News from Ukraine Conflict

[Airborne Rifles]

The situation isn't nearly as bad as it seems. Russia has about 1 million people under arms, and has to worry about not just NATO but also Islamic extremists and breakaway regions in the south and keeping an eye on China in the Far East (despite the new coziness between those two). Currently, NATO has about 5 million people under arms and only one major threat - Russia.

[bayonetbrant]

of those 1-million / 5-million, what's the actual foxhole strength?

additionally, of the US/UK/FR/etc totals, how many have permanent commitments they're already supporting?  South Korea, Mali, Falklands, etc

[GDS_Starfury]

collectively they have the money and hardware.  if they had been spending the mandated 2% of Government revenue they would be in a lot better shape.

[jejo68]

of those 1-million / 5-million, what's the actual foxhole strength?

additionally, of the US/UK/FR/etc totals, how many have permanent commitments they're already supporting?  South Korea, Mali, Falklands, etc

If it wasnt for the nukes, russia would be fucked in a couple of weeks if they ever got into a conflict with NATO.
On paper it might seem like an impressive army but in reality its pisspoor lead and equipped. Most of the tanks are obsolete T72 and of those at least 1/3 Arent even operational. Same for the airforce, where the pilots hardly gets any flying time, last figures I saw was 200 hours/year on average.
Same for the fleet where most of the ships are junks, since they dont have fuel to sail, Money to maintenance or even personel to sail.

[LongBlade]

So clearly NATO means well but without the money and hardware to back up their guarantees...how will this work?

Like any war, they'll muddle along.

[Airborne Rifles]

of those 1-million / 5-million, what's the actual foxhole strength?

additionally, of the US/UK/FR/etc totals, how many have permanent commitments they're already supporting?  South Korea, Mali, Falklands, etc

I would guess the relative tooth/tail ratio of NATO/Russia is pretty comparable, as is the proportion of their military available for deployments. Like jejo68 said, it's their nukes that give them flexibility, but those also may prevent any major conflict from starting in the first place. Thank god for the atom bomb and all that...

[GDS_Starfury]

Id say NATO forces have a longer tail but a nastier bite.

[Gusington]

Napoleon and Hitler also thought that Russia had an obsolete, pathetic military. That is not to say that NATO couldn't handle a war with Russia now, but I don't think it would be as one-sided.

[LongBlade]

Napoleon and Hitler also thought that Russia had an obsolete, pathetic military. That is not to say that NATO couldn't handle a war with Russia now, but I don't think it would be as one-sided.

Depends. If our goal is to keep them off of NATO held territory then we're in pretty good shape. If we want to take Moscow? Not so sure.

[GDS_Starfury]

NATO has no reason to take Moscow and Europe is a reverse Kursk writ large for Russia.

[jejo68]

Napoleon and Hitler also thought that Russia had an obsolete, pathetic military. That is not to say that NATO couldn't handle a war with Russia now, but I don't think it would be as one-sided.

Nato troops are better equipped to handle the long russian Winter today, and unlike the two previous smerfs it wont come as a surprise for us. Besides havent you heard about global Warming, we might not even have to fight any Winter wars  :)

[Gusington]

^"Climate change." Or whatever they call it today. And it hasn't made the Russian steppes tropical, just warmer. And by warmer it could be -20 degrees F instead of -40 degrees F.

But I definitely hear what LB is saying. I would hope we wouldn't want to try to take Moscow or St. Petersburg.

All that said, it's not like the Russians are the French. They have a solid albeit brutal military history over the last 75 years, with victories stolen from the jaws of what were almost total defeats. They are wiley. They are cunning. And I don't trust them any further than I could throw a T-80.

Yes they are not as technically advanced as the West. But the West is not operating in the same brutal way that the Russians are.

It is a mistake to think that a direct fight with Russia over Ukraine or any other location in Eastern Europe would be a cake walk. Tech can work wonders but it can only take you so far.

The Russians don't have anything resembling the West's power projection and offensive power. But their defense in depth, even if it's at a medieval level when compared to ours, would be a challenge to say the least. Underestimating them would be a mistake.

[panzerde]

The Russians don't have anything resembling the West's power projection and offensive power. But their defense in depth, even if it's at a medieval level when compared to ours, would be a challenge to say the least. Underestimating them would be a mistake.

Which is why, if at all possible, we should avoid fighting them and employ the Reagan Doctrine and just bankrupt the bastards instead. By all means if we have to fight them go all in, but it makes more sense to me to teach them the basics of economics one more time.

[Gusington]

I agree. It gets tiresome how history repeats sometimes.

[Airborne Rifles]

Gus, you're right. Tactically and operationally we shouldn't underestimate them. The Russians make tough soldiers and the kit they use I think is much better than we give them credit for, especially if it's in competent hands. But the fact is that strategically they just can't project power effectively any more. Of course from the nuclear strategic perspective, they're ahead of everyone...