Meanwhile back in Finland...

[Dick]

Turkey is no longer in the way: Stoltenberg will ask Finland and Sweden to join NATO tomorrow. So it begins.

Turkey was being ridiculous in blocking what can only be a big improvement in NATO capability on the alter of its own murderous campaign against Kurds. It could be argued that it is Turkey that is an unsuitable member of both Europe and NATO. Some might say "what took Finland & Sweden so long" as it demonstrates just how diametrically wrong a policy can be. But hindsight is perfect I suppose.

But I want to talk about something else, and this may be as good a place as any. The Swiss defence policy is well known. Finland's seems to be similar "hope for the best but prepare for the worst." Very sound in my humble opinion, indeed it seems that Finland's military is stronger than Russia's. But Switzerland and Finland seem to be the only European countries that are adequately prepared. At the beginning of the Ukraine thread, when all opinion seemed to expect the Russians to win quickly, I asked whether 200 000 troops could conquer 44 million people if a significant percentage of that 44 million resisted. I have always been cautious in such discussion because I have no military experience and am careful about formulating my opinions from such limited knowledge. But thus far it seems that I was more right than wrong. But I'm very worried about what looks like the US and Europe keeping Ukraine on a leash by providing enough weapons to let them hold the Russians at bay but not enough to let them win. It seems to be common cause that Ukraine's big disadvantage is artillery, and that the only way to prevail over the Russians is to supply missile artillery. But a US commentator pointed out that the US will provide four batteries and a European country (forget which) another three. He said that's a drop in the bucket, that the US has 400 of which some are in storage. He said that they should have provided at least 100.

Which is sort of tied to Europe and NATO capability. The chief of the British army has just said that it must prepare for deployment in Europe. We could say, couldn't we, that it has always been prepared what with the cold war and all, but I suppose he meant that Russia has not been thought a big threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that that threat has returned in spades. But right now the British are contemplating a reduction of 10 000 of their already small army, and as far as I can see no European country has anything like the preparedness of Finland and Switzerland.

Which brings me to gun control. I don't want to make this a particular topic of this thread, but I haven't forgotten that on 25th February the Ukraine government offered rifles to all who would fight. That's how a lot of people ended up fighting never having fired a weapon. It could therefore be argued that it was in Ukraine's interest that more citizens should be more familiar. There is of course more to military service than familiarity with firearms, but the point is clear.

There's also the matter of cost - the military is expensive and that cost has for decades been strongly resisted by civil society in the UK and no doubt many other countries. How to square that circle? How does Finland do it? From my position of inexperience three things strike me :

1. The citizens of European countries will have to accept significantly higher defence expenditure

2. The numbers of trained or partially trained personnel will be too expensive to be part of a standing army, so it will have to be a reserve force.

3. It makes no sense to restrict familiarity with firearms to the permanent military or official reserve. What's needed is familiarity by much bigger numbers. History shows that shooting is popular where it is not politically restricted. Therefore, the freedom to own firearms without political restrictions will be an indispensable resource. I'd go further and suggest that training of civilians in the use of bigger equipment is a good idea. I for example would love to learn how to fire artillery - I see it as a logical extension of rifle shooting, and that training however basic, would be useful in war. But whatever the details, it must surely mean the abandonment of the sort of firearm prohibition presently imposed in the UK. At the height of the cold way three senior military officers led by Admiral Hill-Norton proposed that rifle shooting should be encouraged because civilians in remote areas would be the only quick response to Spetnaz attacks on installations like dams. It was quickly squashed because police objected. So prohibitive gun control was more important than national defence.

Anyhow, guys, these are some of my thoughts, forgive me if they are a bit random, and for perhaps posting them in this thread. It is Finland's top quality preparedness and resolve that got me started, and I'd love to know how they do it.

[AK-Gunner]

Superb observations and excellent questions: I will answer them with the best of my ability after I have sobered up (yes, I'm drunk because I'm on a 12 hour readiness and felt like today is the day to desperately try to empty my stash of booze) and have long enough free time to try to give a thorough answer worth your questions


P.S. in my humble opinion this thread if any is the correct one for this particular discussion and as always even if it's 'my' thread everyone is welcome to give his/her view. Discuss even if I'm still on the low earth orbit inbound for a hangover from hell...

[Sean KZN]

Enjoy that stash of booze, it's the correct thing to do.

Also encouraging to hear Finland has a coherent energy plan. This is preferable to a fantasy plan, as some have, or no real plan, as we seem to have.

Minor question. If Finland were to have an electric vehicle rollout, how well would the batteries hold up in the cold months or would it not be a factor.

[A-R]

I am following all the discussions about the European military alliances and the Russian-Ukrainian issue etc with great interest.

What I see in all this is a build-up toward WW3. And WW3 will not likely have any winners...

[Sicario]

As an avid follower of this thread, and also as one who follows the current World Situation - I would like to weigh in with a slightly different perception...

Why the US/NATO could never win, and will never fight a war against Russia – [unless the EmpireAtAllCosts cult somehow seizes the reins of power, in which case it will become the biggest catastrophe in US military history, and likely result in a nuclear war] :

One of the most intriguing aspects of the unprecedented levels of propaganda beclouding the ongoing Ukraine War are the incessant claims, from the very beginning, of the alleged strategic, tactical, and logistical ineptitude of the Russian military..

The theme of the bumbling Russians was clearly preconceived and coordinated, and commenced in earnest within the first 24 hours of hostilities. It is also apparent, to some at least, that it has emanated almost exclusively from the CIA/MI6 analyst/think-tank misinformation complex.
CIA/MI6 fronts like Oryx, Bellingcat, and ISW have pumped out this narrative so relentlessly that it has now been ubiquitously enshrined as “received wisdom”, even to the point of entering into the body of assumptions embraced by many whom one expected to be more discerning.
It has given rise to countless evidence-free myths, from the Fake News downing of two IL-76 jumbo transports packed with Russian paratroopers, to hundreds of armoured vehicles allegedly abandoned for mechanical failure, lack of fuel, or other logistical failures.

One of the more inexplicable narratives included in this disinformation package has been the allegation that Russian troops are poorly trained conscripts, who are thrown into the meat grinder with antique weapons, little ammo, and so little food they are literally starving.
These tall tales are then woven back into the main strand of the narrative: the Russian army is a disorganized mob of demoralized “orcs” whose only real talent is plundering household appliances, raping young women, and randomly gunning down old folks on the streets. Attached to this constant refrain are repeated comparisons to the allegedly incomparable professionalism, organization, training, and weaponry of US/NATO forces. The implication is that any company of American soldiers would be a match for an entire battalion of Russians.

This unrelenting narrative must have as its aim the persuasion of the public and policy-makers in NATO countries that western militaries are so vastly superior to their Russian counterparts that no one should have reservations about making war against them. And thus we continue to hear calls for immediate NATO intervention into the war; the establishment of a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine, and “boots on the ground” to teach the presumptuous and inept third-world Russian army a lesson it will not soon forget.

Never mind the numerous reports from western mercenaries and foreign legion volunteers who managed to escape back to their home countries after brief and terrifying “tours of duty” in Ukraine, all of whom relate similar accounts. They talk about encountering overwhelming firepower for the first time in their military careers, and they soberly warn anyone else thinking of embarking on a “safari” to kill Russians that it was “nothing like Iraq” and that “they feel very lucky to have made it out alive”. Never mind also the fact that, there are few if any conscripts among the Russian forces in Ukraine, and few if any reports in Russian independent media sources of demoralized, under-supplied Russian battalions in any theatre of the war.

Quite to the contrary, every indication suggests that Russian morale is sky high, both among the soldiers doing the fighting and the Russian public at home.

To be fair, there have been Russian casualties: best estimates are ~5000 RF and ~8000 DPR/LPR KIAs.
These numbers pale in comparison to the western propaganda mill fantasies of ~100k total Russian casualties, including 35k – 50k KIAs, which, were it true, would be unmistakably reflected both in the morale of the army itself and the public at home – and it clearly is not. Nor is any of this manufactured narrative consistent with constant Ukrainian appeals for massive replenishment of lost heavy weaponry, and repeated mobilization of territorial guard troops and expansion of the conscript window to include 18 – 60 year-olds and even women.

On the other side, Russian troops rotate out and back in to the battlefield, rested and refitted. Russia has not ordered a general mobilization, and has about the same number of soldiers in the theatre that they started with (175k – 200k).
So I leave it to you to judge the facts of the matter in terms of Russian military ineptitude and massive logistical failures.

And with that preface, let us turn to the primary question: could NATO fight and win a war against the Russians on this same battlefield?
The answer is an emphatic NO, and for three distinct but equally disqualifying reasons:

1) There is zero evidence that NATO soldiers are superior to Russians.

2) Sufficient NATO forces could NEVER be assembled and equipped to defeat the Russians in their own backyard.

3) Even the attempt to concentrate sufficient US forces in the region to take on the Russians would result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and rapidly accelerate the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world.


As to point #1 above, it bears repeating what have been argued multiple times in recent weeks: this war has seen the Russian military quickly evolve into a battle-hardened and surprisingly nimble and quick-to-adapt fighting force. The US has not faced such a force since WW2. Many believe the US is a “battle-hardened” force. This is utter nonsense. Of the many thousands of troops in current US combat units, only a minute fraction has experienced ANY battle, and NONE have experienced high-intensity conflict such as is taking place in Ukraine.

I submit that one of the inadvertent and unforeseen byproducts of this war is that, even as the NATO-trained and equipped Ukrainian army has been devastated, the Russian army has been transformed into the single most experienced army on the planet.

Needless to say, this is NOT what US/NATO strategists intended to achieve. But it does explain why we now see them doubling-down on efforts to prolong this war – both in the hope of eroding Russian capabilities, and to buy time for themselves to determine what to do next.

Reality is that if NATO had to go to war today against Russia, and all their troops and equipment could be somehow magically teleported to the battlefield, they simply could not sustain high-intensity conflict for more than about a month.

The dim-witted will undoubtedly reply: “But muh awesome American air power would destroy them from the sky.” The average Call of Duty warrior believes such nonsense, but very few in the Pentagon harbor such delusions.

To the contrary, Russian best-in-class air defences would savage attempted US/NATO airstrikes. It would be a massacre, the results of which after even the first 48 hours would see wiser heads calling for an immediate ceasefire. Not only that, but even attempted NATO airstrikes against Russia would result in a massive series of counterstrikes against NATO bases and warships at distances never seen in previous wars. It would be a no-holds-barred affair.

Staging areas in Poland and Romania would be hit hardest, but strikes would almost certainly range over all of Europe and the Mediterranean. Russian missiles and submarines would sink several ships within hours, including, almost certainly, a US carrier.

This, of course, is the nightmare scenario – one which very conceivably risks an escalation to nuclear war.

But it also assumes that Russia would stand idly by as NATO concentrated forces in the region sufficient to launch a war.

The Russians would Not just sit back and watch the US/NATO methodically conduct a Desert Storm-style Military build-up over the course of a year (or more) – which is how long it would take to assemble a force large enough to launch a war against Russia.
Just as they pre-empted Ukrainian designs to retake the Donbass and Crimea, they would likewise strike NATO forces long before they reached a level of strength sufficient to conduct operations against Russia.

One final observation on this whole notion of the US/NATO making war against Russia:
People fail to consider the fact that US forces are dispersed all around the world, in over 800 foreign bases of varying sizes and strategic importance.

In other words, most fail to appreciate the fact that US military might is highly diluted, and the only way to possibly concentrate a force sufficient to take on the Russians would be to literally evacuate almost every significant US base on the planet.

Japan, Korea, Guam, Syria, Africa, Turkey, etc. A massive power vacuum would be created all around the world, and would constitute an irresistible temptation for “hostile powers” to exploit.

And that would spell the end of the American global empire and hegemony...

[AK-Gunner]

As an avid follower of this thread, and also as one who follows the current World Situation - I would like to weigh in with a slightly different perception....

Thank you for your input, but it is in a wrong thread. There is already one for you here:

https://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/sho...33#post1465433

Thank you in advance

[Sicario]

Well noted..

[krieger]

so sicario can copy paste others work without attribution and claim it as his own work.

it is Will Schryver's twitter post.

[McD2304]

so sicario can copy paste others work without attribution and claim it as his own work.

it is Will Schryver's twitter post.

wondered about that..

[krieger]

OSINT tools are magic.