What if Ukraine isn't the end game?
Discussion
Was thinking - seemingly the Russian military is a bit of a joke - tanks getting stuck and disabled by 10mm spanners etc - 20 odd days in and they don't own the country, far from it.
The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Was thinking - seemingly the Russian military is a bit of a joke - tanks getting stuck and disabled by 10mm spanners etc - 20 odd days in and they don't own the country, far from it.
The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
I think this is his "A list kit"; the problem is that, I suspect, a lot of the money that was meant to be spent on it has instead been spent on coke, hookers, diamond encrusted superyachts, flats in Knightsbridge and solid gold toilet seats.The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
I find it somewhat unlikely that NATO would or could run out of weaponry - it's fed by US military-industrial might. It's essentially a bottomless pit.
Dog Star said:
I think this is his "A list kit"; the problem is that, I suspect, a lot of the money that was meant to be spent on it has instead been spent on coke, hookers, diamond encrusted superyachts, flats in Knightsbridge and solid gold toilet seats.
I find it somewhat unlikely that NATO would or could run out of weaponry - it's fed by US military-industrial might. It's essentially a bottomless pit.
US defence spend c£700billionI find it somewhat unlikely that NATO would or could run out of weaponry - it's fed by US military-industrial might. It's essentially a bottomless pit.
Next biggest spender is £60-80billion
UK is 3rd ish place of defence spend in the world.
The west's stock of weapons isn't being depleted, relatively speaking we're only sending smallish quantities of very specific weapons.
Remember that there were warnings for months that Ukraine was going to be invaded, if Putin had his eye on something else then the West/NATO would be well aware and react accordingly.
Likewise all the wibble posted at the start of the conflict that China might suddenly decide to take advantage of the situation and invade Taiwan... as if they can overnight put together an invasion force without anyone noticing...
Remember that there were warnings for months that Ukraine was going to be invaded, if Putin had his eye on something else then the West/NATO would be well aware and react accordingly.
Likewise all the wibble posted at the start of the conflict that China might suddenly decide to take advantage of the situation and invade Taiwan... as if they can overnight put together an invasion force without anyone noticing...
Welshbeef said:
Second.
Russia and UK spend very similar
France is there further down the list.
I read the list thinking China were 2nd, but the list was NATO.Russia and UK spend very similar
France is there further down the list.
Still, China are sort of relevant as their relative spending power (PPP) means the gap between China and the USA isn't as great as the numbers suggest.
Taiwan
ReverendCounter said:
Given that Poland is part of Nato I suggest you spend all your money on coke and hookers this evening, because it wont be worth sh!t if that happens (which it wont). A conventional non-nuclear war against Nato would see Russian forces destroyed and fighting on two fronts. I am sure Ukraine would welcome it as it would stretch Russia and deplete their weapons and supplies further.
RichardD said:
Welshbeef said:
Second.
Russia and UK spend very similar
France is there further down the list.
I read the list thinking China were 2nd, but the list was NATO.Russia and UK spend very similar
France is there further down the list.
Still, China are sort of relevant as their relative spending power (PPP) means the gap between China and the USA isn't as great as the numbers suggest.
Taiwan
From wiki, the first line in the mission statement of the PLA is « The insurance of CCP leadership« .
Rolling out my maps onto my war planning table (opening Googlemaps) I would say that if Ukraine was conquered and Russia had the appetite for more, then there are tactically better options than butting your head against the large Polish land army and the follow on NATO headache.
Next to Ukraine is Moldova. Already harbouring a breakaway pro Russian state of Transnistria, not a NATO member, Moldovia would be an obvious target to bring another ex-USSR country back under the control of Moscow. Would NATO go to war over little Moldova? Very unlikely. But what practical benefit would it give Russia besides the prestige and additional breathing room?
If it's tactical gains you're after, I would look north. Finland shares a very long border with Russia, the longest after Ukraine at around 1300km. Finland, like Sweden is a NATO partner nation, but not a fully fledged member. Taking those two nations gives you access to the natural resources of the region including the same iron ore that Hitler wanted so badly 70-odd years ago. Most importantly it gives you control of the Baltic sea, so cutting off trade to Denmark, northern Poland, Holland and Germany. It enables you to connect with the Kaliningrad, the isolated Russian province and straddle both sides of the Baltic sea, and protect the approaches by sea towards St. Petersburg. It's a slam-dunk reward without directly attacking NATO, but still strangling the northern part of Europe. Both Nordic nations have national conscription, a modern military, and in Finland's case, a track record of not so much bloodying Russia's nose in times of war, as biting its arm off and beating it on the head with the bloody stump. Before handing the arm back, apologising, and giving Russia an arm of its own to apologise for the audacity. Would NATO go to full blown war over Finland and/or Sweden? Also probably no, but its a bigger ask than Moldova would be, and a bigger gain in return. The damage it would do to Europe's northern economies would be crippling.
Thinking two steps ahead, the Moldova move is kind of the last push before you hit NATO, the Finland /Sweden move nicely isolates the Baltic states onto a geographical spur anchored at its base by the Poland/Lithuania border. This border only approx. 50km in length between Kaliningrad and Belarus has always been move number one by Russia in the case of a full on conflict. Go look on the map, you don't need to be a genius to see it's precarious as all hell.
Now are Russia gonna make this move first? No, it's a direct move against NATO. But if you've already got Scandinavia in your pocket, the Baltic states may naturally fall off into Putins lap.
So in short, IF the Ukraine falls their way, I believe there are two possible next steps, one easy, but unrewarding in Moldova/Transnistria, and the other Far more challenging and risky, but with far more potential reward, by going north through the forests of Finland.
Next to Ukraine is Moldova. Already harbouring a breakaway pro Russian state of Transnistria, not a NATO member, Moldovia would be an obvious target to bring another ex-USSR country back under the control of Moscow. Would NATO go to war over little Moldova? Very unlikely. But what practical benefit would it give Russia besides the prestige and additional breathing room?
If it's tactical gains you're after, I would look north. Finland shares a very long border with Russia, the longest after Ukraine at around 1300km. Finland, like Sweden is a NATO partner nation, but not a fully fledged member. Taking those two nations gives you access to the natural resources of the region including the same iron ore that Hitler wanted so badly 70-odd years ago. Most importantly it gives you control of the Baltic sea, so cutting off trade to Denmark, northern Poland, Holland and Germany. It enables you to connect with the Kaliningrad, the isolated Russian province and straddle both sides of the Baltic sea, and protect the approaches by sea towards St. Petersburg. It's a slam-dunk reward without directly attacking NATO, but still strangling the northern part of Europe. Both Nordic nations have national conscription, a modern military, and in Finland's case, a track record of not so much bloodying Russia's nose in times of war, as biting its arm off and beating it on the head with the bloody stump. Before handing the arm back, apologising, and giving Russia an arm of its own to apologise for the audacity. Would NATO go to full blown war over Finland and/or Sweden? Also probably no, but its a bigger ask than Moldova would be, and a bigger gain in return. The damage it would do to Europe's northern economies would be crippling.
Thinking two steps ahead, the Moldova move is kind of the last push before you hit NATO, the Finland /Sweden move nicely isolates the Baltic states onto a geographical spur anchored at its base by the Poland/Lithuania border. This border only approx. 50km in length between Kaliningrad and Belarus has always been move number one by Russia in the case of a full on conflict. Go look on the map, you don't need to be a genius to see it's precarious as all hell.
Now are Russia gonna make this move first? No, it's a direct move against NATO. But if you've already got Scandinavia in your pocket, the Baltic states may naturally fall off into Putins lap.
So in short, IF the Ukraine falls their way, I believe there are two possible next steps, one easy, but unrewarding in Moldova/Transnistria, and the other Far more challenging and risky, but with far more potential reward, by going north through the forests of Finland.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Was thinking - seemingly the Russian military is a bit of a joke - tanks getting stuck and disabled by 10mm spanners etc - 20 odd days in and they don't own the country, far from it.
The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
The Russians have a large, modern, military. But their large military isn't modern, and their modern military isn't large.The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should i have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
For instance, Russia's answer to the F-35 is the Su-57. Last number I can get is that they had all of 15 of them... 10 of which were test platforms.
The mainstay of their fighter fleet is 259 Mig-29s, with Su-30s, Su-35s, Su-34s, and Mig-31s thrown into the mix.
Meanwhile the UK has 29 F-35s in service, and 101 Eurofighter Typhoons.
Frankly, if Russia tried to gain air superiority over the UK, I think we'd absolutely wreck them alone, having the home advantage.
The US has 283 F-35As, 118 F-35Cs, 195 F22s (which are so good that they refuse to export them!), 234 F-15Cs, 218 F-15Es, nearly 1000 F-16s...
Outside of SAM range, there really is no competition between NATO and Russia. Frankly the US carrier fleet alone could probably control the skies, after a few theatre missile strikes to take out the SAMs. Meanwhile the russians have... one aircraft carrier. Currently in dock for maintenance.
Edited by Solocle on Wednesday 23 March 12:38
sugerbear said:
Given that Poland is part of Nato I suggest you spend all your money on coke and hookers this evening, because it wont be worth sh!t if that happens (which it wont).
A conventional non-nuclear war against Nato would see Russian forces destroyed and fighting on two fronts. I am sure Ukraine would welcome it as it would stretch Russia and deplete their weapons and supplies further.
And there is the rub, if he attacked a NATO country would Putin be able to keep it conventional when he starts to lose. At the end of the day, no matter how many conventional weapons a country has, its no protection against a few MIRV ICBM's.A conventional non-nuclear war against Nato would see Russian forces destroyed and fighting on two fronts. I am sure Ukraine would welcome it as it would stretch Russia and deplete their weapons and supplies further.
But I assume he knows he would lose and wouldn't dare attack NATO so that should be a moot point. Its Moldova that's next.
Finland is the more uncomfortable question.
Gary C said:
And there is the rub, if he attacked a NATO country would Putin be able to keep it conventional when he starts to lose.
But I assume he knows he would lose and wouldn't dare attack NATO so that should be a moot point. Its Moldova that's next.
Finland is the more uncomfortable question.
We wrote our messages within 5 mins of each other, are your points of Moldova and Finland based on my ramble or do you see it that way too?But I assume he knows he would lose and wouldn't dare attack NATO so that should be a moot point. Its Moldova that's next.
Finland is the more uncomfortable question.
Yeah, It's very uncomfortable for me, seeing as I type this sitting in Middle Finland. Russia had their tactics correct in the Winter War, in that they intended to simply run for Oulu, and cut the country in half. There's basically nothing civilization wise between the border and Oulu, (sorry Kajaani you're a charming place but you know it's true) and it would undoubtably make Finland fall. The only thing north of that line is the fighter base at Rovaniemi, and that wouldn't last long on it's own. Then you have direct access to Sweden either by the short trip through Kemi and Tornio, or over the Gulf of Bothnia.
ReverendCounter said:
Or it could be that Poland has announced it’s expelling a number of Russians suspected of spying (and a few Poles too). This includes embassy staff, so I suspect an element of ‘spring cleaning’ is being conducted ahead of their departure. Pixelpeep 135 said:
Was thinking - seemingly the Russian military is a bit of a joke - tanks getting stuck and disabled by 10mm spanners etc - 20 odd days in and they don't own the country, far from it.
The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should I have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
Russia getting into a fight with a NATO country is suicide, they will lose and lose badly. The only serious deterrent they have against NATO is nukes (something that should be taken very seriously)The military 'might' (other than volume) hasn't been what anyone was expecting.
What if Putin is using Ukraine to divert attention, and watch the west deplete their stocks of weapons by helping Ukraine, and saving his ultra modern kit and A list fighting forces for something else ?
Should I have a tin foil hat measured and made immediately?
This only leaves Finland, Belarus and Georgia that he could claim is a 'threat' to Russian borders in the same sense Ukraine is with attacking NATO. Belarus is effectively an extension of Moscow so unless something drastic happens and the government is overthrown then no need to do anything with Belarus. Not sure Finland has anything Russia would fight for and they tried it years ago and lost.
Georgia would offer more access to the Black Sea and a direct border with Turkey and their ally Armenia. Russia do not get on with Georgia but right now I would imagine Russia has lost too much in Ukraine to get involved anywhere else unless its missile attacks.
Jake899 said:
Gary C said:
And there is the rub, if he attacked a NATO country would Putin be able to keep it conventional when he starts to lose.
But I assume he knows he would lose and wouldn't dare attack NATO so that should be a moot point. Its Moldova that's next.
Finland is the more uncomfortable question.
We wrote our messages within 5 mins of each other, are your points of Moldova and Finland based on my ramble or do you see it that way too?But I assume he knows he would lose and wouldn't dare attack NATO so that should be a moot point. Its Moldova that's next.
Finland is the more uncomfortable question.
Yeah, It's very uncomfortable for me, seeing as I type this sitting in Middle Finland. Russia had their tactics correct in the Winter War, in that they intended to simply run for Oulu, and cut the country in half. There's basically nothing civilization wise between the border and Oulu, (sorry Kajaani you're a charming place but you know it's true) and it would undoubtably make Finland fall. The only thing north of that line is the fighter base at Rovaniemi, and that wouldn't last long on it's own. Then you have direct access to Sweden either by the short trip through Kemi and Tornio, or over the Gulf of Bothnia.
We don't really understand his objectives. I only know that when I worked briefly in Russia that the people have a strange opinion of him. A lot of the older people really feel they lost a lot of pride in their country when the Soviet Union collapsed and tacitly support Putin in his strong dealings with the west (and they know all about the Kremlin manipulating the supply of information, so its not as simple as saying they don't know what's happening).
It feels as if he wants to put Russia back to where the SU were on the world stage, (lets hope that doesn't include drawing the new iron curtain down through the middle of Germany !) and as such he want's control of a bigger sphere of influence.
Edited by Gary C on Wednesday 23 March 12:58
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff