Nato spearhead force ‘too vulnerable’ to be deployed in war with Russia

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, but remember that in all likelihood protecting ethnic Russians would be merely a pretext with the real objective being the discreditation of the NATO alliance, with any subsequent real ethnic strife used as post facto propaganda ("see, we told you they were being oppressed!"). In that scenario the Russian leadership may not feel wedded to their casus belli 'til death do them part.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Given the new Fallout DLC is out, I'm going to be doing shorter replies.

Re: Vlad

Things to keep in mind:

1. NATO does not expand in the sense of recruiting new members.  It's not like they just showed up to the Ukraine and offered them a free t-shirt to join up or something.  It might be worth wondering if your "brothers" as you once called the Ukrainians have a reason to feel insecure about their neighbors, and also why Eastern Europe might as a virtually monolithic block seek security from the west and turn their back on Russia.  

2. Russia as pointed out cannot be in many places at once.  If it goes to war in the Baltics, it's going to leave itself open elsewhere.  If it leaves the Baltics to restore the various little fake republics its carved out of its neighbors it leaves the Baltics open to counter-attack.  Etc, etc, etc.

3. NATO and her allies do however have enough forces to threaten Russia in every theater.  It doesn't have to be a major presence, just enough to punish the Russian conscripts left as holding forces, and enable the Ukrainians and Georgians to extract their pound of flesh.    

Re: Destroy and depart.

You shouldn't start wars you can't finish.  There's nothing Russia can attain through a "quick" war in the Baltics that would not be undone in weeks, if not days from departure.

[HUSKER2142]

18 hours ago, TJT said:

One possible reason is to "safeguard" russian populations in the baltic's. Things could get out of hand in many ways that would lead up to such a move and it wouldnt even have to start at state level (ethnic group clashes etc).

I agree with this. This can not happen if the Baltic governments will not be physically straightened with the Russian population. Then the Russian army will not interfere in the Baltic countries.

^{Соглашусь с этим . Это может не произойти , если правительства Балтийских стран не будет физически расправятся с русским населением . Тогда Российская армия не будет вторгаться в Балтийские страны .}

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That is a very good point. It does seem that all of these hypothetical scenarios assumes Russia would fight to the bitter end over the Baltics once they invaded but in many ways it would be more sensical to declare mission accomplished and leave. They could be in and out within a few weeks. The only reason I can think of to stay would be if Russian internal politics required it, e.g. to protect oppressed Russian minorities. But I do think that in the pantheon of crazy "Russia attacks!" scenarios the "Russia overruns the Baltic states then digs in to take on all comers" is the craziest and therefore the least probable.

That is exactly what I mean. It is stupid to hold down the Baltics. 

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Given the new Fallout DLC is out, I'm going to be doing shorter replies.

Re: Vlad

Things to keep in mind:

1. NATO does not expand in the sense of recruiting new members.  It's not like they just showed up to the Ukraine and offered them a free t-shirt to join up or something.  It might be worth wondering if your "brothers" as you once called the Ukrainians have a reason to feel insecure about their neighbors, and also why Eastern Europe might as a virtually monolithic block seek security from the west and turn their back on Russia.  

2. Russia as pointed out cannot be in many places at once.  If it goes to war in the Baltics, it's going to leave itself open elsewhere.  If it leaves the Baltics to restore the various little fake republics its carved out of its neighbors it leaves the Baltics open to counter-attack.  Etc, etc, etc.

3. NATO and her allies do however have enough forces to threaten Russia in every theater.  It doesn't have to be a major presence, just enough to punish the Russian conscripts left as holding forces, and enable the Ukrainians and Georgians to extract their pound of flesh.    

Re: Destroy and depart.

You shouldn't start wars you can't finish.  There's nothing Russia can attain through a "quick" war in the Baltics that would not be undone in weeks, if not days from departure.

Sure but this is only if we are talking about Russia goes crazy and sends more than 20,000 troops to attack and hold the Baltics. Where as it could just do a quick destroy Baltic military capabilities and humiliate NATO's "Article V." Of course Russia doesn't stand a chance if it deploys more than 30% of its ground forces to the Baltics and sends them there to hold it. Also, Conscripts are not bad soldiers. They can defend on Russian territories as good as the professional soldiers. I've worked with Conscripts alot. Russia is relying on her strategic assets to keep her borders safe. As I've stated, our airforce has the capabilities to send a bunch of cruise missiles 2,500 KMs away without even having to worry about being hit by NATO aircraft. (Check out the KH-55 missile variants.)

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

That is exactly what I mean. It is stupid to hold down the Baltics. 

It is even more stupid to go to war with pretty much the whole world over something Russia doesn't intend to keep.  Or do you think NATO will say "you didn't really want to keep it?  Oh, that's totally different!  We can be friends again".

30 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Sure but this is only if we are talking about Russia goes crazy and sends more than 20,000 troops to attack and hold the Baltics. Where as it could just do a quick destroy Baltic military capabilities and humiliate NATO's "Article V." 

You're going to have to explain this one, because I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

30 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course Russia doesn't stand a chance if it deploys more than 30% of its ground forces to the Baltics and sends them there to hold it. Also, Conscripts are not bad soldiers. They can defend on Russian territories as good as the professional soldiers. I've worked with Conscripts alot. Russia is relying on her strategic assets to keep her borders safe. As I've stated, our airforce has the capabilities to send a bunch of cruise missiles 2,500 KMs away without even having to worry about being hit by NATO aircraft. (Check out the KH-55 missile variants.)

You don't get it.  Russia is out numbered and has enemies (which it worked very hard to create, mind you) all around it.  I know that Russian paranoia propaganda states that the West is out to destroy Russia, which is a total and complete fabrication of the Kremlin.  But attack the Baltics and it will become fact.  In such a contest Russia will lose just like it lost the last contest.  And like the last time it lost, when the dust settles Russia will be smaller and weaker than when it started.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Yes, but remember that in all likelihood protecting ethnic Russians would be merely a pretext with the real objective being the discreditation of the NATO alliance, with any subsequent real ethnic strife used as post facto propaganda ("see, we told you they were being oppressed!"). In that scenario the Russian leadership may not feel wedded to their casus belli 'til death do them part.

Nonsensical.  Once Russia launches an attack into the Baltics it loses all control of its fate.  Withdrawing back to its borders won't change the big picture of what happens to it.  At best it might save a few thousand of its best forces, but so what?  It will take a LOT more than that to overcome the problems resulting from the attack itself.

As I've said in other discussions of this nature, if I saw a buildup of Russian forces and thought it was likely they would attack (and I were US/NATO) I'd have two C-130s landing in Kiev with a couple thousand Javelins and several special forces units ready to call in airstrikes on behalf of the Ukrainians.  The day after Russia attacked the Baltics I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians would start rolling up the Donbas.  Now Russia has a war on 2 fronts before it's even finished invading.  I'd also start attacking Russian forces in Syira on Day 1 to create a 3rd front.  I'd also see what Georgia's appetite for taking back its stolen territory ahead of time and give Georgia whatever it wanted to create a war on a 4th front.  When possible I'd have Transnistria retaken by Romanian forces, creating a war on a 5th front.  I'd also supply arms to money to any Stan that wanted to get rid of Russian control, which could be 6 or 7 Fronts in total.

War on 5-7 fronts within a month is very doable for the US even without significant help from other NATO countries.  Even if you knock one or two of my arguments out of the mix, it's still a major permanent loss for Russia in the end.  I'd love to know how Russia would come out ahead by pulling its troops out of the Baltics instead of sitting in garrison.

Being cut off from the world's finances, Internet, technology, food, etc. would also not be pretty.  Not to mention Putin and his buddies would lose a lot of expensive hosing in London, Paris, and New York along with billions in liquid assets.

Again, this is why I don't think Putin is stupid enough to attack the Baltics.  Whether there's 10 brigades or 1 battalion of US forces in the Baltics, attacking means self destruction.  Withdrawing forces doesn't change the end result.

Steve

 

[Jotte]

5 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Yes, but remember that in all likelihood protecting ethnic Russians would be merely a pretext with the real objective being the discreditation of the NATO alliance, with any subsequent real ethnic strife used as post facto propaganda ("see, we told you they were being oppressed!"). In that scenario the Russian leadership may not feel wedded to their casus belli 'til death do them part.

Hence the use of " around "safeguard"  It might be fabricated through subterfuge actions but also through wrong people at the wrong power positions within various groups, setting of chains of actions and reactions in motion.

 

 

[Baneman]

12 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

... The only way I see Russia attacking a Baltic country is if the Russian population is abused by the governments of those countries. (Which I don't think is going to happen.)  

Doesn't have to happen - Russia just has to say it's happening.

9 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The only reason I can think of to stay would be if Russian internal politics required it, e.g. to protect oppressed Russian minorities.

And the fact that the whole "protect Russian minorities" thing is just a pretext is ever more apparent when one sees how well Russia treats its non-Russian minorities - eg. the escalating mistreatment of the Tatars in Crimea.

9 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Thing is the most realistic scenarios for Russia intervening (protecting ethnic Russians or some variation thereof) would require some sort of long(er) term occupation.  Smashing the Baltic Military and leaving will just have a bunch of pissed off citizens looking to avenge their brothers/fathers/neighbors etc against those very same ethnic Russians.

Exactly - playing this "we can invade and mess you up for oppressing ethnic Russians" card creates and stores up potential oppression. ie. I wouldn't want to be an ethnic Russian in Donbas when this whole mess is over. The "evil Ukrainians hate us Russians" claims of oppression may not have been 100% true when it all started, but it sure is the case now.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Buuuuut, we're getting off track.  To sum up, Russia attacking into the Baltics is state suicide.  Even Green Men is state suicide.  Therefore, I don't think Putin is contemplating it.  Instead I think he is deliberately provoking NATO into expanding in order to give his regime more "street cred" and stir up more internal troubles for the EU/NATO members. 

As for deterrence, one platoon of dead American soldiers is enough to start a full scale war which Russia can't win, so there's no need to put more forces into the Baltics from a deterrence standpoint.  If an all out war with the West isn't enough to keep Putin on his side of the border, a bunch more brigades won't make a difference either IMHO.  However, it is possible that Putin is stupid enough to attack and for that I think it is sensible to have a Plan B readily available.

Steve

It would not be wise for Russia to start a war. However, despite the fact that nobody wants a war a 1914 style crisis that escalates out of all control seems like the most likely scenario. As you say Putin seems to be taking deliberately provocative action and maybe Putin holds the same view of NATO's actions. This is a recipe for misunderstanding and escalations of a minor incident into something far nastier and much bigger. 

General Sir Richard Shirreff's new book looks worth a read. I ordered a copy from Amazon last

night http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/2017-war-with-russia-by-general-sir-richard-shirreff-review-a3252576.html

[LUCASWILLEN05]

15 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Doesn't have to happen - Russia just has to say it's happening.

And the fact that the whole "protect Russian minorities" thing is just a pretext is ever more apparent when one sees how well Russia treats its non-Russian minorities - eg. the escalating mistreatment of the Tatars in Crimea.

Exactly - playing this "we can invade and mess you up for oppressing ethnic Russians" card creates and stores up potential oppression. ie. I wouldn't want to be an ethnic Russian in Donbas when this whole mess is over. The "evil Ukrainians hate us Russians" claims of oppression may not have been 100% true when it all started, but it sure is the case now.

Hitler used similar pretexts (Germanns in the Sudetenland, Danzig Corridor etc) And Putin himself has done it - ethnic Russians being attacked by Georgia in 2008. Same again in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine.. We all know it is a pretext

[LUCASWILLEN05]

6 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Sure but this is only if we are talking about Russia goes crazy and sends more than 20,000 troops to attack and hold the Baltics. Where as it could just do a quick destroy Baltic military capabilities and humiliate NATO's "Article V." 

You're going to have to explain this one, because I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

I think what he means is a quick Russian Operation t occupy the Baltic States to humilite NATO and demonstrate that Article 5 is of no use in protecting NATO members. Putin's hope would be that NATO falls apart in this scenrio giving him a free hand to do as he likes

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nonsensical.  Once Russia launches an attack into the Baltics it loses all control of its fate.  Withdrawing back to its borders won't change the big picture of what happens to it.  At best it might save a few thousand of its best forces, but so what?  It will take a LOT more than that to overcome the problems resulting from the attack itself.

As I've said in other discussions of this nature, if I saw a buildup of Russian forces and thought it was likely they would attack (and I were US/NATO) I'd have two C-130s landing in Kiev with a couple thousand Javelins and several special forces units ready to call in airstrikes on behalf of the Ukrainians.  The day after Russia attacked the Baltics I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians would start rolling up the Donbas.  Now Russia has a war on 2 fronts before it's even finished invading.  I'd also start attacking Russian forces in Syira on Day 1 to create a 3rd front.  I'd also see what Georgia's appetite for taking back its stolen territory ahead of time and give Georgia whatever it wanted to create a war on a 4th front.  When possible I'd have Transnistria retaken by Romanian forces, creating a war on a 5th front.  I'd also supply arms to money to any Stan that wanted to get rid of Russian control, which could be 6 or 7 Fronts in total.

War on 5-7 fronts within a month is very doable for the US even without significant help from other NATO countries.  Even if you knock one or two of my arguments out of the mix, it's still a major permanent loss for Russia in the end.  I'd love to know how Russia would come out ahead by pulling its troops out of the Baltics instead of sitting in garrison.

Being cut off from the world's finances, Internet, technology, food, etc. would also not be pretty.  Not to mention Putin and his buddies would lose a lot of expensive hosing in London, Paris, and New York along with billions in liquid assets.

Again, this is why I don't think Putin is stupid enough to attack the Baltics.  Whether there's 10 brigades or 1 battalion of US forces in the Baltics, attacking means self destruction.  Withdrawing forces doesn't change the end result.

Steve

 

This scenario would effectively be WW3. In this scenario I can see the Russian navy trying to do something in the Atlantc and Mediterranean to try to interfere with NATO Operations. The Russian navy won't last long. A few days, perhps a week. Some of the submarines maybe a little longer, Essentially, after the first week or so the Russian navy will be destroyd or blockaded in port. The question is how much damage and delay they could impose before that happns and what impact this has on the land war.

 

Russia, give the disadvantages it is operating under has to fight and win quickly. Russia will be fighting for limited territorial and political objectives and will am to achieve these objectives before NATO and particularly the US can deploy large heavy forces Once that happens Russia has lost. If however Putin can achieve these limited objectives quickly he would hope to negotiate a favorable ceasefire from a position of strength as he sees it.. NATO would either have to negotiate or fght a major war wiytjh te risks of nuclear escalation I am not saying this would work, jus looking at it from Putin's perspective in so far as this is possible

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Another question is does Russia have the capacity to invade both the Baltic States and Ukraine either in the same operation or in a quick sequence? I think it might have the forces to do that but it would have to be quick and there would be little if any margin for error.

[Aragorn2002]

Rearm like mad and don't trust upon the other side to behave reasonable.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Aragorn2002

[Vanir Ausf B]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nonsensical.  Once Russia launches an attack into the Baltics it loses all control of its fate.  Withdrawing back to its borders won't change the big picture of what happens to it.  At best it might save a few thousand of its best forces, but so what?  It will take a LOT more than that to overcome the problems resulting from the attack itself.

As I've said in other discussions of this nature, if I saw a buildup of Russian forces and thought it was likely they would attack (and I were US/NATO) I'd have two C-130s landing in Kiev with a couple thousand Javelins and several special forces units ready to call in airstrikes on behalf of the Ukrainians.  The day after Russia attacked the Baltics I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians would start rolling up the Donbas.  Now Russia has a war on 2 fronts before it's even finished invading.  I'd also start attacking Russian forces in Syira on Day 1 to create a 3rd front.  I'd also see what Georgia's appetite for taking back its stolen territory ahead of time and give Georgia whatever it wanted to create a war on a 4th front.  When possible I'd have Transnistria retaken by Romanian forces, creating a war on a 5th front.  I'd also supply arms to money to any Stan that wanted to get rid of Russian control, which could be 6 or 7 Fronts in total.

War on 5-7 fronts within a month is very doable for the US even without significant help from other NATO countries.  Even if you knock one or two of my arguments out of the mix, it's still a major permanent loss for Russia in the end.  I'd love to know how Russia would come out ahead by pulling its troops out of the Baltics instead of sitting in garrison.

Being cut off from the world's finances, Internet, technology, food, etc. would also not be pretty.  Not to mention Putin and his buddies would lose a lot of expensive hosing in London, Paris, and New York along with billions in liquid assets.

Again, this is why I don't think Putin is stupid enough to attack the Baltics.  Whether there's 10 brigades or 1 battalion of US forces in the Baltics, attacking means self destruction.  Withdrawing forces doesn't change the end result.

Steve

What exactly did I write that is "nonsensical"? That protecting ethnic Russians would be merely a pretext with the real objective being the discreditation of the NATO alliance? Or that any subsequent real ethnic strife used as post facto propaganda? Or that Russian leadership may not feel wedded to their casus belli? Nothing you wrote addresses any of those contentions.

As for your points, withdrawing forces would not save a few thousand Russian troops. If we are assuming that NATO would go to the mat for the Baltics, withdrawing would save the bulk of the Russian conventional forces from destruction. And to say that Russia would lose "all control of its fate" is obvious hyperbole. Germany and Japan lost all control of their fate at the end of WW2. Russia's position, while bad, would be a far cry from that.

Agreed that Ukraine could take back the Donbas with the USAF flying cover.

If Russia had any foresight at all they would have withdrawn at least most of their troops from Syria and Transnistria, but any still there would be hit (BTW, Transnistria is a breakaway region of Moldavia rather than Romania and has it's own little army but that is neither here nor there).

Georgia retaking South Ossetia or Abkhazia is fantasy.

Of course this is not a good outcome for Russia which is why I agree there is little chance of it happening. I'll reiterate my previous points that the least improbable scenario is a very limited incursion into one of the Baltic states instead of an attempt to conquer them outright even for a limited time.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[LUCASWILLEN05]

54 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Rearm like mad and don't trust upon the other side to behave reasonable.

Military weakness through defense cuts going to far can be just as dangerous. Putin, seeing NATO's military weakness and political division could decide to do something ill advised, thinking he can get away with it. A reasonable level of conventional military strength sufficient to give in aggressor pause for thought is a smart thing to d.

Recall the lessons of he 1930s. Britain and France had slashed their defense budgets for the previous 20 years and failed to rearm sufficiently after Hitler came to power. That gave he impression, along with the appeasement policy. that little or no effective military action would be taken, thereby encouraging Hitler to go further. History records the dire consequences of such policies

During the 1980s our leaders (Reagan and Thatcher) were wise enough to learn the lessons of the 1930s .and rebuilt our conventional forces to the extent where they were credible enough to make the Soviet leaders think twice about any plns they might have had to attack and to resist any temptation to do so

Sir Richard Shirreff's new book seems to be a timely warning of the dangers NATO might face if Putin perceives the alliance as military and political weakness. General Sir Richard Sherriff's new book (and bear in mind the man was Deputy SACEUR until 2014 and thus probably knows what he is talking about) warns us of the possible consequences of being weak or as being perceived to be so. Our leaders would do well to heed such warnings and thus prevent a disasterous major conflict

 

 

[HUSKER2142]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You don't get it.  Russia is out numbered and has enemies (which it worked very hard to create, mind you) all around it.  I know that Russian paranoia propaganda states that the West is out to destroy Russia, which is a total and complete fabrication of the Kremlin.  But attack the Baltics and it will become fact.  In such a contest Russia will lose just like it lost the last contest.  And like the last time it lost, when the dust settles Russia will be smaller and weaker than when it started.

Paranoia, propaganda and all want to destroy us? Have you ever watched your media, your all politicians say that the Russian center of evil and wants to destroy democracy. Each country has its own propaganda, but we all have our own head on his shoulders, and it must always be remembered.

 

^{Паранойя , пропаганда и все нас хотят уничтожить ? Вы когда смотрели ваше СМИ , у вас все политики говорят о том что Россия центр зла и она хочет уничтожить демократию . У каждой страны своя пропаганда , но у нас всех есть своя голова на плечах и это надо всегда помнить  .}

[HUSKER2142]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As I've said in other discussions of this nature, if I saw a buildup of Russian forces and thought it was likely they would attack (and I were US/NATO) I'd have two C-130s landing in Kiev with a couple thousand Javelins and several special forces units ready to call in airstrikes on behalf of the Ukrainians.

You know why Ukrainians do not have Javelina? Because a week hundreds of systems and missiles will be in Russia, and a year later an analog ATGM. Many countries are happy to buy such a system in Russia, even with a smaller range of action.

^{Знаеш почему у украинцев нет Джавелинов ? Потому что через неделю сотня комплексов и ракет будут в России , а через год уже аналог ПТУР . Многие страны с удовольствием закупит такие системы у России даже с меньшей дальностью действия .}

 

UPD.

Global strike series for her Russian inflict significant damage. But when will retaliate without WMD, Western countries will be willing to suffer the loss of not 100 soldiers is a year, and tens of thousands per week.. 

1. In a blow to Syria, Iran will respond which will block the strait.
2. China will not protect Russia. But China under the hype declare war on Taiwan. Then the United States would be difficult.
3. Western countries put Belarus in front of a choice, either with Russia or with them. There are two options: 1) Belarus provides its airspace 2) join a union of Russia.

^{Серия глобальных ударов по России нанесёт ей существенный урон . Но когда будет возмездие без применения ОМП , страны запада будут готовы понести потери не по 100 солдат в год , а десятки тысяч в неделю .} 

^{На удар в Сирии , ответит Иран который перекроет пролив .
Китай не будет защищать Россию . Но Китай под эту шумиху объявит войну Тайваню . Тогда США станет сложнее .
Страны запада поставят Белоруссию перед выбором , либо с Россией или с ними . Тут два варианта : 1) Белоруссия предоставляет своё воздушное пространство 2) присоеденяется к союзу России .}
 

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by HUSKER2142

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Paranoia, propaganda and all want to destroy us? Have you ever watched your media, your all politicians say that the Russian center of evil and wants to destroy democracy. Each country has its own propaganda, but we all have our own head on his shoulders, and it must always be remembered.

 

^{Паранойя , пропаганда и все нас хотят уничтожить ? Вы когда смотрели ваше СМИ , у вас все политики говорят о том что Россия центр зла и она хочет уничтожить демократию . У каждой страны своя пропаганда , но у нас всех есть своя голова на плечах и это надо всегда помнить  .}

Not really.  Honestly until the whole Ukraine thing kicked off Russia hardly made the news outside of Putin chasing down homosexuals for sport from a bear, stuff about Sochi, and occasional back page articles about the usual news crap (airplane crashes, major political changes).  

I'm sure you're getting some sort of "every negative thing said about Russia on foxnews" greatest hits clip, but when taken in the actual context, until again Russia actually invaded its neighbors you guys were largely forgotten.

The American media doesn't really do "propaganda" in the regard it markets itself.  This is a very important distinction to make in that if saying Russia was great and amazing would draw in viewers, there'd be an American news channel dedicated to describing Putin's prowess at all things.  As the case is we have several major news organizations that tend to cater to either end of the American political spectrum (Fox News is the strongest voice on the right, with MSNBC, and CNN being left leaning).  All of which have been profoundly critical of the US government, it's interest, etc.  We also have ready access to the rest of the world's media and given the prevalence of English news sources, a fair bit of "external" news.  

This contrasts pretty strongly in which there is one news source, and it is owned by your government, and proliferation of external opinions is limited on purpose.

The "Everyone has propaganda!" line is something fed to you by your government to convince you it's okay your options are all government owned because hey, EVERYONE has propaganda so we're just giving you the finest in the homegrown kind.  The external media isn't against you because propaganda, it's just the mirror held up to what happens when you follow the course of action Russia has pursued.   

[AttorneyAtWar]

13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Given the new Witcher 3 DLC is out in a week, I'm going to be doing shorter replies.
 

Fixed that for you Panzer.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 minute ago, Raptorx7 said:

Fixed that for you Panzer.

Heresy.  I actually don't like fantasy as a genre.  Also Witcher lacks this:
 

 

[Aragorn2002]

Personally I think war with Russia is inevitable. Sooner or later Putin will feel strong enough to gamble and the West is weak and divided. Our politicians are weasels and most of them have more faith in the Army of Salvation and rather spend billions on refugees, then invest in strong and well trained armed forces. It will cost us dearly. Nothing has been learned from history. Of course Putin will not risk an all-out war (you never know with him though), but a lot of 'controlled' conflicts and black ops in Eastern Europe are inevitable. That's why I say: rearm like mad, before it is too late. For Europe nothing good ever came from Russia. They hate us and it is time we act accordingly. Sometimes I wish we also had a Putin to take care of OUR interests. Poor Europe....Let's hope there's some strength left in this old and exhausted continent.

Btw, I've ordered the book by Sir Richard Shirreff. Let's hope it will be a bestseller in the West.

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Aragorn2002

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Paranoia, propaganda and all want to destroy us? Have you ever watched your media, your all politicians say that the Russian center of evil and wants to destroy democracy. Each country has its own propaganda, but we all have our own head on his shoulders, and it must always be remembered.

As has already been said, until Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed sovereign Ukrainian territory, and waged war in Donbas there was hardly any talk about Russia *at all* in the US media. Well, except for doing things like banning Americans from adopting Russian orphans or implementing laws against homosexuality.  Those things, of course, did make the US news cycle for about 5 minutes.  Since then it is true that Russian bombers and fighters flying right on the edge of national air space with transpoonders off and buzzing US naval vessels has made the US news.

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

You know why Ukrainians do not have Javelina? Because a week hundreds of systems and missiles will be in Russia, and a year later an analog ATGM.

Ukraine doesn't have Javelins because Russia "drew a red line" about it and, unlike Russia, the West is not trying to make this crisis worse.  As for your claims of Russia's ability to copy US technology... if it could produce a Javelin type ATGM it would have done so by now.  Russia no doubt has several examples in its hands already.  Chine as well.

 

Quote

1. In a blow to Syria, Iran will respond which will block the strait.

Don't be so sure.  Iran is not very happy with Russia's involvement in Syria per se.  Iran certainly is no friend of Russia in general.  Iran is quite interested in better relations with the West, so I don't think it is very likely it would do anything to support Russia.

Quote

2. China will not protect Russia. But China under the hype declare war on Taiwan. Then the United States would be difficult.

Fantasy.  China is not invading Taiwan because it can't afford to harm its relationship with the US and the West.  If it did, its regime would collapse very quickly because no trade with the West means no jobs for several hundred million Chinese.  The Chinese government is very pragmatic, so I don't worry about them doing anything stupid like that.  Maybe in 20 years, but not any time soon.

Quote

3. Western countries put Belarus in front of a choice, either with Russia or with them. There are two options: 1) Belarus provides its airspace 2) join a union of Russia.

No, there are 3 options:

1.  Belarus provides direct assistance to Russia and becomes a target of NATO/West until Lukashenko's regime falls.

2.  Belarus remains neutral in fact, not just in words, and NATO/West leave it alone.

3.  Belarus aligns with NATO/West in order to gain major advantages once the war is over.

Under no circumstances would Belarus join the Russian Federation.  There is absolutely ZERO chance of that happening.  There's more chance of Lukashenko aligning with NATO/West than joining Russia, and even that is a very low chance.  My guess is they would remain neutral in fact and not just in words.

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I'm sure you're getting some sort of "every negative thing said about Russia on foxnews" greatest hits clip,

This is not true, actually.  Fox News had it's collective head up Putin's backside for years prior to the invasion of Ukraine.  Usually in the context of "look how awesomely handsome and powerful Putin is compared to our pussy of a President."  This has continued without interruption since then.  Go to YouTube and type "FoxNews, Putin" and you'll see that YouTube suggests a search "fox news loves putin".  Do that and there's plenty of clips of FoxNews praising Putin and wishing Obama could be more like him.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Personally I think war with Russia is inevitable. Sooner or later Putin will feel strong enough to gamble and the West is weak and divided. Our politicians are weasels and most of them have more faith in the Army of Salvation and rather spend billions on refugees, then invest in strong and well trained armed forces. It will cost us dearly. Nothing has been learned from history. Of course Putin will not risk an all-out war (you never know with him though), but a lot of 'controlled' conflicts and black ops in Eastern Europe are inevitable. That's why I say: rearm like mad, before it is too late. For Europe nothing good ever came from Russia. They hate us and it is time we act accordingly. Sometimes I wish we also had a Putin to take care of OUR interests. Poor Europe....Let's hope there's some strength left in this old and exhausted continent.

Btw, I've ordered the book by Sir Richard Shirreff. Let's hope it will be a bestseller in the West.

 

Only if Western leaders continue to show weakness. Shirreff's book looks like a 21st Century version of Hackett's 1978 Third World War. If it informs people and wakes the politicians upon time to reinforce our conventional defenses so Putin thinks twice the book will have done it#s job. One hopes we don't stumble into a war as happened in 1914 The  danger is Putin thinking he can get away with something he cannot because he underestimates our willingness and capacity to act,For instance a small scale inursion into one of the Baltic States could escalate out of all control. Likewise, were Russia to invade Ukraine and NATO responds as assumed in the CMBS that cul result in an untended war nobody actually wants.