3 ms·
You make good points, but my point wasn't that Russia would use a beachhead in the arctic, but that it can use flight paths through the arctic to project power
by notepad0x90 9mo ago
You make good points, but my point wasn't that Russia would use a beachhead in the arctic, but that it can use flight paths through the arctic to project power in southern Canada. long-range missiles are one thing, but strategic long-range bombers with some in-flight refueling too. As far as an actual invading force, that I concede, they can't do that today, but who knows what they're planning, they have the manpower, the money and the lunacy to build up such a force. Their main advantage is the nuclear deterrent preventing others from invading them back. Canada has been left alone so far (by everyone hostile) because it has (had?) the US's protection, not because of it's fearsome military (although I know they're quite fierce on their own -- just not B52, nukes, ICBMs, aircraft carriers level fierce).
If I had to speculate, they won't try to take populated centers of Canada, but they might make claims to arctic resources and land, and just take it. Start bombing Toronto and Montreal if Canada fights back. They might even do it in the next few years if the US starts enough chaos elsewhere as a distraction. Once they take land, you're not getting it back, why? Back to my original point: They have nukes.
- orwin 9mo agoCanada is part of NATO, and if the VDV and the Spetnaz demonstration in Ukraine are any indication of the current level of Russian spec ops, any Nordic country, UK, France and Italy all have better trained arctic/Alpine forces than Russia. Individually.
- notepad0x90 9mo agoIf NATO survives, sure. And assuming they aren't busy with other distractions at home. The main thing that Russia has that none of the rest do (or so I hear, don't hold me to it), is icebreakers that are superior, and submarines that are also deployed all over the world, including arctic waters. The key thing is that Russia has some capability. Not superiority, but capability, that's all it takes to make war feasible. Having superior manpower or firepower doesn't guarantee victory, as you can see with Russia and Ukraine. Familiarity, homefield advantage, and political will are very important as well.
- orwin 9mo agoThey don't. Maybe icebreakers, although I seriously doubt that, but France naval capabilities are superior to Russia, without taking into account carriers and planes.