Dinar Posted January 29 Posted January 29 31 minutes ago, Libs said: So there's been talk of Russia taking on NATO, which on the surface sounds preposterous, just given the overwhelming power of NATO forces relative to Russia. But what if, instead of taking on all of NATO, they nibbled at the corners, so to speak, in a such a way that the NATO members say to themselves: "I'm not risking our soldiers / WW3 breaking out by fighting for X." In other words, the plan is to destroy NATO by exposing it as toothless. Then, over time, Russia starts to take the smaller / weaker countries. This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power? What do you guys think? This guy doesn't know his history. Last time USSR attacked Finland, it was clobbered. Finns will give the Russian army a bloody nose. Post Ukraine invasion, Russia will not invade anyone - its army isn't capable of winning a war.
Blugolds Posted January 29 Posted January 29 14 minutes ago, Dinar said: This guy doesn't know his history. Last time USSR attacked Finland, it was clobbered. Finns will give the Russian army a bloody nose. Post Ukraine invasion, Russia will not invade anyone - its army isn't capable of winning a war. LOL was thinking the same thing...the Fins resistance to USSR is what legends are made of.
Libs Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Fair enough about the Fins. But there must be other places they could try this approach.
Pelagic Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Estonia and Latvia are aware of the risk of limited incursions by Russia and the possible lack of political will to repel what to other NATO members is a relatively minor territorial loss. To that end, they're building fortifications right on their borders with Russia ready to defend every inch of territory, rather than employing a Cold War era defense in depth strategy. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/baltics-to-build-joint-fortifications-along-russian-belarus-borders https://www.politico.eu/article/latvia-lithuania-estonia-common-defense-zone-russia-border-security-concerns/
Spekulatius Posted January 30 Posted January 30 5 hours ago, Dinar said: This guy doesn't know his history. Last time USSR attacked Finland, it was clobbered. Finns will give the Russian army a bloody nose. Post Ukraine invasion, Russia will not invade anyone - its army isn't capable of winning a war. Anders luck knows history very well. I watched some of the podcasts. What he describes is what’s called “Salami Taktik”. It means the aggressive power takes a bit (a slice of Salami so to speak ) and that watches what happens. If no credible counter, you take an other slice. Is it going to happen? Probably not. Would it be Putin’s playbook, if he were to start something? Absolutely.
Xerxes Posted January 30 Posted January 30 6 hours ago, Blugolds11 said: LOL was thinking the same thing...the Fins resistance to USSR is what legends are made of. legendary indeed. so was British betrayal of that heroic resistance against the Stalinist colossus, the moment Germany invaded the Soviet Union
ValueArb Posted January 30 Posted January 30 6 hours ago, Libs said: This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power? What do you guys think? Sisu might have something to say about that.
Xerxes Posted January 30 Posted January 30 6 hours ago, Libs said: So there's been talk of Russia taking on NATO, which on the surface sounds preposterous, just given the overwhelming power of NATO forces relative to Russia. But what if, instead of taking on all of NATO, they nibbled at the corners, so to speak, in a such a way that the NATO members say to themselves: "I'm not risking our soldiers / WW3 breaking out by fighting for X." In other words, the plan is to destroy NATO by exposing it as toothless. Then, over time, Russia starts to take the smaller / weaker countries. This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power? What do you guys think? Article 5 is only good if it is reinforced. Technically speaking interference in U.S. election could be an act of war, technically speaking foreign agents conducting assassination on Canadian soil targeting Canadian citizens could be an act of war. Both of which ought to trigger Article 5. So it comes down to interpretation, what is the right response etc. and even then NATO members need to decide to participate. If Turkey and Greece get into an armed conflict against each other, does that trigger Article 5 on both sides. The whole thing is a bit silly. So it comes down to signaling, first and foremost. I personally don’t Finland has anything to fear. And not because of Russian lack of capabilities. Ukraine is different.
beerbaron Posted January 30 Posted January 30 It's likely going to be the play for both Russia and China. Here is Xi and Putin OS. Let's call it Putin95 for the fun of it... LandGrab = 100 sq km WaitTime = 5Y While Military Action < Than Direct Bomb { Land Grab = Land Grab * 2 WaitTime=WaitTime / 2 Wait(WaitTime) }
changegonnacome Posted January 30 Author Posted January 30 17 hours ago, Dinar said: Post Ukraine invasion, Russia will not invade anyone - its army isn't capable of winning a war. For sure - there's a strange cognitive dissonance that some people have Re: Russia Some people hold the thought that Putin is an imperialist and Ukraine was Step 1 in a multi-step expansionist plan...when there is no evidence of either a military or standing army build up of a scale to support that thesis. Then the reality is that the Russian army in 2022 and even today - is relatively modest and incapable of anything beyond what is doing today.....occupying a tiny sliver on an 'edge out' basis from its own borders. Let's get real folks Russia entered Ukraine in 2022 with an army of no more than 190,000 men. Hitler built up the German war machine in plain sight under the guise of self-defence.....eventually sending nearly 2 million troops into Poland to invade, capture and occupy the country (a country half the size in land mass terms as Ukraine today). As @Dinar says - Russian military capabilities are all tied up now....because they are extremely limited in their scope.....that was true in 2022 and that is true today. The only thing that keeps Russia in the 'game' of great power politics are its resources (oil/gas) and its nuclear capability.
Xerxes Posted January 30 Posted January 30 3 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: For sure - there's a strange cognitive dissonance that some people have Re: Russia Some people hold the thought that Putin is an imperialist and Ukraine was Step 1 in a multi-step expansionist plan...when there is no evidence of either a military or standing army build up of a scale to support that thesis. Then the reality is that the Russian army in 2022 and even today - is relatively modest and incapable of anything beyond what is doing today.....occupying a tiny sliver on an 'edge out' basis from its own borders. Let's get real folks Russia entered Ukraine in 2022 with an army of no more than 190,000 men. Hitler built up the German war machine in plain sight under the guise of self-defence.....eventually sending nearly 2 million troops into Poland to invade, capture and occupy the country (a country half the size in land mass terms as Ukraine today). As @Dinar says - Russian military capabilities are all tied up now....because they are extremely limited in their scope.....that was true in 2022 and that is true today. The only thing that keeps Russia in the 'game' of great power politics are its resources (oil/gas) and its nuclear capability. we should not compare wars of 60 years ago to today’ realities. Hitler did not build the German war machine on its own. He inherited a highly industrial juggernaut of a nation steeped in military traditions. Hitler or not, the Prussian military caste would have had its revenge. It just got far worse than needs be with the madman at the helm. it is never all about the effectiveness. Those 190,000 troops occupy perhaps a fifth of Ukraine, but had an outsize role in reshaping the geopolitics for years to come, regardless of their effectiveness to take Kiev or not in early 2022. A lot of people on this board and Twitter enjoy making scorecard of things Russia lost by going in Ukraine in 2022. All of which are quantifiable and probably correct and accurate. But there is a key point. As that is a very Western point of view as to what is important. Geopolitics is not about running NPVs. The real question to ask is: Does Kremlin prefer its situation in 2024 or in pre-2022 era ? Understanding that Kremlin does not work for the Russian people. It never did in recent times.
cubsfan Posted January 30 Posted January 30 3 hours ago, Xerxes said: we should not compare wars of 60 years ago to today’ realities. Hitler did not build the German war machine on its own. He inherited a highly industrial juggernaut of a nation steeped in military traditions. Hitler or not, the Prussian military caste would have had its revenge. It just got far worse than needs be with the madman at the helm. it is never all about the effectiveness. Those 190,000 troops occupy perhaps a fifth of Ukraine, but had an outsize role in reshaping the geopolitics for years to come, regardless of their effectiveness to take Kiev or not in early 2022. A lot of people on this board and Twitter enjoy making scorecard of things Russia lost by going in Ukraine in 2022. All of which are quantifiable and probably correct and accurate. But there is a key point. As that is a very Western point of view as to what is important. Geopolitics is not about running NPVs. The real question to ask is: Does Kremlin prefer its situation in 2024 or in pre-2022 era ? Understanding that Kremlin does not work for the Russian people. It never did in recent times. Really, we should never forget Russia’s capacity to endure hardship. Russia lost 10 million soldiers in WWII. Displacing them from their current gains will be no picnic.
John Hjorth Posted February 7 Posted February 7 (edited) Swedish Prosecution Authority [February 7th 2024] : The prosecutor closes the Swedish investigation concerning gross sabotage against Nord Stream. Why did it take so long to come to the conclusion about lack of Swedish jurisidiction? It now on the shoulders of the Danish government, especially our Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Edited February 7 by John Hjorth
cubsfan Posted February 7 Posted February 7 This can't be good news for Ukraine. Replacing your top general and looking at a purge of your government when you are in the middle of a major war? Sounds like desperation and a soft coup in the making: https://visegradinsight.eu/if-zaluzny-is-out-who-could-become-ukraines-next-commander-in-chief/ It sounds like General Zaluzny is resisting the move and has not left his post?? Anyone know?
Xerxes Posted February 7 Posted February 7 The fracture has been months in the making. The article that the good general wrote on The Economist last year made the spat public. Looks like Zelenskyy is looking for his own version of Kietel and Jodl. The “yes men” High Command. In some ways the very nature of the spat reflect that the Ukrainian government is not any danger of being overrun and overthrown by Russian forces nor more Ukrainian territory is in danger of being overrun. Unity fractures and old politics surfaces when imminent danger is no longer there. Read: stalemate, however you define it.
cubsfan Posted February 7 Posted February 7 ^^^ Ok, got it. Agree on the stalemate. This article, if true, discusses the extreme popularity of the General among the armed forces and the population. And a larger purge of the government. So it may get rough. Notably - the admission of stalemate and manpower shortages are alarming from a government that would never accept the word stalemate. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-zelensky-zaluzhny-stalemate-b2490755.html “I mean a replacement of a series of state leaders, not just in a single sector like the military,” Mr Zelensky said." “Zaluzhny has his reputation as an iron general, the embodiment of the Ukrainian armed forces that saved this country against an enemy as fearsome as Russia. Zaluzhny personally has the support of 88 per cent of Ukrainians. 97 per cent of Ukrainians trust the armed forces under his command,” In December last year, Mr Zelensky claimed General Zaluzhny had requested the president mobilise an additional half a million Ukrainian civilians to counter Russia’s manpower advantage. Gen Zaluzhny denied that figure, but he has stated the need to mobilise more troops since.
ValueArb Posted February 7 Posted February 7 Did we lose the Korean war when Truman sacked MacArthur or the Civil War when Lincoln sacked McClellan? Civilian control of the military is a good thing, as long as his replacement is competent.
Xerxes Posted February 7 Posted February 7 I don’t know about US Civil War. Never read anything on it. But the counter example to Korea would be LBJ running the war from the White House and directing the bombing campaign in the North. While hampering Westermoreland, who operated in South Vietnam as his sandbox. The fear of the Red volunteers crossing into North Vietnam was real and influenced by MacArthur running wild and what happened on the Yalu river in the previous war. Nevermind that North Vietnamese were not North Korean and the former not exactly on the same page with Peking, neither historically nor ideologically. Yes civilian control of the military is a good thing. But when personal politics start to hamper national security that is a cause for concern. in my view, Ukraine will be going through Taiwanization stage (dictatorship, autocracy) before it become fully democratic. Everyone knows about Taiwan today but not the Taiwan from 60s and 70s. There was a prerequisite and price to pay.
ValueArb Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Russian “technology”, training and morale so terrible that one of its most advanced SAM installations can’t shoot down two Storm Shadows flying directly over it on their way to massively damage a key airfield.
cubsfan Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Well - looks like the good general is out - and a country wide purge is coming. Somebody definitely has Zelensky's ear - let's hope he's not micromanaging the war, like Uncle Adolf did against the Russians... The replaced general, did not sound like a boob, given his popularity among the armed forces and population. Hopefully, Zelensky is not looking for a scapegoat. Many of his comments in the article indicate: - The 2023 spring offensive was a failure (shocker) - Zelensky thinks he knows strategy better than the good general - A lack of capable manpower (that's alarming) - A wholesale change of the country's leadership is coming Sounds like desperation to me. We will know soon enough - if Zelensky, with no military training actually knows what he's doing. Good luck Ukraine! https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/02/08/new-approaches-new-strategies-are-needed-ukraines-sacks-head-of-armed-forces/
Xerxes Posted February 9 Posted February 9 That is quite a coup for Tucker ! Man the first half hour Putin is going over a 1,000 year history.
cubsfan Posted February 9 Posted February 9 More on Ukraine's manpower shortages : https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/ But because units lack troops, deployments get extended — or personnel intended for the rear get pressed into front-line duty despite being ill-prepared for it. Troops who are mentally and physically exhausted because of overwork sometimes can’t defend their posts, allowing Russia — with more manpower and ammunition — to advance.
ValueArb Posted February 9 Posted February 9 17 hours ago, Xerxes said: That is quite a coup for Tucker ! Man the first half hour Putin is going over a 1,000 year history. Tucker just let him spew his fabrications and historical lies without any pushback, like any good journalist would do;)
Xerxes Posted February 9 Posted February 9 29 minutes ago, ValueArb said: Tucker just let him spew his fabrications and historical lies without any pushback, like any good journalist would do;) Yeap Tucker is there for Tucker. Exclusive interview.
Xerxes Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) I listened to the full Tucker interview. Clearly Putin is talking to an American audience who will be voting in the next six months. For me the take away, is how cognitive and sharp he was given advanced age. Maybe he had too many espressos. He was in control and on the ball on his intended message. He gave a full 30 minutes of his version of Russian history, with names and years. Debate the content of his message but this is not the Putin of mid-2022 who was derailed, shocked and awed, Wagnored and who appeared pale. PS: I found it funny that although he was quoting dates from centuries ago on Russian history, when he was asked by Tucker what year was it that he met Bush in the US, he was like “check on-line I don’t remember” Edited February 12 by Xerxes Grammar
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now