Yes, I know it's neocon rubbish but once in a while I'll post it if it happens to agree with other Russian sources and there's no OVERTLY propagandistic/Russophobic angle in the little info blurbs in their graphic. Sometimes the battle is going so badly for the West that even ISW is forced to tell the truth
show me the exact spot in the 2/18 sitrep where I said "Russia will be in Kiev by now". I'll give you 15 minutes then you're banned for lying if you can't come up with the evidence.
Why would I be mad when you got caught in a lie? The 2/18 Sitrep has no such statement by me and you've clearly just confirmed that by not providing the proof which would have been easy to do. Bye bye.
Yeah, that always seemed pretty confusing to me. But in this case, I'd argue that they doing a sort of a service since I'm not that keen on searching for the interview sources every week.
Would imagine any predictions in war are simply what are regarded as likely outcomes based on available information. They of course do not take into account what the military commanders may plan or what plans may change due to evolving circumstances.
I have noticed that most of the headlines by McGregor announcing imminent defeat are not what he actually said at all, they were the site's click bait. Regardless we can all choose to read whomever we choose. Perhaps you should try Joe Blogs on YT, his narrative albeit delusional to some is well appreciated by his "Slava Ukraine" chanting audience.
the usaf and usn tactical aviation is "on the ropes" per gao.
older f-16, f-18 and a-10 are flying far longer than planned because f-35 is in trouble!
gao studied this problem: GAO-23-106375 Tactical Aircraft Investments
see table 1 the f-16 average age is 31 years, and f-35 is not listed as replacing it (more later)
per table 1 GAO-23-106217 Weapon System Sustainment for fiscal years 2011 to 2021 f16 never met its mission capability "goals".
why send an airplane that cannot deliver sorties?
the issue with usaf/usn tactical aviation is aging, harder and more expensive to operate aircraft kept in service longer because f-35 needs a new engine that does not overheat trying to do assigned missions.
i doubt elensky's advisors read gao, much less understand logistics, logistics is why nato tanks cannot go to the front, too many diverse needs!
and the nato tanks are deficient in reactive armor per a article linksed by naked capital yesterday.
One of the many issues plaguing the F35 is its fragile frame which tends to break apart at sustained supersonic speeds.
And apparently its "stealth" coating tends to rust in the right climes.
The US has sunk its fortune into highly complex, highly expensive, high maintenance weapons technology which sits on the ground or in port for much of its "useful" life.
If the state of the US armed forces is anything like what the F35 program and the LCS program indicate, the US is in big trouble.
A ship that cannot sail fast or it will break the transmission (or crack the hull itself), a plane that is designed for use in carriers, but corrodes away from sea water (and all the other issues that plague it). All the LCS class ships were shitcanned before they were properly brought into service, and probably something similar will happen to the F35 (and the F22 for that matter).
I mean I kinda get it from a business perspective: why deliver a working weapon system, if you can deliver a smoking hot pile of dogshit, and then sell billions of dollars worth of "upgrade packages" and "retrofits" to fix the issues, and never lose a single contract anyways?
"....deliver a smoking hot pile of dogshit, and then sell billions of dollars worth of "upgrade packages" and "retrofits" to fix the issues, and never lose a single contract anyways"
You have just explained the clot shot industry business model.
combat readiness comes from design and manufacture for reliability and ease of repair, the design analyzed and a system of support designed and tested during design.
most common is to run out of design money before any reliability or repair features are designed, with even less for the support tail.
the result is most complex us weapons have expensive, cost plus, unmet readiness done by the contractor while being paid to “do over” the design.
paid 2 or 3 times and still not very mission capable
and when the bases are attacked the contractors can bug out.
the civilian support tail for western equipment is not compatible with distant war against a military such as Russia and china
The USA/NATO is restricting weapons to Ukraine because they know the Russians will destroy them in volume and the USA will be utterly humilated (even moreso than it already is!) on the world stage. The Russians have been holding back most of their destruction force capacity waiting to see when/if NATO esclates by entering the conflict very directly. Contrary to what some simpleton posters with English user names may think, the Russians have been clear what the objectives of the SMO are from Day 1. Russians are playing it smart with the current war of artrition and they will likely move more dynamically with the mobilized and unused reserves once Ukraine commits itself to its "offensives" . The Ukrainaians will shoot their wad, after which they will be road graded into oblivion, or when their masters come to thir senses. You can ignore the truth, but you will not be able to ignore the consequences of the truth . Reality becomes a real bitch when it stares you in the face -ask the Ukrainaians in Bahkmut.
Excellent as always Simplicius. I honestly don't understand how there is enough time in a day for you to gather so much information and write so eloquently about it. What a treasure trove.
I know the western press loves the idea of Wagner recruiting convicted criminals but the fact is this is a very narrow segment of prisoners currently serving time in Russia. It excludes murderers and rapists for example, any connection with organised crime, it requires at least military service and a degree of tertiary education- since they must be retrained for the latest equipment and – inevitably - attendant software. Most of the prisoners accepted were first-offenders, convicted of pretty theft, delinquency, public disturbance or assault. So the numbers never amounted to more than a few thousand at most. (‘up to 30k...’ of course allows zero as a lower limit... thanks General Milley). It does indicate that Wagner needs to replenish its troops and is really part of a widening of recruitment options – now taking in Afghani (US-trained) troops in exile in Iran, various middle-east and North African veterans – and significantly, English-speaking veterans drawn from the UK and its commonwealth satellites – these apparently in their own battalion, commanded by an ex-US Marine... So Wagner numbers have for the time being, been able to keep pace with battlefield losses, but Prigozhin’s recent remarks, concerning the possible demise of Wagner as a viable unit following the capture of Artemovsk also concede that the losses have been very high.
Concerning the defensive posture adopted by Russia it is also worth noting that attacks upon Ukrainian forces right along the front line have not lessened – have in recent months been averaging 4-500 a day! What ammunition they may be storing, obviously does not include artillery and air strikes from Kopiansk all the way to Kherson. But the broader point is that as a duel between conflicting strategies – the west intent upon taking territory at the cost of troop numbers – Russia intent upon preserving troop numbers at the cost of gaining territory – eventually turns in Russia’s favour, since The West continues to lose troop numbers even when unable to take further territory, continues to lose troop numbers even when unable even to hold territories (Soledar, Bakmut etc). It just looks a thoroughly reckless strategy – entirely consistent with West Point thinking of course (The Schwartzkopf doctrine of monstering an opponent) but here with a drastically diminishing return against an opponent expert in the terrain and climate.
I think this is what the Russians would claim is the great morale damage that is gradually inflicted.
Armies using prisonners is nothing new even in the middle age and maybe even before it was common practice, same for mercenaries fighting for French kings. When Napoleon invaded Russia with a 600k + army, minority of french, it was a coalition + mercenaries and convicted.
USA used "Provincial Recon Units" in Vietnam. They apparently did not exclude rapists and murderers. The villagers paid the price. This coming from an oral history account via US special forces soldier.
The west has used prisoners too. The British Army even had a program not so long ago at the start of this century to recruit convicts. I am not sure if these were people still in prison or who were about to be released but it was a conscious effort to recruit from that group, given the challenges that anyone with a prison record has in re-entering society. Infantry roles in particular have always been tricky to find recruits for right through history because it is usually the most dangerous place to be. In WW2 a large reason that many British men “volunteered” as regulars for seven years rather than waiting to be conscripted under the Duration of Present Emergency regulations was so as to be able to choose their service. The infantry was always left with more than its fair share of men who could not get roles elsewhere. Russia just seems to be fighting a war in a way that is designed to win while not destroying the fabric of society.
"But as this AFU soldier in Bakhmut so eloquently put it only days ago: 'On our side the best people are dying, but from their side only prisoners and Wagner.'"
I've been saying this for a while now: Russia used the Donbass militias, the Wagner PMC, the Rosqvardia, the Chechens, and the Volunteer Battalions as THEIR "cannon fodder", thus reducing the number of regular army casualties and avoiding any electorate backlash in Russia. This was a cold, but smart, move. Russian regular army and special forces were used where and when they were needed for backup and the initial necessary long-range penetrations in the initial weeks of the SMO. But then they were reduced to backup while the other formations did the bulk of the ground fighting, with the regulars doing backup jobs like artillery, armor and air support. This is why Russia's regular army hasn't suffered too many casualties.
"In short, the U.S. likely fears that if they push too hard, cross too many red lines, they will open a pandora’s box from which Ukraine will never re-emerge."
The exact same thing is being done on the Russian side: escalation management. The Russians realize that NATO is being run by lunatics with no real grasp of the military balance and what could happen if NATO were to react irrationally to a quick Russian victory. So the Russians are keeping their reactions to NATO and Ukraine provocations to as close to tit-for-tat as they can without causing any significant losses either to their forces in the field or the home front (vis-a-vis Ukrainian terrorism inside Russia.)
This also plays into the Russian desire to conduct an attrition war rather than a "big arrow offensive" war. They can continue to "boil the Ukrainian frog" for as long as Zelensky wants to send more cannon fodder to the front. Only when Zelensky finally runs out of materiel to support the cannon fodder or runs out of cannon fodder will the Russians make more visible gains in terms of territory.
It is at that point that Russian escalation management will be most important, because once it becomes clear that Ukraine has run out of steam and its forces are about to collapse is when NATO - meaning the neocons in Washington - will have to decide whether to cut their losses or double down. And given that the only gear the neocons have is forward, the likelihood is that they will double down.
Russia is husbanding its forces and materiel not because of expected Ukrainian offensives or for future Russian offensives, but for the expected war with NATO forces, probably from an incursion from Poland. Russia is hoping it can avoid that war, but frankly I think it's unlikely that it can be avoided.
Which is not to say that NATO has a ghost of a chance. If NATO escalates to open conflict with Russia, Russia will end it within a few weeks by using precision strike weapons to eliminate NATO command and logistics centers in the immediate theater, i.e., Poland, Romania. I don't think Russia will strike Brussels or any other country's military assets unless those assets are directly deployed in theater. The one exception would be any NATO warships in the immediate vicinity which are engaged in direct support. They would likely be sunk as part of the initial Russian reaction.
Then the question devolves to: Does the US decide to escalate to full scale war? I have no answer to that - and neither does anyone else, although I'm sure people will make assertions to the contrary. But this is the real threat which must always be kept in mind.
Some might emotionally take issue with your first statement but it's only reasonable and any intelligent armed forces would do the same thing.
And yes I agree about Russia's stockpiling and caution also being partly to do with 'watching their flank' against potential future NATO aggravation/provocation. In fact, I've posted in previous reports how certain Western figures, such as Mitt Romney from the U.S. have OPENLY said that that NATO could 'come in' to Ukraine when Russia's army was "tied up" and 'catch them with their pants down', or 'catch them in a very weak position' as Romney said.
Yep, with respect to “cannon fodder” the British have always done exactly that with the Gurkhas and Highlanders plus the French with the Foreign Legion. It is a smart way of waging war. Real war involves cold calculation, as you say. The US has a cannon fodder strategy too. They just use Ukrainians (and in the past Afghans, Iraqis and currently Islamist proxies in Syria) to avoid too many body bags flowing home.
Your take, as ever, feels accurate. The Russians are fighting a real war on their borders. The US still likes to think that the previous proxy 80s Afghan War caused the USSR to collapse and hopes to achieve the same feat again via a losing term conflict that saps Russian will. I agree with you that this is a slightly forlorn hope by the US but it is a better option for the leadership elite than any other. They have gone too far to back down and are blinded by ideology. My guess is that Milley has probably convinced them that Russia has escalation dominance so they are not ratcheting this up to total war but he likely knows that convincing them to stop altogether is a pointless task. The US military no doubt is reasonably happy with this too: either zero or very few (unacknowledged) US casualties but plenty of opportunity to play at war gaming and to test equipment. Plus lots of extra money flowing their way over time and keeping the MIC happy so that Generals can retire to lucrative defence jobs. Another US “forever war” no doubt suits all the key US players.
With respect to tanks I guess a big issue is that tanks are involved on front lines in direct fire roles. If Russia destroys M777s then these are a long way behind the lines and the opportunity for lots of propaganda is limited. Tanks are highly visible and an advancing Russian Army would inevitably capture destroyed tanks, even given the intention that you note for Ukrainians literally to die to rescue them. When push comes to shove no one will want to die to recover a tank! Pictures of burned out Challenger IIs or Leopards would really bring home to western populations just how absurd our role in this tragedy is.
If a full blown war with NATO ensues then Russia should obliterate NATO HQ in Brussels. I think they would as they have stated all C & C (and decision making) centres will be targeted.
The caveat is "if it's a full-blown war". If it's a NATO "incursion" into Ukraine, that is not a "full-blown war." Russia doesn't want to start WWIII by attacking EU countries directly unless it absolutely has to.
To assume otherwise is to assume that Russia would initiate a strike directly against Washington in the case of an incursion into Ukraine. I think it's safe to assume Russia will NOT do that. Brussels is less important than Washington but attacking an EU nation absent an EU nation directly attacking Russia would invite a full-blown NATO response and WWIII and Russia will not do that unless there is no other choice.
Russia can handily defeat NATO in and around Ukraine without having to attack anything other than the NATO forces in theater.
A lot of people interpret the off-hand Russian threat to attack command and control centers as necessarily meaning that ALL such centers - including Washington - will be attacked immediately some untoward military problem occurs for Russia. This is simply naive. If that were the case, Russia would have done it already.
As I said, Russia is much less interested in starting WWIII than some people apparently believe.
It is not really an 'either/or' matter for NATO. They (NATO/USA) know well they can not defeat Russia in real war. They also know that if they allow Russia to win outright in Ukraine, they will have suffered a humiliating defeat from which they might never recover. They also know that if they send in NATO troops to 'rescue' Ukraine those troops will be defeated. So what to do? Well, the most obvious is to redirect the attention of the public.
First, stop talking about Ukraine - all Western news media will simply stop publishing news of the war and instead go on to other issues. Secondly, open up new fronts - Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, perhaps even one of the Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan to divert attention. Also, heat up Taiwan some more.
It is relatively easy to redirect the public's attention in these matters. You don't have to recognise defeat - you just ignore it.
Yes, indeed, that would be the case IF there was someone halfway rational in the Biden administration. However, the issue is the neocons that infest that administration. Biden himself, Blinken, Nuland, and Sullivan are the real problem, as are their neocon supporters..
Opening up fronts elsewhere is all well and good but it will have next to zero effect on the results in Ukraine or on Russia. Taiwan is a given, but with a massive failure in Ukraine and Russia steamrolling up its military capability and then sharing its military tech with China just puts the neocons in any even worse position via-a-vis China.
The entire point of the Ukraine operation was to take Russia off the board so they could deal with China. The entire goal of the Russian SMO is to take Ukraine off the board in order to counter NATO in Poland and Romania.
Plus, the neocons have a special hatred for Russia since most of them descend from former Trotskyites. I don't see them backing down from further provocations to Russia - almost certainly focusing on using Poland as the "new Ukraine". The Poles are buying western weapons and increasing their army to 300,000, no doubt to be reinforced eventually by 100,000 US/NATO troops.
Which is exactly why Russia needs to take all of Ukraine and put a Military District in western Ukraine, just like it's decided to put nukes in western Belarus - to counter the Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania and any NATO moves from Poland. A Russian official just said as much, saying that taking anything short of Odessa would be a mistake.
It's been clear to me for the past year how this was going to go, once I realized what Russia's end game was. The only question remaining is what will Washington do once it's clear they've been checkmated in Ukraine. And as Andrei Martyanov keeps pointing out, Washington is being run by imbeciles who are completely detached from reality and with no comprehension of Russia's military capability. That's a real risk.
My approach would be to follow the money trail. There are clearly too many rich people/powerful managers in the US who would lose a fortune if UKR lost too quickly. The same applies to EU, UK. There are real reasons which can be calculated in financial terms why they stand against RUS. It is not about stupid leaders, they are just representants of some powerful interests and they do job for which they are paid. No one is stupid but different people have different motivation. Fair enough.
Nato headquarter in Brussels is of zero importance(only admin people), same for the Shape in Mons eventhough there are some military..but in Kleinbrokkel (Belgian Limburg) this is the place where the nukes are. Airfields of Chièvres (near Mons) and Florennes have F 16 though but no big deal.Real nato military targets are in Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain + UK of course.Norway quiet interesting as well.Except Belgium, all former fascists or nazis countries(russophobes for Poland, russophobia being the new nazism)..what a coincidence..and lot of gladio sleeping cells just in case diversions are needed to calm down local sheeps.
Good points. Escalation is not good for either side. For Russians and Chinese this war is a tool to dismantle Western financial system. That takes time and requires much stronger crisis than we saw with the last bank run in the US in March. RUS needs access to Suez and Atlantic to conduct export/import with friendly and neutral states so that RUS+China could build their new world order and takes time too . On the other side Polish army is not ready yet, it is in process of moving from Soviet weapons to US weapons, it sent lots of old stuff to UKR and hasn't received many new ones yet. Slovak army is pittiful, it had more Mig-29 jets than pilots (no joke). Hungarians will not go to fight RUS. Romania is a black box but my guess is that it is empty inside. Bundeswehr is a ruin thanks to Merkel who understood well what could happen in the future. France has different problems to solve this year. The UK and their 78k strong land army? That leaves the US to send their boys and tanks to Eastern Europe to fight RUS army and that is a big NO NO - elections, logistics, weapon/ammo production and the risk of defeat which would allow many countries to ditch the dollar. So it looks like 1915 doesn't it? By the way today's article of Simplicius was very good.
Just my particular taste, but I do not care for the music I am hearing in the videos I watch from this particular war. It sounds like Slavic Ghetto or something. Tatar looks like a Russian Alex Jones, and that is one ugly cafe.
I still think it is shitty to blow up people in public places for an assassin style killing. I know it goes on all the time but it is sleazy and slinky. That chick reminds me of Massoud's murder of the Northern Alliance killed by a cameraman. All naive and innocent, then boom. Totally tacky. Just do a bullet in the alley.
USA cannot allow Ukraine to get ahead in this game, it would end all of their money laundering efforts. And w/it no longer being a major power in the world they have to hang on for as long as they can to get that cash.
It's incredibly fascinating seeing the extreme evolution of warfare tactics and equipment changing so quickly everyday. While most people are concerned about the specifics statistics/movements on the ground/map (rightly so) I find the evolution/responsiveness of the Russian army tactics and equipment the most interesting. Tactically NATO seems to be landing less sucker punches/opportunistic strikes as tactics change and Russia has massively leaned into drones. War really does push human evolution harder than anything due to necessity.
The Great Work continues. Your prose is sublime. As I read I am educated beyond measure. My Bestie, has pledged. He is my go to; as he is older and wiser. A decade really changes perspective, says this gal who is…headed towards 7 decades facing the sun/moon/stars. GodSpeed, Mother Russia ❤️🇷🇺💙
At some point I would like to see a political analysis of Europe's willingness to stay the course. How committed are the governments? How much economic pain will the people tolerate before voting those governments out? What countries are committed to the end? UK? Poland? And what countries are most likely to falter? France? Italy?
Till now after one year there is no big pain except in poor Eastern Europe countries(energy, inflation..), in richer Western Europe countries govts are bailing out energy bills and in rare countries indexing salaries + pensions(benelux) to inflation which is decreasing (except food).Higher and middle class people see no difference at all. Next winter (if not as warm) will be the first real test as first of all they need to buy natgaz (lng) as of 15th of april to replenish their reserves at much higher cost.Oil price going back up again after opec decision, means more inflation for all.US UK EU print money and increase their level of debts which is already high, very high or stratospheric. Of course as of 2025 it will become unbearable for all. But their bet is still that Russia will collapse before they do, it will of course not happen as Russia is almost self sufficient and they are not at all (mainly EU UK).
Lot to unpack, and as usual the fog of war is thick
Re: Bakhmut. With so few troops, how would Wagner even "occupy" the city? They may fight & clear a building of AFU, but when they move on unless they garrison the position, the AFU can just walk back in with fresh troops? It sounds very difficult to create a cohesive "line" in an urban environment.
Re: red lines & escalation. Judging by the rhetoric from various western capitals, how exactly can this go the other way? Both sides now call eachother the enemy. Both sides say this is a long term conflict. Both sides say that negotiations are not possible, and that the conversation will take place on the battlefield. Yes, the west drove the conversation in that direction, but it is there. Attritting Ukraine's 20-40 year old male population is a "win" by military standards, but is a loss by any strategic and human measure. Plus, the Poles and others are just waiting to follow. So, I'm not getting it. WW1, WW2, Vietnam all showed that you never really run out of people to kill.
Re: the battlefield. What exactly is RU's objective now? "Liberation" of the 4 new Russian oblasts? Destroying the AFU? Forcing negotiations? If the Zelensky regime is so deemed a threat, a menace, and irredeemable - why not target them?
Does Putin think that behind all the bluster there are rational people? I think he underestimates the power of war then. Even Dima and Lavrov are using unusually pointed language which gives me a sense of how raw things must be in the Kremlin
Re: weapons and bombs. I've said before that F16's are the in headlines not because they want them to shoot down Russian aircraft (they are not air superiority platforms), but because they would complement the JDAM-ER very well. Plus there are lots of them, and they are relatively cheap and easy to fly as far as fighter jets go.
Re: the propaganda. I follow the public statements of the likes of Milley, Austin, and so on. They all claim RU has suffered massive casualties, has had massive amounts of equipment attrited. My question has always been - are these independently verified statements? Is the US military assessing the battlefield themselves and then "counting", or are they just relying on intel from the AFU? If its the latter... it explains a lot. I just can't accept that they have an objective reality and are just outright lying. The AFU would lie because they are fighting to survive. It also explains Zelensky's decision making - he can't allow illusions to be shattered like that.
Doing a minimal amount of research it looks like Finland has a sizeable army mustering around 6 to 7 regular brigades, with the equivalent of around three times that in reserves. Total numbers seem to be around 60,000 regulars and serving conscripts, with again three times that roughly in reserve. These troops are relatively well equipped. The Navy is small but well equipped. The air force musters 3 F18 squadrons of c 55 air craft – with F 35s on order. No doubt they have a coast guard, border guard and an armed police force.
Finnish defence posture seems to me to be a porcupine strategy. It is not offensive in nature but (given the nature of the terrain) designed to create a quagmire for any invader – which in reality could only be Russia and prior to that the USSR. It is deterrence on the cheap – using infantry based forces in bad terrain.
I am unclear how joining NATO improves Finnish security. It was never likely that Russia would attack Finland and in the event of WW3 it is at least possible that Finland might have been able to stay out. Joining NATO means that it is probable that they will join in. I am very unclear whether the USA would in reality sacrifice itself in a general nuclear exchange for Finnish interests and hence the NATO nuclear umbrella might prove a double edged sword. It is clear that in any war between NATO and Russia, Finnish airbases would be destroyed in short order one way or another.
Even joining NATO would not necessarily alter the Finnish strategic defence posture. I cannot see for example that Finland would attack towards St Petersburg. I suspect though that in joining it gives the CIA and MI6 etc a long border to cause trouble. Even the stationing of US nuclear tipped missiles or capable aircraft does not alter the strategic equation that much given the Baltic states are already pretty close to Russia. This act would though ensure would be targeted in the event of war.
Finland is of course an EU and EZ member so maybe this act is thought of somehow finalising the joining of the western club.
No doubt Russia will see this as a provocation and it will stretch its resources to a point – but not I think significantly. If anything it might just harden Russia’s resolve to fight to a successful conclusion. However if NATO forces are based in Finland then it will be seen as an escalation.
Sweden by contrast appears to have given up its own version of the porcupine strategy and now relies more on its well equipped navy and air force. It has significant stockpiles of ground weapons but barely soldiers to mount a guard over them and maintain them. It could in theory supply a large quantity of surplus kit to Ukraine but I cannot see that joining NATO would make that decision easier, nor would enhance Swedish security.
If Russia attacks a NATO country, like Finland or the Baltics, I expect the US to act in basically the same way it does in Ukraine, except maybe put in 1.5 to 2x more effort. Send some troops, send some armour, send some planes.
These countries think that joining NATO means you get mutually assured destruction coverage. I highly doubt that.
Yes, I know it's neocon rubbish but once in a while I'll post it if it happens to agree with other Russian sources and there's no OVERTLY propagandistic/Russophobic angle in the little info blurbs in their graphic. Sometimes the battle is going so badly for the West that even ISW is forced to tell the truth
They only found and 'seized' 68 B...they did not found the rest according to ECB.
The Credit Suisse attack was to force CH to obey and finaly seize oligarchs money.
Now UBS which took Credit Suisse over is again threatened by US cabal.CEO resigned.
If they crash UBS it could bankrupt former very rich CH.This is what happends to weak local politicos who fall to US blackmail.
UBS being TBTF it will not happen otherwise all western banks will fall.
Apropos to our previous discussion (i.e., off-topic here): https://antifasistit.blogspot.com/2014/03/ukraine-explained-holodomor.html
Don't get hung up on the URL as you are likely wont to do. LOL!
McGregor has no YT channel mister Bellingcat.
show me the exact spot in the 2/18 sitrep where I said "Russia will be in Kiev by now". I'll give you 15 minutes then you're banned for lying if you can't come up with the evidence.
Why would I be mad when you got caught in a lie? The 2/18 Sitrep has no such statement by me and you've clearly just confirmed that by not providing the proof which would have been easy to do. Bye bye.
Ah well the trolls just arent the best or brightest...
Way to bring the hammer down though!
BellendCrap made an appearance here? We should all be flattered!
It's Macgregor and he does not have a YouTube channel.
And that is just another (out of dozens) grifter channels that steal content. If you are that daft ...
Macgregor doesn't have a Youtube? I was watching this one for some time now: https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls/featured
All of them are grifters stealing other peoples content. Look at the videos, audio only with a background image or some BS video as a background.
Yeah, that always seemed pretty confusing to me. But in this case, I'd argue that they doing a sort of a service since I'm not that keen on searching for the interview sources every week.
Would imagine any predictions in war are simply what are regarded as likely outcomes based on available information. They of course do not take into account what the military commanders may plan or what plans may change due to evolving circumstances.
I have noticed that most of the headlines by McGregor announcing imminent defeat are not what he actually said at all, they were the site's click bait. Regardless we can all choose to read whomever we choose. Perhaps you should try Joe Blogs on YT, his narrative albeit delusional to some is well appreciated by his "Slava Ukraine" chanting audience.
the usaf and usn tactical aviation is "on the ropes" per gao.
older f-16, f-18 and a-10 are flying far longer than planned because f-35 is in trouble!
gao studied this problem: GAO-23-106375 Tactical Aircraft Investments
see table 1 the f-16 average age is 31 years, and f-35 is not listed as replacing it (more later)
per table 1 GAO-23-106217 Weapon System Sustainment for fiscal years 2011 to 2021 f16 never met its mission capability "goals".
why send an airplane that cannot deliver sorties?
the issue with usaf/usn tactical aviation is aging, harder and more expensive to operate aircraft kept in service longer because f-35 needs a new engine that does not overheat trying to do assigned missions.
i doubt elensky's advisors read gao, much less understand logistics, logistics is why nato tanks cannot go to the front, too many diverse needs!
and the nato tanks are deficient in reactive armor per a article linksed by naked capital yesterday.
f-35 is the end of us tactical aviation!
Yep one of the things I forgot to put in the report was recent news that only 1/3 of F-35's are combat ready at any given time.
whatever 'combat ready' means for an airplane whose engine too weak to do the missions.
Which is one of many reasons why we will never see them in combat operations ...
One of the many issues plaguing the F35 is its fragile frame which tends to break apart at sustained supersonic speeds.
And apparently its "stealth" coating tends to rust in the right climes.
The US has sunk its fortune into highly complex, highly expensive, high maintenance weapons technology which sits on the ground or in port for much of its "useful" life.
This is also know as 'The Military Industrial Complex Winning' and at great expense.
If the state of the US armed forces is anything like what the F35 program and the LCS program indicate, the US is in big trouble.
A ship that cannot sail fast or it will break the transmission (or crack the hull itself), a plane that is designed for use in carriers, but corrodes away from sea water (and all the other issues that plague it). All the LCS class ships were shitcanned before they were properly brought into service, and probably something similar will happen to the F35 (and the F22 for that matter).
I mean I kinda get it from a business perspective: why deliver a working weapon system, if you can deliver a smoking hot pile of dogshit, and then sell billions of dollars worth of "upgrade packages" and "retrofits" to fix the issues, and never lose a single contract anyways?
"....deliver a smoking hot pile of dogshit, and then sell billions of dollars worth of "upgrade packages" and "retrofits" to fix the issues, and never lose a single contract anyways"
You have just explained the clot shot industry business model.
yes! and it is common throughout the pentagon’s portfolio of systems that maintain “defense industry” profits, no matter how poor the deliveries!
combat readiness comes from design and manufacture for reliability and ease of repair, the design analyzed and a system of support designed and tested during design.
most common is to run out of design money before any reliability or repair features are designed, with even less for the support tail.
the result is most complex us weapons have expensive, cost plus, unmet readiness done by the contractor while being paid to “do over” the design.
paid 2 or 3 times and still not very mission capable
and when the bases are attacked the contractors can bug out.
the civilian support tail for western equipment is not compatible with distant war against a military such as Russia and china
The USA/NATO is restricting weapons to Ukraine because they know the Russians will destroy them in volume and the USA will be utterly humilated (even moreso than it already is!) on the world stage. The Russians have been holding back most of their destruction force capacity waiting to see when/if NATO esclates by entering the conflict very directly. Contrary to what some simpleton posters with English user names may think, the Russians have been clear what the objectives of the SMO are from Day 1. Russians are playing it smart with the current war of artrition and they will likely move more dynamically with the mobilized and unused reserves once Ukraine commits itself to its "offensives" . The Ukrainaians will shoot their wad, after which they will be road graded into oblivion, or when their masters come to thir senses. You can ignore the truth, but you will not be able to ignore the consequences of the truth . Reality becomes a real bitch when it stares you in the face -ask the Ukrainaians in Bahkmut.
Excellent as always Simplicius. I honestly don't understand how there is enough time in a day for you to gather so much information and write so eloquently about it. What a treasure trove.
Thanks very much. It's not easy, I'll tell you that!
Yes. He is a treasure….GodSpeed, my pal❤️🇷🇺💙
I was just thinking that this morning as I read this latest excellent post. Where the hell does he get the time!
No kidding. Wow!
I know the western press loves the idea of Wagner recruiting convicted criminals but the fact is this is a very narrow segment of prisoners currently serving time in Russia. It excludes murderers and rapists for example, any connection with organised crime, it requires at least military service and a degree of tertiary education- since they must be retrained for the latest equipment and – inevitably - attendant software. Most of the prisoners accepted were first-offenders, convicted of pretty theft, delinquency, public disturbance or assault. So the numbers never amounted to more than a few thousand at most. (‘up to 30k...’ of course allows zero as a lower limit... thanks General Milley). It does indicate that Wagner needs to replenish its troops and is really part of a widening of recruitment options – now taking in Afghani (US-trained) troops in exile in Iran, various middle-east and North African veterans – and significantly, English-speaking veterans drawn from the UK and its commonwealth satellites – these apparently in their own battalion, commanded by an ex-US Marine... So Wagner numbers have for the time being, been able to keep pace with battlefield losses, but Prigozhin’s recent remarks, concerning the possible demise of Wagner as a viable unit following the capture of Artemovsk also concede that the losses have been very high.
Concerning the defensive posture adopted by Russia it is also worth noting that attacks upon Ukrainian forces right along the front line have not lessened – have in recent months been averaging 4-500 a day! What ammunition they may be storing, obviously does not include artillery and air strikes from Kopiansk all the way to Kherson. But the broader point is that as a duel between conflicting strategies – the west intent upon taking territory at the cost of troop numbers – Russia intent upon preserving troop numbers at the cost of gaining territory – eventually turns in Russia’s favour, since The West continues to lose troop numbers even when unable to take further territory, continues to lose troop numbers even when unable even to hold territories (Soledar, Bakmut etc). It just looks a thoroughly reckless strategy – entirely consistent with West Point thinking of course (The Schwartzkopf doctrine of monstering an opponent) but here with a drastically diminishing return against an opponent expert in the terrain and climate.
I think this is what the Russians would claim is the great morale damage that is gradually inflicted.
Armies using prisonners is nothing new even in the middle age and maybe even before it was common practice, same for mercenaries fighting for French kings. When Napoleon invaded Russia with a 600k + army, minority of french, it was a coalition + mercenaries and convicted.
USA used "Provincial Recon Units" in Vietnam. They apparently did not exclude rapists and murderers. The villagers paid the price. This coming from an oral history account via US special forces soldier.
The west has used prisoners too. The British Army even had a program not so long ago at the start of this century to recruit convicts. I am not sure if these were people still in prison or who were about to be released but it was a conscious effort to recruit from that group, given the challenges that anyone with a prison record has in re-entering society. Infantry roles in particular have always been tricky to find recruits for right through history because it is usually the most dangerous place to be. In WW2 a large reason that many British men “volunteered” as regulars for seven years rather than waiting to be conscripted under the Duration of Present Emergency regulations was so as to be able to choose their service. The infantry was always left with more than its fair share of men who could not get roles elsewhere. Russia just seems to be fighting a war in a way that is designed to win while not destroying the fabric of society.
"But as this AFU soldier in Bakhmut so eloquently put it only days ago: 'On our side the best people are dying, but from their side only prisoners and Wagner.'"
I've been saying this for a while now: Russia used the Donbass militias, the Wagner PMC, the Rosqvardia, the Chechens, and the Volunteer Battalions as THEIR "cannon fodder", thus reducing the number of regular army casualties and avoiding any electorate backlash in Russia. This was a cold, but smart, move. Russian regular army and special forces were used where and when they were needed for backup and the initial necessary long-range penetrations in the initial weeks of the SMO. But then they were reduced to backup while the other formations did the bulk of the ground fighting, with the regulars doing backup jobs like artillery, armor and air support. This is why Russia's regular army hasn't suffered too many casualties.
"In short, the U.S. likely fears that if they push too hard, cross too many red lines, they will open a pandora’s box from which Ukraine will never re-emerge."
The exact same thing is being done on the Russian side: escalation management. The Russians realize that NATO is being run by lunatics with no real grasp of the military balance and what could happen if NATO were to react irrationally to a quick Russian victory. So the Russians are keeping their reactions to NATO and Ukraine provocations to as close to tit-for-tat as they can without causing any significant losses either to their forces in the field or the home front (vis-a-vis Ukrainian terrorism inside Russia.)
This also plays into the Russian desire to conduct an attrition war rather than a "big arrow offensive" war. They can continue to "boil the Ukrainian frog" for as long as Zelensky wants to send more cannon fodder to the front. Only when Zelensky finally runs out of materiel to support the cannon fodder or runs out of cannon fodder will the Russians make more visible gains in terms of territory.
It is at that point that Russian escalation management will be most important, because once it becomes clear that Ukraine has run out of steam and its forces are about to collapse is when NATO - meaning the neocons in Washington - will have to decide whether to cut their losses or double down. And given that the only gear the neocons have is forward, the likelihood is that they will double down.
Russia is husbanding its forces and materiel not because of expected Ukrainian offensives or for future Russian offensives, but for the expected war with NATO forces, probably from an incursion from Poland. Russia is hoping it can avoid that war, but frankly I think it's unlikely that it can be avoided.
Which is not to say that NATO has a ghost of a chance. If NATO escalates to open conflict with Russia, Russia will end it within a few weeks by using precision strike weapons to eliminate NATO command and logistics centers in the immediate theater, i.e., Poland, Romania. I don't think Russia will strike Brussels or any other country's military assets unless those assets are directly deployed in theater. The one exception would be any NATO warships in the immediate vicinity which are engaged in direct support. They would likely be sunk as part of the initial Russian reaction.
Then the question devolves to: Does the US decide to escalate to full scale war? I have no answer to that - and neither does anyone else, although I'm sure people will make assertions to the contrary. But this is the real threat which must always be kept in mind.
Some might emotionally take issue with your first statement but it's only reasonable and any intelligent armed forces would do the same thing.
And yes I agree about Russia's stockpiling and caution also being partly to do with 'watching their flank' against potential future NATO aggravation/provocation. In fact, I've posted in previous reports how certain Western figures, such as Mitt Romney from the U.S. have OPENLY said that that NATO could 'come in' to Ukraine when Russia's army was "tied up" and 'catch them with their pants down', or 'catch them in a very weak position' as Romney said.
Yep, with respect to “cannon fodder” the British have always done exactly that with the Gurkhas and Highlanders plus the French with the Foreign Legion. It is a smart way of waging war. Real war involves cold calculation, as you say. The US has a cannon fodder strategy too. They just use Ukrainians (and in the past Afghans, Iraqis and currently Islamist proxies in Syria) to avoid too many body bags flowing home.
Your take, as ever, feels accurate. The Russians are fighting a real war on their borders. The US still likes to think that the previous proxy 80s Afghan War caused the USSR to collapse and hopes to achieve the same feat again via a losing term conflict that saps Russian will. I agree with you that this is a slightly forlorn hope by the US but it is a better option for the leadership elite than any other. They have gone too far to back down and are blinded by ideology. My guess is that Milley has probably convinced them that Russia has escalation dominance so they are not ratcheting this up to total war but he likely knows that convincing them to stop altogether is a pointless task. The US military no doubt is reasonably happy with this too: either zero or very few (unacknowledged) US casualties but plenty of opportunity to play at war gaming and to test equipment. Plus lots of extra money flowing their way over time and keeping the MIC happy so that Generals can retire to lucrative defence jobs. Another US “forever war” no doubt suits all the key US players.
With respect to tanks I guess a big issue is that tanks are involved on front lines in direct fire roles. If Russia destroys M777s then these are a long way behind the lines and the opportunity for lots of propaganda is limited. Tanks are highly visible and an advancing Russian Army would inevitably capture destroyed tanks, even given the intention that you note for Ukrainians literally to die to rescue them. When push comes to shove no one will want to die to recover a tank! Pictures of burned out Challenger IIs or Leopards would really bring home to western populations just how absurd our role in this tragedy is.
We remember all that armor NATO has in Poland.
If a full blown war with NATO ensues then Russia should obliterate NATO HQ in Brussels. I think they would as they have stated all C & C (and decision making) centres will be targeted.
The caveat is "if it's a full-blown war". If it's a NATO "incursion" into Ukraine, that is not a "full-blown war." Russia doesn't want to start WWIII by attacking EU countries directly unless it absolutely has to.
To assume otherwise is to assume that Russia would initiate a strike directly against Washington in the case of an incursion into Ukraine. I think it's safe to assume Russia will NOT do that. Brussels is less important than Washington but attacking an EU nation absent an EU nation directly attacking Russia would invite a full-blown NATO response and WWIII and Russia will not do that unless there is no other choice.
Russia can handily defeat NATO in and around Ukraine without having to attack anything other than the NATO forces in theater.
A lot of people interpret the off-hand Russian threat to attack command and control centers as necessarily meaning that ALL such centers - including Washington - will be attacked immediately some untoward military problem occurs for Russia. This is simply naive. If that were the case, Russia would have done it already.
As I said, Russia is much less interested in starting WWIII than some people apparently believe.
It is not really an 'either/or' matter for NATO. They (NATO/USA) know well they can not defeat Russia in real war. They also know that if they allow Russia to win outright in Ukraine, they will have suffered a humiliating defeat from which they might never recover. They also know that if they send in NATO troops to 'rescue' Ukraine those troops will be defeated. So what to do? Well, the most obvious is to redirect the attention of the public.
First, stop talking about Ukraine - all Western news media will simply stop publishing news of the war and instead go on to other issues. Secondly, open up new fronts - Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, perhaps even one of the Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan to divert attention. Also, heat up Taiwan some more.
It is relatively easy to redirect the public's attention in these matters. You don't have to recognise defeat - you just ignore it.
Yes, indeed, that would be the case IF there was someone halfway rational in the Biden administration. However, the issue is the neocons that infest that administration. Biden himself, Blinken, Nuland, and Sullivan are the real problem, as are their neocon supporters..
Opening up fronts elsewhere is all well and good but it will have next to zero effect on the results in Ukraine or on Russia. Taiwan is a given, but with a massive failure in Ukraine and Russia steamrolling up its military capability and then sharing its military tech with China just puts the neocons in any even worse position via-a-vis China.
The entire point of the Ukraine operation was to take Russia off the board so they could deal with China. The entire goal of the Russian SMO is to take Ukraine off the board in order to counter NATO in Poland and Romania.
Plus, the neocons have a special hatred for Russia since most of them descend from former Trotskyites. I don't see them backing down from further provocations to Russia - almost certainly focusing on using Poland as the "new Ukraine". The Poles are buying western weapons and increasing their army to 300,000, no doubt to be reinforced eventually by 100,000 US/NATO troops.
Which is exactly why Russia needs to take all of Ukraine and put a Military District in western Ukraine, just like it's decided to put nukes in western Belarus - to counter the Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania and any NATO moves from Poland. A Russian official just said as much, saying that taking anything short of Odessa would be a mistake.
It's been clear to me for the past year how this was going to go, once I realized what Russia's end game was. The only question remaining is what will Washington do once it's clear they've been checkmated in Ukraine. And as Andrei Martyanov keeps pointing out, Washington is being run by imbeciles who are completely detached from reality and with no comprehension of Russia's military capability. That's a real risk.
They also expected to use Ukraine as an example to scare China. Instead, they've scared Taiwan.
Add to that, China already did a live demonstration of what they would do in the case of Taiwan, blockade them. No food and raw materials incoming?
My approach would be to follow the money trail. There are clearly too many rich people/powerful managers in the US who would lose a fortune if UKR lost too quickly. The same applies to EU, UK. There are real reasons which can be calculated in financial terms why they stand against RUS. It is not about stupid leaders, they are just representants of some powerful interests and they do job for which they are paid. No one is stupid but different people have different motivation. Fair enough.
Yep, agreed. But as I said "if".
Nato headquarter in Brussels is of zero importance(only admin people), same for the Shape in Mons eventhough there are some military..but in Kleinbrokkel (Belgian Limburg) this is the place where the nukes are. Airfields of Chièvres (near Mons) and Florennes have F 16 though but no big deal.Real nato military targets are in Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain + UK of course.Norway quiet interesting as well.Except Belgium, all former fascists or nazis countries(russophobes for Poland, russophobia being the new nazism)..what a coincidence..and lot of gladio sleeping cells just in case diversions are needed to calm down local sheeps.
Good points. Escalation is not good for either side. For Russians and Chinese this war is a tool to dismantle Western financial system. That takes time and requires much stronger crisis than we saw with the last bank run in the US in March. RUS needs access to Suez and Atlantic to conduct export/import with friendly and neutral states so that RUS+China could build their new world order and takes time too . On the other side Polish army is not ready yet, it is in process of moving from Soviet weapons to US weapons, it sent lots of old stuff to UKR and hasn't received many new ones yet. Slovak army is pittiful, it had more Mig-29 jets than pilots (no joke). Hungarians will not go to fight RUS. Romania is a black box but my guess is that it is empty inside. Bundeswehr is a ruin thanks to Merkel who understood well what could happen in the future. France has different problems to solve this year. The UK and their 78k strong land army? That leaves the US to send their boys and tanks to Eastern Europe to fight RUS army and that is a big NO NO - elections, logistics, weapon/ammo production and the risk of defeat which would allow many countries to ditch the dollar. So it looks like 1915 doesn't it? By the way today's article of Simplicius was very good.
Just my particular taste, but I do not care for the music I am hearing in the videos I watch from this particular war. It sounds like Slavic Ghetto or something. Tatar looks like a Russian Alex Jones, and that is one ugly cafe.
I still think it is shitty to blow up people in public places for an assassin style killing. I know it goes on all the time but it is sleazy and slinky. That chick reminds me of Massoud's murder of the Northern Alliance killed by a cameraman. All naive and innocent, then boom. Totally tacky. Just do a bullet in the alley.
USA cannot allow Ukraine to get ahead in this game, it would end all of their money laundering efforts. And w/it no longer being a major power in the world they have to hang on for as long as they can to get that cash.
It's incredibly fascinating seeing the extreme evolution of warfare tactics and equipment changing so quickly everyday. While most people are concerned about the specifics statistics/movements on the ground/map (rightly so) I find the evolution/responsiveness of the Russian army tactics and equipment the most interesting. Tactically NATO seems to be landing less sucker punches/opportunistic strikes as tactics change and Russia has massively leaned into drones. War really does push human evolution harder than anything due to necessity.
The Great Work continues. Your prose is sublime. As I read I am educated beyond measure. My Bestie, has pledged. He is my go to; as he is older and wiser. A decade really changes perspective, says this gal who is…headed towards 7 decades facing the sun/moon/stars. GodSpeed, Mother Russia ❤️🇷🇺💙
Thank you.
I'd like to request a post.
At some point I would like to see a political analysis of Europe's willingness to stay the course. How committed are the governments? How much economic pain will the people tolerate before voting those governments out? What countries are committed to the end? UK? Poland? And what countries are most likely to falter? France? Italy?
Thanks in advance.
Till now after one year there is no big pain except in poor Eastern Europe countries(energy, inflation..), in richer Western Europe countries govts are bailing out energy bills and in rare countries indexing salaries + pensions(benelux) to inflation which is decreasing (except food).Higher and middle class people see no difference at all. Next winter (if not as warm) will be the first real test as first of all they need to buy natgaz (lng) as of 15th of april to replenish their reserves at much higher cost.Oil price going back up again after opec decision, means more inflation for all.US UK EU print money and increase their level of debts which is already high, very high or stratospheric. Of course as of 2025 it will become unbearable for all. But their bet is still that Russia will collapse before they do, it will of course not happen as Russia is almost self sufficient and they are not at all (mainly EU UK).
nb: very strange yesterday German big insurances and reassurance companies start to insure Nordstream again.Why? NS2 (the one not destroyed) soon back in action, it would be his first ever use, but how can Germany and Russia and all be sure that the US UK POL terror party will not try again to sabotage it? https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-insurers-renew-cover-blast-damaged-nord-stream-gas-link-2023-04-04/
Lot to unpack, and as usual the fog of war is thick
Re: Bakhmut. With so few troops, how would Wagner even "occupy" the city? They may fight & clear a building of AFU, but when they move on unless they garrison the position, the AFU can just walk back in with fresh troops? It sounds very difficult to create a cohesive "line" in an urban environment.
Re: red lines & escalation. Judging by the rhetoric from various western capitals, how exactly can this go the other way? Both sides now call eachother the enemy. Both sides say this is a long term conflict. Both sides say that negotiations are not possible, and that the conversation will take place on the battlefield. Yes, the west drove the conversation in that direction, but it is there. Attritting Ukraine's 20-40 year old male population is a "win" by military standards, but is a loss by any strategic and human measure. Plus, the Poles and others are just waiting to follow. So, I'm not getting it. WW1, WW2, Vietnam all showed that you never really run out of people to kill.
Re: the battlefield. What exactly is RU's objective now? "Liberation" of the 4 new Russian oblasts? Destroying the AFU? Forcing negotiations? If the Zelensky regime is so deemed a threat, a menace, and irredeemable - why not target them?
Does Putin think that behind all the bluster there are rational people? I think he underestimates the power of war then. Even Dima and Lavrov are using unusually pointed language which gives me a sense of how raw things must be in the Kremlin
Re: weapons and bombs. I've said before that F16's are the in headlines not because they want them to shoot down Russian aircraft (they are not air superiority platforms), but because they would complement the JDAM-ER very well. Plus there are lots of them, and they are relatively cheap and easy to fly as far as fighter jets go.
Re: the propaganda. I follow the public statements of the likes of Milley, Austin, and so on. They all claim RU has suffered massive casualties, has had massive amounts of equipment attrited. My question has always been - are these independently verified statements? Is the US military assessing the battlefield themselves and then "counting", or are they just relying on intel from the AFU? If its the latter... it explains a lot. I just can't accept that they have an objective reality and are just outright lying. The AFU would lie because they are fighting to survive. It also explains Zelensky's decision making - he can't allow illusions to be shattered like that.
No need to 'occupy' Bakhmut the general front moves on everything behind is Russia, direction Kram/slavianks etc..
I would like to know what Mr. Simplicius thinks about Finland joining NATO? I find it disturbing.
And that is a cool video of the bridge repair. Get 'er done!
Doing a minimal amount of research it looks like Finland has a sizeable army mustering around 6 to 7 regular brigades, with the equivalent of around three times that in reserves. Total numbers seem to be around 60,000 regulars and serving conscripts, with again three times that roughly in reserve. These troops are relatively well equipped. The Navy is small but well equipped. The air force musters 3 F18 squadrons of c 55 air craft – with F 35s on order. No doubt they have a coast guard, border guard and an armed police force.
Finnish defence posture seems to me to be a porcupine strategy. It is not offensive in nature but (given the nature of the terrain) designed to create a quagmire for any invader – which in reality could only be Russia and prior to that the USSR. It is deterrence on the cheap – using infantry based forces in bad terrain.
I am unclear how joining NATO improves Finnish security. It was never likely that Russia would attack Finland and in the event of WW3 it is at least possible that Finland might have been able to stay out. Joining NATO means that it is probable that they will join in. I am very unclear whether the USA would in reality sacrifice itself in a general nuclear exchange for Finnish interests and hence the NATO nuclear umbrella might prove a double edged sword. It is clear that in any war between NATO and Russia, Finnish airbases would be destroyed in short order one way or another.
Even joining NATO would not necessarily alter the Finnish strategic defence posture. I cannot see for example that Finland would attack towards St Petersburg. I suspect though that in joining it gives the CIA and MI6 etc a long border to cause trouble. Even the stationing of US nuclear tipped missiles or capable aircraft does not alter the strategic equation that much given the Baltic states are already pretty close to Russia. This act would though ensure would be targeted in the event of war.
Finland is of course an EU and EZ member so maybe this act is thought of somehow finalising the joining of the western club.
No doubt Russia will see this as a provocation and it will stretch its resources to a point – but not I think significantly. If anything it might just harden Russia’s resolve to fight to a successful conclusion. However if NATO forces are based in Finland then it will be seen as an escalation.
Sweden by contrast appears to have given up its own version of the porcupine strategy and now relies more on its well equipped navy and air force. It has significant stockpiles of ground weapons but barely soldiers to mount a guard over them and maintain them. It could in theory supply a large quantity of surplus kit to Ukraine but I cannot see that joining NATO would make that decision easier, nor would enhance Swedish security.
Doesn't Finland have a treaty with the USSR from decades ago stating they must remain neutral. Joining NATO surely negates that?
If Russia attacks a NATO country, like Finland or the Baltics, I expect the US to act in basically the same way it does in Ukraine, except maybe put in 1.5 to 2x more effort. Send some troops, send some armour, send some planes.
These countries think that joining NATO means you get mutually assured destruction coverage. I highly doubt that.
Cross-posted! Truly great analysis.
The US has been playing at war for decades, and the arrogance now is going to force Ukraine to pay the butcher's bill.