It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future Russian Military Intent In Europe

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I want to go on record as saying the following .

The repeated pattern of Russian history goes something like this a period of internal disorder , then a strong role for the iron fisted state much like the Soviet Union was , overseas expansion finally followed by a period of Liberalization like under Gorbachev . No reason exists for this to change now . Lets face it the planned British Defence cuts are the icing on the cake for the Russian planners . Many European country's have become peacekeeping orientated much like New Zealand has , hardly the approach needed to deter the Russian menace . Remember the deck of cards is so far stacked in Russia favour its going to be no contest when they enter the overseas expansion phrase of there future history .

The defenders backs in Europe ultimately face the sea and the Russian vast material and manpower advantages . In between Obama refusal to use Nuclear Weapons and European leaders wanting them gone from there soil no deterrence will be left to stop Russian aggression when the time comes . The opening up of Natural resources in Russia means more fuel oil availability for that country military machine . I would expect the Russians to control there own casualty rate better they did during World War Two . Most of important of all always remember that the lower tech , mass production orientated military will beat the higher tech military that has long and expensive production lines every time . Even if the Russians take heavy they will simply replace them with relative ease . The US and any other western nation will either take years to replace its losses due to the presence of overly complicated designs . That's if politicians don't think the price tag is to high .

The Russians would like use there conscripts in reserve with there full time soldiers doing front line duty . My only doubt is putting an exact time line on all of this . Russia is entering a period of consolation of internal power under Putin and the different titles he has and will hold .


edit on 20-11-2010 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
if you are basing this idea of of the notion that history repeats itself, then what makes you certain that Russia would have better control over its wasteful casualties? how is it that in the past, russia's terrible quality equipment always led to failures in their campaigns, and that now, with drastically superior designs in western armament, that russia would conquer simply because it has more? this has never proved true for russia. it has always been russia's terrain that saved its skin when its armor rusted. lets not forget that russia would be at the mercy of the entire NATO, as well the UN. russia could not do anything on its own unless China were in the same boat as it. the military front for global dominance has little leverage anymore for the top 20-30 countries , because if one steps out of line, the rest are all waiting on the other side to correct it. the only plausible and legitimate threat coming from russia is the use of its nuclear weapons. the allies are already getting prepared for that. the truth is that russia is surrounded on all sides, and has a crippled military. europe to the west, US and Canada to the east, India, Australia, and Japan to the southish, and the former iron curtain sprinkled in between. i think russia already tested the waters when they invaded georgia during the olympics, and that only proved that russia has become too involved in the politics of diplomacy. believe it or not, this is a changed world.


edit: also, invasion tactics do not work in the modern world, at least not against nations that have televisions in more than 70% of the populaces households. information flies to fast. the best part about having a massive army in the past is that you could move it all towards the enemy and they enemy would not know about it until it was nearly too late and a city had already fallen. this could not happen in the modern world unless it was caused by a stealth nuclear armed missile.
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I suggest its more likely a resource hungry economically empowered chinese dragon takes a nice big bite out of Siberia. (mmmn tasty oil).

The russians are all about money, national prestige and a lingering paranoia from the cold war. They have an ageing declining population just like western europe and an economy massively unbalanced and dependent on oil/gas wealth. The real threats to russia (as opposed to imaginary cold war threats) are Islamic unrest from the central south and China to the south/east.

I think that fact is dawning slowly on them.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty
if you are basing this idea of of the notion that history repeats itself, then what makes you certain that Russia would have better control over its wasteful casualties?


A very good question . I could be wrong but I think that Russia political leaders would want to proportionally ensure there was less casualty's in order to preserve the country population .


how is it that in the past, russia's terrible quality equipment always led to failures in their campaigns, and that now, with drastically superior designs in western armament, that russia would conquer simply because it has more?


Just look at what happened to the Germans in WW2 despite having the likes of the Tiger Tank or the Me262 for instance allied material superiority swamped them . Its no good having the best design of whatever weapon if you are faced with ten of the enemy you will come unstuck . What you may call faulty may simply be a design of something that is just good enough to get the job done and that is all it has to be . The notion that a higher tech army will beat its lower tech and mass production friendly enemy is a myth . The problem is that when you rely on a myth rather then sound policy only you come to believe it and not your enemy's . Just ask the British about the impenetrable Jungle in Malaysia .


this has never proved true for russia. it has always been russia's terrain that saved its skin


Your mean climate not terrain right ?


when its armor rusted.


When was this ?


lets not forget that russia would be at the mercy of the entire NATO, as well the UN.


With Russia a permanent member of the Security Council the UN wouldn't even pass a resolution .

The days of Australia and New Zealand dispatching citizenly armies to defend Europe are long gone . The propaganda battle now also extends to You Tube and way beyond your TV set .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tom Clancy anyone ?
Europe is a softer target and the Natural Gas you mentioned could be a flash point .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   


A very good question . I could be wrong but I think that Russia political leaders would want to proportionally ensure there was less casualty's in order to preserve the country population .


im talking of military casualties only. if they fight based on numbers, and those numbers are poorly equipped in comparison to their enemy, they will suffer heavy casualties, especially when large scale military movements can be monitored intensely by modern tech, meaning even if Russia made the first move, there's little doubt that Europe would not know about it and that they would be properly prepared to counter if not even perform an effective pre-emptive counter attack. This is not to say, though, that numbers don't matter, and i agree on that point, and it is possible that Russia could still make an effective move, but at the loss of a lot of men. But take into consideration that if you can think of this hypothetical situation, then the military strategists in the European Nations and the US who are deeply interconnected in their interests have thought about it as well, so any surprise movement from Russia is most likely already expected meaning effective counter measures are most likely in place, such as the new missile defense system which everyone knows isn't just for protection from Iran.




Just look at what happened to the Germans in WW2 despite having the likes of the Tiger Tank or the Me262 for instance allied material superiority swamped them . Its no good having the best design of whatever weapon if you are faced with ten of the enemy you will come unstuck . What you may call faulty may simply be a design of something that is just good enough to get the job done and that is all it has to be . The notion that a higher tech army will beat its lower tech and mass production friendly enemy is a myth . The problem is that when you rely on a myth rather then sound policy only you come to believe it and not your enemy's . Just ask the British about the impenetrable Jungle in Malaysia .


i agree that numbers do play a large roll, but when you postulate Russia invading Europe, there are plenty more factors involved than the size of the army, and those factors inhibit the potential advantage of numbers, and one of those specific factors is better technology on Europe's behalf. And when you look at Germany during ww2, you have to remember they had themselves surrounded, much like i suggested would be the same case for Russia if they decided to go the same route as Germany. this means they would most likely suffer the same fate as Germany, unless they had China to essentially guard their rear, otherwise the US has a superior naval force to the Russians, and to expect the US to stand aside as Europe is getting attacked is not reasonable unless the US is already tanked in its own woes by then, which even still i dont believe the US would sacrifice such an advantageous oppourtunity to bring down the old enemy Russia and take its northern resources when it is involved in a battle with Europe that would most assuredly require Russia's full attention and efforts. and such focus on a western front would also distract from the US and NATO having footholds in the middle east, which gives them a vantage point to counter.




Your mean climate not terrain right ?


yeah a combination of both. the climate is only helpful when in retreat, which has been Russia's choice of policy for the major wars, or at least how it always ended up being whenever it chose to leave its borders. with terrain, im hinting at the vastness of the Russian landscape. i dont think it is beneficial to any offensive party, whether it be the home or the visitors. in defense, yes, but offense, no, as the separation between supplies and civility is too great. there are too many ways to work around the russian front because it is so large, and it would not be wise for russia to spread its military so thin just to protect and enforce the entire western border.


my thinking is that you cannot separate Europe from the US. this is a very important partnership. politics and economies can potentially divide it, but militaries will unite it unless they are fighting against each other. I'm not really sure about the role of the UN. If Russia were to attack, it would in effect be sacrificing it's seat since it is not working for the benefit or propagation of peace and security and it IS attacking fellow members. obviously the current UNSC would have little meaning anymore. But my main point, is that Russia could not succeed in conquering Europe even with its total 20 mil strong force. i think all of europe's active and reserve forces combined would have at least half that amount. invasion would cause a sense of nationalism and vehemence in europe towards russia that already exists, which at the very minimum could muster another 3-5 mil into the armed forces, and to say that europe and the US are incapable of mass manufacturing just isn't true. Germany itself is an industrial powerhouse. there are resources that can come from french and US holdings in northern africa, and also no doubt the middle east would be used to its maximum potential in the name of fueling the regions economy with industry based off the military requirements...if its oil and gas reserves, well who basically owns afghanistan and iraq at the present? US and UK oil companies would have a ball playing the oil game during war. what about canada? faulkner islands? australia? there are plenty of ways to get resources.

russias best bet in offensive procedure is its airforce. but the RAF, USAF, ALA, and Luftwaffe combined could easily match those numbers. btw when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, you cannot trust a person's word, especially one that is so hypocritical as the White House, no offense to the US, but the US is looking to enhance its nuclear arsenal as we speak, and in the event of a nuclear attack, i am doubtless nuclear policies would change. refusal to use nukes is just talk, and its for the sake of prevention. but if preventative measures do not work, obviously the talking will cease.

A better target than Europe would be the rest of Asia so that an ocean separates it from the east where naval attacks would inevitably be waged by the US, or better would be for Russia to get China on its side in order to take India and Japan, then steadily move across the pacific to the US. China has holdings in Africa, which would help to get Europe from below, but that is after getting US from the pacific and atlantic. cutting off the north atlantic union is very important if russia is going to take europe. they have to divide an conquer on much much larger scale than ever before, and that will not be easy.
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


Since the Russian military retains conscription so since it could be sending a fair chunk of its population to the front it would be desirable to ensure that the Casualty does not adversarial effect on that country's population .
Do you really think that even if was military feasible that political leaders would permit a pre-emptive strike ?
I can't see it myself because I think they and Nato military could fear that the Russians are just trying to provoke a war . It all could end being the ghost of Percival and even Brooke-Popham if pre-emptive measures are possible . Sure a two front war helped to doom Germany but to prove my point Japan also suffered from not understanding the consequences of being beaten in the industrial stakes . The CIA and other western intel agency's lack of human intel could prevent Russia exact military intentions from being known .

If it comes to it then the US and its allies have no where near enough ships to tackle a third battle of the Atlantic and no designs exist for a cheap ease to mass produce convoy escorts . Even if the US had the forces not enough shipping exists to move the material and supplies needed to Europe . Even if the Russians were beaten back Eastern Europe they would simply retreat back to there pre war borders . Nobody is ever going to successful invade Russia because an invading force only has about six - eight weeks to beat the climate and the Russian military and the Partisans that would pop up . Outside of Europe globalization has robbed western country's of much of there industrial capacity . The problem in Germany would be switching over to a wartime economy and de centralizing wartime production . You are still left with the problem of not having enough mass production friendly designs.

You are overlooking that since the production time and costs the USAF will only end up with one hundred and eighty F-22 a pathetic number easily wiped out by the enemy material and manpower advantage . So even if the Russian air force took heavy losses they would simply replace them . The cost of modern USAF aircraft such as the F-22 and the F-35 means that even if they could be mass produced there high cost per unit would bankrupt the US or the Free World before enough of them could reach the front line . Higher tech also means fatally longer production lines this goes for all branches of western military's .

The main question over the Russian military would be the willingness of the conscripts to fight . It's one thing to fight for your homeland its another to do the same overseas at the bequest of your country political leaders . But I think that the problem would be greatly reduced by using conscript units in the rear or as reserves .



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Very good thread and well informed posts! I have long surmised about
Russian and Chinese intentions on Europe. The thing that has me worried
is the current state of Europe and the west in general. I think Russia will
probably side with Europe for the simple fact that it has long historical ties
with it. Russia has the resources that both the East and West need however
China has a bottomless hunger for resources to feed it hungry population.
I think Russia is a bit concerned of having over a billion Chinese to the
south of them plus Islamic insurgents within it's former borders.

Though I have no doubt Russia would use nuclear and other weapons to
defend itself, one has to wonder what Russia would do if the west were
to collapse? I think it would leave itself wide open to a Chinese attack/
invasion if it invaded Europe because Russia would over extend it's military
trying to take over Europe. It is still a delicate strategic balancing act if you
ask me and Russians do not strike me as greedy. They have enough land
and resources to sit this one out.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 


Well with the debt the EU , England , Japan and the US governments are carrying a worst case economic scenario isn't as implausible as it should be . Although I think that it would just speed up China ascent as the world dominate economic power . The impression I get is that if China and Russia were going to fight it would have been during the Cold War . China and the USA will either fight a series of proxy wars in Africa and or conventional conflict as the US has its last throw of the dice as a Superpower . I am not suggesting its going to happen but the real worse case scenario if you like would be China and Russia fighting as allies against the West .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


to put it simply, Russia would not have a viable chance at storming Europe until or unless the US collapsed into a depression or we see it turn into something like Germany near the end of ww2, which like you say would be caused by high expenses and high inflation. with India a suitable trade partner to the US, it would be likely that the US would use India's own shipping lines for supplies to and from the middle-east. the middle east would be the key to power and probably to victory. if the US was running out of options, invasion of Iran would be essential to establish an unrefuted american presencein the region where the US has total control of the oil in the middle east, which is also important to Russia, as Russia's resources are still defrosting. Afghanistan was just discovered to have 3 trillion dollars worth of minerals. those will be used, doubtless, one way or another. just because America has high tech eqpt does not mean that it does not have lower tech either. old cheaper and more affordable designs can always be produced, its on-a-need basis; adaptability. employment would come from india to produce the weapons because india has many engineers. so you have a scenario where the US forces itself as the king of the middle east and makes India its slave by coercing it with trade. all the while Europe is buying these weapons produced from America or by America in places like India or the Middle East, boosting the US once again back to a stable superpower where it can afford to stay in the fight, mass producing just as well with the help of an Indian workforce.

russian nationalism will be aroused if russia is invaded, yes. but it cannot move its military across borders without being hostile, therefore undermining russian intent. plus the point of the battle from the allies is defense and nothing more, so try not to consider invasion, i only put that postulation up because any option is available. that one though is bad. conscription might as well be drafting, and obviously if the situation calls for it the US and Europe would instate that policy again. like i said, combined forces of NATO and South East Asia will be a large hindrance to Russia unless China is there to cover it.
edit on 23-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)


like i said before, US navy and airforce would not be acting alone. all attacks would be coodinated i believe with other airforces, and with the example i gave above about the middle east and India, it is not impossible for the allies to mass produce as well, and are even better suited due to the direct links to massive sources of anything they need, really... i think the US has the largest navy actually, and the combo of French-UK navies is a big boost to the naval capabilities, let alone the combination of navies in oceania. australia and NZ are already in american hands, ready to set up up US naval bases, not to forget Korea and India and Okinawa.
edit on 23-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Wasn’t perestroika etc all a ruse anyway? I remember some colonel saying that Gorbachev was in on the master plan and would make Russia appear weak and when everyone eventually became comfortable with Russia they would strike. Lots of treaties to be signed first to reduce the USA nuclear stash and then they march into every major European city.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
This is just a reminder for me to come back to this thread when I get back from holiday .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Mr. D
 


Well with the debt the EU , England , Japan and the US governments are carrying a worst case economic scenario isn't as implausible as it should be . Although I think that it would just speed up China ascent as the world dominate economic power . The impression I get is that if China and Russia were going to fight it would have been during the Cold War . China and the USA will either fight a series of proxy wars in Africa and or conventional conflict as the US has its last throw of the dice as a Superpower . I am not suggesting its going to happen but the real worse case scenario if you like would be China and Russia fighting as allies against the West .

Cheers xpert11.


Well it seems like you called it. I thought for sure Russia would understand that
promises can be broken, especially since it has happened to them before. I for
some reason do not think that they will invade Europe again. If anything I'd expect
it to be the Chinese. More worrisome if the Russians, Chinese and Arabs joined
forces which I think is probably in the mix. Star for you.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


Err even if the Indians wanted to get involved in such a conflict and provide logistical support such as shipping you have to factor in wartime losses . The US no longer has the shipyards needed to mass produce the amount of merchant shipping and convoy escorts required to fight such a war .
So do you really think the Military Industrial Complex that has been selling high tech junk for so long is just going to switch to a more sensible course of action over night ?

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by asperetty
 


Err even if the Indians wanted to get involved in such a conflict and provide logistical support such as shipping you have to factor in wartime losses . The US no longer has the shipyards needed to mass produce the amount of merchant shipping and convoy escorts required to fight such a war .
So do you really think the Military Industrial Complex that has been selling high tech junk for so long is just going to switch to a more sensible course of action over night ?

Cheers xpert11.


The US would not have to- India has a massive mercantile fleet, as well as army. That is why the US would use India as a major ally. How? By inciting India to attack China, India's 2nd greatest rival after Pakistan. India would probably feel inclined to take advantage of the opportunity anyways. It is sick of China encroaching upon their land, and they are economic, social, political, and military rivals already. India has various shipyards across the southern coasts, and no doubt the eastern. Hell, I have shares in one of the newer ones! I stand to make millions if there is a war! If the US doesn't have the shipyards, India, Australia, and Japan could make up for it, though Japan would probably fall pretty quick. Don't forget the Persian Gulf where there is a lot of development going on. The US and allies could easily take over command of that entire region, in regards to maritime ventures, whether it be military, logistics, supplies, manufacturing etc...I don't see why the US could not begin to manufacture their own stuff. Saying that they can't is just denying without due reason. Of course the US would have to adapt. They have the largest air force and navy already, with the most advanced tech. they will have an edge for some time until those numbers on the adverse side start to prove their worth, once they finally cross some muddy poppy fields.

The MIC in the US will only grow stronger, as Europe as well as southeast Asia, especially India will want weapons galore if China and Russia were out kicking asses! Seriously think about it. Even the middle east would be stocking up on US weapons. Why? Their own interests, as well as the US. What is the US interest? Their land, their oil, their resources. If they havent taken it over militarily by that time, they will do it diplomatically. Its a perfect set up, weapons for oil. If South America chooses to side with NATO and Friends, then the commies are screwed. The US is already trying to place itself into positions where it can cut off the supply of oil from the the middle east to China and Russia, and from China and Russia to Eastern Europe. If they did, that means all of Europe would be coming back to the US/Middle East for their oil. That's even more money for the US to fund the war and purchase labor.

So the US is balance, they purchase the labor, they sell the oil.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join