11 ms·

Good points I hadn't thought of. "The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force." Proably with Ru

Good points I hadn't thought of. "The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force." Proably with Russian tanks in Poland. But I don't think Poland is in danger, Russia already got most of what it wanted during/after WW2 from Poland. The Baltic states in the current borders is something Russia doesn't want. "However, if it comes to that, I hope so." I hope so too, but I would bet on the other outcome.

gaius 9y ago
Proably with Russian tanks in Poland The Americans are not interested and the rest of NATO can't scrape together anything that could stop the Third Shock Army anymore. The UK can't even put a single armoured division into the field anymore. The NATO air patrol of the Baltic States isn't even a full fighter squadron. If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
- nl 9y ago
  The Americans are not interested ... If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. This is why the US has forces deployed in Poland and Estonia[1]. They are there to die, just like the US forces in Berlin were. In the cruel calculus of war these soldiers have to die to make sure US public opinion supports US intervention. I'm not sure, but I think NATO doctrine is sill to go tactical nuclear if the tanks roll. [1] https://www.army.mil/article/194380/ https://www.army.mil/article/194380/
  - gaius 9y ago
    The UK also has a battalion in Estonia - but the Russians can field as many tanks as the UK has individual soldiers there. They will be a "speed bump", nothing more.
    - arethuza 9y ago
      There is a novel by a former senior UK general and deputy NATO leader that covers this scenario: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-commander-s-new-book-predicts-invasion-of-baltic-as-putin-bids-to-make-russia-a-great-a7036911.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-c... Not a great novel but mildly interesting.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      Not a speed bump, a trip wire.
      - gaius 9y ago
        Triggering what? It's not like the UK has the capability - every "strategic defence review" is just cut, cut, cut. Challenger2, AS90, cut to the bone. Typhoon is barely capable of air-to-ground and the Tornado fleet is rapidly approaching end of life. The Type 45s fitted "for but not with" their major weapons. Carriers without anything to carry. NATO cannot defend the Baltic States, and if push comes to shove, it won't even try.
        nl 9y ago
        As far as I know the plan against a Russian tank rush now is the same as it was when it was the Fulda Gap[1] they were protecting: tactical nukes. And I think you underestimate NATO power and overestimate Russian. Russia does have a lot of tanks, but the vast majority of them are T-72s and older[2], which are sitting ducks for modern shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles. Despite that, they do have a lot of T-90s, which are a good tank. But the disparity isn't as high as a first glance makes it appear, and NATO does have better air forces (the F-16 isn't as obsolete as you seem to think). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap [2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-including-the-United-States https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-com...
        gaius 9y ago
  - jackaroe78 9y ago
    The NATO alliance isn't the US. Canada leads the battlegroup in Latvia, with contributions by Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Germany leads the battlegroup in Lithuania, with contributions by Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. The United Kingdom leads the battlegroup in Estonia, with contributions by France. The United States leads the battlegroup in Poland, with contributions by Romania and the UK.
    - nl 9y ago
      I think you are missing the point. The current US president has regularly made speeches which indicate his support for NATO is less than whole hearted. This discussion is about what would make sure the US did live up to their treaty obligations.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Maybe the the current state of NATO and Brexit will finally kick the EU into creating a military force.
- v_lisivka 9y ago
  > If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't. And solution is obvious: pay Ukraine for 1 thousand of tanks, out of 6 thousands they have in reserves, upgraded to latest tech: infrared optics, smart aim, built-in drone on wire, active defense, digital communication and control, etc. So NATO will have +1 thousand of high-tech tanks cheaply AND Ukraine will have +3 thousands of cheaper and less capable tanks, which is enough for defense (they still able to take out 2-3 Russian tanks when properly used in defense). Win-win for NATO and Ukraine. In case of emergency, these tanks can be sent by railroad to any post-Warsaw block country at eastern border of NATO - they already have experience with them.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Even if all those things could be retrofitted - and they probably can't be for less time or money than just restarting the CR2 production line - you still need to recruit and train the crews. It takes years to produce a good tanker, and more years to make a good tank commander. And you also need to recruit and train and equip all the supporting arms too - tanks need a lot of logistics, engineers, mechanics, and all the rest. And even then, pure tank units aren't very effective, you need to also build up infantry, artillery to build combined formations... that is why I say even with vast budgets, it will take a long time.
    - v_lisivka 9y ago
      Those things are already retrofitted. Ukraine already refurbishes old tanks and sells them to other countries, e.g. Thailand, under «Oplot» brand to fund line of 8x cheaper «Bulat» tanks for their own army. Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error. Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.

gaius 9y ago

Proably with Russian tanks in Poland The Americans are not interested and the rest of NATO can't scrape together anything that could stop the Third Shock Army anymore. The UK can't even put a single armoured division into the field anymore. The NATO air patrol of the Baltic States isn't even a full fighter squadron. If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.

nl 9y ago
The Americans are not interested ... If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. This is why the US has forces deployed in Poland and Estonia[1]. They are there to die, just like the US forces in Berlin were. In the cruel calculus of war these soldiers have to die to make sure US public opinion supports US intervention. I'm not sure, but I think NATO doctrine is sill to go tactical nuclear if the tanks roll. [1] https://www.army.mil/article/194380/ https://www.army.mil/article/194380/
- gaius 9y ago
  The UK also has a battalion in Estonia - but the Russians can field as many tanks as the UK has individual soldiers there. They will be a "speed bump", nothing more.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    There is a novel by a former senior UK general and deputy NATO leader that covers this scenario: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-commander-s-new-book-predicts-invasion-of-baltic-as-putin-bids-to-make-russia-a-great-a7036911.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-c... Not a great novel but mildly interesting.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    Not a speed bump, a trip wire.
    - gaius 9y ago
      Triggering what? It's not like the UK has the capability - every "strategic defence review" is just cut, cut, cut. Challenger2, AS90, cut to the bone. Typhoon is barely capable of air-to-ground and the Tornado fleet is rapidly approaching end of life. The Type 45s fitted "for but not with" their major weapons. Carriers without anything to carry. NATO cannot defend the Baltic States, and if push comes to shove, it won't even try.
      - nl 9y ago
        As far as I know the plan against a Russian tank rush now is the same as it was when it was the Fulda Gap[1] they were protecting: tactical nukes. And I think you underestimate NATO power and overestimate Russian. Russia does have a lot of tanks, but the vast majority of them are T-72s and older[2], which are sitting ducks for modern shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles. Despite that, they do have a lot of T-90s, which are a good tank. But the disparity isn't as high as a first glance makes it appear, and NATO does have better air forces (the F-16 isn't as obsolete as you seem to think). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap [2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-including-the-United-States https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-com...
        gaius 9y ago
- jackaroe78 9y ago
  The NATO alliance isn't the US. Canada leads the battlegroup in Latvia, with contributions by Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Germany leads the battlegroup in Lithuania, with contributions by Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. The United Kingdom leads the battlegroup in Estonia, with contributions by France. The United States leads the battlegroup in Poland, with contributions by Romania and the UK.
  - nl 9y ago
    I think you are missing the point. The current US president has regularly made speeches which indicate his support for NATO is less than whole hearted. This discussion is about what would make sure the US did live up to their treaty obligations.
icebraining 9y ago
Maybe the the current state of NATO and Brexit will finally kick the EU into creating a military force.
v_lisivka 9y ago
> If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't. And solution is obvious: pay Ukraine for 1 thousand of tanks, out of 6 thousands they have in reserves, upgraded to latest tech: infrared optics, smart aim, built-in drone on wire, active defense, digital communication and control, etc. So NATO will have +1 thousand of high-tech tanks cheaply AND Ukraine will have +3 thousands of cheaper and less capable tanks, which is enough for defense (they still able to take out 2-3 Russian tanks when properly used in defense). Win-win for NATO and Ukraine. In case of emergency, these tanks can be sent by railroad to any post-Warsaw block country at eastern border of NATO - they already have experience with them.
- gaius 9y ago
  Even if all those things could be retrofitted - and they probably can't be for less time or money than just restarting the CR2 production line - you still need to recruit and train the crews. It takes years to produce a good tanker, and more years to make a good tank commander. And you also need to recruit and train and equip all the supporting arms too - tanks need a lot of logistics, engineers, mechanics, and all the rest. And even then, pure tank units aren't very effective, you need to also build up infantry, artillery to build combined formations... that is why I say even with vast budgets, it will take a long time.
  - v_lisivka 9y ago
    Those things are already retrofitted. Ukraine already refurbishes old tanks and sells them to other countries, e.g. Thailand, under «Oplot» brand to fund line of 8x cheaper «Bulat» tanks for their own army. Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error. Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.