Russia threatening to invade Ukraine 2.0

[Kuntantee]

If you look at the Russian AF in total, you have to look at NATO in total. You also have to understand that air dominance is more than just fighters, its tankers, AEW, and ECM as well.

This argument does not make sense for a number of logistical reasons. Ukraine is next to Russia. They have no logistical disadvantage and they can utilize most of their arsenal where as USA is too far. Attempting to commit more fighter jets close to Russia will immediately reveal this logistical disadvantage; limited number of bases. Carries work for a reason and you can not get your carriers inside Black Sea. Black Sea is important and Russia is pretty secure on that front.

USA's plan seems to be controlling straits rather than controlling the region. In the war scenario we are talking about, there is no way NATO can project such power to the point where Russian presence in the Black Sea would be destroyed "within two hours". It's plain fantasy.

[Crispin]

The fear is that if tensions continue to rise between Russia and the West that's exactly the outcome that will occur: Russia will march to take the Baltic States and make no mistake on this issue: They can and they can do it swiftly. They've specifically trained for years to do this, and yes that includes having the logistical support to do so.

After that? Does NATO enter a protracted conflict with Russia to try and retake them, a conflict that might go nuclear? Or does one side back down. The fear among NATO members in Eastern Europe is that NATO will back down first: Because why do the Baltics matter right?

Showing the world that article 5 is no joke matters. Regardlesss of who’s invaded.

It’s a far too risky game to play for Russia, they’ll risk getting hammered for what? The baltics. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mihalik]

The fear is that if tensions continue to rise between Russia and the West that's exactly the outcome that will occur: Russia will march to take the Baltic States and make no mistake on this issue: They can and they can do it swiftly. They've specifically trained for years to do this, and yes that includes having the logistical support to do so.

After that? Does NATO enter a protracted conflict with Russia to try and retake them, a conflict that might go nuclear? Or does one side back down. The fear among NATO members in Eastern Europe is that NATO will back down first: Because why do the Baltics matter right?

Russia could take the Baltics. Sure. Finland could take the Baltics for fuck sake. On paper and in theory.

This is not 1939 where you can mobilize whatever you need for a massive invasion and hide it behind your border.

Even a relatively small scale invasion, the type needed to take the Baltics, requires weeks of preparation. NATO satellite and signal intelligence would know far ahead of time. Even if the build up is disguised as an "exercise".

The decision whether that would turn into a protracted fight or not would be made days or weeks before the first shot is fired. If US and other forces are physically present in the Baltics when the first Russian crosses the border, it's a full on fight.

That's not risk Russia would ever take.

And again. There's absolutely no imaginable scenario where NATO would ever invade Russia. The Russians know this too. The aggression is 100% one sided.

The problem with Russia threatening Eastern Europe is rather the act of constant brinkmanship and the threat to the national wellbeing and prosperity of the nations it is harassing.

The Baltics are gone, Russia knows this. Whenever it's threatening them it's done for a domestic audience. The citizens of the nations threatened by Russia are just unfortunate bystanders caught in the middle of the vagaries of Russian politics.

On the other hand not belonging to a bloc like NATO gives Russian leadership cart blanch to go beyond mere threats and actually use force to score political points domestically.

So, countries bordering Russia simply have to assume the costs of NATO membership and military preparedness as the alternative is much worse.

It's NATO or corruption, misery, poverty, oppression and the occasional invasion. That's the binary Russia had created around itself.

[Kellhound]

Can you say how many targets from initial selection weren't destroyed / which percentage of fired missiles didn't reach their destination?

Clearly not every missile got to the end.

The military never assumes that every missile will hit its target, they know a few may malfunction or be intercepted. Sufficient numbers hit to destroy the targets.

- - - Updated - - -

Zircon / Kinzhal hypersonic missiles.
Avangard hypersonic gliders for ballistic missiles.
S-500 (coming into service this year).
T-90M tank.
Tirada-2 / Bylina satellite jammers.
15 new ships added to Pacific fleet last year.
Status-6 "Poseidon" nuclear underwater drone base planned for summer 2022

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, except for saying "it's mine now" out loud that's how it worked for US with Kosovo.

Denying and dodging responsibility isn't necessarily a positive thing.

Buying a handful of wonder weapons doesn't do much for you. Remember, the T-90M was only needed because the M-14 sucked. The 15 ships for the Pacific are, well, mostly jokes.

- - - Updated - - -

Russia did not use their S-400s to try and intercept the missiles, this is according to the US.




Russia has less then a quarter of their troops as conscripts nowadays and improving that statistic and NATO countries are upgrading tanks at a slow rate: Poland only has 12 Leopard 2PLs for instance and if you look at overall NATO numbers of tanks more recent then 2000, either new or upgraded, the numbers are dismal. The only country in NATO with a good tank fleet that is being constantly upgraded is the US.

Everyone else? Not so much and that's just one area.

You know one of the leading reasons people think they didn't use the S-400? Fear of it not working on the world stage and hurting sales of Russian SAMs.

NATO has tanks that are easily a match for most of Russia's T-72s. American M1A2s can handle the much smaller number of more advanced tanks.

- - - Updated - - -

This argument does not make sense for a number of logistical reasons. Ukraine is next to Russia. They have no logistical disadvantage and they can utilize most of their arsenal where as USA is too far. Attempting to commit more fighter jets close to Russia will immediately reveal this logistical disadvantage; limited number of bases. Carries work for a reason and you can not get your carriers inside Black Sea. Black Sea is important and Russia is pretty secure on that front.

USA's plan seems to be controlling straits rather than controlling the region. In the war scenario we are talking about, there is no way NATO can project such power to the point where Russian presence in the Black Sea would be destroyed "within two hours". It's plain fantasy.

Do not underestimate the long range strike capability of NATO. Russia does not have many important ships, and most would only take one or two hits to sink.

[Ihavewaffles]

What is thread about now ww3?

[Shalcker]

Buying a handful of wonder weapons doesn't do much for you. Remember, the T-90M was only needed because the M-14 sucked. The 15 ships for the Pacific are, well, mostly jokes.

Armata only "sucked" from finance perspective; as platform it was great. It is still going to enter serial production and be delivered to active units by 2022 , given that Russian economy is picking up after period of adjustment.

I'm not sure what your argument is.

Can Russia afford to upgrade it's forces? Without any doubt - it does that constantly.
Is that going to keep NATO wary of conflict and be enough to crush any third-world country? Without any doubt as well.

A few decades later maybe China will pull ahead.

[jonnysensible]

given that Russian economy is picking up after period of adjustment..

lol how dem real incomes? russian economy is a shitshow

[Shalcker]

lol how dem real incomes? russian economy is a shitshow

What do "real incomes" have to do with military procurement? American healthcare being a shitshow doesn't stop inflation of military budgets.

You can check more sober estimates then "shitshow" here:
https://www.intellinews.com/datacrun...?source=russia

[Mihalik]

Can Russia afford to upgrade it's forces? Without any doubt - it does that constantly.
Is that going to keep NATO wary of conflict and be enough to crush any third-world country? Without any doubt as well.

1. NATO shouldn't need to be wary of conflict, it only needs to be because Russia wants to perpetuate hostilities. This is why Russia simply isn't a "normal" country. As others have pointed out, before it became obvious that Putin was planning on being Emperor of Russia for life ruling over a tinpot mafia state, there was a ton of good will towards Russia with hopes that it may eventually grow closer to Europe. Had Russia done that it, as an actual honest and functioning democracy, it could have easily had a much more dominant role in European politics as partner rather than enemy.

2. Russia can only afford its oversized military because it chooses to prioritize military spending. Which is eerily reminiscent of Soviet politics and will eventually and inevitably have the same outcome. The internal collapse of the Russian state. The Russia state which let's be honest, in most areas barely rates above a more stable third world country.

[Easo]

The fear is that if tensions continue to rise between Russia and the West that's exactly the outcome that will occur: Russia will march to take the Baltic States and make no mistake on this issue: They can and they can do it swiftly. They've specifically trained for years to do this, and yes that includes having the logistical support to do so.

After that? Does NATO enter a protracted conflict with Russia to try and retake them, a conflict that might go nuclear? Or does one side back down. The fear among NATO members in Eastern Europe is that NATO will back down first: Because why do the Baltics matter right?

That IS the big question. 5th Article is not 146% stricly defined. Germany might decide that sending humanitarian aid counts as help, for example. But there is the big catch of not coming to aid - NATO will almost guaranteed fall appart after that. "If Baltics were not protected, why would WE be?" All countries east of Germany will think of that, maybe the old ones as France will too. And it also means USA pretty much destroys a century of influence building and immeasurable resources put in it. It is beyond retarded to do that, yet the chance exists.
P.S.
I am perfectly aware that Baltics are a buffer zone. Our geographical position decided that for us. Even Russia cannot take over us in one day and while they do that the big hitters get more time to prepare. It is what it is.

P.P.S.
Armata almost guaranteed IS the best tank right now. Especially if you are a crew member. It is much more of an actual new project built from the ground up with shitload of good ideas put in it, not reiterated for the nth time T-series/M1/L2 modification. Not that it matters with the production numbers and delays...
Still, I will stick with what I said - people should stop Skroing.

[Shalcker]

1. NATO shouldn't need to be wary of conflict, it only needs to be because Russia wants to perpetuate hostilities.

Noone in Russia wants to perpetuate hostilities. But there is no good reason not to respond to hostilities from US or EU.

This is why Russia simply isn't a "normal" country. As others have pointed out, before it became obvious that Putin was planning on being Emperor of Russia for life ruling over a tinpot mafia state, there was a ton of good will towards Russia with hopes that it may eventually grow closer to Europe. Had Russia done that it, as an actual honest and functioning democracy, it could have easily had a much more dominant role in European politics as partner rather than enemy.

There was ton of fake goodwill. There was more of that "goodwill" while Yeltsin was in power too - and that one had literal mafias running things.

Russia was growing closer to Europe. Democratic institutions were slowly built up, enticed by economic incentives. Hell, even "political prisoners" like Khodorkovsky were released.
...then EU decided to burn it all by supporting illegal overthrow of elected head of state, and basically shitting on all Russian attempts to get better treatment and better seat at the table - all for minor economic expansion.

Just attempt for Russia to get "more dominant role" even in something as small as Ukraine had EU flipping the table and refusing to talk.

Well, that's what such EU opportunism gets you - once trust was betrayed everything became suspect. Institutions seen as potential attack vectors for destruction, "civil society" as breeding ground for troublemakers that unquestionably lap up Western viewpoints, "free press" as "fifth column", and so on.

You destroyed their value by plainly displaying how you can exploit them for destruction right across the border.

2. Russia can only afford its oversized military because it chooses to prioritize military spending. Which is eerily reminiscent of Soviet politics and will eventually and inevitably have the same outcome. The internal collapse of the Russian state. The Russia state which let's be honest, in most areas barely rates above a more stable third world country.

Biggest articles in Russian budget aren't military, it's Pension Fund and Social Security.


direct support to household income (through state salaries, other social payments and public sector salaries) already account for a rather high 22% of GDP and 58% of consolidated budget expenditures

Meanwhile military remains around 4.5% GDP.

[Mihalik]

Noone in Russia wants to perpetuate hostilities. But there is no good reason not to respond to hostilities from US or EU.

By "hostilities" you mean demands for Russia not to be a mafia state and or invade its neighbors or use the threat of invasion to coerce a neighbor into submission?

The Kremlin's sockpuppet in Ukraine was removed by the Ukrainian people. It doesn't matter whether the Kremlin likes that or not...it's not up to the Kremlin.

There was ton of fake goodwill. There was more of that "goodwill" while Yeltsin was in power too - and that one had literal mafias running things.

The only thing that changed that instead of mobsters running the country through a political puppet, now the mob boss rules directly.

Russia was growing closer to Europe. Democratic institutions were slowly built up, enticed by economic incentives. Hell, even "political prisoners" like Khodorkovsky were released.
...then EU decided to burn it all by supporting illegal overthrow of elected head of state, and basically shitting on all Russian attempts to get better treatment and better seat at the table - all for minor economic expansion.

Just attempt for Russia to get "more dominant role" even in something as small as Ukraine had EU flipping the table and refusing to talk.

Well, that's what such EU opportunism gets you - once trust was betrayed everything became suspect. Institutions seen as potential attack vectors for destruction, "civil society" as breeding ground for troublemakers that unquestionably lap up Western viewpoints, "free press" as "fifth column", and so on.

You destroyed their value by plainly displaying how you can exploit them for destruction right across the border.

One more time. Russia doesn't get to use violence and the threat of violence against its neighbors to further its geopolitical goals then cry "People are being mean to me" when there's a milquetoast economic and political pushback. It also doesn't get to trade a political prisoner or two and a couple of fake reforms in exchange for the right to fucking invade its neighbors.

Noteworthy by the way that you unwittingly admit that Russia is a outwardly hostile authoritarian mafia state, but expect everyone to be OK with that.

[Shalcker]

By "hostilities" you mean demands for Russia not to be a mafia state and or invade its neighbors or use the threat of invasion to coerce a neighbor into submission?

By hostilities i mean demands for Russia not to intervene in Ukrainian situation and refusing tripartite talks even when Russia had direct and legitimate interests there - and was willing to pay for those interests too.

The Kremlin's sockpuppet in Ukraine was removed by the Ukrainian people. It doesn't matter whether the Kremlin likes that or not...it's not up to the Kremlin.

There was no "sockpuppet". If he was Russian sock puppet why would he even drag it out right until signing ceremony to refuse Association Agreement?

It was usual corrupt elected head of state, not very different from any that came both before and after him, trying to play both sides to get best offer.

One more time. Russia doesn't get to use violence and the threat of violence against its neighbors to further its geopolitical goals then cry "People are being mean to me" when there's a milquetoast economic and political pushback. It also doesn't get to trade a political prisoner or two and a couple of fake reforms in exchange for the right to fucking invade its neighbors.

What did you exchange for the right to remove elected head of state and shit on your agreements with him?

I think that's credibility in Russian eyes that you paid for that. Proving that your word means shit.

[Mihalik]

What did you exchange for the right to remove elected head of state and shit on your agreements with him?

I think that's credibility in Russian eyes that you paid for that. Proving that your word means shit.

One more time. He was removed by his own people, Russians blaming that on the EU or US or whatnot is simply projection, and there were no tripartite talks to be had because Russia's doesn't get to dictate the political future of its neighbors whether Russia has interests in it or not. Russia could have used tools within the bounds of normal politics like economic sanctions but instead it did what bullies and gangsters do. Use violence.

[Shalcker]

One more time. He was removed by his own people, Russians blaming that on the EU or US or whatnot is simply projection, and there were no tripartite talks to be had because Russia's doesn't get to dictate the political future of its neighbors whether Russia has interests in it or not. Russia could have used tools within the bounds of normal politics like economic sanctions but instead it did what bullies and gangsters do. Use violence.

Except Russia did use economic tools - like threats of sanctions and trade barriers, as well as carrot of extra loans - to get what it wanted.

That's when EU switched to "trying to dictate political future of it's neighbors" through coercion and support of insurrection rather then play the same game.

Does EU has right to immediately sanction any head of state and his officials that refuse to sign agreement with them? Is that not "dictating political future of it's neighbors"?

To me it looked like EU being sore losers when they get outmatched on economic benefits.

And even then Russia was willing to play it "by the law" without Yanukovich with new government - as long as EU agreed that laws and previous agreements matter.

Only when EU proven unwilling to do it did Russia switch to "anything goes" and went with accession.

[Easo]

Ah yes, Russia was growing closer to Europe after the 2008 war until Ukraine happened. Shalcker keeps surprising me
P.S.

something as small as Ukraine

Except that it is a pretty big country and in an important location, but what do I know...

[Shalcker]

Ah yes, Russia was growing closer to Europe after the 2008 war until Ukraine happened. Shalcker keeps surprising me

Everyone was well aware that 2008 was on Georgia.

Shelling peacekeeper troops is quite serious transgression.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Even NATO cannot afford war with Russia.

Why do you think Russia cannot afford updates? Pretty much the only stories coming up are various updates finally going into active service.

The only way in which Russia could be a threat to NATO is in the case that Russia and China form a military's alliance and decide to jointly declare war on NATO. Russia by itself is not the threat that it used to be.

[Shalcker]

The only way in which Russia could be a threat to NATO is in the case that Russia and China form a military's alliance and decide to jointly declare war on NATO. Russia by itself is not the threat that it used to be.

Russia is just world #2 military. Preparing basically only for major war with NATO - as that is the only real threat to it, and keeping it at bay is most important.

While US is a lot more scattered in what it actually needs - and for historical reasons more focused on bombing brown people into the sand and building overpriced and over-engineered equipment to leech on ever-increasing military budgets.

[Forogil]

Everyone was well aware that 2008 was on Georgia.

Shelling peacekeeper troops is quite serious transgression.

Yes, it's totally the fault of Georgian peacekeepers for being shelled by S. Ossetian separatists on August 1st 2008.

/s