This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think that's hubris.
Agree, why would the US/NATO engage in a ground war with inferior air power? How many months did the US "soften" up Iraq before the ground invasion started? Why would NATO give up air superiority to slug it out in a dug in ground engagement? Sure, ground troops will be required but it would be silly to engage in large, protracted battles when you can just drop bombs.
This is the kind of talk I alluded to earlier, there will be no Russian army barreling towards anything soon. 5 years is the best estimate I saw from @rockaction's post upthread. I'm not confident they will be through Ukraine in 5 years assuming some kind of peace deal isn't reached.
Read that NY Times article above. We basically have the ability to target any Russian asset and take it out. A ground war with NATO/US involved is nothing like what is going on in Ukraine.Agreed. Add in the ability to do meat assaults, the excellent trench making equipment + experience, the lack of stomach for western soldier casualties, and the new drone tactics, and Russia has some real advantages in a protracted ground war. Precision munitions that cost millions don't scur them from sending in waves of North Koreans or Dagestanis to take the next position on the map.The US/NATO hasn't fought a protracted ground war like is going on in Ukraine since Korea. Even in WW2 the Russians bore far more of the brunt of this kind of warfare in Europe than the US did. I think we run the risk of overestimating our effectiveness in that type of war when we're overly dismissive of Russia right now.I have seen comments from various NATO members warning of Russian aggression with a short timeline after a completion of the war in Ukraine which I think is not plausible. Russian losses have been extremely significant. Estimated losses are likely high while confirmed are knowingly low. The truth being somewhere inbetween the two:
Belarus is already part of Russia, they just have their own flag...for now.
As you all continue to pontificate about the Russian Bear rolling over Poland or one of the Balkan states next I'll again point out you all have literally posted 172 pages of Russia getting it's *** kicked for the last 3 years so to think they are not only going to eventually grind it out in Ukraine and occupy the country without an insurgency, paving the way for Russia to roll it's battle machine roughshod against the Poland, well, I think you're all being a little disingenuous.
The reality is that Russia will need to and will rearm. The only thing keeping it from doing so will be it's economy crashing which it is in danger of but the ability to export resources will likely keep that from happening even as they will pay for the costs of this war economically for a while.
The new Russian military will come out largely modernized as their Soviet stockpiles of equipment has been largely exhausted. It will be a battle hardened military in a way that all NATO nations are not (even the US as the battle experience for the US in GWOT is a very different war than what would be fought against Russia or China). Though Russians have no value of life and their tactics are often 'dumb' they are no dumb and have shown an amazing resiliency even in horrible situations going well past WWII and even now.
Yes, their military is exhausted, in disrepair and under equipped but it will not stay so as soon as they can start building and not just try to plug holes of losses. Though inferior to the US equivalents, they still have some capable equipment such as the SU-57.
Would it be an immediate threat to the Polan or the Baltics? No. But the only real question is how long before they will be? That is why Poland is arming at breakneck speed buying pretty much every American, S. Korean and Polish military equipment that they can. Both Poland and the Baltics are geographically in horribly hard to defend positions against Russia (which largely explains their histories with Russia).
As for Belarus, Ukraine was very much like Belarus before the Euromaidan movement or also called the Revolution of Dignity which removed it from Russian influence and thus not long after began the "little green men" showing up in Crimea. There could be a time that Russia decides to drop the facade and officially incorporate it back into Mother Russia but for now, it is useful to keep seperate.
Put me in the Beer 30 camp that Russia’s army is crap. Read that NY Times article posted and you realize how more advanced US/NATO is. I think Poland alone would crush them. The small Baltic states would have issues but if rest of Europe supported them it would be fine.
That said I still fully support helping Ukraine. A Democratic country suffering an unprovoked attack needs our support. Also there are other smaller non-NATO countries he could easily pick off next - Armenia or rest of Georgia. Abandoning Ukraine leaves them to Russia and not something I support. If Ukraine wants to fight we let them fight and with our support.
not trying to be political, but some of that capability is going away with cuts to cia/etc.Read that NY Times article above. We basically have the ability to target any Russian asset and take it out. A ground war with NATO/US involved is nothing like what is going on in Ukraine.Agreed. Add in the ability to do meat assaults, the excellent trench making equipment + experience, the lack of stomach for western soldier casualties, and the new drone tactics, and Russia has some real advantages in a protracted ground war. Precision munitions that cost millions don't scur them from sending in waves of North Koreans or Dagestanis to take the next position on the map.The US/NATO hasn't fought a protracted ground war like is going on in Ukraine since Korea. Even in WW2 the Russians bore far more of the brunt of this kind of warfare in Europe than the US did. I think we run the risk of overestimating our effectiveness in that type of war when we're overly dismissive of Russia right now.I have seen comments from various NATO members warning of Russian aggression with a short timeline after a completion of the war in Ukraine which I think is not plausible. Russian losses have been extremely significant. Estimated losses are likely high while confirmed are knowingly low. The truth being somewhere inbetween the two:
As you all continue to pontificate about the Russian Bear rolling over Poland or one of the Balkan states next I'll again point out you all have literally posted 172 pages of Russia getting it's *** kicked for the last 3 years so to think they are not only going to eventually grind it out in Ukraine and occupy the country without an insurgency, paving the way for Russia to roll it's battle machine roughshod against the Poland, well, I think you're all being a little disingenuous.
The reality is that Russia will need to and will rearm. The only thing keeping it from doing so will be it's economy crashing which it is in danger of but the ability to export resources will likely keep that from happening even as they will pay for the costs of this war economically for a while.
The new Russian military will come out largely modernized as their Soviet stockpiles of equipment has been largely exhausted. It will be a battle hardened military in a way that all NATO nations are not (even the US as the battle experience for the US in GWOT is a very different war than what would be fought against Russia or China). Though Russians have no value of life and their tactics are often 'dumb' they are no dumb and have shown an amazing resiliency even in horrible situations going well past WWII and even now.
Yes, their military is exhausted, in disrepair and under equipped but it will not stay so as soon as they can start building and not just try to plug holes of losses. Though inferior to the US equivalents, they still have some capable equipment such as the SU-57.
Would it be an immediate threat to the Polan or the Baltics? No. But the only real question is how long before they will be? That is why Poland is arming at breakneck speed buying pretty much every American, S. Korean and Polish military equipment that they can. Both Poland and the Baltics are geographically in horribly hard to defend positions against Russia (which largely explains their histories with Russia).
As for Belarus, Ukraine was very much like Belarus before the Euromaidan movement or also called the Revolution of Dignity which removed it from Russian influence and thus not long after began the "little green men" showing up in Crimea. There could be a time that Russia decides to drop the facade and officially incorporate it back into Mother Russia but for now, it is useful to keep seperate.
Put me in the Beer 30 camp that Russia’s army is crap. Read that NY Times article posted and you realize how more advanced US/NATO is. I think Poland alone would crush them. The small Baltic states would have issues but if rest of Europe supported them it would be fine.
That said I still fully support helping Ukraine. A Democratic country suffering an unprovoked attack needs our support. Also there are other smaller non-NATO countries he could easily pick off next - Armenia or rest of Georgia. Abandoning Ukraine leaves them to Russia and not something I support. If Ukraine wants to fight we let them fight and with our support.
I mean, I guess anythings possible, but I think we'd see nukes used before we saw US soldiers on the ground. This is all coming from a shlub with zero military experience assuming the US would want to win if engaged. What the hell do I know though?
I wouldnt' think so since this isnt typical spy stuff but visual and electronic surveliance that was vastly improved by years of trying to find hiding terrorists.not trying to be political, but some of that capability is going away with cuts to cia/etc.Read that NY Times article above. We basically have the ability to target any Russian asset and take it out. A ground war with NATO/US involved is nothing like what is going on in Ukraine.Agreed. Add in the ability to do meat assaults, the excellent trench making equipment + experience, the lack of stomach for western soldier casualties, and the new drone tactics, and Russia has some real advantages in a protracted ground war. Precision munitions that cost millions don't scur them from sending in waves of North Koreans or Dagestanis to take the next position on the map.The US/NATO hasn't fought a protracted ground war like is going on in Ukraine since Korea. Even in WW2 the Russians bore far more of the brunt of this kind of warfare in Europe than the US did. I think we run the risk of overestimating our effectiveness in that type of war when we're overly dismissive of Russia right now.I have seen comments from various NATO members warning of Russian aggression with a short timeline after a completion of the war in Ukraine which I think is not plausible. Russian losses have been extremely significant. Estimated losses are likely high while confirmed are knowingly low. The truth being somewhere inbetween the two:
As you all continue to pontificate about the Russian Bear rolling over Poland or one of the Balkan states next I'll again point out you all have literally posted 172 pages of Russia getting it's *** kicked for the last 3 years so to think they are not only going to eventually grind it out in Ukraine and occupy the country without an insurgency, paving the way for Russia to roll it's battle machine roughshod against the Poland, well, I think you're all being a little disingenuous.
The reality is that Russia will need to and will rearm. The only thing keeping it from doing so will be it's economy crashing which it is in danger of but the ability to export resources will likely keep that from happening even as they will pay for the costs of this war economically for a while.
The new Russian military will come out largely modernized as their Soviet stockpiles of equipment has been largely exhausted. It will be a battle hardened military in a way that all NATO nations are not (even the US as the battle experience for the US in GWOT is a very different war than what would be fought against Russia or China). Though Russians have no value of life and their tactics are often 'dumb' they are no dumb and have shown an amazing resiliency even in horrible situations going well past WWII and even now.
Yes, their military is exhausted, in disrepair and under equipped but it will not stay so as soon as they can start building and not just try to plug holes of losses. Though inferior to the US equivalents, they still have some capable equipment such as the SU-57.
Would it be an immediate threat to the Polan or the Baltics? No. But the only real question is how long before they will be? That is why Poland is arming at breakneck speed buying pretty much every American, S. Korean and Polish military equipment that they can. Both Poland and the Baltics are geographically in horribly hard to defend positions against Russia (which largely explains their histories with Russia).
As for Belarus, Ukraine was very much like Belarus before the Euromaidan movement or also called the Revolution of Dignity which removed it from Russian influence and thus not long after began the "little green men" showing up in Crimea. There could be a time that Russia decides to drop the facade and officially incorporate it back into Mother Russia but for now, it is useful to keep seperate.
Put me in the Beer 30 camp that Russia’s army is crap. Read that NY Times article posted and you realize how more advanced US/NATO is. I think Poland alone would crush them. The small Baltic states would have issues but if rest of Europe supported them it would be fine.
That said I still fully support helping Ukraine. A Democratic country suffering an unprovoked attack needs our support. Also there are other smaller non-NATO countries he could easily pick off next - Armenia or rest of Georgia. Abandoning Ukraine leaves them to Russia and not something I support. If Ukraine wants to fight we let them fight and with our support.
I do believe that both the Poles and Baltic states are creating defensive lines with dragon teeth, interlocking trenches, bunkers, etc along their frontiers with Russia currently. I remember reading in it but it was a while ago and can't recall for sure if all of them were both 100% at least one of them is.
It is silly to think otherwise. Ukraine halted Russia and has bled them for years now with mostly outdated Soviet crap and older Western equipment trickling in.
The idea that cost cutting will equal loss of capability is not a very good assumptionnot trying to be political, but some of that capability is going away with cuts to cia/etc.Read that NY Times article above. We basically have the ability to target any Russian asset and take it out. A ground war with NATO/US involved is nothing like what is going on in Ukraine.Agreed. Add in the ability to do meat assaults, the excellent trench making equipment + experience, the lack of stomach for western soldier casualties, and the new drone tactics, and Russia has some real advantages in a protracted ground war. Precision munitions that cost millions don't scur them from sending in waves of North Koreans or Dagestanis to take the next position on the map.The US/NATO hasn't fought a protracted ground war like is going on in Ukraine since Korea. Even in WW2 the Russians bore far more of the brunt of this kind of warfare in Europe than the US did. I think we run the risk of overestimating our effectiveness in that type of war when we're overly dismissive of Russia right now.I have seen comments from various NATO members warning of Russian aggression with a short timeline after a completion of the war in Ukraine which I think is not plausible. Russian losses have been extremely significant. Estimated losses are likely high while confirmed are knowingly low. The truth being somewhere inbetween the two:
As you all continue to pontificate about the Russian Bear rolling over Poland or one of the Balkan states next I'll again point out you all have literally posted 172 pages of Russia getting it's *** kicked for the last 3 years so to think they are not only going to eventually grind it out in Ukraine and occupy the country without an insurgency, paving the way for Russia to roll it's battle machine roughshod against the Poland, well, I think you're all being a little disingenuous.
The reality is that Russia will need to and will rearm. The only thing keeping it from doing so will be it's economy crashing which it is in danger of but the ability to export resources will likely keep that from happening even as they will pay for the costs of this war economically for a while.
The new Russian military will come out largely modernized as their Soviet stockpiles of equipment has been largely exhausted. It will be a battle hardened military in a way that all NATO nations are not (even the US as the battle experience for the US in GWOT is a very different war than what would be fought against Russia or China). Though Russians have no value of life and their tactics are often 'dumb' they are no dumb and have shown an amazing resiliency even in horrible situations going well past WWII and even now.
Yes, their military is exhausted, in disrepair and under equipped but it will not stay so as soon as they can start building and not just try to plug holes of losses. Though inferior to the US equivalents, they still have some capable equipment such as the SU-57.
Would it be an immediate threat to the Polan or the Baltics? No. But the only real question is how long before they will be? That is why Poland is arming at breakneck speed buying pretty much every American, S. Korean and Polish military equipment that they can. Both Poland and the Baltics are geographically in horribly hard to defend positions against Russia (which largely explains their histories with Russia).
As for Belarus, Ukraine was very much like Belarus before the Euromaidan movement or also called the Revolution of Dignity which removed it from Russian influence and thus not long after began the "little green men" showing up in Crimea. There could be a time that Russia decides to drop the facade and officially incorporate it back into Mother Russia but for now, it is useful to keep seperate.
Put me in the Beer 30 camp that Russia’s army is crap. Read that NY Times article posted and you realize how more advanced US/NATO is. I think Poland alone would crush them. The small Baltic states would have issues but if rest of Europe supported them it would be fine.
That said I still fully support helping Ukraine. A Democratic country suffering an unprovoked attack needs our support. Also there are other smaller non-NATO countries he could easily pick off next - Armenia or rest of Georgia. Abandoning Ukraine leaves them to Russia and not something I support. If Ukraine wants to fight we let them fight and with our support.
www.kyivpost.com
Yea., you are right.. we are much better than when we rolled Iraq with the 4th largest military at the time, largely equipped with modern Russian equipment.
You’re not the first person to fall prey to the delusion that their side is going to knock out the opponent right off the bat. Russia and China aren’t Iraq. We have an expensive, inefficient military that is not equipped for, nor does it have the supply chain or political will, to sustain a protracted ground war against a major power. We should be addressing those weaknesses instead of fantasizing about how many hours it would take to conquer Russia.
www.newsweek.com
They are running out of poor ethnic minorities around the country to get to sign up for money when jobs are easy to come by due to the over heated economy. The whole N.Korean troops thing was the first attempt to avoid dipping into the Moscow bucket. That didn't end well woth the Koreans being even worse than Russians in being effective in combat.
Nuclear weapons are a negotiating tool. If they become an offensive weapon it won't matter who's troops are on the ground where. It becomes a matter of time at that point and it is short.
Yes, I'm sure Russia will miraculously emerge from this protracted bloodletting as the advanced, elite military we built them up to be right up to about May 2022. Then we started to see them for what they really are, a paper tiger that had to resort to WWII human wave attacks to advance. Emptying museums for equipment as their top of line equipment was easily defeated by drone tech. No one is marching on Moscow in this thread. We (US) won't be involved with boots on the ground in this war nor should we be. We most certainly have operators there now but we won't be dropping the 101st Airborne. I'm not sure what war you've been watching for the last 3 years but it isn't the one I've seen.
I think people are totally underestimating what the Russian army is learning from this conflict. While we’re seeing everything through video. It’s like reps in the game and at practice vs just watching game tape. They aren’t as capable or advanced as the US but they’re battle hardened. A boots on the ground scenario could be difficult in the very beginning
I would counter with the question, who is learning? Putin has routinely changed out military leaders (as has Zelensky) and the troops, while I'm sure there are some that exist, I bet there ain't a whole bunch of Russians who have been there from day 1 to now. Yes they are learning, how to send waves of bodies at new technology that chews them up and spits them out. I don't see a lot of advanced tactics being developed on the Russian side like we are on the Ukrainian side. I'll concede that the media coverage is 95% slanted toward Ukraine so who knows, maybe there are some leaps & bounds education taking place but a battlefield littered with bodies point otherwise.
The U.S. military is not designed, equipped, or supplied for an extended boots on the ground campaign. If Russia grinds Ukraine down, regroups and rearms, and takes on a NATO country in a couple years, Chad's assumption is that the West would sweep through the battlefield like that ghost army in the last Lord of the Rings movie and wipe out every Russian. Russia is resilient enough not to be crippled by long range missile strikes and our expensive, long range, targeted munitions that we would run out of within weeks of a major conflict. My only point is that the U.S. is not prepared for that kind of conflict and we shouldn't operate under the fanciful and dangerous assumption that a major power would melt after an initial wave of air strikes.
They are learning from this war but it is a whole different war than what it would be against NATO.
A couple posters have alluded to it but I don’t believe you’re understanding what is being said. Nobody is claiming the US is going into a ground war -and- the mentions of air superiority that NATO/the West/the US would have cannot be stated enough.
Not an assumption. An analysis.
I am responding to the assertions that Russia is a total nonthreat to the rest of Europe. I’m not saying they are a Tom Clancy/Red Storm Rising level threat, but it’s apparent very few people have stopped to soberly analyze our/NATO’s current vulnerabilities either. That will be my last contribution to this particular discussion.
Thank for explaining.
Russia is a threat. It would be problematic for NATO sans the US in a war. With the US, it isn't really as near of a peer as even thought it was before the war let alone after couple of years of bring grind down. The capabilities of much of their equipment have been shown to be overblown, their tactical capabilities are laughable in US standards as they are unable to mount any amount of complex combined arms maneuvers. They are unable to dislodge a military that is under manned, under equipped and under supplied while having relative safety from controlled skies over their own territory (excluding the drone war of course)
We have the superiority on just the things we know. I’m sure the hidden tech that we’ve developed would make all our heads spin
Perfect example of that is the Stealth Blackhawks used in the Obama raid.
www.euronews.com
www.newsweek.com
www.newsweek.com
www.businessinsider.com
www.newsweek.com
Quite the headline when it is one of the few countries we didn’t tariff, for obvious reasonsDonald Trump's tariffs hit Russia hard
A slump in Russian stocks adds turbulence to an economy already suffering from sanctions imposed due to Vladimir Putin's invasion.
Not much trade to tarriff to begin with and it is reserved for later if they Russians do not budge.Quite the headline when it is one of the few countries we didn’t tariff, for obvious reasonsDonald Trump's tariffs hit Russia hard
A slump in Russian stocks adds turbulence to an economy already suffering from sanctions imposed due to Vladimir Putin's invasion.
armyrecognition.com
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}