Posted on 12/18/2022 3:44:16 PM PST by RomanSoldier19
” how NATO will defend itself against Russia, now that virtually all of its ground-based weapons have been disposed of in Ukraine.”
The exact opposite is the problem. NATO has only given Ukraine 40 year old Soviet cast-offs to fight with. The rest of the money has been embezzled.
If the money had been spent honestly and Ukraine would have Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, and F-16s and they would be in control of Rostov by now.
“The exact opposite is the problem. NATO has only given Ukraine 40 year old Soviet cast-offs to fight with. “
Yes and no. They have dumped their Soviet hardware, leaving those countries with nothing, since they didn’t bother updating. But we’ve also sent an s-load of front-line weapons including 155s, HIMARS, and now Patriots (plus European equivalents).
I guess we don’t want our Main Battle Tanks to also be destroyed, yet, so those may wait another month or two.
NATO is mostly gay, so there is that..............
Only idiots believe otherwise.
L
2014 CIA coup in Uk and bogus Minsk agreement. Got it, but of course you don’t.
-fJRoberts-
Dmitry Medvedev is now a legitimate target for assassination.
Could be.
Russia also could be.
Everything is possible, imagination (in this case - propaganda) is the only limit...
Poland is now (as I write) receiving Abrams and K2 tanks.
Poland provided most of the T-72 family vehicles to Ukraine, and it is receiving backfill.
I figure, based on open source, that NATO can provide 12-13 division-equivalents in Poland with three months notice. Three US, two French, one British, one German, one Spanish, four Polish and one everyone else. That would probably be doubled with six months notice. Maybe less time needed, as most Nato countries have taken steps to improve readiness.
These 12-13 divisions will have @1500 tanks.
Thats not counting Polish and Baltic territorial forces.
Add the combined air forces and existing air defense and strategic (but non-nuclear) missile forces and the Russians will be overpowered several times over. Whatever they have on the front will be fatally interdicted (no bridges anywhere for one), and they will have no functioning airbases west of the Urals.
Note that Nato doctrine rejects the protracted static bombardment tactics that both sides in this war have been forced into by the unique circumstances of the weaknesses of both sides - the Russian inability to conduct effective SEAD and incompetent ground force performance, as in the utter inability to conduct operational maneuver, and the general Ukrainian lack of weapons. Nato will not suffer these weaknesses.
So ask yourself why NATO hasn’t started bombing Russia. After all, you guys are SALIVATING for it.
I sense a real FEAR of NATO having to fight a REAL WAR, rather than bombing the crap out Serbia for the hell of it.
And I want to know who is manning those Patriot batteries.
Nobody wants a “real war”. Whatever the balance of power, it would be massively costly and economically disruptive. If Russia (they would have to be utterly desperate, or complete idiots) forces war on Nato, then it is what it is, but otherwise it is best avoided. If Nato, the “west”, the Poles and Baltics, whomever, can win this way, its all to the good for everyone involved - not least to the Russians btw.
Nobody is “salivating” for such a war. Ok, there may be a few larping war freaks about but they arent making such decisions.
Serbia was run by idiots. They thought they could keep the old gang together by force, out of what seems to have been a spate of nationalist hysteria. This tends to leave people with an inability to listen to the other side - or sides. A rational Serbia would have negotiated a peaceful breakup, not attempted a quixotic series of reconquests.
“Nobody is “salivating” for such a war.”
Read up a bit on the Neocons, they brought their Old World hatreds to the US, and for them, it’s time for REVENGE, and if it has to take down the civilization, so be it.
“Ok, there may be a few larping war freaks about but they arent making such decisions.”
Thanks for acknowledging their existence. If they weren’t in such powerful positions (think Victoria Neuland), the world would be a FAR SAFER place.
And here is the Russian dilemma, if it cannot overcome Ukraine, can it against all of Europe and others?
Well, I guess that means nukes.
-fJRoberts-
Nato is an “existential threat” only to the idea of the old Russian empire. That is and always was an illegitimate desire. The current idea of political legitimacy comes from the popular will - “vox populi, vox dei”. After the demise of all the legitimate monarchs that is what we moderns have settled on. If the Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians dont want a Russian empire, then they shouldnt have to settle for one, and if they want to band together to save themselves from an Imperialist Russia, then that also is legitimate.
Russia should abandon the idea of conquering unwilling peoples.
“Neocons” have always been a fantasy creation. First by the left, when it objected to any resistance to the Soviet Union. Then by some parts of the right - copying such wonderful models, most of which were Soviet-supported “agents of influence”.
Note that I have been following all this since the 1970s. I am glad the “neocons” won, btw. I am glad that Europe isnt communist.
Some “neocons” - Malcolm Muggeridge, Robert Conquest, Roger Scruton, Maggie Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Claude Levi-Strauss, etc. As opposed to, of course, the old school legitimist “paleocons”. These were the “vox populi” people. These are not the people referred to in US political bickering, but those who actually mattered. The world does not march according to narrow US definitions.
Only if the Russians are absolutely bonkers. They have always had the option of being bonkers of course.
All the Russians have to do is withraw. War is over and all open issues can be settled by negotiation. Russia has lots of assets (that it has been grossly misusing) that should leave it in a good economic state.
“Neocons” have always been a fantasy creation.”
As much as the German Nazis in the 1930s. There’s plenty of documentation on them, by name.
“I am glad the “neocons” won, btw. I am glad that Europe isnt communist.”
Same here - always wanted the Soviets defeated, and supported the US around the world (including Vietnam and El Salvador), until we started lighting off wars in what was Yugoslavia.
The problem that I have with EVERY WAR starting with Yugoslavia is that no one seems to provide a reason why we need to bomb the crap out of these countries (or ignite wars, as in Ukraine), particularly when we choose the wrong side.
“Some “neocons”...”
Strange bunch you mention. Can’t say that I give a damn about people that I never heard of, other than Soviet-lover Robert Conquest.
Today’s Neocons start with Neuland, Eye Patch McCain, the late McCain, Linda, and many more that are either driving our WW3 policy or supporting it, without explaining why it’s in our interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.