Ceylal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 8,577
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
In a war with Russia, NATO has no chance
By Mickael - Founder of News360x -
http://plus.google.com/share?url=ht...guerre-avec-la-russie-lotan-na-aucune-chance/
http://pinterest.com/pin/create/but...p-content/uploads/2014/06/Poutine-Kremlin.jpg
As long as we can talk about a war near Russia's borders, the military plans of the Russian Defence are not a threat to the US or Western Europe.
A recent article by Unz Review says that "according to a probable scenario, Russia has the ability to completely destroy the United States as a country in about 30 minutes (the US still can do the same with Russia). All war planners are required to take into consideration the climbing potential military action againstRussia. "
This leads to the question of how Russia can counter the US Army, considering, for the purposes of demonstration, that neither side is decided to make use of nuclear weapons, including weapons tactical nuclear. If somehow all nuclear weapons disappear, what would the balance of power between the Russians and the US?
The typical response to this kind of question is that the thinkers of the US Air Force called counting beads. Usually journalists commonly refer to the document IISS Military Balance or a reference such as Global Firepower and list the number of men, the main tanks, personal armored units, infantry vehicles, combat aircraft, ships surface, submarines, etc ... called by each party in their statements.
The reality is that counting the balls means absolutely nothing and radically. Take a simple example: if a war occurs between, say China and Russia, that China has, say 1000 tanks in Yunan, this will make no difference to the course of the war simply because they are located too far. If we apply this rule to a Russian-American conventional military ratio, we must immediately answer two basic questions:
a) What fraction of the US global military force can it be mobilized immediately in the event of a war with Russia?
b) On which logistics can this force can she count and how quickly to be available?
Keep in mind as tanks, bombers, troops and artillery are not fighting separately, which is why they are logically called weapons of combined operations. So even if the US can mobilize a number X of soldiers at the location A, if they do not have all the elements of combined arms combat to support, they simply become an easy target.
In addition, any fighting force requires a major effort to logistics and supply. The Armed Forces are renowned for their use of a huge amount of fuel, oils and lubricants. According to estimates, in 1991, a US division was self-sufficient only for five days, after which it required a major effort replenishment.
Finally, any force that will move to point A may not be able, once arrived at this point A to perform the normal role assigned to it. Now take into consideration that the point A may be the Middle East, or even the Far East, and you can understand this is a difficult decision to manage for US generals.
A war heavy
We have a good example of how the US work: the Operation Desert Shield.
During this huge operation, it took six months in the US and unprecedented logistical effort to gather the necessary forces to attack Iraq.
And in addition, Saudi Arabia for decades was prepared to host this armada (according to the so-called Carter Doctrine), and the US have met with virtually no opposition on the part of Saddam Hussein.
a) In the case of a war with Russia, which neighboring country of Russia will have a similar infrastructure to that of Saudi Arabia: prepositioned equipment, large military bases, airports, deepwater ports, etc ... (Answer: no).
b) Can we imagine that the Russians will leave the US six months to prepare for war without acting? (Answer: impossible).
Someone may object that all wars do not follow the scenario Desert Storm. That what the US would rather prepare an ultra-light action by implementing only the rapid reaction forces of the US and NATO?
War-type light rapid reaction
I wish to repeat here something that I published in December last year.
The Russians are not afraid of a military threat launched by NATO. Their only response to recent deployments of NATO (new staff and new bases in Central Europe, more investment, etc ...), is to denounce them as provocations, but Russian officials all emphasize the fact that Russia can manage the military threat.
A Russian MP says: "Five Groups rapid response diversion may be 'treated' with a singlemissile." A formula as simple as basically correct.
As I mentioned earlier, the decision to double the size of Russian paratroopers Forces and hoist the 45th elite Parachute Regiment specializes down to the Brigade had been decided before anyway. You can understand that Russia planned to counter the creation of 10,000 military strength of NATO by strengthening its own airborne mobile force, from 36 000 to 72 000 men.
This is typically Putin. While NATO announced with fanfare that NATO will create a rapid reaction force of 10,000 men, Putin quietly doubles the size of its paratroopers Forces to 72,000 men.
And believe me, the Russian paratroopers Forces are widely capable of fighting aEuroforce hedonistic and demoralized multinational (28 countries), consisting of 5000 men of NATO that have a hard time to coordinate.
In other words, the light military action or quick response are the domain of excellence of the Russians and not the kind of conflict or the US or NATO can hope to dominate [cf, Georgia in 2008, NdT]. Meanwhile, if the light work lasts longer than expected and escalation into something more heavy, which the US and Russia has its heavy reinforcements closest?
Shock and Terror
There is also another model available for US leadership: the diagram Shock and Terror [Shock and Awe, NdT]. A massive missile attack supported by bombing. Here one can easily argue that to bomb Russia is not comparable with bombing Iraq and that Russian air defenses are most effective in the world.
What I can say is that even if the US has an excellent success rate when they bomb civilians, their successes against military objectives such as the Serbian Armed Forces in Kosovo were abject failures. 2
But even if we assume that in some way the US can succeed in this remote war favorite, is anyone seriously can reach the Russian army, or break the will of the Russian people?The people of Leningrad have survived not 78 but 900 days a much more ferocious siege by the Nazis and murderers and continual bombing, never thinking to surrender.
The reality is that being on the defensive gives the Russians an enormous advantage over the US, especially when considering the use of conventional weapons. And especially if the conflict begins in the Ukraine or the Baltic States, geographical proximity gives Russians a decisive advantage over any attack US / NATO. The US Command understands very well even if he claims the opposite.
Conversely, a Russian attack against the US or NATO is simply unthinkable for the same reasons. Russia can project forces far from its borders.
In fact, if you follow the way in which Russian forces are organized, structured and trained, you understand immediately that they are designed to defeat an enemy on their borders or at the 1 000 km of them.
Yes, of course, you think of the Russian bombers, surface ships and submarines, which go further, but they have primarily the task of floating the colors of the Russian flag, no train on scenarios Current military.
The only real purpose of US military forces is to regularly beat some small defenseless country to steal their resources, to file a government that defies their global hegemony, or simply to make an example.
The US Army was never intended to lead a major war against a sophisticated enemy. Only the strategic nuclear forces are currently dedicated to defend the US against other nuclear powers (Russia and China), or to undertake a major war.
While the Russian military forces are only defensive purpose and have no destination in Europe to threaten anyone, let alone the United States.
However the European media orders continue to count the beads US and Russia, but their propaganda is intended to create an emergency and indeed fear in the general public.The reality for the foreseeable future is that no, the USA or Russia, has the capacity to successfully attack one or the other, even with only conventional forces.
The only real danger is a sudden and unexpected escalation that could lead to a confrontation that neither side would desire, nor is prepared to face. The Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, or the Georgian attack on Soldiers of Peace of the UN (Russia) in 2008, are two frightening evidence that sometimes crazy politicians can make incredibly stupid decisions.
I am confident that Putin and his team will wish never take such a foolish decision but when I look at the current team of US presidential candidates, I must confirm that I am really very worried.
Do you see what I'm talking about?
Translated by Gilles Chertier, read by dd and Diane for Francophone Saker
Notes
By Mickael - Founder of News360x -
http://plus.google.com/share?url=ht...guerre-avec-la-russie-lotan-na-aucune-chance/
http://pinterest.com/pin/create/but...p-content/uploads/2014/06/Poutine-Kremlin.jpg
As long as we can talk about a war near Russia's borders, the military plans of the Russian Defence are not a threat to the US or Western Europe.
A recent article by Unz Review says that "according to a probable scenario, Russia has the ability to completely destroy the United States as a country in about 30 minutes (the US still can do the same with Russia). All war planners are required to take into consideration the climbing potential military action againstRussia. "
This leads to the question of how Russia can counter the US Army, considering, for the purposes of demonstration, that neither side is decided to make use of nuclear weapons, including weapons tactical nuclear. If somehow all nuclear weapons disappear, what would the balance of power between the Russians and the US?
The typical response to this kind of question is that the thinkers of the US Air Force called counting beads. Usually journalists commonly refer to the document IISS Military Balance or a reference such as Global Firepower and list the number of men, the main tanks, personal armored units, infantry vehicles, combat aircraft, ships surface, submarines, etc ... called by each party in their statements.
The reality is that counting the balls means absolutely nothing and radically. Take a simple example: if a war occurs between, say China and Russia, that China has, say 1000 tanks in Yunan, this will make no difference to the course of the war simply because they are located too far. If we apply this rule to a Russian-American conventional military ratio, we must immediately answer two basic questions:
a) What fraction of the US global military force can it be mobilized immediately in the event of a war with Russia?
b) On which logistics can this force can she count and how quickly to be available?
Keep in mind as tanks, bombers, troops and artillery are not fighting separately, which is why they are logically called weapons of combined operations. So even if the US can mobilize a number X of soldiers at the location A, if they do not have all the elements of combined arms combat to support, they simply become an easy target.
In addition, any fighting force requires a major effort to logistics and supply. The Armed Forces are renowned for their use of a huge amount of fuel, oils and lubricants. According to estimates, in 1991, a US division was self-sufficient only for five days, after which it required a major effort replenishment.
Finally, any force that will move to point A may not be able, once arrived at this point A to perform the normal role assigned to it. Now take into consideration that the point A may be the Middle East, or even the Far East, and you can understand this is a difficult decision to manage for US generals.
A war heavy
We have a good example of how the US work: the Operation Desert Shield.
During this huge operation, it took six months in the US and unprecedented logistical effort to gather the necessary forces to attack Iraq.
And in addition, Saudi Arabia for decades was prepared to host this armada (according to the so-called Carter Doctrine), and the US have met with virtually no opposition on the part of Saddam Hussein.
a) In the case of a war with Russia, which neighboring country of Russia will have a similar infrastructure to that of Saudi Arabia: prepositioned equipment, large military bases, airports, deepwater ports, etc ... (Answer: no).
b) Can we imagine that the Russians will leave the US six months to prepare for war without acting? (Answer: impossible).
Someone may object that all wars do not follow the scenario Desert Storm. That what the US would rather prepare an ultra-light action by implementing only the rapid reaction forces of the US and NATO?
War-type light rapid reaction
I wish to repeat here something that I published in December last year.
The Russians are not afraid of a military threat launched by NATO. Their only response to recent deployments of NATO (new staff and new bases in Central Europe, more investment, etc ...), is to denounce them as provocations, but Russian officials all emphasize the fact that Russia can manage the military threat.
A Russian MP says: "Five Groups rapid response diversion may be 'treated' with a singlemissile." A formula as simple as basically correct.
As I mentioned earlier, the decision to double the size of Russian paratroopers Forces and hoist the 45th elite Parachute Regiment specializes down to the Brigade had been decided before anyway. You can understand that Russia planned to counter the creation of 10,000 military strength of NATO by strengthening its own airborne mobile force, from 36 000 to 72 000 men.
This is typically Putin. While NATO announced with fanfare that NATO will create a rapid reaction force of 10,000 men, Putin quietly doubles the size of its paratroopers Forces to 72,000 men.
And believe me, the Russian paratroopers Forces are widely capable of fighting aEuroforce hedonistic and demoralized multinational (28 countries), consisting of 5000 men of NATO that have a hard time to coordinate.
In other words, the light military action or quick response are the domain of excellence of the Russians and not the kind of conflict or the US or NATO can hope to dominate [cf, Georgia in 2008, NdT]. Meanwhile, if the light work lasts longer than expected and escalation into something more heavy, which the US and Russia has its heavy reinforcements closest?
Shock and Terror
There is also another model available for US leadership: the diagram Shock and Terror [Shock and Awe, NdT]. A massive missile attack supported by bombing. Here one can easily argue that to bomb Russia is not comparable with bombing Iraq and that Russian air defenses are most effective in the world.
What I can say is that even if the US has an excellent success rate when they bomb civilians, their successes against military objectives such as the Serbian Armed Forces in Kosovo were abject failures. 2
But even if we assume that in some way the US can succeed in this remote war favorite, is anyone seriously can reach the Russian army, or break the will of the Russian people?The people of Leningrad have survived not 78 but 900 days a much more ferocious siege by the Nazis and murderers and continual bombing, never thinking to surrender.
The reality is that being on the defensive gives the Russians an enormous advantage over the US, especially when considering the use of conventional weapons. And especially if the conflict begins in the Ukraine or the Baltic States, geographical proximity gives Russians a decisive advantage over any attack US / NATO. The US Command understands very well even if he claims the opposite.
Conversely, a Russian attack against the US or NATO is simply unthinkable for the same reasons. Russia can project forces far from its borders.
In fact, if you follow the way in which Russian forces are organized, structured and trained, you understand immediately that they are designed to defeat an enemy on their borders or at the 1 000 km of them.
Yes, of course, you think of the Russian bombers, surface ships and submarines, which go further, but they have primarily the task of floating the colors of the Russian flag, no train on scenarios Current military.
The only real purpose of US military forces is to regularly beat some small defenseless country to steal their resources, to file a government that defies their global hegemony, or simply to make an example.
The US Army was never intended to lead a major war against a sophisticated enemy. Only the strategic nuclear forces are currently dedicated to defend the US against other nuclear powers (Russia and China), or to undertake a major war.
While the Russian military forces are only defensive purpose and have no destination in Europe to threaten anyone, let alone the United States.
However the European media orders continue to count the beads US and Russia, but their propaganda is intended to create an emergency and indeed fear in the general public.The reality for the foreseeable future is that no, the USA or Russia, has the capacity to successfully attack one or the other, even with only conventional forces.
The only real danger is a sudden and unexpected escalation that could lead to a confrontation that neither side would desire, nor is prepared to face. The Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, or the Georgian attack on Soldiers of Peace of the UN (Russia) in 2008, are two frightening evidence that sometimes crazy politicians can make incredibly stupid decisions.
I am confident that Putin and his team will wish never take such a foolish decision but when I look at the current team of US presidential candidates, I must confirm that I am really very worried.
Do you see what I'm talking about?
Translated by Gilles Chertier, read by dd and Diane for Francophone Saker
Notes
- The balls are not worth anything, count is a stupid exercise. A ball counter is just to nitpick someone being right or making candle-end savings
- 78 days of non-stop bombing by the US / NATO, over 1000 aircraft engaged, 38,000 sorties, and all for what? Destroying 10 Serb planes (most ground) and 20 or more APCs and tanks destroyed, 1,000 killed or wounded Serb soldiers. All this against an army of 130 000 Serbian soldiers, 80 aircraft, 1400 guns, tanks of 1250, and 825 APC (all this according to Wikipedia). The 3rd Corps Serb came out totally unscathed from the massive bombardment can register in history as the worst airline known defeat.
