Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Russia invading the Ukraine. Approves military use.


Dittohead

Recommended Posts

It's called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuclear armageddon

As for how, it is a long way from fighting wars on horseback so an invasion with a mechanized army is an easy sell. Added Russia still relies on a rail system to ship arms and troops so take out the rail system and Russia is at a stand still

Russia cannot be crushed because they have what people want, they also have a nuclear deterrent. economic sanctions won't work as they can just ship directly to China who will happily buy what they need.

Russia is a superpower end argument.

pretty sure that if you want move huge amount of soldiers/tanks etc it´s much better use the rail system than use trucks/buses...

and the Transiberian proved to be handy, also the Russian rail system is cabable of many things, the Russian Army have ICBM´s based on heavy armored trains. faster to move than using a truck...

ok, you can move by plane. but how expensive it will become?

about China. yes. USA and EU simply don´t remember that. also there´s the Middle east countries and African countries. all of them "hungry" for new products for a low cost...

strike Iraq is one thing. strike Russia will destroy the planet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty sure that if you want move huge amount of soldiers/tanks etc it´s much better use the rail system than use trucks/buses...

and the Transiberian proved to be handy, also the Russian rail system is cabable of many things, the Russian Army have ICBM´s based on heavy armored trains. faster to move than using a truck...

ok, you can move by plane. but how expensive it will become?

about China. yes. USA and EU simply don´t remember that. also there´s the Middle east countries and African countries. all of them "hungry" for new products for a low cost...

strike Iraq is one thing. strike Russia will destroy the planet...

The thing about Russia is that its vastness would come handy in the future. Even if a nuclear bomb were to drop the fallout wouldn't be able to reach all corners of the country for awhile, thus the central government would be able to move rather quickly to a temporary location. This is where the railway comes handy. I agree its rather superior because even if someone were to destroy the tracks repair wouldn't be too much of an issue, also its connected to China as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty sure that if you want move huge amount of soldiers/tanks etc it´s much better use the rail system than use trucks/buses...

and the Transiberian proved to be handy, also the Russian rail system is cabable of many things, the Russian Army have ICBM´s based on heavy armored trains. faster to move than using a truck...

ok, you can move by plane. but how expensive it will become?

about China. yes. USA and EU simply don´t remember that. also there´s the Middle east countries and African countries. all of them "hungry" for new products for a low cost...

strike Iraq is one thing. strike Russia will destroy the planet...

You really missed everything I just said didn't you?

I just pointed out why Russia cannot be attacked, and how crippling their rail system would devastate their ability to ship arms and armaments in the event of an actual invasion....

This isn't an issue for people attacking Russia like it was in the past.

People don't attack Russia because of their nukes.

people COULD attack Russia in the event of a conventional war and cripple them by bombing rail lines. The trans siberian highway does very little in terms of anything. If anything in fact it leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage because once the rails are down the only way to move weapons would be via the highway leaving them as sitting ducks for artillery and air strikes.

In the event of a conventional war Russia is screwed.

But it is a non starter because 4400 estimated nuclear warheads in Russia insure nobody will ever try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really missed everything I just said didn't you?

I just pointed out why Russia cannot be attacked, and how crippling their rail system would devastate their ability to ship arms and armaments in the event of an actual invasion....

This isn't an issue for people attacking Russia like it was in the past.

People don't attack Russia because of their nukes.

people COULD attack Russia in the event of a conventional war and cripple them by bombing rail lines. The trans siberian highway does very little in terms of anything. If anything in fact it leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage because once the rails are down the only way to move weapons would be via the highway leaving them as sitting ducks for artillery and air strikes.

In the event of a conventional war Russia is screwed.

But it is a non starter because 4400 estimated nuclear warheads in Russia insure nobody will ever try.

ok. understood...

but...

may I ask you how on earth somebody will fly an airplane inside Russian airspace and simply drop conventional bombs on Russian system?

considering the fact that the Russian air force has high speed interceptors such as MIG-25 and MIG-31 I´m wondering how a B-52 can drop iron bombs inside Russian soil with these "racers" made by Mikoyan Gurevich...

the A-10 is only suitable for short range strikes, BUT for that you must have a runway very close to the Russian border...

as "drummer4now" said one of the biggest advantages of Russia it´s because their country is big, very big. they simply can move (as they did in WWII) their production lines to another place and keep doing this.

any war with Russia will go nuclear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok. understood...

but...

may I ask you how on earth somebody will fly an airplane inside Russian airspace and simply drop conventional bombs on Russian system?

considering the fact that the Russian air force has high speed interceptors such as MIG-25 and MIG-31 I´m wondering how a B-52 can drop iron bombs inside Russian soil with these "racers" made by Mikoyan Gurevich...

the A-10 is only suitable for short range strikes, BUT for that you must have a runway very close to the Russian border...

as "drummer4now" said one of the biggest advantages of Russia it´s because their country is big, very big. they simply can move (as they did in WWII) their production lines to another place and keep doing this.

any war with Russia will go nuclear...

.....you don't need planes to drop bombs

You need nerds in front of computer screens guiding computer controlled ordnance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuclear armageddon

As for how, it is a long way from fighting wars on horseback so an invasion with a mechanized army is an easy sell. Added Russia still relies on a rail system to ship arms and troops so take out the rail system and Russia is at a stand still

Russia cannot be crushed because they have what people want, they also have a nuclear deterrent. economic sanctions won't work as they can just ship directly to China who will happily buy what they need.

Russia is a superpower end argument.

I have brought up mutually assured destruction on this forum before , speaks volumes about our species doesn't it. The same morons that believe in the saying, if you want peace you must prepare for war , subscribe to the tactic of MAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really missed everything I just said didn't you?

I just pointed out why Russia cannot be attacked, and how crippling their rail system would devastate their ability to ship arms and armaments in the event of an actual invasion....

This isn't an issue for people attacking Russia like it was in the past.

People don't attack Russia because of their nukes.

people COULD attack Russia in the event of a conventional war and cripple them by bombing rail lines. The trans siberian highway does very little in terms of anything. If anything in fact it leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage because once the rails are down the only way to move weapons would be via the highway leaving them as sitting ducks for artillery and air strikes.

In the event of a conventional war Russia is screwed.

But it is a non starter because 4400 estimated nuclear warheads in Russia insure nobody will ever try.

Considering that Russia (and the former USSR) was prepped to the best it can to survive a nuclear attack, I doubt a conventional war can do any lasting damage.

Should in the event of a conventional war, even if the initial foray of ICBM and stuff were able to slip in as a first-strike, there will be no second strike as massive retaliation would prevent it. A ground invasion wouldn't be possible unless the leadership pulls a Stalin and completely allocate the troops to the opposite side of the country and makes no attempt to defend itself for like 3-4 days.

While Russia is still just a shadow of the Soviet Union, they still have as many main battle tanks as both China and the United States combined. The main difference between the USA/NATO and Russia in a conventional conflict, is that the west relies on more tech and precision attacks, whereas the USSR's strategy was to simply roll over Europe through numbers. In a war without nukes, Russia takes the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that Russia (and the former USSR) was prepped to the best it can to survive a nuclear attack, I doubt a conventional war can do any lasting damage.

Should in the event of a conventional war, even if the initial foray of ICBM and stuff were able to slip in as a first-strike, there will be no second strike as massive retaliation would prevent it. A ground invasion wouldn't be possible unless the leadership pulls a Stalin and completely allocate the troops to the opposite side of the country and makes no attempt to defend itself for like 3-4 days.

While Russia is still just a shadow of the Soviet Union, they still have as many main battle tanks as both China and the United States combined. The main difference between the USA/NATO and Russia in a conventional conflict, is that the west relies on more tech and precision attacks, whereas the USSR's strategy was to simply roll over Europe through numbers. In a war without nukes, Russia takes the cake.

here check this out, great read from a true military expert on the logistics of invading Russia. Never said it would happen, never said it was a possibility. I just said it WAS possible. This details the age and style of equipment Russia uses as well as the myth of its mobility and size of its standing army

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-how-to-invade-and-conquer-russia

In the past, when I've asked military experts from IHS Jane's what it would take to conquer say, America, or the UK, the idea of it actually happening in the near future has been relatively far fetched. But recent events in Crimea have raised the very real possibility of conflict, so when I asked IHS Jane's Konrad Muzyka what it would take to conquer Russia, it all suddenly felt very real.

No one wants to see Putin riding into battle on the back of a nuclear warhead. In fact, I don't really want to see anyone riding into battle on the back of a nuclear warhead. Things like that tend to make me nervous. But if it happens, and it's Russia, then it's best to be prepared, right?

VICE: I'm going to begin with a classic cliche. Over the centuries, plenty of power-hungry leaders have tried to take on Russia, convinced that they would be the first to overcome the brutal Russian winter. How could a modern army deal with this ancient problem?

Konrad Muzyka: I agree that from a historical perspective this has been a problem many countries have succumbed to. But the advent of precision guided munitions and, more importantly, nuclear weapons have completely nullified the issue. Any potential conflict with the West would most likely be fought in the air, space and sea. Any use of land forces would be limited to capturing strategically important facilities – bridges, airfields and the like. Given the size of Russian territory, I don't think anyone would be interested in moving their troops to Russia and holding them there.

So how quickly might any invading force find itself plunged into a nuclear winter?

Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even in a regional conflict scenario. As such, any country taking on Russia needs to be aware of a dramatic and quick escalation that could take place. But this is a sign of weakness rather than strength.

Okay. In the days of the Red Army, it felt as though there was an endless supply of men ready to die in the name of Mother Russia. Is this still true? What's their manpower like?

That's true, but many of those sent into battle during the Second World War fought at gunpoint. Not only that of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but also that of their fellow Russian "comrades". Retreat was usually forbidden, even in a tactical sense – those who were caught falling back were either shot on the spot or court martialed… and then usually shot.

Not a lot of TLC for the Red Army there, then.

No. When it comes to their manpower number today, this is a question that I don't think the Russians themselves can even answer. Armed forces personnel numbers are one million, however, we estimate that this figure is much, much lower and currently stands at somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000. The army is authorised at nearly 400,000 soldiers, but its actual strength is most likely below 300,000, perhaps as low as 280,000, due to the shortage of draftees and undermanning in certain units.

So, in the event of an invasion, basically Russia would just end up chucking loads of untrained and unwilling civilians back to the frontlines?

Although efforts have been made in recent years to modernise and restructure the armed forces – with the ultimate aim of creating a fully professionalised armed forces – the truth is that in the event of a conflict, Russia will still rely on mass mobilisation of its population. What is also interesting to note is that Russia still relies on its railway systems for strategic mobility. Thus, little has changed since the Second World War.

"Russian drones have been declared useless"

Some things never change. Which brings me on to Russia's size, which has always been a problem for its enemies. There's just so much territory to cover. Is there any army in the world capable of securing a country this size?

If I were to give you a short answer, then it would be no. Russia's territory covers more than one-eighth of the Earth's inhabited land area and stretches across 9 different timezones. There is simply way too much territory to seize and then control. Unless China mobilised half of its population and sent them to cover the wilderness of Siberia.

So what you're saying is you might be able to conquer Russia if you had half a billion Chinese people marauding across Siberia?

China would be an interesting case if we considered a conventional conflict scenario. This would turn ugly and most likely develop into a war of attrition. However, with only 143 million people living in Russia, guess who the winner might be... Logistically though such an operation is unsustainable, even if the Chinese lived off what they looted, captured and hunted in Russia. To give you a different perspective, it is estimated that the United States would need 500,000 troops in Afghanistan to secure the whole of the country. Russia is 26 times bigger than Afghanistan and shares borders with 16 countries.

Alright, well relating to this: Could a combined EU army take on Russia, or would it have to be a superpower like the US?

The EU's military capabilities are… well, not really existent. Although there are a number of EU battlegroups ready to be deployed abroad, but they never have been. I just can't imagine any EU unified army, if it was ever created, taking on Russia. As I mentioned previously, any conflict with Nato countries or China would most likely involve nuclear weapons, which would, in turn, lead to mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Has there been much of a shift in relative military power between the US and Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union? And has Putin made Russia more powerful militarily in recent years?

Yes, there definitely has been. Whereas the US has reaffirmed its doctrine based on tri-service [army, navy, air force] interoperability coupled with investment into C4ISR platforms [computers and surveillance, basically], there had been no serious efforts to do the same in Russia, at least until 2008.

The short conflict with Georgia in August 2008, which was also called the last war of the 20th century, showed that in terms of wider military capabilities Russia was years, if not decades, behind the US. When, in 2008, the US could easily deploy a significant number of UAVs [drones] over Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian UAVs used in Georgia were reportedly so loud that they could be heard from miles away. As you can imagine, the quality of imagery delivered was not great either. As a result, Russian UAVs were declared useless.

Screen-Shot-2014-03-03-at-5-59-04-PM-vice-640x360.jpg

A Ukrainian woman tries to talk to a Russian special forces agent in Crimea

So the decision to get involved in that set-to with Georgia could have backfired on Putin?

In a way – it became clear that Russian armed forces needed bigger investment and that the country's defence industry was unable to match Western-produced equipment. To an extent this was rectified by the procurement of UAVs from Israel, amphibious vessels from France and multipurpose vehicles from Italy. Although, for various reasons, Russia decided to stop importing foreign military equipment.

So where does all that leave them?

A military reform that followed in the immediate aftermath of August 2008 is seeking to introduce new quality, both in terms of equipment and leadership, to Russia's armed forces and completely transform them into a modern, agile and easily deployable fighting force. It looks nice on paper but the reality is that they're still unable to deliver top-notch equipment, delays pile up, corruption is still a significant problem, hazing among personnel is prevalent and the troops are poorly trained.

Moving on, how could you neutralise Russia's nuclear capability?

You can't. Russia possesses second-strike capability and unless you're ready to take a nuclear hit from Russia – which no one can – you need to embrace the notion of a total annihilation of your country.

Right.

It is estimated that Russia possesses around 4,300 nuclear warheads. Another 700 strategic and 2,000 non-strategic warheads are in storage. Just like in case of the US, Russian deterrence is based on triad of systems [land, air and sea]. Even if you knocked out the land and air delivery systems/platforms, submarines fitted with nuclear ICBMs would be virtually undetectable once they'd left Russian ports.

Apart from that, where do Russia's military strengths lie? Should we be worried about the navy?

Russia has never been a maritime power. Its navy relies on a small number of major combatants to support its commitment to exercises, counter-piracy patrols and global presence missions. The newest major surface combatant is more than 20 years old. The average age of Russia's large surface combatants, even excluding the two oldest vessels, is 27 years. Its sole aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, was commissioned in 1990 and requires modernisation, which is planned to take place by the end of the decade. This means that Russia will lose a significant part of its power projection capability for two to four years. There are plans to build a fleet of carriers but Russia is not expected to commence work on the programme until 2025 at the earliest.

"You need to embrace the notion of a total annihilation of your country"

And its air force?

In general, it's much better than the Russian navy. A number of new aircraft is introduced to the service each year. Some of them – the Su-35, for example – are comparable to the F-22. Some would even argue that some of the Su-35's characteristics, especially its manoeuvrability, are better than those of Western aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35.

Obviously Russia is flexing its muscles in the Crimea at the moment. Does it have a lot of military bases along the Ukrainian border?

Russia leases a naval military base in Sevastopol in the Crimea. Its Black Sea Fleet comprises about 20 to 40 vessels, including frigates, destroyers and corvettes. This also included approximately 15,000 personnel. I say "included" because in the last few days Russia has deployed another 16,000 troops to the peninsula. The core of the force is based around the 7th Guards Airborne Division. These guys are not to be played with. They have been used in various operations across Europe, including the suppression of the Hungarian and Czechoslovak revolutions. More recently, they were stationed in the Caucasus fighting Chechens.

Apart from that, Russia has deployed strategic airlift aircraft to the Crimea and seized communication and air traffic control centres, as well as airports. The centre of political power in the Crimea has also been captured. This presents a textbook case of how one can start an invasion. However, with 31,000 troops on the ground, Russia would find it hard to move north to eastern Ukraine. As such, Russia would need to open a second front in Eastern Ukraine.

To sum up, as far as Ukraine goes, Russia exports gas, oil and fear.

Where would you begin an invasion of Russia and where would you go from there? I'm thinking surprise attack on Archangel [a city in the northwest of Russia, near Finland] and then move south with stealth and precision. That way, it gets warmer, not colder.

Let's discuss this as a conventional conflict scenario. The quick answer to your question is… anywhere. Russian borders are indefensible. Wherever you look at the map there are no natural obstacles that would hamper a military advance. Historically, every major advance that threatened Russia's existence (the Poles in 1610, Napoleon in 1812, Hitler in 1941) came from the Northern European Plain. This is why Stalin was so keen on seizing Central Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War and why Putin has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Russia has lost a lot of its strategic depth since 1991 and now it could potentially lose Ukraine.

Even if you started an invasion from Poland and the Baltic states, the front would be so large that Russia would either need to pray for snow and freezing temperatures or send millions of its citizens to fight. A combination of both would be preferable.

And finally, if our imagined army took control of most of Russia, where would the natives locate their efforts of guerrilla resistance? In this vast land, what would be the hardest places for an invading army to secure?

Immense land masses of central Russia would offer ample places to wage effective Daniel-Craig-in-Defiance-style insurgency campaigns. I can't also exclude Stalingrad-style urban campaigns. But as I have mentioned, this is unlikely to happen. You couldn't really live, let alone fight, in the nuclear wasteland that Russia would be turned into in the event of a conflict with China or the US.

And on that encouraging note, let's call this to a halt. Thanks, Konrad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is so hopelessly dependant on technology that this is probably the best way to attack them. Surface to space missile development to knock out military satellites. Also, America is on the cusp of financial ruin. Print several billion in green backs and inject them into the US economy and viola. One former economic power house, crippled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine’s Military Mobilizes, Prepares For Combat: Trucks, APCs, SAMs, Howitzers, Tanks Rolling Out

March 9, 2014

Did somebody say de-escalation?

Earlier today, photos were distributed showing the latest military convoy reinforcements heading into the Crimea, accompanies by a Police car demonstrating Moscow license plate numbers, most likely providing further support to the pro-Russian forces in the peninsula.

Russian%20trucks_0.jpg

Russian%20trucks%20cop%20car_0.jpg

Russian%20trucks%20cop%20car%202_0.jpg

Supposedly the trucks are carrying troops to reinforces the members of the new Crimean army, pictured below:

crimean%20army.jpg

While at the same time along the makeshift border between Crimea and the mainland, the Pro-Russian forces are putting down minefields.

minefields.jpg

However, the Ukrainians, having already been mobilized for over a week, finally appear set to seize back the offensive:

The first clip below captured the 80th Airborne Regiment out of Lviv moving out, direction mainland, preparing to repel foreign attack.

The next video shows what are allegedly Buk SAM batteriesdeployed in the Donetsk region, a city in Eastern Ukraine which in the past week has swayed between Ukraine and Russian authority.

The clip below shows the 95th Airborne brigade also moving out of their barracks in Zhytomyr in western Ukraine, heading East, with an impressive deployment of trucks and APCs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eENtdRX2nYo

2S19 “Msta-S” 152mm Howitzers on the move to Crimea.

Finally, 20 T-64 tanks preparing to depart in Bila Tserkva, a city in central Ukraine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u9K8pHGTqQ

So where again are all those pundits who were so eager to explain away the Ukraine confrontation as one that will promptly be forgotten, and is by now most certainly priced in?

http://www.infowars....ks-rolling-out/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key2thecup you need to post more sources then just stuff from infowars.

Alex Jones has some good points but he is full on crazy as well.

I posted 1 thing from infowars?

Just because it doesn't come from CNN,MSNBC,NBC,CBS,ABC doesn't mean it's not real.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-08/ukraines-military-mobilizes-prepares-combat-trucks-apcs-tanks-rolling-out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted 1 thing from infowars?

Just because it doesn't come from CNN,MSNBC,NBC,CBS,ABC doesn't mean it's not real.

http://www.zerohedge...nks-rolling-out

I posted 1 thing from infowars?

Just because it doesn't come from CNN,MSNBC,NBC,CBS,ABC doesn't mean it's not real.

http://www.zerohedge...nks-rolling-out

LOL I never said a main stream news out let. I would never watch/listen to any of the outlets you mentioned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...