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.
Revealed: Russian Invasion Could Overrun NATO in 60 Hours
page: 6share:
a reply to: Willtell
Here you go...
www.realcleardefense.com...
Here you go...
But this misses some important realities, including the condition and age of that equipment, the frayed infrastructure of Russia’s military commands, and the poor quality of Russian conscripts. The Russian military is a large regional force, and it can kill a lot of people. That doesn’t mean it can sustain a war with a vastly more populous and wealthier coalition of some three dozen nations (or more, if others join the fight).
Moreover, NATO enjoys a qualitative edge that would spell disaster for Russian forces in short order, especially in the air. The Vermont Air National Guard (which for years has intercepted Soviet and Russian aircraft on the U.S. East Coast) is more ready to go to war than the Russian Air Force. Without control of the skies, Russian ground forces stand no chance after whatever initial blitzkrieg might get them into NATO territory, and their commanders know it. World War III will not be like doing stunts at an air show, and taking out NATO’s aircraft will surely not be like blowing up unsuspecting commercial airliners.
Finally, NATO has something the Russians sorely lack: experience. Wisely or not, the U.S. and its allies have been at war in the Middle East and Central Asia for nearly 15 years, and NATO’s armies are salted throughout with men and women who know how to fight, supply, communicate, and remain cohesive in the face of actual combat. Russia’s military, once sharpened by World War II survivors and later by the veterans of the brutal attempt to subdue Afghanistan, now boasts men whose combat experience mostly consists of blowing up apartment blocks in Chechnya and shooting at outgunned conscripts in Ukraine.
www.realcleardefense.com...
a reply to: Willtell
I really do believe if the Russians played that card, they would in fact get nuked. Dont even think for a minute if NATO sees Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine towards Europe, that you wont see tactical nukes get used to stop the advance. You will, and then it escalates very quickly and there is a very ugly outcome for both sides. Which is why it most likely will never happen. If it does, most of Western Russia, Europe, and North America will be a radioactive wasteland shortly after.
I really do believe if the Russians played that card, they would in fact get nuked. Dont even think for a minute if NATO sees Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine towards Europe, that you wont see tactical nukes get used to stop the advance. You will, and then it escalates very quickly and there is a very ugly outcome for both sides. Which is why it most likely will never happen. If it does, most of Western Russia, Europe, and North America will be a radioactive wasteland shortly after.
It may be only a matter of time before the EU collapses (ou countries within) and at that point it is not war, but humanitarian aid(wink wink). If the
US cannot provide, like in Syria, other countries step in. I cannot see an invasion but clean up and offer of aid, yes, across the globe. Once you
secure a 'humanitarian' site you then move in 'peace keepers' and you have a secure non-hostile unless needed presence. Russia is doing that now for
the good of people, right?
US has done this over the years so why not Russia?
US has done this over the years so why not Russia?
a reply to: matafuchs
Russia has done this.. They have "peace keepers" in Moldova and Georgia (the provinces Russia are essentially occupying). Hell Russia was so concerned about E. Ukraine that after they invaded they offered the use of russian "peacekeepers".
What Russia considers as "peacekeepers" is known as an occupation force to the rest of the globe. Secondly Russia cant just ignore the last 70 years, starting with their alliance with the Nazis to their occupation of E. Europe. Countries have good reason not to trust Russia / Putin.
Russia has done this.. They have "peace keepers" in Moldova and Georgia (the provinces Russia are essentially occupying). Hell Russia was so concerned about E. Ukraine that after they invaded they offered the use of russian "peacekeepers".
What Russia considers as "peacekeepers" is known as an occupation force to the rest of the globe. Secondly Russia cant just ignore the last 70 years, starting with their alliance with the Nazis to their occupation of E. Europe. Countries have good reason not to trust Russia / Putin.
originally posted by: spy66
The sanctions are not working, because russia is adapting.
Well, it depends on your interpretation of "not working". The fact Russia is in recession and a number of the corrupt Russian leadership, mates of Putin and others cannot travel to their fancy homes in London, demonstrates a modicum of success The sanctions were fairly limited.
The fact remains that the Baltic States are members of NATO. If Russia attempted to take them then Article 5 would be invoked. Russia would not win a war with NATO regardless of early success. You can fantasise about this as much as you like, but do you really think Europe, the US and the rest of the developed world would tolerate a Russia stupid enough to invade fellow democracies, members of NATO and the EU?
For a start, the Russian people are not stupid. They won't buy into a policy of certain death.
Rand said US forces would take 50% losses due to the fact we had not seen combat before Desert Storm.
This prediction is manipulative as they have always been.
This prediction is manipulative as they have always been.
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe
Well if you want to travel that road Russia utterly failed in Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine...but those don't seem to be discussed when talking about failed military battles...why don't you add those with your the US has failed comments?
Or are we just being biased here...such as the OP?
Well if you want to travel that road Russia utterly failed in Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine...but those don't seem to be discussed when talking about failed military battles...why don't you add those with your the US has failed comments?
Or are we just being biased here...such as the OP?
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
All we actually know in the West is what the media and our government tells us and the odd reports on the internet and blogs.
We all know which country the media supports and its strangely uninvolved despite ISIS who should be their deadliest enemy pretty nearly on their door step.
I know the news from various sources told us that ISIS was not only loosing ground but people also when the Russians were bombing. So I deduce they were very successful and also that Obama and Cameron who hate the man personally and are jealous of him have done nothing but a propaganda war to try to wind people up against Russia. If you can't see a propaganda war being raged today, then you must be blind.
But also can you imagine the money to be made if the arms dealers can get at tax payers money to pay for the weapons they would sell and profit by for some expected war - wow bonuses all around especially for th bent politicians who are spreading this and would sanction the spending/debt etc what….what….what.
All we actually know in the West is what the media and our government tells us and the odd reports on the internet and blogs.
We all know which country the media supports and its strangely uninvolved despite ISIS who should be their deadliest enemy pretty nearly on their door step.
I know the news from various sources told us that ISIS was not only loosing ground but people also when the Russians were bombing. So I deduce they were very successful and also that Obama and Cameron who hate the man personally and are jealous of him have done nothing but a propaganda war to try to wind people up against Russia. If you can't see a propaganda war being raged today, then you must be blind.
But also can you imagine the money to be made if the arms dealers can get at tax payers money to pay for the weapons they would sell and profit by for some expected war - wow bonuses all around especially for th bent politicians who are spreading this and would sanction the spending/debt etc what….what….what.
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Take a look at a map. There is a land bridge from Poland to Lithuania, both NATO members.
And that is surrounding Russian Kaliningrad. Estonia would be lost of course, but it may be a matter of trading Kaliningrad for Estonia back.
All the while during much of the invasion, NATO air superiority and ground attack will harass Russian forces. And NATO has some good experience doing that sort of thing.
Take a look at a map. There is a land bridge from Poland to Lithuania, both NATO members.
And that is surrounding Russian Kaliningrad. Estonia would be lost of course, but it may be a matter of trading Kaliningrad for Estonia back.
All the while during much of the invasion, NATO air superiority and ground attack will harass Russian forces. And NATO has some good experience doing that sort of thing.
Have a look at THIS...www.rumormillnews.com... An electro magnetic cannon on a Littoral combat ship.
OR this...insideunmannedsystems.com...]edit on 25-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)
OR this...insideunmannedsystems.com...]edit on 25-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)
Sorry, double post
edit on 26-5-2016 by FlyingFox because: freedom
originally posted by: FlyingFox
Did Russia ever sign the Geneva Conventions?
Just thinking outloud....
www.independent.co.uk/respond-now-to-putins-dismissal-of-the-geneva-convention-or-international-law-will-suffer-for-it-9224467.html
www.independent.co.uk... tml
ussia invaded Ukrainian sovereign territory in Crimea using specialised troops who had been deliberately dressed in uniforms without clear markings. Russia consistently denied that they were their troops, with President Putin insisting that they where “local partisans who had bought their clothes and weapons in Crimean shops” The status of these unmarked and disowned troops is not clearly defined under the Geneva Convention, making it extremely difficult for the Ukrainian military to respond
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Take a look at a map. There is a land bridge from Poland to Lithuania, both NATO members.
And that is surrounding Russian Kaliningrad. Estonia would be lost of course, but it may be a matter of trading Kaliningrad for Estonia back.
In 1991, "Russia" offered to sell Koenigsburg back to The West.
Not to carry on answering my own posts, but I never realized the acceptance of the Geneva Conventions by the USSR was actually a topic of
controversy...
"All histories that I have ever read agree that the USSR had not ratified the Geneva Convention as of 22 June 1941"
forum.axishistory.com...
Although that has now been acknowledged, I too was under the impression USSR took all the POWs away....failed to repatriate them, due to the lack of reciprocity on the matter.
An interesting point of analysis when considering how Russia operates in regards to treaty. Also where another member already mentioned, they made the agreement with Nazi Germany to split Poland via Danzig.
"All histories that I have ever read agree that the USSR had not ratified the Geneva Convention as of 22 June 1941"
forum.axishistory.com...
Although that has now been acknowledged, I too was under the impression USSR took all the POWs away....failed to repatriate them, due to the lack of reciprocity on the matter.
An interesting point of analysis when considering how Russia operates in regards to treaty. Also where another member already mentioned, they made the agreement with Nazi Germany to split Poland via Danzig.
a reply to: Shiloh7
You do understand that with this little thing called the internet we have the ability to get news from more than just western media and as far as western government telling us...again you can find enough sources that aren't from the west to get the info you seek.
As for Russian bombing...there are enough people on the ground that have seen Russian bombing up close and see that they are killing civilians where no ISIS fighters are at...as far as them losing ground that is because they have been hit hard both in Iraq and in Syria where they have been losing cash stashes and their ability to generate revenue as they once did.
Russia played a dog and pony show and then went home...problem is ISIS is still here...I guess that we are going to destroy ISIS BS was just that BS. Russia came to this fight long after the fight had begun, and left well before the fight is over.
As far as Obama and Cameron being jealous of Putin...seriously? What exactly do they have to be jealous of...the man has crippled his own people from knowing the truth by taking over the media, lying to them about what Russia is really doing...Ukraine showed us this up close and personal, he doesn't allow fair elections to the people Russia...so he pretty much is a dictator that wants to go back to the old ways while the rest pf the world moves forward...not exactly something to be jealous of.
If you carpet bomb enough yes they will lose people, but your also killing civilians in those attacks...something Russia isn't worried about whereas the western coalition has tried hard to keep civilian deaths down as they even brought munitions back because they didn't want to cause more harm to civilians being used as humam shields...did Russia do this...no they still bombed.
As far as propaganda..who is the one praising Putin as though he is the man who can do no wrong...their propaganda is working well I see.
You do understand that with this little thing called the internet we have the ability to get news from more than just western media and as far as western government telling us...again you can find enough sources that aren't from the west to get the info you seek.
As for Russian bombing...there are enough people on the ground that have seen Russian bombing up close and see that they are killing civilians where no ISIS fighters are at...as far as them losing ground that is because they have been hit hard both in Iraq and in Syria where they have been losing cash stashes and their ability to generate revenue as they once did.
Russia played a dog and pony show and then went home...problem is ISIS is still here...I guess that we are going to destroy ISIS BS was just that BS. Russia came to this fight long after the fight had begun, and left well before the fight is over.
As far as Obama and Cameron being jealous of Putin...seriously? What exactly do they have to be jealous of...the man has crippled his own people from knowing the truth by taking over the media, lying to them about what Russia is really doing...Ukraine showed us this up close and personal, he doesn't allow fair elections to the people Russia...so he pretty much is a dictator that wants to go back to the old ways while the rest pf the world moves forward...not exactly something to be jealous of.
If you carpet bomb enough yes they will lose people, but your also killing civilians in those attacks...something Russia isn't worried about whereas the western coalition has tried hard to keep civilian deaths down as they even brought munitions back because they didn't want to cause more harm to civilians being used as humam shields...did Russia do this...no they still bombed.
As far as propaganda..who is the one praising Putin as though he is the man who can do no wrong...their propaganda is working well I see.
originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Willtell
No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.
If they use nukes , then that's another story.
I would like to introduce you to NATOS safety measure
Russia is not feeling suicidal are they?
originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: Willtell
I really do believe if the Russians played that card, they would in fact get nuked. Dont even think for a minute if NATO sees Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine towards Europe, that you wont see tactical nukes get used to stop the advance.
That is a very much losing strategy for NATO for the reason below.
You will, and then it escalates very quickly and there is a very ugly outcome for both sides. Which is why it most likely will never happen. If it does, most of Western Russia, Europe, and North America will be a radioactive wasteland shortly after.
Tactical nuclear weapons are a blunt and undesirable tool, considered back in the days before high-accuracy air-to-ground guided munitions.
I've heard it said (I think by Colin Powell or one of his aides) that in Gulf War I, the US had considered the option of tactical nuclear weapons against Saddam's armor & forces, but found that purely militarily the precision air strikes were better, and the radioactivity from the nuclear weapons would have severely impeded allied advances and victory. And of course the coalition would shatter.
Same applies: there's no way that most NATO members would approve nuclear weapons in this scenario as they have confidence in conventional military power, and the US contrary to Russian propaganda is not an imperial dictatorship and wouldn't unilaterally use nuclear weapons on for instance Hungarian or Polish soil without approval from their governments.
If Russian tanks started to stream across Ukraine towards Poland, there would be major air to ground attacks with every Hellfire, Brimstone & Maverick missile they could find from Reapers, F-16's, F-18's, Apaches and A-10's. While the B-2's bombed every SAM site. Something NATO has practice at.
If the SAM's are gone, then 180 F-22's could sweep nearly all Russian aircraft from 500 miles into Russia. And then, there's "Proteus".
In the modern military world, if you are spotted, you're probably going to be dead if you are in range.
And Poland would fight the Russians like hell. Poland is Germany's buffer zone now.
edit on 27-5-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason
given)
edit on 27-5-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason
given)
edit on 27-5-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason
given)