Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Jimbuna]

Might be interesting to see if the two of them talk should they bump into each other at the 70th anniversay of the Normandy landings next month to which they have both been invited.

[Aktungbby]

I think ol' "Vlad the Good" will take a broad view...in the interests of diplomacy and unfreezing of assets The House of Windsor has two sides to it! Gaffes go both ways here!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Britain'S last in that strategy. Comfortable.

Anyhow, time for what? Where there are no reserves, there cannot be meaning in waiting for them.

Reforger. The exercises may have stopped but the infrastructure is still in place.

Russia is not the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, it doesn't have the benefit of the other nations armies to back it up, if it invades Europe and triggers the full force of NATO, then it will find itself in difficulty with 700k vs about 3mil. That's without calling up reserves.

Of course, you've got to get those units into position first, so the Atlantic would once again be quite a battleground, but Navy vs Navy we still have a fair advantage at this time in comparison of strength, especially with the US Navy on side. So, whilst Reforger is going on, there would be a harrassing attack on Russian forces moving through the Eastern states, mostly by airforce units and rapid response units, and you can beat that the Eastern states would fight like tigers, they have no wish to be under the Russian heel again, never underestimate Polish fighting, ever.
Also, as the Russians push forward, their supply lines get longer and eventually they are going to start running into supply problems and then NATO will look to counter-attack.

It's not the days of the Fulda Gap any more, whilst I would not go on record and say that NATO would win a war with Russia, because in a NATO/Russian war, no one would win because it would be too easy to start climbing up the escalation ladder and we all know what happens when you get to the top, however it's not overwhelming odds that it used to be back when the Black Horse used to stare down Ivan at OP Alpha.


Now, if Russia and China join forces and start things at the same time...then it gets a lot harder, and the likelihood of mushrooms sprouting increases exponentially.

[BossMark]

BBC News: "Russia and China strike new gas deal"

If Ukraine has taught us anything, Vladimir Putin will have annexed half of China in the next five years.

[Jimbuna]

I see Charles is doing his best in assisting the UK measures aimed at Putin but the question is...what is Gordon Brown doing in the picture?

A Russian diplomat is to meet a Foreign Office official to discuss comments reportedly made by the Prince of Wales about President Vladimir Putin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27515086

[BossMark]

President Putin has angrily denied the allegation made by Prince Charles that he's like Hitler. 'Hitler had concentration camps for his killing his enemies wheareas we have the Siberian salt mines. You couldn't get more different'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Reforger. The exercises may have stopped but the infrastructure is still in place.

Russia is not the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, it doesn't have the benefit of the other nations armies to back it up, if it invades Europe and triggers the full force of NATO, then it will find itself in difficulty with 700k vs about 3mil. That's without calling up reserves.

Of course, you've got to get those units into position first, so the Atlantic would once again be quite a battleground, but Navy vs Navy we still have a fair advantage at this time in comparison of strength, especially with the US Navy on side. So, whilst Reforger is going on, there would be a harrassing attack on Russian forces moving through the Eastern states, mostly by airforce units and rapid response units, and you can beat that the Eastern states would fight like tigers, they have no wish to be under the Russian heel again, never underestimate Polish fighting, ever.
Also, as the Russians push forward, their supply lines get longer and eventually they are going to start running into supply problems and then NATO will look to counter-attack.

It's not the days of the Fulda Gap any more, whilst I would not go on record and say that NATO would win a war with Russia, because in a NATO/Russian war, no one would win because it would be too easy to start climbing up the escalation ladder and we all know what happens when you get to the top, however it's not overwhelming odds that it used to be back when the Black Horse used to stare down Ivan at OP Alpha.


Now, if Russia and China join forces and start things at the same time...then it gets a lot harder, and the likelihood of mushrooms sprouting increases exponentially.

European armies are not what they have been anymore, too, oberon. An internal report from the German defence minstry from maybe two or three years ago said that Germany could no longer fulfill its NATO obligaiton in case of a full scale war. Navies have dramatically shrunk in size and capacity, whole technical fields of military competence have been given up across or have been turned into respurces now focussing oin asymmetrical warfares. Some nations have given up their fleet of platforms like MBTs. Logistical capacity have been dramatically reduced, ammo stockpiles have shrunk or are extremely old, questioning their efficiency against latest counter measures. The german army cannot even meet its perosnell needs now that the draft is gone. The physical quality of recruits is at an alltime low. Experience is getting lost across most branches of the forces, especially army and air force. And so on and on. Count the number of soldiers in your own Royal Army and ships in the Navy. Be aware that most of Greek tanks have no ammo since they bought the tanks, but no ammo for them.

But allk that is academical only. Any major war with an Europe invading Russia (which is aware it cannot do that anymore) still would be a nuclear war from day one on.

The point is that if Russia does not invade with the goal to get all of Europe, but just to take back the baltic sttaes, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, there is little NATO could do before the Russians have taken all of these. When NATO is ready to counterattack, the Russians already would be deeply dug in. With plenty of toys that the Iraqis did not have.

And as you already pointed out, with China starting to get angry in the Far East simultaneously, America would be seriously hampered in its ability to deal with two majhor wars at the same time. I did not beleive that already when Colin Powell reiterated that the US still could. Since then, even the official Washington has somewhat relativised that assessment. One major war at a time, is now the official view, it seems. and that is more realistic a self-assessment.

BTW, the POMCUS sites in Germany, Belgium and Netherlands have been given up completely, meanwhile. Their equipment no longer is there. That happened after they already were "cannibalised" for the wars in Iraq 91 and 03.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

European armies are not what they have been anymore, too, oberon. An internal report from the German defence minstry from maybe two or three years ago said that Germany could no longer fulfill its NATO obligaiton in case of a full scale war. Navies have dramatically shrunk in size and capacity, whole technical fields of military competence have been given up across or have been turned into respurces now focussing oin asymmetrical warfares. Some nations have given up their fleet of platforms like MBTs. Logistical capacity have been dramatically reduced, ammo stockpiles have shrunk or are extremely old, questioning their efficiency against latest counter measures. The german army cannot even meet its perosnell needs now that the draft is gone. The physical quality of recruits is at an alltime low. Experience is getting lost across most branches of the forces, especially army and air force. And so on and on. Count the number of soldiers in your own Royal Army and ships in the Navy. Be aware that most of Greek tanks have no ammo since they bought the tanks, but no ammo for them.

But allk that is academical only. Any major war with an Europe invading Russia (which is aware it cannot do that anymore) still would be a nuclear war from day one on.

The point is that if Russia does not invade with the goal to get all of Europe, but just to take back the baltic sttaes, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, there is little NATO could do before the Russians have taken all of these. When NATO is ready to counterattack, the Russians already would be deeply dug in. With plenty of toys that the Iraqis did not have.

And as you already pointed out, with China starting to get angry in the Far East simultaneously, America would be seriously hampered in its ability to deal with two majhor wars at the same time. I did not beleive that already when Colin Powell reiterated that the US still could. Since then, even the official Washington has somewhat relativised that assessment. One major war at a time, is now the official view, it seems. and that is more realistic a self-assessment.

BTW, the POMCUS sites in Germany, Belgium and Netherlands have been given up completely, meanwhile. Their equipment no longer is there. That happened after they already were "cannibalised" for the wars in Iraq 91 and 03.

Oh, I agree completely, on our own Europe cannot fight Russia effectively, not unless we organise ourselves a Europe Defence Force which is not too likely to happen within the next couple of years as it would have to be done under the EU and we all know how good Europes relationship with the EU is at the moment. So at the moment, really, we're reliant upon American manpower...so that's nothing particularly new.
Of course, if America is distracted by the PRC in a Pacific conflict then it gets ugly, however that would require a level of co-operation between Russia and China which is beyond what we've seen so far, and it would also have to wait until the PRC was able to take on the US in equal terms in the Pacific which is probably not until around 2020.

In regards to just retaking the PACT, you're probably right, by the time we got all our forces into position it would be all over...however, that being said, Russia would have to get its forces into position first, and that would be detected by intel so a troop build-up on both sides would begin. The element of surprise is not so easy when you've got several thousand units to move.

True, a lot of the infrastructure isn't what it used to be, I know that a few of our old USAFE bases have gone but others have strangely been left relatively intact. However the US is pretty good at logistics, and we're pretty good at helping the US so there would be ways to work around it.

I don't know if it would go nuclear from day one, because it would completely defeat the objective of seizing control of territory if it's unable to be used, but then again the same could be said of any Soviet invasion of West Germany back in the day, and fortunately that didn't happen either...so the odds are in our favour thanks to MAD and I think Russia knows that starting any kind of nuclear war is a bad move for self-survival, likewise the PRC.

[TarJak]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-2...s-deal/5470230

this gas deal seems to mean Putin needs less cash from EU gas buys than hes been relying on previously. Won't cover everything but gives Russia breathing space if things in the west go pear shaped for them.

Not a bad bit on analysis on what the deal means for both parties and their neighbours: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...4/s4009686.htm

[Betonov]

In related news.

Study shows, that if strict sanctions against Russia are implemented, Slovene GDP will shrink 2,5%

[Catfish]

Why should we organize (and PAY) bigger superfluous defences and military hard- and software ? Against whom ? The NATO ? Because it sure won't be Russia.
Against North Korea ? Ok you have a point (lmao).

Does anyone really believe that Russia will attack anyone ?
And the latter includes the baltic states, and Poland. Really ?!

So why wtf ?
The only real aggressive action (if only word-wise) i saw lately has been uttered by the NATO.

Are the Russians still the eeevil commies, for you ?
Seems the West badly needs an enemy, and if he is not there we have to make up one. Too bad all those terrorists seem to be very reluctant since theer are so much good (for the media) news from Syria, and Russia.
So we need another enemy - or time for some Gladio action again so that we can blame it on someone and frighten our people, eh ?

NATO and NSA never needed an enemy THAT urgent, to have a reason for their own existence, after 1990.

[Oberon]

Ask the Baltic states, they're not as confident that Russia will stay in Russia.

[MH]

So we need another enemy - or time for some Gladio action again so that we can blame it on someone and frighten our people, eh ?

What if i tell you that Russia needs an enemy more than anyone else?

[Skybird]

The West got weaker and Russia got weaker. Now Russia reinforces, since years, with the West focussing on getting weaker (over financial and social and illusionary issues). Russia was no serious enemy in the past 20 years. But it could become that again if the ratio in strength between Europe and Russia reverses again and then the gap becomes too big.

Europe seems determined to let it widen. Right now it already cannot honour all its NATO article 5 obligations anymore, and a turning point for defence policies is not in sight, not to mention efficient measurements. And Europe let slip by the opportunity to form real ties between Russia and the West in the past 20 years. Instead, mostly due to pressure from Washington, it saw Russia as prey to harvest. Clever!

Russia now goes China. Bad news for the US in the far east and europe alike. Also bad for India, and Japan.

[Oberon]

The Catch-22 is that military equipment is not cheap.