All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Yea missing lot of crew the whole incident is bizarre why go thru such extent to hide casualty, it has been noted the total crew is much bigger than 500.
With only 500 on active deployment and additional sailors used for the rotation. Some of these in video could be part of that replacement unit even if that’s not the case looks to be around only 200 in video, so a lot missing. Already few sailors have been announced dead locally, similar to Saratov that may be only way to get some count.
Cyrano wrote:Briefing by Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov as of 7 p.m. on April 16, 2022 on the progress of the special operation in Ukraine
As a result of the strikes, more than 320 Ukrainian servicemen were killed and wounded, 23 armored vehicles and seven vehicles of various purposes were destroyed.
A total of 134 aircraft, 460 unmanned aerial vehicles, 246 surface-to-air missile systems, 2,269 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 252 multiple rocket launchers, 987 field artillery guns and mortars, and 2,158 special military vehicles have been destroyed since the start of the special military operation.
I am very sceptical of any country that reports enemy loss figures (which are a lot harder to obtain), and not their own.
If Russia says Ukraine has 23367 irrecoverable casualties, to me it means Russian casualties are higher, since they are the attacking side and so
far there haven't bene large no's of POW's (apart from 1500 odd at Mariupol) to increase Ukrainian losses.
The total of Ukrainian aircraft, UAVs tanks & MLRS claimed as losses are more than the operational number Ukraine had at the start of the war.
The author teaches at the US Naval war college and does simulation for the DoD. Not as biased as mainstream media.
The article summarises the demographic and recruitment hellhole that Russia is in and consequently why things have gone wrong.
This analysis may very well be true, but its surely not the full picture of this conflict.
From what I've seen, Russian Army troops seem to be focused on overall battle management, planning and execution of specific battles at each contact point with the enemy. The RA troops operate artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles and heavy equipment. For supporting infantry roles, they have augmented their own troops with militias from DLR and DPR. These militias have been fighting UkrA for many years now, and have hundreds of Russian speaking soldiers who defected from UkrA over the years. They bring good understanding of the enemy's tactics, equipment capabilities and terrain. They may also be helping in auxiliary support work like one field repair and maintenance, evac, logistics, taking charge of PoWs until they are handed over to Russian PoW camps, helping local civilians etc. There is ample evidence of this with videos etc. Overall, there could be a couple of tens of thousands of non-novice hands helping RuA in Donetsk. They may be also doing reconnaissance, opportunistic ambushes etc in Donbass to tease out the massed UkrA troops - while RuA keeps softening them with air strikes and artillery.
On the Mauripol front, thousands of Chechen fighters have been leading the assault in urban combats, supported by RuA regular tanks, IFVs and artillery. They also lead search and destroy operations on Azov and mercenary groups that have holed out there, its looks that the mop up is nearly done except those still stuck underground in Azovstahl factory innards.
I'd say, RuA seems to be clearly aware of where it has strong trained troops and focussed on those tasks which require expertise to operate and shares/delegates a lot of foot soldier grunt work to rebel militias and Chechen battalions. So far it looks like the approach is working.
Sinking of Moskva and attacks on fuel dumps in Russia are spectacular, but dont really change the ground war situation in Mariupol or Donbass.
Assuming the author's assessment that RuA is kind of rag-tag, a lot of its equipment was indeed destroyed in the first few weeks, one would have expected UkrA to make significant gains, there is zero evidence of that. Their medias are silent one this, which says a lot. They have taken some Ru Pows but no big numbers have been announced.
How long RuA can continue this grinding war of attrition is a big question. NATO is betting on it and stalled the negotiations from the Ukr side, hoping RuA will exhaust its men at a terrible cost to Ukraine, which they obviously dont care about.
As it funnels increasingly sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, US is also stepping up the sharing of actionable intelligence. This assumes greater significance, given Ukraine's claim that its missiles hit the Moskva, the Russian Black Sea fleet's flagship, resulting in its sinking.
The supply of heavier weaponry and more battlefield intelligence to Ukraine "marks a significant expansion of US involvement in the conflict," with the US emboldened by the belief that "Russia is less likely to retaliate against the West as the fight grinds on," according to @FT.
In fact, by providing detailed targeting data, the US is encouraging Ukrainian forces to go from defensive to offensive operations so as to recapture lost territories, including by targeting "Moscow’s military units in Russian-occupied Donbas and Crimea," according to @WSJ.
Cyrano wrote:This analysis may very well be true, but its surely not the full picture of this conflict.
How long RuA can continue this grinding war of attrition is a big question. NATO is betting on it and stalled the negotiations from the Ukr side, hoping RuA will exhaust its men at a terrible cost to Ukraine, which they obviously dont care about.
I think this is what it comes to. Which side can last longer.
Where I don't agree with the doom & gloom predictions for Russia, is that POW numbers seem to be low (relative to Ukraine claims). Russia has not called up reserves, or more conscripts (which they would have to do if the casualty numbers were anywhere close to what Ukraine says. Russia also does not seem about to collapse from sanctions (leading to popular revolt against Putin).
Ukraine's assumption is that if they beat off the attempted Russian encirclements in the Donbass, it will greatly strengthen their negotiating position and that their casualties have been a fraction of Russia's.
Russia assumes it will win the upcoming battle of the Donbass and that casualty rates are similar, with the Ukrainians weakening each day by attrition and attacks on fuel and oil dumps and infrastructure. The damage to the Ukrainian economy each day is higher than to Russia.
Cyrano wrote:
Assuming the author's assessment that RuA is kind of rag-tag, a lot of its equipment was indeed destroyed in the first few weeks, one would have expected UkrA to make significant gains, there is zero evidence of that. Their medias are silent one this, which says a lot. They have taken some Ru Pows but no big numbers have been announced.
Russian force are not rag tag, going into conflict it was widely expect Russian forces to be better trained army. Even now Russian forces seem to hold up in spite of casualties they execute their orders and there is no mass surrender (see Iraqi army). Where they are lacking is poor tactics and overall lack of proper military strategy, former was seen even in Chechnya.
But when you rule the Air that can single handedly make up for shortcomings see Yemen, inspite of superior trained and motivated Houthi army. The southern coalition that is fighting each other, highly disorganized and outnumbered is still able to hold its lines primarily because of Saudi air power (RuAF is lot more competent that the latter).
Ukrainian strategy is full defensive posture hence you won’t see many breakout thru Russian lines (and so no large encirclement and POWs). This strategy is done to minimize casualties due to RuAF having strike capabilities but comes at the expense of lacking any offensive potency, interestingly inspite of that Russia has commited lot of forces to defense in the south. Current estimates for Ukr forces death toll are around 4k ( doesn’t include Mariupol) which is pretty low all things considered.
Cyrano wrote:If the bear is weak and tired, where is the threat to join NATO?!
If one was even remotely interested or cared about the Finnish and Swedish calculus here one would find their response as perfectly logical. They both have made a determination that strong bilateral military relationships (with several NATO countries) will not be sufficient in a future security environment (where Ukraine has been invaded and is facing a possible long term occupation of much of its territory) and that they must solidify these ties by formally joining NATO (and thus committing themselves to A5 obligations) given its an alliance of countries that both these nations enjoy excellent bi-lateral relationships with. Both Finland and Sweden have capable armed forces that punch well beyond their weight and will only add to the overall NATO defense capability and neither of these countries need a lead-time to integrate with NATO (they both use compatible systems and exercise frequently with NATO countries). Its a win-win for all parties concerned and a perfectly understandable inflection point for these two countries to do a break with their non NATO status and formally join an alliance that they've deliberately kept out of (not for being unable to join but as a matter of choice) for all this while.
If NATO corners Russia, it may very well pull the nuke trigger. Esp. Vs the Baltics. Doubt that NATO will retaliate. The swedes and finns are playing with fire.
Their calculus seems that sub nuke war vs Russia is possible ala Ukraine. But they don't realize that the Russians are quite restrained in the Ukraine as they consider it's people part of Russian/Slavic brotherhood. They might have no such compunctions vs Sweden or Finland. And they know that they can ensure that NATO doesn't win.
If Russia claims existential threat, which it has for the longest time, it cutoff justify a first strike. After all, when it comes to nukes, they are on par with NATO, and could be a bit ahead.
Folks might think that Ukraine is Russia's Pakistan, and the current "operation" Is a kind of balakote. But encroaching via the Baltics?
Last edited by Cain Marko on 17 Apr 2022 21:44, edited 1 time in total.
Cain Marko wrote:If NATO corners Russia, it may very well pull the nuke trigger. Esp. Vs the Baltics. Doubt that NATO will retaliate. The swedes and finns are playing with fire.
NATO has a strategic deterrent. It held up in the cold war and through the death of the Soviet Union. Its not like the alliance doesn't have that anymore. In the real-world, neither NATO, nor Russian decision makers will be stupid enough to consider upping the strategic calculus by using nukes on each other (no one wins that war and this calculus has not fundamentally changed since the cold-war). If Finland and Sweden decide to join NATO they will do it swiftly and will put their papers in the coming weeks. Since they don't need a lot of (if any) integration, their entry will be quick as well (unlike the lead time for baltic nations). Short of full fledged war on NATO (which Russia will not engage in despite the rhetoric of some here) there are no real good options for Russia to prevent this from happening short of declaring WW3 by using a nuclear weapon in Europe (which it won't). Both Finland, and Sweden have armed forces that are better trained, and equipped than Ukraine and these nations have a means to engage in an air and naval war unlike Ukraine that had a largely dated and one dimensional air-force giving relative air superiority over vast portions of its territory on day-1.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 21:54, edited 1 time in total.
Cain Marko wrote:If NATO corners Russia, it may very well pull the nuke trigger. Esp. Vs the Baltics. Doubt that NATO will retaliate. The swedes and finns are playing with fire.
NATO has a strategic deterrent. It held up in the cold war and through the death of the Soviet Union. Its not like the alliance doesn't have that anymore. In the real-world, neither NATO, nor Russian decision makers will be stupid enough to consider upping the strategic calculus by using nukes on each other.
sure NATO has a deterrent but what happens when the deterrent doesn't deter? That's a gamble and one that has not been tried. Will the Atlanticists risk their own annihilation for the sake of Sweden or Finland? They will have only one option... MAD.
You really start risking deterrent value if you push the enemy to the brink with no way out. the Russians will see it that way .. They have claimed this for ages. Now, They've been cornered, made into a pariah and squeezed economically.
What folks here are truly not getting is that deterrence loses value quickly when you push the limit. Can't expect sane behavior when the other guy is getting into an increasingly insane situation. This is messed up and a fools play. Esp. By the Scandinavians.
At that point the nuke option becomes very attractive:
1. It's Russia's chance to snatch victory out of jaws of defeat.
2. It puts Ukraine seriously out of contention.
3. Its a limited nuclear war... Does NATO want to go all the way? They have much to lose and worth saving.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 17 Apr 2022 22:01, edited 1 time in total.
What happens if Russia uses a tactical low yield nuke on a military target in Ukraine ? Then asks Ukraine to enter into serious negotiations.
NATO will most likely not hit Russia with a nuke, fearing a nuclear exchange.
Putin has in any case been declared a war criminal, guilty of genocide etc. All possible sanctions have been implemented. No further downside.
It might reduce casualties on both sides that will come from a longer conventional war.
brar_w wrote:
NATO has a strategic deterrent. It held up in the cold war and through the death of the Soviet Union. Its not like the alliance doesn't have that anymore.
And who will be the judge of that? This is obviously not a hypothetical as this is likely to play out in the coming weeks so we'll know if Russia nukes Finland if it puts in its papers or Sweden if they move first which could well be the case. I suppose if it doesn't then we'd have to assume that the deterrent did deter (or come up with a different excuse) just like it did during the cold-war when the pro SU voices were making the same argument
Deans wrote:What happens if Russia uses a tactical low yield nuke on a military target in Ukraine ? Then asks Ukraine to enter into serious negotiations.
NATO will most likely not hit Russia with a nuke, fearing a nuclear exchange.
Ukraine is not a NATO member so invoking A5 or responding in any shape or form is completely out of the question. That will not be the case if Putin turns out to be dumb enough to nuke Helsinki or Stockholm once they are accepted into the alliance as a means to punish them from joining a security alliance. Again, this is expected to play out in front of our eyes this Spring or summer so isn't something five years out. I believe Sweden and Finland have decided to put in their papers this May/June and they have public support in their respective countries (but this still has to happen so we will cross that bridge when we get there). None of the major NATO members seem to have any objections and given the lack of a need for integration their entry will be quite swift by historic NATO standards.
Cain Marko wrote:
At that point the nuke option becomes very attractive:
1. It's Russia's chance to snatch victory out of jaws of defeat.
2. It puts Ukraine seriously out of contention.
3. Its a limited nuclear war... Does NATO want to go all the way? They have much to lose and worth saving.
A strategic or non-strategic decision in the Ukraine invasion will have no bearing on NATO's direct involvement. The alliance has no grounds to invoke A5 in this situation. It is simply not an option given Ukraine's status.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 22:06, edited 4 times in total.
Deans wrote:What happens if Russia uses a tactical low yield nuke on a military target in Ukraine ? Then asks Ukraine to enter into serious negotiations.
NATO will most likely not hit Russia with a nuke, fearing a nuclear exchange.
Putin has in any case been declared a war criminal, guilty of genocide etc. All possible sanctions have been implemented. No further downside.
It might reduce casualties on both sides that will come from a longer conventional war.
Doubt that the current situation in Ukraine will trigger a nuke response, but the decision by the Scandinavians might change the equation.
Deans wrote:What happens if Russia uses a tactical low yield nuke on a military target in Ukraine ? Then asks Ukraine to enter into serious negotiations.
NATO will most likely not hit Russia with a nuke, fearing a nuclear exchange.
Ukraine is not a NATO member so invoking A5 or responding in any shape or form is completely out of the question. That will not be the case if Putin turns out to be dumb enough to nuke Helsinki or Stockholm once they are accepted into the alliance as a means to punish them from joining a security alliance. Again, this is expected to play out in front of our eyes this Spring or summer so isn't something five years out. I believe Sweden and Finland have decided to put in their papers this May/June and they have public support in their respective countries. None of the major NATO members seem to have any objections and given the lack of a need for integration their entry will be quite swift by historic NATO standards.
Why would he target a civilian center like Stockholm? it's not the swedes and finns don't have military targets.
brar_w wrote:
Ukraine is not a NATO member so invoking A5 or responding in any shape or form is completely out of the question. That will not be the case if Putin turns out to be dumb enough to nuke Helsinki or Stockholm once they are accepted into the alliance as a means to punish them from joining a security alliance. Again, this is expected to play out in front of our eyes this Spring or summer so isn't something five years out. I believe Sweden and Finland have decided to put in their papers this May/June and they have public support in their respective countries. None of the major NATO members seem to have any objections and given the lack of a need for integration their entry will be quite swift by historic NATO standards.
Why would he target a civilian center like Stockholm? it's not the swedes and finns don't have military targets.
Yeah extend that to that as well. To rephrase, we'll see if Russia nukes a military target in Finland or Sweden upon their declared intention to join NATO. If it doesn't then I suppose we'd have to assume that the deterrent deterred (or make up a new excuse).
Cain Marko wrote:
At that point the nuke option becomes very attractive:
1. It's Russia's chance to snatch victory out of jaws of defeat.
2. It puts Ukraine seriously out of contention.
3. Its a limited nuclear war... Does NATO want to go all the way? They have much to lose and worth saving.
A strategic or non-strategic decision in the Ukraine invasion will have no bearing on NATO's direct involvement. The alliance has no grounds to invoke A5 in this situation. It is simply not an option given Ukraine's status.
I was referring to a strike on the Baltics if they join NATO.
A strategic or non-strategic decision in the Ukraine invasion will have no bearing on NATO's direct involvement. The alliance has no grounds to invoke A5 in this situation. It is simply not an option given Ukraine's status.
I was referring to a strike on the Baltics if they join NATO.
Extend that to anywhere you like. "If Russia doesn't end up nuking (pick a map and drop a pin anywhere on NATO member territory you please) someone upon Finland and/or Sweden's acceptance into NATO then we could assume that NATO's deterrent deterred (or make a new excuse).
Deans wrote:What happens if Russia uses a tactical low yield nuke on a military target in Ukraine ? Then asks Ukraine to enter into serious negotiations.
NATO will most likely not hit Russia with a nuke, fearing a nuclear exchange. war.
This would be truly awful. It’s going to be a long 6 months where many things may happen, and the odds of a very bad outcome are rising, even if small.
Putin will need to encircle and cut off the Ukrainian positions which is not easy or storm them via frontal assault which is probably as hard. No easy options.
brar wrote:NATO has a strategic deterrent. It held up in the cold war and through the death of the Soviet Union. Its not like the alliance doesn't have that anymore.
Brarji both can play the same game. Russia can park its nuclear weapons in Cuba and other South American countries. Heck Russia can swipe out an island of UK and park their nukes there; or Poland. Will the US be silent when that occurs? Sweden, Finland are really playing with fire if they join Nato.
How much fuel is left with ukraine to continue the war? I'm assuming all large storages have been blown; no current production with refineries blown up. No supply from Russia. Fuel can only be coming from Europe but unlike concealing ammo - oil trucks are visible. I'm guessing that by supplying at night and in small convoys oil can be transported and then concealed in small storages. But that is very tough isnt it? This way cant scale well if you're to supply your vehicles constantly and deploy at distances. or evn fly helis.
brar wrote:NATO has a strategic deterrent. It held up in the cold war and through the death of the Soviet Union. Its not like the alliance doesn't have that anymore.
Brarji both can play the same game. Russia can park its nuclear weapons in Cuba and other South American countries. Heck Russia can swipe out an island of UK and park their nukes there; or Poland. Will the US be silent when that occurs? Sweden, Finland are really playing with fire if they join Nato.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Does Russia also not possess a nuclear deterrent? That's not what I am saying. In fact they have a very credible one that is taken very seriously in the US and NATO at large. Both sides are aware of each other's nuclear capability and these things are and have been (for decades) successful in preventing a nuclear exchange when the SU was still standing, and even beyond its collapse. So that is not what I am debating. I am arguing that the strategic thinkers and decision makers. in Russia would not be as naive as some here in thinking that NATO lacks a deterrent when their predecessors in Russia and the FSU knew of it and took it seriously (just like the other side took SU and take Russia's strategic forces seriously).
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 22:41, edited 1 time in total.
Basically Sweden and Finland are the new lemmings wanting to be the next expendables in America's obsession to destroy Russia and keep its MIC going...
ShivS wrote:Russia has ICBMs, boomers and nuclear torpedoes - they can have nukes 200 km from NY with no need of parking them in any country.
A country that joins NATO need not have nuclear arms located in it. Territory for closer location of nukes is 60s, not relevant now.
Precisely. Neither Sweden nor Finland will house nukes or even NATO troops. The current nuclear umbrella and sharing is enough to cover NATO's strategic posture without needing to grow that in any significant way.
bala wrote:
Brarji both can play the same game. Russia can park its nuclear weapons in Cuba and other South American countries. Heck Russia can swipe out an island of UK and park their nukes there; or Poland. Will the US be silent when that occurs? Sweden, Finland are really playing with fire if they join Nato.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Does Russia also not possess a nuclear deterrent? That's not what I am saying. In fact they have a very credible one that is taken very seriously in the US and NATO at large. Both sides are aware of each other's nuclear capability and these things are and have been (for decades) successful in preventing a nuclear exchange when the SU was still standing, and even beyond its collapse.
russian missiles are far better than their tanks or radar. thr nuclear arsenal n delivery r top notch.
brar_w wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at here. Does Russia also not possess a nuclear deterrent? That's not what I am saying. In fact they have a very credible one that is taken very seriously in the US and NATO at large. Both sides are aware of each other's nuclear capability and these things are and have been (for decades) successful in preventing a nuclear exchange when the SU was still standing, and even beyond its collapse.
russian missiles are far better than their tanks or radar. thr nuclear arsenal n delivery r top notch.
Building a straw-man here? Who here is claiming that they aren't or that Russian deterrent is not credible, or not being treated as credible? The argument is about Russia picking a NATO member and nuking it which would imply that NATO's deterrent has failed and that not happening would strongly imply that it hasn't. And the same applies to the absurd claim of Sweden / Finland etc being expendable because that assumes that these countries will be invaded like Ukraine and that this was all a grand conspiracy to get them to suffer on behalf of western NATO countries. As I've mentioned several times now, this isn't a hypothetical that is years or decades away. This will likely play out in front of our eyes in the May-July timeframe.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
ShivS wrote:A country that joins NATO need not have nuclear arms located in it. Territory for closer location of nukes is 60s, not relevant now.
ShivSji then what is point of joining NATO. I am a little confused. Location and reaction time are at stake. Parking subs of NY is limited in scope compared to a barrage from land based systems.
ShivS wrote:A country that joins NATO need not have nuclear arms located in it. Territory for closer location of nukes is 60s, not relevant now.
ShivSji then what is point of joining NATO. I am a little confused. Location and reaction time are at stake. Parking subs of NY is limited in scope compared to a barrage from land based systems.
If you think that having NATO nukes on your territory is the "point of joining NATO" then perhaps there's a problem with your understanding of NATO, and its strategic deterrent and how it is exercised. There are more NATO members that don't house nukes than those that do (about five nations at this time).
Parking subs of NY is limited in scope compared to a barrage from land based systems.
NATO has no land based nuclear delivery systems.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 23:02, edited 2 times in total.
One of the most important lessons of this war is that conventional superiority is a must for offensive out of country operations. Nuclear deterrence is a must for protection of the home country against offensive operations by adversaries. Frankly Russian conventional operations in Ukraine have been shambolic. 54 long days from the start of the invasion Russia is now in the final battle for Mariupol which is only 60 km from the Russian border, besides also having a 2nd front from the other side driving up the coast from Crimea, it gave up on Kharkiv which is just 35 km from the Russian border, not to mention the debacle in the north around Kyiv. By comparison the Indian Army took over Bangladesh, a country of 150,000 sq km and 55 million people in 14 days in 1971.
So long as NATO does not conduct offensive operations inside Russia, there will be no need for Russia to consider nuclear weapons even during the process of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Russia would of course prefer that the 2 countries not join NATO and hence the bellicose statements emanating from Moscow. NATO will be very cognizant of the fact that the sub par Russian conventional performance in Ukraine makes a Russian nuke option far more likely in the event of offensive NATO operations which result in an offensive into Russian territory specially given the relatively short distance from present NATO borders to Moscow.
Last edited by ldev on 17 Apr 2022 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
ShivSji then what is point of joining NATO. I am a little confused. Location and reaction time are at stake. Parking subs of NY is limited in scope compared to a barrage from land based systems.[/quote]
1. I am reminded of my age each day I shave - don’t add to that
2. It’s a defensive alliance which has a nuclear umbrella- all aspects of defence are covered.
3. Finland and Sweden are asking for membership and NATO is angry enough to say yes - not sure if this would have happened 2 years ago.
ShivS wrote:
3. Finland and Sweden are asking for membership and NATO is angry enough to say yes - not sure if this would have happened 2 years ago.
Neither Finland, nor Sweden would have been discussing NATO membership, or been weeks from putting in their official papers, even 3 months ago. Something must have happened that triggered this.
Manish_Sharma wrote:^sweden finland norway will be roadkill for Russia in case of nuclear war!
A war that neither side will win which is precisely what has prevented a nuclear exchange since the beginning of the cold-war when both acquired nuclear weapons. Unless NATO and its members unilaterally disarms their nuclear arsenal, the threat of Russia unilateral dropping a few nukes on NATO members new or old is simply not credible and making such a claim is very unlikely to deter either the people wanting to and their elected representatives in Finland or Sweden from submitting their NATO membership papers. It is simply not a credible threat to make a difference.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Apr 2022 23:19, edited 8 times in total.
Not all at once of course, an Iraq, Afghanistan (burp!), Ukraine sized conflict somewhere every few years will be quite nice, thank you. If it's not Finland next it can be Taiwan. Actually India would be great, but the buggers are a bit far away and have started developing a mind of their own... but we'll keep dangling the baits and lures, may be throw a stick o dynamite near by.... some day we'll reel them in.
ldev wrote:One of the most important lessons of this war is that conventional superiority is a must for offensive out of country operations. Nuclear deterrence is a must for protection of the home country against offensive operations by adversaries. Frankly Russian conventional operations in Ukraine have been shambolic. 54 long days from the start of the invasion Russia is now in the final battle for Mariupol which is only 60 km from the Russian border, besides also having a 2nd front from the other side driving up the coast from Crimea, it gave up on Kharkiv which is just 35 km from the Russian border, not to mention the debacle in the north around Kyiv. By comparison the Indian Army took over Bangladesh, a country of 150,000 sq km and 55 million people in 14 days in 1971.
So long as NATO does not conduct offensive operations inside Russia, there will be no need for Russia to consider nuclear weapons even during the process of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Russia would of course prefer that the 2 countries not join NATO and hence the bellicose statements emanating from Moscow. NATO will be very cognizant of the fact that the sub par Russian conventional performance in Ukraine makes a Russian nuke option far more likely in the event of offensive NATO operations which result in an offensive into Russian territory specially given the relatively short distance from present NATO borders to Moscow.
How long do you think the Bangladesh war would've lasted if NATO was allowed a free hand to interfere without Russian counter movements? Ukraine is much bigger, has a well prepped and dug in defensive position and the Russians are trying their darndest not to destroy civilian infra.
brar_w wrote:Neither Finland, nor Sweden would have been discussing NATO membership, or been weeks from putting in their official papers, even 3 months ago. Something must have happened that triggered this.
Maybe some intelligence chatter about Russian contingency plans for an invasion of Finland.....Norway cannot be protected if Finland and Sweden are occupied by Russia. But Finland and Sweden joining NATO will put Russia on a nuclear hair trigger alert. St. Petersberg, Russia's 2nd city is just 150 km from the Finnish border and Severomorsk near Murmansk where Russia's Northern Fleet is based is barely 100 km from the Swedish border
ldev wrote:One of the most important lessons of this war is that conventional superiority is a must for offensive out of country operations. Nuclear deterrence is a must for protection of the home country against offensive operations by adversaries. Frankly Russian conventional operations in Ukraine have been shambolic. 54 long days from the start of the invasion Russia is now in the final battle for Mariupol which is only 60 km from the Russian border, besides also having a 2nd front from the other side driving up the coast from Crimea, it gave up on Kharkiv which is just 35 km from the Russian border, not to mention the debacle in the north around Kyiv. By comparison the Indian Army took over Bangladesh, a country of 150,000 sq km and 55 million people in 14 days in 1971.
So long as NATO does not conduct offensive operations inside Russia, there will be no need for Russia to consider nuclear weapons even during the process of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Russia would of course prefer that the 2 countries not join NATO and hence the bellicose statements emanating from Moscow. NATO will be very cognizant of the fact that the sub par Russian conventional performance in Ukraine makes a Russian nuke option far more likely in the event of offensive NATO operations which result in an offensive into Russian territory specially given the relatively short distance from present NATO borders to Moscow.
How long do you think the Bangladesh war would've lasted if NATO was allowed a free hand to interfere without Russian counter movements? Ukraine is much bigger, has a well prepped and dug in defensive position and the Russians are trying their darndest not to destroy civilian infra.
Precisely my point. If Russia had indeed achieved it's military objective within 7 days NATO would not have had a chance to intervene and launch it's support operations. The fact that it could not amplify's my point about the inept Russian conduct of the war. That speed was a pre-requisite to conclude the operation before outside interference could happen was a lesson that India was very aware off and hence the speed with which East Pakistan was put down.
Cain Marko wrote:
I was referring to a strike on the Baltics if they join NATO.
Extend that to anywhere you like. "If Russia doesn't end up nuking (pick a map and drop a pin anywhere on NATO member territory you please) someone upon Finland and/or Sweden's acceptance into NATO then we could assume that NATO's deterrent deterred (or make a new excuse).
You may have a point. Let's hope Russia is no more than a Pakistan that keeps going on and on about it's nukes.
