% in the capital and most likely go into the federal parliament with two numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    What Im saying, is the situation is grim. The global trend is that war is becoming more likely by all the world powers - including China, which recently had its major territorial claims overruled by the UN's Hague court and has since been acting very aggressively. There is a lot of tension everywhere.
    Wars are all the time happening, as well as there was tension (especially during the Cuban crises and the late 70s). But we haven't had a big war between the great powers since WW2, and i doubt any of these powers is willing to risk such an escalation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    All the lessons the past century taught us are being forgotten. Exactly 100 years ago the Battle of Somme was taking place, and today the EU, the grand European plan to put that all behind us, is falling apart.
    That the EU was somehow responsible for the long period of peace in Europe is a big fat lie, prior to the unification of Germany, it was a french led-alliance (De Gaulle also didn't want England joining in) which would've nuked Germany if the Warsaw Pact was unstoppable. The only thing that prevented war in Europe was good diplomacy instead of revanchism.
    Last edited by Mayer; August 13, 2016 at 04:42 AM.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  3. #23

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    I think the pro-Russian poster has a pretty poor grasp of military reality at the moment.

    1. Drones are not overrated flying toys. They're a useful and now iconic tool of modern warfare.

    2. The "biggest" nation on the planet has a military that is not only smaller than that of the United States, but vastly inferior. With American power being coupled with the armed forces of the European nations, the Russian Federation in its current state is entirely outmatched and is too often vastly overestimated in its capabilities.

    3. The US will fully commit in the Baltic. NATO membership guarantees this. Trump is also losing badly in the American election, so there will be full NATO support from the next American commander in chief as well.

    4. Any conventional conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO will end on very unfavorable terms for Russia. Unless it's given to them without a fight, they will be unable to take and hold the Baltic or parts of Ukraine. Given a modest amount of time, seizing the Baltic quickly will soon also no longer be a realistic option with additional hardware and full-escalation trip-wire forces being put into place.
    Last edited by Dragus; August 13, 2016 at 07:40 PM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    I also fail to understand what these countries have in common with Russia other than perhaps a opposition to liberalism and high regard for traditional values.
    As I have already mentioned, these countries have weak democratic traditions, that allow power to be consolidated in the hands of a single person or party without much protest by the populace and other institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Poland and Russia are literally arch-enemies, Kaczyński didn't get over the death of his brother near Smolensk and makes war preparations with an ambitious rearment programme. Erdogan in Turkey was a member of the muslim brotherhood which was for decades fighting secular nationalism and westernization in the region (a group which is also seen as terrorists by Russia) and he looks to several examples from Ottomans to Hitler but not Putin, with whom he had a feud until recently. Hungary's government is the only one in the group which has admiration and praise for Putin, but Orbán's illiberal state is more the result of pressure from Jobbik than Russia.
    That is all besides the point - As I keep trying to stress I am referring to the method by which these countries have erroded democracy. This has nothing to do with Russia directly.

    At most, Russian influence in these places has merely helped this process, intentionally or otherwise.

    Poland's modernization program begin years before PiS even got into power - and has more to do with making sure the army is capable of achieving its basic functions that any ''war preparation''. Even the new territorial brigades being formed are merely what already exists in every other European country. And as always I ask why this fascination with Polands military - nobodys talks about the new British warrior armoured recon units, or Germanys Puma's or of the massive 19 trillion ruble Russian military modernization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    WOW media and executive power .. do you know how the world works? e.g. Merkel is doing the exact same with public channels on TV and state sponsered ads, she also represents the executive branch of government in a country with limited democratic institutions, in fact the
    Grundgesetz(base law) is based on distrust of the people after WW2.
    If you want to argue that Merkel is Putinizing Germany thats for you to prove. Personally I dont see her eroding the independence of other state institutions like the judiciary and constitutional court, banning civil organizations and NGOs, mass firing public officials and state journalists, of attempting to monopolize state media and generally of trying to make the executive the most powerful branch of government.

    But feel free to argue otherwise. German laws being what they are Germany still has solid democratic tradition where any party attempting to systematically do the above would likely end up in jail.

    [QUOTE=Mayer;15086071] 1. They might have above average GDP in the region but i don't see how that makes them so valuable or strategically important. It would be hard to justify and the local resistance wouldn't make it worth the hassle.

    Of course not - because you dont understand Russia.

    Let me ask, why do you think Tsarist Russia invaded the Baltics, why did the Soviet Union invade the Baltics, and why does contemporary Russia regularily rehearse a military invasion of the Baltics? Can you think of any invasions of Russia that have taken place throughout history? Does the concept of vast buffer space between Moscow and its borders mean anything? Of having another warm water port on the Baltic sea? Of uniting Kalinigrad - Europes most heavily militarized region with 200 000 military personnel, with mainland Russia?

    Oh, and of course lets not forgot that Russia has essentially reverted to the borders of pre-Peter 1 the Great. Im sure that isnt causing any concern to Russians.

    But dont just take my word for it:

    ‘Russia was and will remain a great
    power’

    ‘This is preconditioned by the
    inseparable characteristics of its geopolitical,
    economic and cultural existence. They have
    determined the mentality of the Russian people and
    the policy of the government throughout the history
    of Russia and they cannot but do so at present.’

    ‘Russia is in the middle of one of the most
    difficult periods in its history. For the first time in
    the past 200–300 years, it is facing a real threat of
    sliding to the second, possibly even the third,
    echelon of states. We are running out of time left to
    remove this threat.’
    Putin, 1999

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    2. HAHAHAHA It's mother RUSSIA we are talking about, the biggest nation on the planet which also has a sizeable nuclear arsenale. The Baltics are dwarves in comparison to them. If russian leaders really wanted them, nothing on earth could stop them, except if the USA does total commitment or drops H-bombs which they wouldn't do
    That is not how deterrence works. Again you dont know what you are talking about - everyone with any familiarity on the topic understand Russia would lose a protracted conventional conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Drones are overrated, russian intelligence will most likely find a way to retrieve informations without flying toys.
    ''Likely find a way''

    The hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers killed in Dolzhanskaya-Capital on August 2014 beg to differ.

    And so does US general Ben Hodges but whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    You haven't been following the polls, the AfD will get around 20% in the capital and most likely go into the federal parliament with two numbers.
    So we should be worried is what youre saying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Wars are all the time happening, as well as there was tension (especially during the Cuban crises and the late 70s). But we haven't had a big war between the great powers since WW2, and i doubt any of these powers is willing to risk such an escalation.
    War between the worlds major powers havent happened to be exact. Are you saying that means that we should dismiss the possibility of them ever occuring again?

    You doubt it, but you also seem to not understand Russia and perhaps China. You dismiss their claims, which is actually the entire problem here and in hindsight what could have solved the current crises if during the 2000's there had been for example negotiating the Baltic States inclusion into NATO. (Though I admit it is more complicated that)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    That the EU was somehow responsible for the long period of peace in Europe is a big fat lie, prior to the unification of Germany, it was a french led-alliance (De Gaulle also didn't want England joining in) which would've nuked Germany if the Warsaw Pact was unstoppable. The only thing that prevented war in Europe was good diplomacy instead of revanchism.
    I dont agree.

    But if you think good diplomacy was the cause for peace then how are you not worried now? Does Europes recent diplomatic prowess over Greece, the migration crises, Poland constitutional crises, the Minsk protocals, and so on give you cause to be confident?
    "Nobody is right, but historians are more right than others"



  5. #25

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragus View Post
    2. The "biggest" nation on the planet has a military that is not only smaller than that of the United States, but vastly inferior. With American power being coupled with the armed forces of the European nations, the Russian Federation in its current state is entirely outmatched and is too often vastly overestimated in its capabilities.
    Russia knows this which is why they arent going to try to match NATO in some all out conventional war. They want a limited war, especially as the regional advantage in the Baltics is hugely in their favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragus View Post
    3. The US will fully commit in the Baltic. NATO membership guarantees this. Trump is also losing badly in the American election, so there will be full NATO support from the next American commander in chief as well.
    Technically NATO membership only guarantees appropriate measures. And while in the end it all depends on the US its hard to imagine countries like France Italy and Germany being prepared to go to war. A recent German poll showed most Germans wouldnt even want to defend Poland in case of a war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragus View Post
    4. Any conventional conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO will end on very unfavorable terms for Russia. Unless it's given to them without a fight, they will be unable to take and hold the Baltic or parts of Ukraine. Given a modest amount of time, seizing the Baltic quickly will soon also no longer be a realistic option with additional hardware and full-escalation trip-wire forces being put into place.
    Thats not what would happen.

    1. Russia invades the Baltics. Maybe including Lithuania.
    2. NATO members meet in an emergency council, while an intense propaganda campaign confuses the hell out of westerners and their politicians. Best case none of the NATO members balk at the idea of declaring war on Russia. Cyberwarfare cuts the Baltics off from outside contact.
    3. If they do go to war, the NATO spearhead force assembles and attempts to enter the Baltics. It is intercepted at the Suwalki gap and likely destroyed. If they dont go to war, well then:
    4. The Baltic states are fully occupied, days after the invasion commenced.
    5. NATO fails to ever decide what to do and the Baltics remain Russian, or, NATO begins preparations for a full assault to recapture the Baltics.
    6. Russia, now legally obliged to defend itself as it is being invaded, fires tactical nuclear weapons at the invading forces. NATO members collectively their pants and with no ability to retaliate short of firing strategic nuclear weapons which they wont, begin peace talks.

    Thats the nightmare scenario. The biggest problem is even if NATO is smart about it and tries to drag the conflict out they have no real way of actually taking the Baltics back without inviting a nuclear response that ends the war. The best they could do is sit and wait while officially at war with Russia. And I dont think either side knows what would happen then.
    "Nobody is right, but historians are more right than others"



  6. #26
    EmperorBatman999's Avatar I say, what, what?
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Why do you want to know?
    Posts
    11,891

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Turkey joined NATO very early on its existence...1952 to be exact. They were the second round of joiners after the initial 1949 group. Remember, Turkey has (or, now had) a history of being threatened by Russia. We used them as a bulwark close to the Soviet Union and as a place to dump missiles close to the USSR when the Soviets were doing the same in Cuba. As of this spring, Turkey and Russia still had that same relationship, with Russia flying jets over Turkish airspace to rile Erdogan up.

    I suspect that countries that perceive themselves to be under threat of some kind have a tendency towards promoting authoritarian leadership. If the Russians are at the gates, who has time to debate in Parliament whether or not it is right to man the walls?

    Or perhaps authoritarian/totalitarian leaders take advantage of a people feeling vulnerable and threatened by playing into those fears and presenting an image of strength to give the impression that those leaders are bringers of security. If a strongman offers to beef up the nation's military, that makes him an attractive candidate. So is the person that threatens to cut off immigration and points to immigrants as a threat to national security. So when Europe is faced with a very aggressive Russia and an out-of-control immigrant issue that is, at this point, linked with the up-spike in terrorism, of course we are going to find a rise in authoritarian-minded leaders. Especially when the people of these countries feel like they have been abandoned or betrayed by their neighbors or allies.

  7. #27
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Daddy Slav is overrrated.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  8. #28
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Permanent Lockdown
    Posts
    2,339

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragus View Post
    1. Drones are not overrated flying toys. They're a useful and now iconic tool of modern warfare.
    Germany literally doesn't have any. And the achievements of US drones are merely a few dead militas and civilians, not very impressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragus View Post
    2. The "biggest" nation on the planet has a military that is not only smaller than that of the United States, but vastly inferior. With American power being coupled with the armed forces of the European nations, the Russian Federation in its current state is entirely outmatched and is too often vastly overestimated in its capabilities.

    4. Any conventional conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO will end on very unfavorable terms for Russia. Unless it's given to them without a fight, they will be unable to take and hold the Baltic or parts of Ukraine. Given a modest amount of time, seizing the Baltic quickly will soon also no longer be a realistic option with additional hardware and full-escalation trip-wire forces being put into place.
    Look at a globe, Russia is indeed the biggest nation territory wise. And the sheer size of the country is a big advantage for them, because any invading force will be stretched thin, the continental climate is harsh and policing the countryside will soak up resources. They have a big pool of manpower and natural resources at their disposal and Russia has multiple administrative centers. And before russian officials retreat to Siberia, the hardliners will step in and let H-bombs fly. In short, an occupation of Russia is near impossible. Also I doubt that the USA can convince all NATO members to join this war, and i don't think China will stay neutral. Regarding Baltic defense.. beating militas is one thing but can they fend off a tank division?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    If you want to argue that Merkel is Putinizing Germany thats for you to prove. Personally I dont see her eroding the independence of other state institutions like the judiciary and constitutional court, banning civil organizations and NGOs, mass firing public officials and state journalists, of attempting to monopolize state media and generally of trying to make the executive the most powerful branch of government.
    Merkel is more subtle in her approach but she is definitely obsessed with power and has removed all rivals and opposition within her party. She also overstepped executive powers and the media has scissors in the head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    The hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers killed in Dolzhanskaya-Capital on August 2014 beg to differ.
    That wasn't military intelligence but radio jamming. And you also don't need drones for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    So we should be worried is what youre saying
    We should be worried about warmongering people like Dragus getting political power.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  9. #29
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    2. HAHAHAHA It's mother RUSSIA we are talking about, the biggest nation on the planet which also has a sizeable nuclear arsenale. The Baltics are dwarves in comparison to them. If russian leaders really wanted them, nothing on earth could stop them, except if the USA does total commitment or drops H-bombs which they wouldn't do.
    I don't know much about your mother but comparing her to RUSSIA is rather insulting by any parameter I can come up with.

    Russia got a fairly impressive land area even if it is heavily exaggerated by the Mercator projection of a world map (everything close to the pole is stretched out). But it got a total GDP only equivalent to mighty Italy and it is almost completely reliant on the production of unrefined raw materials. If you look at anything more complex than oil and wheat Russias total exports are so puny that even Sweden export more technology products than Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar from before
    Source
    Lets just look at the export success of Russia and compare it with Italy that got a similar GDP and Sweden which got a disproportionately large high tech industry.

    Russia machine exports: 12 700 MUSD
    Computers: 213MUSD
    Integrated circuits: 80.9 MUSD
    Engine parts: 153 MUSD
    Other electrical machinery: 117MUSD


    Italy machine exports: 124 000 MUSD
    Computers: 1 340 MUSD
    Integrated circuits: 2 530 MUSD
    Engine parts: 2 730 MUSD
    Other electrical machinery: 480 MUSD

    Sweden machine exports: 46 500 MUSD
    Computers: 1 280 MUSD
    Integrated circuits: 1 020 MUSD
    Engine parts: 674 MUSD
    Other electrical machinery: 239 MUSD

    The contribution of military R&D to the commercial sector and vice versa are well documented (example). And we also know that both Sweden and Italy rely on extensive industrial collaboration to obtain necessary technology for military projects. So either Russia got a unique ability to fund expensive R&D where they fund all projects through the state budget and prevent them from benefiting the civilian sector, or we got a pretty good indication that their high tech concepts aren't quite what they are claimed to be.
    Russia love making bold claims about amazing new projects such as the Ivan Gren class amphibious assault ships, the Armata and the Pak-FA but despite this their procurement is still completely focused on Cold War legacy designs such as the T72 and SU-35.

    We got an entire thread highlighting weapons procurement and Russian technology failures are a recurring theme. Ironically Russia is actually one of the most efficient nations in the deployment of drones (as highlighted by this report from the Potomac foundation) but that is based on cleverly adapting to available technology rather than industrial innovation. It does however explain why I agree with Sir Brenshar that the West need to take Russia seriously even if their national politics and economy are a joke. The Russian state is corrupt and currently making massive investments in existing technology which allows it to exploit any weaknesses caused by Western arrogance, East European totalitarianism or the retarded mess we call German politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sire Brenshar View Post
    Adar your posts are so beautiful I weep.


    Also I have to apologize that I dont even begin to know what part Sweden would play in this, other than what youve written.

    Ill have to examine your claim that the Baltics would last longer than two days - I can maybe see that being the case but I also see two days or even 36 hours being a reasonable estimate. Btw those are the numbers RAND intelligence corporation gave out which to my knowledge are seen as fairly accurate.
    Thank you for that.

    I may very well be wrong but I think RAND got a very American perspective on things. Without Western support the Baltic states will be immediately crippled by bombings and also run the risk of encirclement by supporting amphibious landings. But that does not mean that Russia automatically can take control over the ground, even Estonia which is the smallest country got over 200 000 men in reserve personnel and got experienced officers who started their careers in the Red Army but got 25 years of Western training from Sweden, Finland and NATO.

    In comparison Russia got 200 000-300 000 professional soldiers and a significant number of poorly trained conscripts. This mean that even if Russia strike quickly to seize vital points such as Tallinn and Riga they lack the manpower to reliably occupy the entirety of the Baltic countries. This mean that the Baltic countries will quickly become crippled and perhaps even partially occupied. But the relatively small size of modern armies, Russian vulnerability to modern anti air defenses and the numerous areas of difficult terrain mean that the Baltic countries can defend for longer than I think most Americans expect. If NATO enforced a Libyan style no-fly zone and also declared that they would attack any artillery positions on Baltic soil, then I doubt Russia would get far at all even if other NATO countries refused to deploy any ground forces.

    Regarding Sweden we are officially FUBAR when it comes to our role in the Baltics. Our previous government was overall competent with a retarded defense policy and our current government is overall retarded but with some competent people when it comes to defense policies. Our foreign minister Margot Wallström held a German style compromise policy towards Russia when she started in 2014 but seem to have given up that policy just as Angela Merkel did which indicate that our minister of defense is starting to win his political battles. That does however not mean that I am entirely positive, we still have a political decision where we will scrap our 100 Gripen C/D aircraft to reuse some parts for our new 60 Gripen E despite Saab and the military declaring that the savings will be miniscule.

    If Sweden scrap that decision then it mean that we are starting to take defense issues seriously again but out overall military capacity is terrible due to 20 years of poorly considered defense reforms which cripple us for the next 10 years. The best we can hope for is that Sweden re-arm enough to be passive but significantly raise the threshold for offensive active on the Baltic sea. The "only" things lacking for that would be finalizing the equipment on our Visby corvettes, create a joint force of Gripen C/D/E and increase radar/anti air capacity on Gotland. We would still lack a serious military for fighting on the ground but the threshold effect would be huge.

  10. #30
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Permanent Lockdown
    Posts
    2,339

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Low quality of russian military equipment isn't really a new thing, they prefer simplicity over over-engineered high-tech. And i don't see how GDP correlates with military capabilities, you think Sweden is stronger by selling more stuff (IKEA, sex toys etc)? There is a reason why Hitler and Stalin were gearing up for self-reliance and all belligerents of WW2 were forcing the public to conserve raw material for the war economy.

    If NATO wages war against Russia, it will quickly become the most expensive and unpopular NATO adventure ever and the doomsday clock will tick at midnight, for nuclear war being imminent.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  11. #31
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Germany literally doesn't have any. And the achievements of US drones are merely a few dead militas and civilians, not very impressive.
    That is not an argument against drones, that is an argument against the German military

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    That wasn't military intelligence but radio jamming. And you also don't need drones for that.
    85 % of Ukrainian casualties are caused by artillery and that is guided by Russian drones. The relative backwardness of the Russian electronics industry mean that this will be far less of a problem for NATO forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Low quality of russian military equipment isn't really a new thing, they prefer simplicity over over-engineered high-tech. And i don't see how GDP correlates with military capabilities, you think Sweden is stronger by selling more stuff (IKEA, sex toys etc)? There is a reason why Hitler and Stalin were gearing up for self-reliance and all belligerents of WW2 were forcing the public to conserve raw material for the war economy.

    If NATO wages war against Russia, it will quickly become the most expensive and unpopular NATO adventure ever and the doomsday clock will tick at midnight, for nuclear war being imminent.

    To invade a country you need to have vehicles and air support. To have heavy vehicles you need to have an industry capable of producing the parts of the vehicles along with other useful equipment such as night vision goggles and radars.

    At the moment Russia is far from self reliant and both the breakdown of relations with Ukraine and the Western sanction mean that Russia lack a lot of the equipment they need. The importance of this technology gap is evident if you compare Western losses over Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan versus the losses of Soviet era aircraft over East Ukraine and Syria. At the moment Russia have access to superior numbers of tanks and a high level of operational capacity based on lessons learned from operating in Ukraine and Georgia.

    But in Ukraine neither side had access to night vision equipment and Russia did not even bother to bring aircraft while Ukraine had to cease their aerial operations as soon as Russian professionals showed up. In a war versus NATO countries Russia would face both night vision equipment and anti tank guided missiles that would make their life miserable on the ground. If that is combined with the air power provided by the joint of NATO, then Russia will be taking ridiculous losses compared to their opponents and they only have some ~300 000 soldiers that can be considered of high quality as the conscript system remains in a terrible shape.

    So the only credible threat Russia can offer against NATO is if fifth columnists give him an opportunity to act.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; August 16, 2016 at 07:06 AM. Reason: Unnecessary personal reference removed.

  12. #32
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Permanent Lockdown
    Posts
    2,339

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    300,000 professional soldiers with 100,000 being combat ready and supplied while NATO took one year to muster the 35,000 men for an exercise. The idea to assess russian military prowess by looking at insurgency in Ukraine is also funny. But keep blaming 'fifth columnists', aka people with enough reason to oppose a idiotic war.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  13. #33
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    300,000 professional soldiers with 100,000 being combat ready and supplied while NATO took one year to muster the 35,000 men for an exercise. The idea to assess russian military prowess by looking at insurgency in Ukraine is also funny. But keep blaming 'fifth columnists', aka people with enough reason to oppose a idiotic war.
    What war exactly are you opposing? Because so far most Putinists on this forum have insisted that it is just propaganda and that Putin is really a nice guy only defending against Western aggression. It would be nice to see a proper discussion between that line of thought and you more jumbled ideas about how Russia manages to have an unstoppable military despite lacking even the capacity to produce reliable gear boxes for their tanks. Your own statistics also undermines your position as even the Baltic countries can mobilize around 90 000 soldiers. The Russian military is capable of advanced operations but it is not overwhelmingly large and they lack high end equipment which is why they lose aircraft even to Syrian rebels.

    Regarding the war in Ukraine I suggest you read the links I provided. Most battles involving the Russian forces in Ukraine seem to involve at least a tens of tonnes of artillery that is often directed by drones. Trying to claim this as an insurgency just underlines that you have little or no knowledge of the topic.





    Last edited by Adar; August 16, 2016 at 08:28 AM.

  14. #34
    EmperorBatman999's Avatar I say, what, what?
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Why do you want to know?
    Posts
    11,891

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    What is the context behind the photos? For all I know, they could date back to the Soviet-Afghan War or Georgia.

  15. #35
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by EmperorBatman999 View Post
    What is the context behind the photos? For all I know, they could date back to the Soviet-Afghan War or Georgia.
    Sorry about that, I added the pictures but forgot to write about them.

    The last picture is from Donetsk International airport and the first two pictures are from an artillery strike in Zelenopillya where the Russians used a Tornado missile launcher to effectively destroy the first battalion of a Ukrainian mechanized brigade. The Tornado was first declared operational in 2012 and got a much longer range than the Grad (90 km vs 12 km) and was therefore able to take the Ukrainian battalion by surprise using spotters, drones or some other means of reconnaissance.

    From a military perspective it is a very good example of how technology have progressed and made the modern battlefield more dangerous when two relatively modern armies are facing each other. The report I linked before provide some rather disturbing insights into this issue and is a good example of why I take the Russian military very seriously even if I believe them to be far behind in several key areas.
    Last edited by Adar; August 18, 2016 at 09:22 AM.

  16. #36
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    But why would there be a need to "die for Danzig"? Russia has been reacting to things happening, it has not been pro-active. Russia reacted to Georgia attacking internationally recognised peace keepers and killing Russian citizens, it reacted to a revolution that overthrew a popularly elected government in Ukraine, and it reacted to what amounted as a secession of Crimea from Ukraine. These are not indications of Russia wanting to push its borders or to reclaim it's empire. As a larger picture it's reacting to the expansion of an aggressive military alliance.

  17. #37

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hakkapeliitta View Post
    But why would there be a need to "die for Danzig"? Russia has been reacting to things happening, it has not been pro-active. Russia reacted to Georgia attacking internationally recognised peace keepers and killing Russian citizens, it reacted to a revolution that overthrew a popularly elected government in Ukraine, and it reacted to what amounted as a secession of Crimea from Ukraine. These are not indications of Russia wanting to push its borders or to reclaim it's empire. As a larger picture it's reacting to the expansion of an aggressive military alliance.
    Err, not really.

    1) Crimea was first occupied by Russian special forces then "voted" to be annexed by Russia.

    2) Whatever had happened in Ukraine was not in any way authorizing Russia to invade a piece of that country.

    Not to mention in both of the above cases Russia had committed through a memorandum (signed by the USA and the UK in addition to her and Ukraine) and by a bilateral treaty with Ukraine to respect and protect Ukraine's territorial integrity.

    As for Georgia, the "peacekeepers" were not "internationally recognized", but a Russian occupation force which existed there as the result of pressure exerted on Georgia by Russia in 1992. Nobody else except Georgia and Russia were involved.

    What are indeed internationally recognized are the borders of Georgia, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of that country. Georgia was simply attempting to regain control over her internationally recognized territory.

    Speaking of internationally recognized territory, Russia is currently occupying Crimea and parts of the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. Only a situation of weakness comparable to that of the Western Powers in 1939 have allowed Russia to do what she did to Georgia and Ukraine.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  18. #38
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Permanent Lockdown
    Posts
    2,339

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    That's the half truth. Crimea was colonized by russian settlers and only became part of Ukraine when Chruschtschow gave it to them for no apparent reasons other than nice looking borders (allegedly he was drunk). After ukrainian independence, Crimea was a strong supporter for regional autonomy and the Party of Regions until the Euromaidan happend.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  19. #39
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Err, not really.

    1) Crimea was first occupied by Russian special forces then "voted" to be annexed by Russia.
    Crimea (as much as one can ascribe will to a region) wanted to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine in the 90s when it became relevant and they were kicked into the curb by everyone. You can look up polls from early nineties to this day and the trend is that Crimea wants to, if not be part of Russia, then at least be apart from Kiev. Just look up polls from any and all, respected and disrespected polling organisations and they will tell you the same thing.

    Do you have any, even cursory knowledge about the issue at all?

  20. #40

    Default Re: ''Why die for Danzig'' (1)

    This myth of Russia needing Eastern Europe is weird. It's entirely a fabrication of media determined to demonize Russia. Not that Russia is a saint, but it's acted rationally. Russia still thinks of itself, and vies to be a Great Power on par with China, NATO, and US. Therefore it acts like one, establishing clear zones of influence where it won't tolerate any Western invasions. Russia acts pre-emptively rather than reactively, which has been it's modus operandi for the last two decades. Considering the state of Western-Russian relations after the break of the Soviet Union, its not all that surprising.

    Russia isn't interested in Eastern Europe or Finland or Sweden. I don't know where people keep getting this from. All of these nations have made it clear that they hate Russia due to historic grievances and perceived slights. Why would Russia invade them? Just because? They're already in NATO. Russia bombed the Caucus because it had aspirations to join NATO. Russia bombed Ukraine because they too had aspirations to join NATO. If you ask me, Russia's reactions could've been seen from miles away in hindsight. Nothing about it surprises me.

    Acting as if Russia is some kind of a rogue agent is comical to me, considering so many in the West are all about pre-emptively attacking enemies who threaten our interests or allies. If anything, it all seems tit-for-tat to me. Peace in Europe isn't going to come unless Russia joins Europe as an ally. Otherwise Russia will continue to act as a self-styled Great Power until internal disaster happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    So much did they want to become part of Russia that Russia had to fake the referendum.
    Right Drom. That's why there is so much Anti-Russian dissent in Crimea (non-existent since 2014). You've been peddling this idea of "anti-russian crimea" for years now. When not even the large Ukrainian population in Crimea has rebelled in any significant degree whatsoever. It's almost like Crimeans have accepted their new government and moved on with their lives.
    Last edited by Love Mountain; September 02, 2016 at 12:22 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •