"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (16 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

But....but....but....someone said he could bring peace in our tme

The way the Russian economy is being reshaped to support the war effort, a sudden peace would probably do MORE damage in the short term than continuing the war.

ISW has been banging on this drum for the last 4-5 months. They think that Russia is gearing up for what it considers an inevitable conflict with NATO before 2030.

From April: "The Kremlin continues to repurpose narratives that Russian officials have repeatedly used to justify Russia's invasions of Ukraine in an effort to further militarize Russian society in the long term, likely in preparation for a potential future protracted conflict with NATO."

WSJ just released an 'explainer' on this (its okayish) - https://www.wsj.com/video/series/ne...h-longer/E6F83086-EFD1-475D-B39C-AFDFCD6181CB

This analysis offers a deeper dive: Why Russia's economic model no longer delivers .

There was a good, if brief, piece for the Institute for Economics and Peace. The main thrust is that short-term gain is long term pain:

Russia's war economy is driving short-term growth at the cost of long-term viability. The model depends on ever-increasing state spending, primarily directed at defence, while civilian needs and productive sectors of the economy are neglected. Inflation is high, investment is constrained and essential and productive services such as education, social security and healthcare are eroding. The government's fiscal manoeuvring – cutting social transfers, drawing from reserves and borrowing domestically – can delay, but not resolve, these problems.
 
I've seen several sources make the statement that Russia is planning on a protracted war with NATO.

I honestly believe, however, that if Russia were to be that foolish (which is entirely possible) to start a war with NATO, it would be anything but protracted.
I believe a lot of the warnings are coming from European Defence forces/intelligence services, So I would expect there is some data behind.
 
I believe a lot of the warnings are coming from European Defence forces/intelligence services, So I would expect there is some data behind.
Plenty of warnings, yes and should be taken seriously.

However, if Russia's three day special operation was stalled by an ill-equipped but determined smaller nation, just imagine how Russia will fare against a coalition of well trained, well equipped nations.

In other words:
The planned three day special operation has become protracted.
The planned protracted war will most likely be a "three day"* sodomizing.

* meaning a very short term, violent and costly mistake.
 
The way the Russian economy is being reshaped to support the war effort, a sudden peace would probably do MORE damage in the short term than continuing the war.

ISW has been banging on this drum for the last 4-5 months. They think that Russia is gearing up for what it considers an inevitable conflict with NATO before 2030.

From April: "The Kremlin continues to repurpose narratives that Russian officials have repeatedly used to justify Russia's invasions of Ukraine in an effort to further militarize Russian society in the long term, likely in preparation for a potential future protracted conflict with NATO."

WSJ just released an 'explainer' on this (its okayish) - https://www.wsj.com/video/series/ne...h-longer/E6F83086-EFD1-475D-B39C-AFDFCD6181CB

This analysis offers a deeper dive: Why Russia's economic model no longer delivers .

There was a good, if brief, piece for the Institute for Economics and Peace. The main thrust is that short-term gain is long term pain:

Russia's war economy is driving short-term growth at the cost of long-term viability. The model depends on ever-increasing state spending, primarily directed at defence, while civilian needs and productive sectors of the economy are neglected. Inflation is high, investment is constrained and essential and productive services such as education, social security and healthcare are eroding. The government's fiscal manoeuvring – cutting social transfers, drawing from reserves and borrowing domestically – can delay, but not resolve, these problems.

This implies that they're hoping to perhaps take advantage of a Chinese move to conquer Taiwan. It's a short-term bet with pressure to pay off or spend decades paying out. Or just killing the people you owe, that's a Putinesque sort of thing there.

The thought occurs to me that Shakespeare would have a field-day writing about current events in DC, Moscow, London, and Paris.
 
How do they get Top Secret clearance at this age? Are they throwing clearances around like gummy bears?

It's not uncommon. Many of the worker-bees are junior enlisted folk who could easily be late-teens or early twenties. In other militaries, I've seen junior officers who are still teenagers and possess a high level security clearance.
 
We cadets had Top Secret clearance at USAFA which dropped to Secret as an enlisted in USAF Res. I saw very little classified at the academy and none in the reserve. In late 58 or early 59, when appointed, the investigations were done, prior to entrance.
 
Plenty of warnings, yes and should be taken seriously.

However, if Russia's three day special operation was stalled by an ill-equipped but determined smaller nation, just imagine how Russia will fare against a coalition of well trained, well equipped nations.

In other words:
The planned three day special operation has become protracted.
The planned protracted war will most likely be a "three day"* sodomizing.

* meaning a very short term, violent and costly mistake.
If I can add a couple of other caveats to this.

a) By then, just how many men will Russia have left to fight a war. The barrel is already being cleaned out.
b) Nato's increased military spending will have come to fruition by 2030.
c) By then how much money will Russia have to fight a war. They are close to broke now and just to replace a fraction of what they have lost will cost an eye watering amount of money.
 
Additionally, Russia has lost a significant amount of AA hardware and Ukraine has also provided solid Intel on Russian air defence systems to the West as well.

I would imagine that in the event that Russia triggers an Artical 5, the response would be similar to Desert Storm, where air assets scoured the skies and earth before ground elements went active.

NATO also has an overwhelming Naval presence which would contribute greatly to neutering Russian assets.

This is not a war that Russia wants.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back