War on Our Doorstep: How do we respond?

[pete75]

At some point the EU will really wake up and get real. You don’t need a PhD to understand that should Russia win in Ukraine then the tanks will roll further west, the unthinkable and the unimaginable will happen. Poland will fall and Germany will, at least in part, follow. Putin will want to re-establish the Soviet block and he - unlike us - won’t give a fig about civilian casualties, etc. NATO boundaries will be breached but a USA with, too potentially, Trump in charge won’t get their act together.

Like China, Russia has very successfully exploited soft power and China’s interest is in involving the USA and NATO elsewhere such that it can do as it wants. Whoever managed to get Trump in power in the first place must be very pleased with the results …

Paranoia in the extreme. Russia will not pick a war with NATO.

Particularly given their (Russia's) performance against Ukraine. Russia (or rather Putin) expected a "walk-over" and he's still struggling. My personal (and claiming absolutely NO expertise) is that if Russia/Putin should win (big "if") and if Putin has wider ambitions (into NATO countries) then he'll need a long time to re-arm, develop better weapons, etc. e.g. I understand NATO tanks have a longer range than Russian tanks so they could sit out of range of Russian forces and just pummel them - so Putin would have to completely rebuild all his tanks and use different ammunition ....

(But just personal opinion without expertise).

Ian

The Russian army's performance has been very poor in the Ukraine, almost as bad as when Germany invaded in 1941. Back then they were facing what was at the time the finest and best led army in the world. In the Ukraine they're facing a fourth rate army.

[UpWrong]

And it won't end there. If the Ukrainians win there'll likely be extreme measures against the ethnic Russian population of the country. Russia would be in no position to stop it and the Russia hating nations of the west will cheer it on and even give them the weapons to do it. Then when Russia regroups,re-equips and rethinks they'll want to punish the Ukrainians,so it'll start all over again.

That won't be allowed to happen because a Ukraine free of Russian forces will be awash with Western journalists poking cameras into every crevice. And Ukraine will be propped up by the USA, UK, France, Germany, Poland, etc, and very wary of any actions that might upset their benefactors. Having the image of the underdog being threatened by the barbarians will be essential to Ukraine's survival. Allowing a pogrom to happen would be something that would weaken the government in Kiev, and they will know that.

As I said , the Russian hating countries of the west will cheer it on and likely give them the weapons to do it.

"Russia hating countries"? Really? I've not met anyone in the UK who hates Russia. We are sophisticated enough to distinguish between a people and the actions of its leaders. We are not a country of racists.

[pete75]

That won't be allowed to happen because a Ukraine free of Russian forces will be awash with Western journalists poking cameras into every crevice. And Ukraine will be propped up by the USA, UK, France, Germany, Poland, etc, and very wary of any actions that might upset their benefactors. Having the image of the underdog being threatened by the barbarians will be essential to Ukraine's survival. Allowing a pogrom to happen would be something that would weaken the government in Kiev, and they will know that.

As I said , the Russian hating countries of the west will cheer it on and likely give them the weapons to do it.

"Russia hating countries"? Really? I've not met anyone in the UK who hates Russia. We are sophisticated enough to distinguish between a people and the actions of its leaders. We are not a country of racists.

A large proportion of the country is racist, many of the the "I'm not racist but variety". If Britain is a sophisticated nation please explain why the Daily Mail and the Sun are the two biggest selling newspapers and why the ruling political party has Lee Anderson as deputy chairman.

[Psamathe]

One of the few good things to come out of this is the revelation of just how rubbish Russia is at fighting a land war these days. We and they now know that their only real threat to NATO countries now is their nuclear arsenal. If it still works. :lol:

... Countries like India and Pakistan, which have large numbers of T-72 and T-90 tanks, will have seen their massive limitations in the face of more modern weaponry now. Buyers will need to be convinced Russian equipment is up to the mark.

It's interesting how India is (and has) been trying to lower its dependence on Russian arms. But starting from such a massive dependence it will take them a fair time but there are clear moved to more western arms and more domestic manufacture e.g. T-90s are now manufactured in India. India has test flown its own designed and built HAL Tejas fighter. In 2021 India imported more arms (by value) from France than from Russia. For the current financial year nearly 70% of the Indian capital procurement budget is allocated to domestic production.

Russian MiG21's have a terrible reputation in India where they have become known as "flying coffins'".

It's a trend likely to accelerate as e.g. March this year tRussia has failed to deliver a major delivery of arms orders to the Indian Air Force (due to Russia's domestic requirements for its war). The failed deliver includes the S-400 air defence systems India ordered. And one assumes that if India is not getting its deliveries other countries are suffering the same issues.

Ian

[pete75]

One of the few good things to come out of this is the revelation of just how rubbish Russia is at fighting a land war these days. We and they now know that their only real threat to NATO countries now is their nuclear arsenal. If it still works.

... Countries like India and Pakistan, which have large numbers of T-72 and T-90 tanks, will have seen their massive limitations in the face of more modern weaponry now. Buyers will need to be convinced Russian equipment is up to the mark.

It's interesting how India is (and has) been trying to lower its dependence on Russian arms. But starting from such a massive dependence it will take them a fair time but there are clear moved to more western arms and more domestic manufacture e.g. T-90s are now manufactured in India. India has test flown its own designed and built HAL Tejas fighter. In 2021 India imported more arms (by value) from France than from Russia. For the current financial year nearly 70% of the Indian capital procurement budget is allocated to domestic production.

Russian MiG21's have a terrible reputation in India where they have become known as "flying coffins'".

It's a trend likely to accelerate as e.g. March this year tRussia has failed to deliver a major delivery of arms orders to the Indian Air Force (due to Russia's domestic requirements for its war). The failed deliver includes the S-400 air defence systems India ordered. And one assumes that if India is not getting its deliveries other countries are suffering the same issues.

Ian

India was pleased enough to have MIG 21s during the early seventies war with Pakistan. They trounced Pakistan's US supplied F104 Starfighters.

It seems fighter planes from that era had a fairly high non-combat loss rate. The MIG 21 was by no means the worst.

"Statistics can be presented in a number of ways, one being the loss rate per 100,000 flying hours. Using this measure, the Bulgarian MiG-19 rate was 100 aircraft lost per 100,000hrs, the F-104G was 139 aircraft, the RAF lost 41 Lightning aircraft and the MiG-21F in Soviet service was 30 aircraft. Between 1971 and 1975, the comparable rate for the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II F-4 in USAF service was 50 aircraft lost."

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you ... heres-why/

[Stevek76]

Most of the historic ussr stuff wasn't bad for it's time.

However years of extensive corruption have meant that old arms are badly maintained and new arms are poorly made.

And don’t for one moment think that Russia will not use Nuclear weapons

Then why haven't they used them already? At any rate there is little point considering that possiblity, if Russia used a nuclear weapon in a nato member then the likely outcome is we all lose nothing much any of us can do about that scenario.

Had the Ukraine been a walk over for Russia then it remains to be seen what he would have done next - I think that Putin would have tried his luck - and it also remains to be seen how capable NATO forces would have been in practise.

Except Ukraine wasn't a walkover which is entirely the point. Most of us dramatically overestimated Russia's capability. Knowing what we know now however, had Russia invaded one of the Baltic States (far more likely as an ex part of the Russian empire) it's fairly clear they'd have been thoroughly routed. There is evidence from the low level assistance being provided to Ukraine how nato forces would have managed. The effects of their tactical and intelligence support is plain, same with the donated NLAW, javlins and himars. Relatively light arms that have made a huge difference.

The main reason everything has now ground to a mostly stalemate is that Russia has the edge over Ukraine in terms of artillery (both units and, critically, ammunition) and winter discourages quick movements. Ukraine has few options to deal with this as they have neither the longer range ground weapons nor modern jets to deal with the that artillery. None of that would apply if facing a nato force with cruise missiles, and capable 4.5 & 5th gen fighter jets.

The US and UK came out of Afghanistan ‘cause we couldn’t win, we effectively lost to people with third rate weapons.

You're comparing retaining power over a country with a large number of hostile inhabitants with defending an invasion. That's a very different and much harder operation. Russia would have likely found similar had they successfully taken Kyiv.

[briansnail]

We all love Ukraine.However the decisive factor will depend on Trump De Santis in 2024 who do not want to support Ukraine RE ARMS and People like Nikki Halley who do.Things like Boycotting companies who support Russian participation are not so VIP
*************************************
I ride Brompton and a 100% British Vintage

[pete75]

Most of the historic ussr stuff wasn't bad for it's time.

However years of extensive corruption have meant that old arms are badly maintained and new arms are poorly made.

And don’t for one moment think that Russia will not use Nuclear weapons

Then why haven't they used them already? At any rate there is little point considering that possiblity, if Russia used a nuclear weapon in a nato member then the likely outcome is we all lose nothing much any of us can do about that scenario.

Had the Ukraine been a walk over for Russia then it remains to be seen what he would have done next - I think that Putin would have tried his luck - and it also remains to be seen how capable NATO forces would have been in practise.

Except Ukraine wasn't a walkover which is entirely the point. Most of us dramatically overestimated Russia's capability. Knowing what we know now however, had Russia invaded one of the Baltic States (far more likely as an ex part of the Russian empire) it's fairly clear they'd have been thoroughly routed. There is evidence from the low level assistance being provided to Ukraine how nato forces would have managed. The effects of their tactical and intelligence support is plain, same with the donated NLAW, javlins and himars. Relatively light arms that have made a huge difference.

The main reason everything has now ground to a mostly stalemate is that Russia has the edge over Ukraine in terms of artillery (both units and, critically, ammunition) and winter discourages quick movements. Ukraine has few options to deal with this as they have neither the longer range ground weapons nor modern jets to deal with the that artillery. None of that would apply if facing a nato force with cruise missiles, and capable 4.5 & 5th gen fighter jets.

The US and UK came out of Afghanistan ‘cause we couldn’t win, we effectively lost to people with third rate weapons.

You're comparing retaining power over a country with a large number of hostile inhabitants with defending an invasion. That's a very different and much harder operation. Russia would have likely found similar had they successfully taken Kyiv.

It's a shame really that Russia has proved so powerless. It means the USA and NATO will be able to force their collective will on the world. Remember they've invaded more nations and killed more innocent people in the last 25 years than anyone else.

[UpWrong]

It's a shame really that Russia has proved so powerless. It means the USA and NATO will be able to force their collective will on the world. Remember they've invaded more nations and killed more innocent people in the last 25 years than anyone else.

I'm sure Putin now holds that record for the last 25 years. Looks like Putin is now slowly poisoning Navalny to death, and I expect killed Tatarsky. Putin has taken Russia back to the Stalinist era of a secret police state thriving on denunciations.

[Psamathe]

....
It's a shame really that Russia has proved so powerless. It means the USA and NATO will be able to force their collective will on the world. Remember they've invaded more nations and killed more innocent people in the last 25 years than anyone else.

Don't forget about China (who also have their own invasion plans).

Ian

[pete75]

....
It's a shame really that Russia has proved so powerless. It means the USA and NATO will be able to force their collective will on the world. Remember they've invaded more nations and killed more innocent people in the last 25 years than anyone else.

Don't forget about China (who also have their own invasion plans).

Ian

Taiwan you mean? Well it calls itself the Republic of China, so shouldn't have any objections to becoming part of China.

[pete75]

It's a shame really that Russia has proved so powerless. It means the USA and NATO will be able to force their collective will on the world. Remember they've invaded more nations and killed more innocent people in the last 25 years than anyone else.

I'm sure Putin now holds that record for the last 25 years. Looks like Putin is now slowly poisoning Navalny to death, and I expect killed Tatarsky. Putin has taken Russia back to the Stalinist era of a secret police state thriving on denunciations.

I doubt it. There are estimates of up to 600,000 deaths caused directly or indirectly by the UK/US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Estimates of deaths due to the Us/UK invasion of Afghanistan are almost 50,000 direct civilian deaths and over 400,000 indirectly caused by the invasion. Putin will have to go some to match those figures.

[Ben@Forest]

I doubt it. There are estimates of up to 600,000 deaths caused directly or indirectly by the UK/US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Estimates of deaths due to the Us/UK invasion of Afghanistan are almost 50,000 direct civilian deaths and over 400,000 indirectly caused by the invasion. Putin will have to go some to match those figures.

You are forgetting the Second Chechen War, by which time Putin was President. Estimates range from 50,000 to 250,000 civilians and 10,000 to 50,000 Russian servicemen killed.

Your estimate of 600,000 in the Iraq War is choosing a high figure - the Iraq Body Count put it at closer to 150,000. I imagine those higher estimates in the Chechen War are exaggerated too.

[Mike Sales]

Taiwan you mean? Well it calls itself the Republic of China, so shouldn't have any objections to becoming part of China.

But they do object, and who can blame them? I am aware of how the present arrangement came about.

[Stevek76]

Highest figure for Iraq is around 1m. These things tend to get quite tricky when dealing with indirect deaths and counterfactuals. Undoubtedly though NATO (mostly Bush & Blair) have a huge amount of blood on their hands

In can't find any as high as 400k for Afghanistan, 150-200k seems a more common number.

Chechnya can perhaps be argued as not an invasion, though yes Putin's tactic of levelling cities is barbaric. He can however pick up a fair few of Syria's 300-600k where he has been using the same tactic. Still I'd suggest the Bush/Blair combo still are in the overall lead though.

Taiwan you mean? Well it calls itself the Republic of China, so shouldn't have any objections to becoming part of China.

Republic of, not dictatorship of which I'd imagine is a key concern for its inhabitants. At any rate, they already consider themselves part of China, they just disagree over who's in charge.

If there's perhaps one trend here then it's that it's the less democratic states that seem to like to do warmongering (i do not consider UK/US to be particularly democratic for clarity)