Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

CBC has an interesting analysis on NATOs current inability to dissuade Russia from acting aggressively.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine...utin-1.2589288



It's for all these reasons combined that I truly doubt that Russia's actions are based on a fear of the West, rather than just seeing an opportunity to make the West fear them. They have never been so secure and now would be the wrong time to rock the boat if they were actually afraid that the NATO could actually do something about it.

Well ya, I don't have the exact numbers but isn't Germany's military right now at 10% what they were allowed after the Versailles Treaty? It's hardly a police force compared to what Germany and Europe have historically had for military's since the Napoleonic ages.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

Well ya, I don't have the exact numbers but isn't Germany's military right now at 10% what they were allowed after the Versailles Treaty? It's hardly a police force compared to what Germany and Europe have historically had for military's since the Napoleonic ages.

They're still considered one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-mo...ld-2013-6?op=1

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

They're still considered one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-mo...ld-2013-6?op=1

Thanks for the link, I misremembered what I heard then, must have been their active military is only 10% larger than what the Versailles Treaty had them reduced to back after WW1. Still a good comparison, to see that what only 100 years ago was an insult to a country to restrict their military that immensely is now considered a top 10 military in the world at the same size.

[CaptainCrunch]

Nato lives and dies by fighting delayed actions if the hammer ever fell in the Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe until America re-enforces with air and land power.

Right now Germany has about 400 main battle tanks and about 4000 armored fighting vehicles, they have about 700 fighters and they are woefully short of artillary as they have under 200 heavy guns and about 250 MLRS. Its unlkely that Germany would commit all of those to the field.

France would probably be drawn into the fight as well, they have about 400 tanks and more AFV in the 7000 range, They have over 1000 fighters that they can commit, They're heavier on heavier artillary with about 900 guns but only have 60 MLRS systems

The other military that would heavily contribute would be the Brits with 400 tanks and 7000 AFV's as well as 900 aircraft and shy of 200 artillary pieces.

So I doubt that those forces would fully commit because that would be silly. But lets say that the Brits and French and Germans each put half of their tanks in the field at 600 and put half of their AFV in the field at about 9000, move their heavy artillary pieces into the field at 750 and move a bunch of their aircraft into the field at about 2000 (Doubtful but I'm just playing the game)

The Russian's who I would say have the initiative and the defensive positioning have about 15000 main battle tanks, 28,000 AFV, 14,000 artillary pieces in the heavy gun, self propelled and MLRS and 3082 fighters and bombers available that they can even strip from their secured Eastern and Southern and Northern Military groups to re-enforce.

They could leave a sizable reserve and still put several thousand tanks several thousand AFV/APC, several thousand Artillary pieces and a lot more fighters in the air. at any one time.

They would also be able to move a lot of men with rifles forward.

To be honest, America should have been re-enforcing NATO by now as a strong message to Putin and sending arms to the Ukraines and advisers instead of sending several tonnes of Rations best served hot.

As it stands if the balloon goes up (I don't know if it will now as Russia is getting everything that they want) all they need to do is slow down American Re-enforcements by Sea and batter the NATO forces to at the very least a high tech standstill that the Russians will probably win due to a superior supply situations and superior numbers. (remember in the whole grand Libya NATO action, NATO aircraft ran out of smart bombs within 30 days).

I've basically said that based on pure math that NATO is now going to have to accept the Status Que that the Crimea is going to stay Russia and be garrisoned and that the Ukraine is probably going to at some point be broken up into a lose federation that Russia will slowly find a way to gobble up over the next several years.

I believe that because of NATO reluctance and the slowness of their reply that any kind of confrontation is not winnable.

Will sanctions work? Probably in the long run they might, but I doubt that the Russians are going to give up their wins.

[Byrns]

I'd like to know what % of the Russian numbers are actually combat ready and not rusted scrap. The numbers were for Sadam's Mother of All Battles were also statically high and look how that turned out.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Awesome

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5040790.html

Seagal looks like he's preparing to play the role of Zangief for when the movie on this all comes out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'd like to know what % of the Russian numbers are actually combat ready and not rusted scrap. The numbers were for Sadam's Mother of All Battles were also statically high and look how that turned out.

Will never know what their readiness is, but it has steadily increased since Putin took power and increased defense spending started the crash modernization program and increased training dollars.

You can certainly ask the same about the British and German's who have gutted their defense spending.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

Thanks for the link, I misremembered what I heard then, must have been their active military is only 10% larger than what the Versailles Treaty had them reduced to back after WW1. Still a good comparison, to see that what only 100 years ago was an insult to a country to restrict their military that immensely is now considered a top 10 military in the world at the same size.

I would think technology has a part to play in it these days.

Plus a well trained force with proper equipment is better than five times the manpower.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Russian's who I would say have the initiative and the defensive positioning have about 15000 main battle tanks, 28,000 AFV, 14,000 artillary pieces in the heavy gun, self propelled and MLRS and 3082 fighters and bombers available that they can even strip from their secured Eastern and Southern and Northern Military groups to re-enforce.

The BBC says the Russians have 2,500 tanks.

2,500 is probably the number of active, modern units and 15,000 probably counts every unit... regardless of whether it is serviceable or a rusted hulk.

The same article says the Ukrainians have 1,100 tanks. Add the Brits, Germans and French and that's 2,300. The Russians don't have nearly the numerical superiority you've stated.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To be honest, America should have been re-enforcing NATO by now as a strong message to Putin...

I think the Americans aren't doing anything because they aren't going to do anything (militarily). It is highly unlikely that there is a war, so why move equipment? If you want an unpredictable dictator to do something stupid, preparing for war is a good way to get him to act stupid(er). Moving equipment would only aggravate a potentially volatile situation.

Re-enforcing NATO makes war more likely... so why do it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Plett25

The BBC says the Russians have 2,500 tanks.

2,500 is probably the number of active, modern units and 15,000 probably counts every unit... regardless of whether it is serviceable or a rusted hulk.

The same article says the Ukrainians have 1,100 tanks. Add the Brits, Germans and French and that's 2,300. The Russians don't have nearly the numerical superiority you've stated.



I think the Americans aren't doing anything because they aren't going to do anything (militarily). It is highly unlikely that there is a war, so why move equipment? If you want an unpredictable dictator to do something stupid, preparing for war is a good way to get him to act stupid(er). Moving equipment would only aggravate a potentially volatile situation.

Re-enforcing NATO makes war more likely... so why do it?

I believe that the BBC is talking about one district of the whole Military, Russia has about 4000 T-80 tanks in their reserve forces alone. 1200 T-72's that are active and another 6000 sitting in reserve storage. and over 400 of the T-90's. Reserve storage to the Russians means that they are supposed to be able to be maintained and ready to move when crewed.

Since Putin is a politician that believes in strength in negotiation and a show of resolve the American's moving units over and supplying upgraded arms to the Ukraine puts a stop line in place that isn't there right now.

Putin is getting away with what he's doing because he feels that the resolve of Nato and the European powers aren't there.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I believe that the BBC is talking about one district of the whole Military, Russia has about 4000 T-80 tanks in their reserve forces alone. 1200 T-72's that are active and another 6000 sitting in reserve storage. and over 400 of the T-90's. Reserve storage to the Russians means that they are supposed to be able to be maintained and ready to move when crewed.

IMO "supposed to be ready to move" is a far cry from being an effective combat unit. An untrained or under-trained force using legacy equipment probably isn't much of a threat to trained forces using up-to-date equipment.

Just from an economics point of view... there's no way that Russia has more current generation tanks than NATO. Sure, if you count up all the relics from the 60's and 70's you might get to 15,000 but those tanks crewed by inexperienced conscripts would be a shooting gallery a la Desert Storm.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Since Putin is a politician that believes in strength in negotiation and a show of resolve the American's moving units over and supplying upgraded arms to the Ukraine puts a stop line in place that isn't there right now.

Putin is getting away with what he's doing because he feels that the resolve of Nato and the European powers aren't there.

He's "getting away with it" because nobody wants to go to war over Ukraine.

He's "getting away with it" because he has nuclear weapons.

He's "getting away with it" like a two year old throwing a tantrum in the mall while the parents wait for him to tire himself out. NATO (the parents) lose by engaging Putin (the kid) at his level.

If Putin wants a war, he'll get the war that the US/NATO want. He'll get a trade war, and he'll lose that one. This is why Putin hasn't done much in the last week or so... if he escalates much more, he'll lose badly.

And it looks like Ukraine will be hosting NATO war games. link

[CaptainCrunch]

The front line T-90 is probably better then anything that is in the Europe theatre right now. The upgraded T-72's are a match.

The clear superior main battle tank is the M1A1 that the Yanks use and those aren't in Europe in significant numbers. The Russians have a significant advantage in Arty and in short call aircraft and heavy bombers.

I think you've oversimplified on the second part of the post. He's getting away with it because he believes and he's right that he will be given what he wants in the end.

And nobody wins a trade war, the U.S. economy is still fragile as are the European nations, a full on trade war will probably send every country in the world into a financial abyss.

[FlamesAddiction]

I recall a couple of years ago there was apparently a Russian stealth fighter that was supposedly better than anything the Americans had. I am not sure if that was all hype or not though (I think the sources that made those claims were American).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I recall a couple of years ago there was apparently a Russian stealth fighter that was supposedly better than anything the Americans had. I am not sure if that was all hype or not though (I think the sources that made those claims were American).

Whether or not that's correct, the American defense industry has incentive to hype up other countries' planes... they get bigger budgets if there's an imminent threat to their air superiority.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Plett25

If Putin wants a war, he'll get the war that the US/NATO want. He'll get a trade war, and he'll lose that one. This is why Putin hasn't done much in the last week or so... if he escalates much more, he'll lose badly.

Don't be so quick to think that. There is a LOT to consider at this point in economic history. Just a few things come to mind:

Russia already had its collapse and economic remoulding. They have some close (and growing) ties with China, including building a huge pipeline capacity to them AND of recent have allegedly reached a large oil/gas agreement to trade between the two via rubles/yuan instead of the US Dollar. Announcement is expected in May when Putin visits China. That is another large nail in the US Petrodollar status.

Russia has also been building stronger ties with India. Between China and India, I think you have a huge potential for trade. Overlay that with the issue that these are three of the largest gold holding governments. By creating gold backed currencies (in even a modest way) you could put another nail in the US coffin as this likely would trigger the massive inflation that at some point will hit the US due to money velocity kicking in.

And should Putin say to the EU, "I no longer take US Dollars for our gas, but your Euros are welcome" how would Europe react? First off, they would save a ton of money just in exchange rates alone. The Euro would rise giving them another cost savings on the gas imports. If energy prices drop, EVERYTHING drops in price from the ripple effect. One would think that Russia would be looked upon much more favourably due to this.

Think about it....
Iraq wanted to trade oil via the Euro, the US invaded.
Libya wanted to trade oil via gold and/or the Euro, the US attacked.

Don't think they will do that this time to Russia, for many reasons, so it is left to economics. But the US absolutely must have their Petrodollar continue otherwise they are hooped. Heck, they will be hooped sooner or later, this would just make it sooner.

Don't forget about Britain too. They are so screwed up in derivative hell that the next financial sneeze, if not bailed out by taxpayers worldwide, will likely take the whole system down. And I am not sure there is enough money in the world to cover the derivative liabilities.

This has been brewing for a long time.

The CIA invited Jim Rickards, author of "Currency Wars" to participate in a simulation based on an East (China, etc) versus the West using economic warfare.

Jim came home to his wife that night and when asked how it went, replied he had good news and bad news. Good news was he won, bad news was he played on the Chinese side.

The US and the West have a lot more to lose economically than the Russians. And it very well may be easier to make that happen.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I recall a couple of years ago there was apparently a Russian stealth fighter that was supposedly better than anything the Americans had. I am not sure if that was all hype or not though (I think the sources that made those claims were American).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
But no one will know how it will perform until the Americans face one in combat or one is captured

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Don't be so quick to think that. There is a LOT to consider at this point in economic history. Just a few things come to mind:

Russia already had its collapse and economic remoulding. They have some close (and growing) ties with China, including building a huge pipeline capacity to them AND of recent have allegedly reached a large oil/gas agreement to trade between the two via rubles/yuan instead of the US Dollar. Announcement is expected in May when Putin visits China. That is another large nail in the US Petrodollar status.

Russia has also been building stronger ties with India. Between China and India, I think you have a huge potential for trade. Overlay that with the issue that these are three of the largest gold holding governments. By creating gold backed currencies (in even a modest way) you could put another nail in the US coffin as this likely would trigger the massive inflation that at some point will hit the US due to money velocity kicking in.

And should Putin say to the EU, "I no longer take US Dollars for our gas, but your Euros are welcome" how would Europe react? First off, they would save a ton of money just in exchange rates alone. The Euro would rise giving them another cost savings on the gas imports. If energy prices drop, EVERYTHING drops in price from the ripple effect. One would think that Russia would be looked upon much more favourably due to this.

Think about it....
Iraq wanted to trade oil via the Euro, the US invaded.
Libya wanted to trade oil via gold and/or the Euro, the US attacked.

Don't think they will do that this time to Russia, for many reasons, so it is left to economics. But the US absolutely must have their Petrodollar continue otherwise they are hooped. Heck, they will be hooped sooner or later, this would just make it sooner.

Don't forget about Britain too. They are so screwed up in derivative hell that the next financial sneeze, if not bailed out by taxpayers worldwide, will likely take the whole system down. And I am not sure there is enough money in the world to cover the derivative liabilities.

This has been brewing for a long time.

The CIA invited Jim Rickards, author of "Currency Wars" to participate in a simulation based on an East (China, etc) versus the West using economic warfare.

Jim came home to his wife that night and when asked how it went, replied he had good news and bad news. Good news was he won, bad news was he played on the Chinese side.

The US and the West have a lot more to lose economically than the Russians. And it very well may be easier to make that happen.

Ehhh, reaching on a few of these. I might give you the Iraq one, but not the Libya.

However the biggest common sense argument is that a crippled US economy will not benefit the Russians. I'm on board that the US is in trouble, and it's slowy becoming a house of cards, though much slower than conspiracy theorists argue.

However, it's not a zero sum game. A US economic collapse will trigger a world collapse including Russia. China and India cannot support the world or even make Russia profitable without the US.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ehhh, reaching on a few of these. I might give you the Iraq one, but not the Libya.

However the biggest common sense argument is that a crippled US economy will not benefit the Russians. I'm on board that the US is in trouble, and it's slowy becoming a house of cards, though much slower than conspiracy theorists argue.

However, it's not a zero sum game. A US economic collapse will trigger a world collapse including Russia. China and India cannot support the world or even make Russia profitable without the US.

China would likely collapse as well as they are one of the largest bearers of US T-bills and bonds. As much as China might seem aggressive at times they have a vested economic interest in seeing the US survive.

[Daradon]

^^^ exactly my point, to long to type on my phone.

The owner of debt doesn't want to see their best customer go belly up.

[GP_Matt]

If there was ever a window to attack, I think today is it.
GLONASS, the Russian version of GPS is down as of last night.

Apparently the Ephemeris data (The data that contains the positional information for the physical satellites) that is currently loaded in the satellites is tagged as illegal and is rendering positioning based on GLONASS impossible at the moment.